Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2001 Planning Commission Meeting Packet• • 7:00 I. Call To Order 11. Approval of Agenda III. Approve Planning Commission Minutes - May 10, 2001 (1) 7:05 IV. Visitors /Public Comment This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or concerns not on the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. Iv. Public Hearings A. Continued: Village Area -East Rezoning Request: To consider rezoning of the Village Area -East from R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential to R -1, Single Family Residential. (2) B. Stillwater Ford Temporary Sign Variance: To consider a request for temporary sign variance. (3) C. Continued: Walgreen's Pharmacy Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review: To consider a conditional use permit request, variance and site plan review for construction of a Walgreen's Pharmacy at 6061 Osgood Ave. N. (4) as (5) D. Sprint Conditional Use Permit and Height Variance: To consider a conditional use permit request for construction of a 160' telecommunications monopole and height variance request at 5920 Memorial Ave. N. (6) 8:15 VI. New Business A. Commissioner Recognition B. Council Liaison vII. Old Business A. Telecommunications Towers and Antenna Placement Ordinance: (7) B. Commission Re- appointment, Appointment Extension and Advertisment: (8) C. City Goals: (9) VIII. Informational IX. Adjournment CITY , -OP OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Thursday, June 14, 2001 - 7 :00 PM Upcoming Meetings: July 12, 2001 - Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM Council Representative: June - Commissioner Runk July - Commissioner Dwyer • • Carried 4 -0. Visitors: None. Public Hearings: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS • PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, May 10, 2001 ENCLOSURE 1 Call To Order: Chair Vogt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Hedlund, Runk, and Wasescha. Staff Present: City Planner Richards and Council Liaison McComber. Absent: Commissioner Dwyer. Community Development Director Danielson arrived after the meeting was called to order. Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Runk moved to approve the Agenda with the following additions: New Business: A. Telecommunications Tower B. E -Mail Communication C. Boutwell's Landing Park Lighting D. Commission Opening /Re- appointment Informational: A. Government Training Service Seminars Approval of April 12, 2001 Minutes: Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund, moved to approve the minutes with typographical corrections. Carried 4 -0. A. Walgreen's Pharmacy - Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review: To consider a conditional use permit request, variance and site plan review for construction of a Walgreen's Pharmacy at 6061 Osgood Ave. N. City Planner Richards provided an overview of his report for the proposed project. He noted issues of concern and information yet to be received from the applicant. Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 7:08 p.m. John Kohler, Semper Development, was present and updated the Commission as to upcoming watershed district meetings he would be participating in and indicated that he would prefer a continuance of the public hearing to further work on the project's plan and address items of issue. Brief discussion was held as to the number of variances being requested by the applicant, time issues involved and re- notification of surrounding property owners if the matter were to be continued. Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to continue the public hearing to June 14, 2001 and directed that the surrounding property owners be re- notified of the continued hearing date. Carried 4 -0. 1• • • Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2001 Page 2 of4 B. Village Area - East Rezoning Request: To consider rezoning of the Village Area - East from R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential to R -1, Single Family Residential. City Planner Richards provided an overview of his report as to the request, noting that because the City Comprehensive Plan designates the area as business/ transitional, any change in zoning would also require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, designating the area as low density residential. He recommended that the Commission consider leaving the current zoning in place until such time that any significant changes are anticipated to occur in the area. Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 7:19 p.m. Terry Poirier, 5636 Perkins Ave., N. addressed the Commission as to the zonin g of the area. He explained that it was his understanding that the area was zoned R -1, single family residential for years and questioned when it changed to R -2, low and medium density residential. He asked why the area wasn't rezoned at the same time the western half of the area was and stated that he and other in the neighborhood believed that the whole neighborhood was to have been encompassed within the rezoning to R- 1, which occurred in approximately 1998. City Planner Richards addressed Mr. Poirier's concerns, stating that his zoning maps, dating back into the 1980's indicate the area as R -2 and he was not aware of it having ever been zoned R -1. With respect to the rezoning in 1998, he stated that he recalled only the western portion of the Village area beings involved in the rezoning at that time and explained what he believed to be the rationale for that, at the time, in relation to the preparation of the comprehensive plan, which was in occurrence at the time. Mr. Poirier stated that he was concerned about how the neighborhood seems to be hanging in the air with possible future development and duplex construction activities.. Mark Powell, 5698 Stagecoach Trail, N. addressed the Commission, stating that he would like to see the neighborhood re -zoned to R -1, single family residential and that he did not want to have his home, one day, overlooking a warehouse. Greg Runk, 5649 Perkins Ave. N. addressed the Commission and stated that the roadway on Perkins is very narrow and that it was his understanding that the eastern half of the Village Area was to be included in the re- zoning process that took place in 1998. Steve Berres, 5627 Perkins Ave. N. addressed the Commission, informing them until very recently, he had not been aware of any action for re- zoning of the area and that he has an application submitted with the City Building Department to convert his single family home into a duplex. He stated that he likes the neighborhood and desires to improve his home. He agreed that the roadway on Perkins Ave. is very narrow and with a two -car garage and drive, he does not expect to add any vehicles to the roadway. • Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2001 Page 3 of4 Discussion ensued as to the potential of business or warehouse use being possible in the area and if so, what requirements would need to be met. Also discussed were lot sizes and locations, square footage of lot needed for duplex construction, comprehensive planning designation for the area and reasoning, and the status of existing duplexes in the event zoning were to be changed. The Commission expressed that they would like more information, to better address the request. Specifically, additional information was requested as to reasoning for the comprehensive plan designation as R -B, lot sizes and current use status of homes in the area, whether or not there is a buildable lot at the end of the dirt road at Perkins Ave. N., and whether or not any of the lots in the area have the required square footage for duplex construction. New Business: A. Telecommunications Tower: Commission Liaison McComber provided an overview of information she has received for creating a cellular tower model ordinance. Commissioner Hedlund stated that he has draft copies of such ordinances from other communities. He indicated that it was his understanding that it is best to be prepared for applicants of this nature prior to their arrival and that if there is not ordinance in place, there are no enforceable regulations. Discussion ensued as to language and regulations. City Planner Richards noted that the City zoning ordinance does have requirements regarding antennas and that the City Attorney had recently drafted amendments to the language and that he expected it to be upcoming at a City Council meeting. Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to recommend that the City Council consider revision to the ordinance regulating telecommunication towers and do so expeditiously. Carried 4 -0. B. E -Mail Communication: Commissioner Hedlund initiated discussion as to the how e- mailing of information should be handled so as to avoid violating open meeting law regulations. Discussion ensued as to this and as to increasing use of the City web site for sharing of information and posting from the community. C. Boutwell's Landing Park Lighting: City Planner Richards noted that the Parks Commission was currently in the process of making recommendations on park lighting. He informed the commission that Valley Senior Services would be erecting a 24' and a 14' pole for viewing. Richards indicated that once he received notification of the poles being in place, that he would have staff contact them so that they could view them when convenient. Richards noted that a revised lighting plan for around the park area had been received and that the plan shows 14' pole lighting for the area. Brief discussion ensued as to the plan. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2001 Page 4 of4 Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to accept revised lighting plan of the park site, with April 30, 2001 memo. Acceptance recommended with the understanding that it is subject to approval of the Parks Commission. Carried 4 -0. D. Commission Opening /Re- appointment: Chair Vogt announced that Commissioner Hedlund and Wasescha's terms expire at the end of the month. He stated that Commissioner Hedlund has expressed interest in being re- appointed and that Commissioner Wasescha is not seeking re- appointment. Commissioner Wasescha has indicated that she will serve through June, 2001 to allow time for advertisement and appointment of a new member to the Commission. Vogt thanked each of the commissioners for serving their terms and noted that they were the first two citizens of Oak Park Heights to be appointed to 3 year terms on the Planning Commission, when it was initially organized. Vogt asked that the City Council accept Commissioner Wasescha's resignation and re- appoint Commissioner Hedlund to a new term. Further, he asked that staff be directed to begin advertisement of the commission opening. Old Business: None • Informational /Update: A. Government Training Services (GTS) Seminars: Commission Liaison McComber summarized here experience in attending several of the seminars offered by GTS. Both she and Commissioner Hedlund stated that they found them to be valuable as learning resources and for connecting with others on issues. B. Highway 36 Subarea Study: Community Development Director Danielson informed the Commission that there was to be a public meeting in May regarding the project and provided an update. She encouraged attendance and asked for questions and comments to ensure issues were addressed at the meeting. Adjournment: Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund, moved to adjourn at 7:33 p.m. Carried 4 -0. Respectfully submitted, 1 Julie A. Hultman Community Development Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission: • 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: sa 2 1 1OTII$! ASSOCIATID CON$UL!HT$, INC, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com Tom Melena Scott Richards June 7, 2001 RE: Oak Park Heights — Village Area, East of Stagecoach Trail, Rezoning to R -1 / Comprehensive Plan Amendment FILE NO: 798.04 -01.02 As a follow up to the May 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, our office has reviewed files and lot sizes of properties within the area proposed for rezoning east of Stagecoach Trail and north of 56 Street. The residents of the area have requested the rezoning from R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential to R -1, Single Family Residential. Please find the following observations and attachments. 1. The oldest zoning map on record in our office dates to 1980 and shows the area in question zoned as R -2. Subsequent zoning maps to present all indicate the property as R -2. 2. When the Village Area west of Stagecoach Trail was rezoned in 1999, the area now in question was not included in that consideration. A copy of the background information and minutes of the City Council meeting in which the rezoning was approved is attached. 3. In reviewing the developed versus undeveloped property within the proposed rezoning area, none of the property immediately surrounding that area with homes could be used for further development. Easements or wetlands encumber all of the area around the existing development except for the possibility of a small area at the corner of Picket Avenue and 56 Street. 4. Property zoned R -2 has the following lot size restrictions, as found in Section 401.15.0.1., 2, and 3. Minimum Lot Size: Two Family: Townhome /Quadraminium: Multiple Family: 10,400 square feet 6,000 square feet per unit 4,000 square feet per unit 3,500 square feet per unit (Section 401.26.E) 4110 A map and table, as attached, indicates the lot sizes of the existing developed properties. Two of the existing Tots are legal non- conformities. Because of the 70 percent requirement for existing lots of record (Section 401.15.A.14), both of these Tots could be redeveloped for new single family construction. The maximum number of dwelling units that could be developed under the R -2 District on one lot is four by conditional use permit. Five of the nine Tots could be brought to this potential density. According to City utility billing records, only one of the units, at 5665 Perkins Avenue, is currently a two family dwelling. • pc: Kris Danielson VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS REZONING LOT SIZE Address ID Number Lot Area No. of Units In Dwelling 5636 Perkins Avenue No. 1997 7,999.8 Single Family Y 5674 Perkins Avenue No. 1946 10,801.4 Single Family 9 Y 15584 57 Street No. 1822 14,000.1 Single Family 5701 Perkins Avenue No. 1820 20,585.6 Single Family 5687 Perkins Avenue No. 1943 12,507.2 Single Family Y 5665 Perkins Avenue No. 1974 15,105.6 Two Family 5649 Perkins Avenue No. 1996 15,000.6 Single Family Y 5627 Perkins Avenue No. 2056 9,750.3 Single Family 15626 56 Street No. 1995 22 569.3 Single Family Y Source: City of Oak Park Heights • • • 1568 1567 1631 1652 1691 1761 1759 1770 tfV8 1806 1803 1860 1857 Village of Oak Park Heights • Lot Area Analysis 1428 1481 1519 1572 1571 1633 1653 1695 1787 1570 1694 1762 1807 January 2001 1376 1424 1479 1517 5 1373 1422 1478 1514 1937 1936 1979 2004 1357 1421 1467 1502 1935 1978 2058 1933 1965 2037 AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONING 0 PROPERTIES WITH DWELLINGS 200 0 200 400 Feet 1 • VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS REZONING LOT SIZE ANALYSIS Address 5636 Perkins Avenue No. 5674 Perkins Avenue No. 15584 57 Street No. 5701 Perkins Avenue No. 5687 Perkins Avenue No. 5665 Perkins Avenue No. 5649 Perkins Avenue No. 5627 Perkins Avenue No. 15626 56 Street No. ID Number 1997 1946 1822 1820 1943 1974 1996 2056 1995 Lot Area 7,999.8 10, 801.4 14,000.1 20,585.6 12,507.2 15,105.6 15, 000.6 9,750.3 22, 569.3 No. of Units In Dwelling Single Family Single Family Single Family Single Family Single Family Two Family Single Family Single Family Single Family Source: City of Oak Park Heights • WV.' WI LVVZ 1G G"T �.• 1 i I ur urn , Cit Council Minutes - 07_27_99 3 D. Approve Request for Payment No. 3 for Kern Center Improvements E. Comprehensive Plan Update Councilmember Byrne seconded by Swenson moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Roll call vote was taken. Carried 5 - 0. V. Public Hearings: A. Public Hearin- t. discu rezonin- ertain lands within th e C o f Oaf Park Heigh±s to R -1 Notice was read and the Pubic Hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m, by Administrator Melena. Cit Planner Rickaxcls provided an outline of the properties to be affected b this rezoning, The Planning Commission recommends rezoning the area, however excluding land East of Stagecoach Trail. All current multi -unit dweliirigs will be grandfathered in. If a structure obtains more than 50% damage b fire, etc., it cannot be rebuilt as a multi - unit dwelling. Pam Patrick, 15365 58t11 St. N., addressed Council and stated t.b.at she is a duplex owner in the area that is being considered for rezoning. She stated tlat site is in support of the rezoning Mayor Schaaf reported receiving correspondence from a resident opposing the rezoning. Hearin. g no furber public comment, Councilmember Swenson, seconded b Beaudet moved to close the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m. Carried 5 — O. Councjlmene Beaudet, seconded b Byrne moved to rezone certain hands within the City of Oaf Park Heights to 12 -1. Roll Ball vote was taken. Carried 5 — O. W. New Business A. Discussion of Wae on Coun Water Governance t Jane Harper, Washington County, reported that the County has adopted the Water Governance Study and will work with. aRected partners aver tie next 4 — 6 months. They will work on setting up work groups. P.06/13 • ■ ■ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: INC �.. + 1 VI L n NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED C COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MA Tom Melena Scott Richards July 21, 1999 Oak Park Heights - Lower Oak Park Heights Land Use and Zoning Analysis 798.04 - 99.06 Please be advised that the Planning Commission, at their July 15, 1999 meeting, reviewed and clarified their motion related to rezoning a portion of lower Oak Park Heights from R-2, Low and Medium Density Residential to R -7, Single Family District. The City Council had asked for the additional review in advance of their public hearing on the issue scheduled for July 27, 1999. The Planning Commission reaffirmed their position that the area between Peabody and Peller Avenue should be rezoned to R -1. The Comprehensive Plan, which calls for low density residential land use and the position of the Planning Commission that this area of lower Oak Park Heights should be preserved as a single family neighborhood, was the basis of the Commission's recommendation. The Planning Commission also indicated that the intent of their motion was to rezone only that area to the west of Stagecoach Trail. The area currently zoned R -2 to the east of Stagecoach Trail would remain as R -2 until the Planning Commission completes its study of lower Oak Park Heights and makes additional land use or zoning recommendations. The Planning Commission revised the minutes of their June 17, 1999 meeting to clarify their recommendation on the R -1 to R -2 rezoning for lower Oak Park Heights. The recommendation is as follows: Dahlquist, seconded by Wasescha, moved to recommend approval of a zoning map amendment to R -1, Single Family for the area from 59th Street to the southerly boundary of the NSP ponding area and from Peabody to Stagecoach Trail. 5 7 7 5 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 12-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E -MAIL N AC ® WINTERNET.COM P.02/13 • • G. L.l 1 1 ur urn P.03/13 • As indicated previously, the City Council will hold a public hearing on this issue at their July 27, 1999 meeting. For reference information and maps, the City Council should review the June 8, 1999 planning report from the June Planning Commission packet and the July 8, 1999 memorandum from the July Planning Commission packet. 2 •► urn � r Gtjjj. l � i �J N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS L'T"ANTS INC • ENCLOSURE 9 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN, - MARKET RESEARCH H TO: Tom Melena FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang /Scott Richards DATE: August 9, 1999 RE: Oak Park Heights - Lower Oak Park Heights Land Use and Zoning Analysis FILE NO.: 798.04 - 99.06 AREA EAST OF STAGECOACH TRAIL Background. The area under discussion within this memorandum is bordered by Stagecoach Trail to the west, the sewage treatment plant to the north, the St. Coix River • to the east, and the City boundary to the south. The area contains an NSP power plant, a sewage treatment plant, a few small businesses, and several houses. The northern portion of the site is the MnDOT buyout area for the St. Croix River Crossing, Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan within the Comprehensive Plan calls for a business /residential transitional use for the southern portion of the area between Stagecoach Trail and State Highway 95. A portion of land north of the business/residential area along State Highway 95 has a proposed land use of business warehouse. The development potential of the area planned as business warehouse is limited due to steep slopes and a wetland area. The northern portion of the area between Stagecoach Trail and State Highway 95 is proposed to be open space with the exception of the site of A -1 Maintenance, which is planned business /residential transitional. On the east side of State Highway 95 the proposed land uses are government facilities in the sewage treatment plant area and industrial in the NSP power plant area. Zoning. The area planned to be business /residential transition in the Comprehensive Plan is currently zoned R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential. The area planned to be business warehouse is zoned Industrial. The northern portion of the area proposed to be open space and business /residential transition has consistent zoning with Open Space Conservation and Residential /Business Transitional. East of State Highway 95, the sewage treatment area is zoned Open Space Conservation and the rest of the area is zoned Industrial. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 i'HONE 61 2 - 595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E -MAIL NAC a' WI NTER N E7. COM P.04/13 W,001 v c.vV l ZG G`'t �.. ur urrt Existing Conditions. Nine houses exist in the southern area zoned R -2, Low and • Medium Density Residential. Many of the houses are in need of repair or redevelopment. The houses are isolated from other residential areas by Stagecoach Trail to the west, the State of Minnesota Correctional Facility to the south, State Highway 95 to the east, and businesses and open space to the north. Three businesses are located north of this residential area. They are Southside Repair, Millroad Inn, and A -1 Maintenance. MnDOT will be purchasing Southside Repair and Millroad Inn and will be removing the buildings. East of State Highway 95 is Dahl Tech Plastic Containers, the Sewage Treatment Plant, and the NSP Power Plant. The Sewage Treatment Plant and the NSP Power Plant are expected to be long -term land uses for the next 20 to 50 years. Business Improvement. The City should work with businesses in this area to improve the sites and bring them into conformance with City standards. Issues for improvement include signage, surfacing, landscaping, and screening. Redevelopment. The Planning Commission should discuss the best land use emphasis for the area currently zoned R -2, Low and Medium Density Residential. A single family residential neighborhood may not be viable in this location due to its isolation as described in the existing conditions section of this report. The area could remain residential with an R -1 or R -2 zoning, or more flexibility could be allowed with an R -B, Residential Business Transitional District_ The R -8 District allows for multiple family structures as a permitted use, single family structures and duplexes as conditional uses, and commercial or office facilities as conditional uses. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the best land use emphasis for this area is residential or business related. A concept plan of a potential residential use for a part of the open space within the MnDOT buyout area is attached. • pc: Kris Danielson P.05/13 • MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Melena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: June 7, 2001 RE: Oak Park Heights — Stillwater Ford Sign Approvals and Variances FILE NO: 798.02 -01.05 BACKGROUND Stillwater Ford has made application for sign variances to allow four pylon sig ns and py wall signs at the nearly completed dealership at 12969 North 60 Street. As Y ou are aware, the City gave approval to Stillwater Ford for a conditional use permit in 1999 to allow for a complete reconstruction of the building and site layout of the dealership. At that time, a condition to the approval was added that stated "all exterior signage shall conform to the provisions of Section 401.15.G of the Zoning Ordinance." It has been expected that Stillwater Ford would apply for sign variances to allow for additional wall and pylon signage. Attached for reference: ANALYSIS Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: ENCLOSURE 3 1 NOTNWt$'I �$$OCI*!I CON$ULT�NT$I INC, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com Site Plan with New Pylon Sign Locations Landscaping Plan Building Elevation with Signs Ford Logo Pylon Sign Ford Preowned Vehicle Pylon Sign Lincoln Mercury Monument Sign Quick Lane Monument/Pylon Sign Existing Signage. The only remaining signage on the site consists of two pylon signs. These signs are proposed to be reconstructed and replaced on the site. 1 PROPOSED SIGNAGE PYLON MONUMENT SIGNS Type Height Total Square Feet Ford Logo 30 feet 130 square feet Ford Preowned Vehicle 30 feet 62 square feet Lincoln Mercury 8.5 feet 77 square feet Quick Lane 20 feet 120 square feet Total Pylon Square Feet 389 square feet WALL SIGNS Building Elevation 1 Stillwater /Lincoln Mercury 204 square feet Ford Logo 73 square feet Quick Lane 68 square feet Alignment, Brakes, etc. 80 square feet Building Elevation 2 Stillwater /Ford /Lincoln Mercury 235 square feet Ford Logo 31 square feet Total Wall Sign Square Feet 691 square feet DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE 87 square feet TOTAL SQUARE FEET 1,167 square feet Variance Request. The applicants have proposed a total of four freestanding signs, g ns a Ford logo pylon sign, a Ford preowned vehicle pylon sign, a Lincoln Mercury monument sign, and Quick Lane pylon sign. Wall signage consists of a total of six signs and directional signage above service doors and vehicle delivery. A summary of the proposed signage is as follows: • • Allowable Signs. Section 401.15.G.8.d specifies the allowable signage within the B -2, General Business District. One freestanding sign is allowed with a maximum of 150 square feet, no more than 30 feet in height. Two wall signs are allowed with a combined total of 150 square feet. Variance Review. The City of Oak Park Heights has granted flexibility in the p ast related to its Sign Ordinance for numbers of freestanding signs and overall signage 9 square footage. The hardship has generally been attributed to site visibility as well as the overall building facade square footage versus the requested wall signage. The Stillwater Ford building is located at an intersection of Highways 36 and 5, with an Y , overpass that restricts overall visibility. The size of the Stillwater Ford facade is quite large and can accommodate more than the allowable wall signage to assure identification of the name of the business as well as the general product line. 2 • Staff has discussed the requested sign plan and recommends that one lon sign not to pY exceed 130 square feet and 30 feet in height be allowed. In addition, two monument signs not to exceed 80 square feet each and 8 feet in height at the two entrances are recommended. The applicant can chose the message on each of the signs. The pylon sign would be required to have a base with landscaping. The construction materials of the base would need to be similar to the materials of the building. Recommended wall signage would consist of all the proposed signs except for the advertising above the windows on two of the facades consisting of "alignment, brakes g � brakes, tires, shocks /struts and air conditioning." These are considered more as advertising for g services as opposed to identification of the business or directional signage. The signage such as "service, fast lube, and vehicle detailing" are seen as necessary to promote internal site direction. Other Issues. An issue remaining from the site development and original conditional use permit is the location of and the height of the light standards. The approvals granted in 1999 included conditions that "all outdoor lighting poles must be reduced to twenty -five (25) feet in height" and that "the site plan is revised such that all outdoor lighting along the site perimeter is located not less than ten (10) feet from the street right -of -way or five (5) feet from an internal site or rear lot line and that the intensity of outdoor lighting measured at the property line does not exceed four - tenths (0.4) foot candles." The lights, as they have been installed on site, do not conform to the setback • or height requirements. As a condition of certificate of occupancy issuance for the dealership, the applicant will need to change the poles to make them conform and provide evidence that the foot candle requirements can be achieved. • CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding review, our office recommends a partial approval of the requested variance for sign installation. The hardship for the variance is the limited visibility of the dealership from Highways 5 and 36. The signage recommended for the site consists of the following: 1. One pylon sign, not to exceed 130 square feet and 30 feet in height. The sign g would require a base with landscaping constructed out of materials similar to what is used on the principal building. Plans for the sign base would need to be submitted by the applicant for approval by City staff. 2. Two monument signs, at each of the entrances to the site, not to exceed 80 square feet each and no more than eight feet in height. 3. All proposed wall signage except for the advertising above the windows on two facades consisting of the wording "alignment, brakes, tires, shocks /struts and air conditioning." 3 • 4. The applicant may choose the wording /logos on the pylon and monument signs based upon the examples provided. • • pc: Kris Danielson 4 1 04 imp; N l 2 VLOS31NNIW V.1040104 H XMYJ MVO '1S 09 W 696CI Amovaw N11031M011 / CUMO V31.L YM 117101LS :OA woriiaad / wou.vnow311 tammemtnerv! iitt ' 111 , v vpr , //A :0; / , Ind 0 i A 4 .4 ylet yr 1, - ,44 / /// 74 71 , , - —A / /0" -.' 'Jiff, 44441 / A IVA /A, Y'" • • z PI 0 U) 3 s s s a s s s 5 1 04 imp; N l 2 VLOS31NNIW V.1040104 H XMYJ MVO '1S 09 W 696CI Amovaw N11031M011 / CUMO V31.L YM 117101LS :OA woriiaad / wou.vnow311 tammemtnerv! iitt ' 111 , v vpr , //A :0; / , Ind 0 i A 4 .4 ylet yr 1, - ,44 / /// 74 71 , , - —A / /0" -.' 'Jiff, 44441 / A IVA /A, Y'" • • z PI 0 U) 3 LATllG frATllM C=flULE • BOTANICAL NAME SPIRAEA X BUMALDA 'ANTHONY WATERER PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA GLEDITSIA TRICANTHOS 'INERMIS' SPIRAEA JAPONICA 'UTTLE PRINCESS' ACER PLATANOIDES 'POND' tl]IP9AASNIf3�S JUNIPERUS SABINA 'SCANDIA' J JUNIPERUS CHINENIS 'SEA GREEN' COMMON NAME SPIREA, ANTHONY WATERER BLACK HILLS SPRUCE IMPERIAL HONEY LOCUS SPIREA, UTTLE PRINCESS MAPLE, NORWAY SUMMIT ASH JUNIPER, SCANDIA JUNIPER, SEA GREEN s3nn AVG 1002 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 eve 8 3Z IS Z# ,Z,l Z Z# U s# z s# )IuNdn0 z5 z� N U) O 99 9L 1 s < ID 0 0 W L c 1 • Ng 0 a. Y.OS3NNIW 'S .LHO1314 NNW XVO '1S O! 'N 696C1 Avnaamm i UflO'N0v z C1Od1 121.L VMv 71110JL S :oi N011lG®V / NO11 YAON311 • i t r i b i gn m v Z • VIOSSNNI PI 'S11.1OI3H X CIO '1S 09 'N 69611 A11113MMYY / N7O3N011 / CIVOdJ (IMJL VMv 7 70JL S :0 1 NOLLIaaY i NOI1 YnON13M/ J v JI • • 9k tz 115 k cg ag o— -- P- 6 ti 111 t kita i §2Pie IS Pi! ( 1 1 0 3 — Q sa0 40i Ioo avw H&DEI©ogi • Qa)s n Z h �wi ttN►1 1N mom sow sitccest gam SSW ORIMIN '31.0e1 $0101WiSti a1 � 31v $36 WM CON 0110J guar 0430 Sd 01 xO9NOS OftJ Pli11001k1 NOOMIN30 r 111111s `10) iloPots *DWI t Pa 4 1 0011 O p 0 0 PPM NI SO 16 SSIM 10103 wl G is* ;opal Iful 0,0 0.1 $ w a n w amp. Sao> Ago 310jYIN� 11tOf101 0 ] � of lf3 S n G'v 310►1 -9t C,►`partnrea 91 001011d Nociloo3 31k1 'a `Q9AONm 31I 1SfIM ttlA03 16 � � � � Hia to100 �N1S11;3 P 1 OWN taws'S 'Rug* *i ti YTlf 1SId 6 � 001 $0170$ PM 8014 4o 11141516 4D WA 310 two SO A►1+ S1 >00 tow ID d01 lY00 '0 Q1( 111 1100 1101 Slf /00)313 171 1531 '1 X115 30 3900 CHI 11ddiS I$Od *1 MAIN 435119 111 J 5 311I )N'S N MVO NUIA 33RN1 10D Il 111 M 1111* i N 531$ iS300i WON WV) lD 1101100 001 01 iv DI 38'f'II5 inV3 AVON Ol mo011 OM 3 MIS 111)44 00 PIS - Intiote 1'O 916 tip 1M 7■45f1 wit nO 1110 11A1)i1 Al 0»11Y 9101 06 t01IDg0 I MIS 011 1 I/ ) OtN113�1 30 Al Sly Ib171003S 5211 1101901 SIRrS tpl 3YM 3511101100 YD S 1 31 01 MON SY 906 VAS 0 tA1191S11 ',Woo d01Y 00614 Olf 1141 MVO Ot Mc YMLSN 'P '111007 '00N13�� 1� � M)A 0o 135 YOBS JO 0 343�l ! NOS,V W14 %XIX114i1SO01wA103Tw190 t IBM 9 win03 9011 03A00 )0 11% 0410.1 'Mara to.) Tn 11 o I i��oe r 6i0 d L0M MICUYATO 173 1 0411d )81:43 NO NNO6 P11 Ot 04104.1 TwiSN 't 961 in , Ib3dS rAti7111 rho pm:18031. N Oil 41.11+S 11b 10014 mom 311 1Y M 141 01 011 &ad COMM t 3010102 104 1 006 Inv a! OOJ•O►d 4,6 0S ti,l+" $1,005 =km tom 0 4 111 M1 .4 090 M .9.4 31 *AAoa $04 uA M° en aA 60 4 04,00 000 VIII 1441.1 +0 1I A*es wwM1s . ki•r4 11 moo oh!* +11 Mai a , )41 01 Paa6 /p�J 11:041011 b94' 001 Iasi* isifin asp4pen .0. 11011 l 1 1 1 1 1 1, t t3 1 ' t • 1,;;1SNI NHS OW Mil 9NI1N 1 O & NO .Y. 3106 1,301 6P+ )4 Ntif 3 i1 id looks 'tom *t Is 6 P3 veciaN 1 MI OW 1 *Weil 00 1 P60 D 009 .0,1 PO 61 .0"'l QOM 3t do 1 01 /4 .�.0 t7 rt. ro. MOW t14 400t N t a, PM ► **WO WI 11 011 W W 1 ' 3 6 50 4 L1004,0610.1 u 9 ! 1 0 0 =3101 opt 4•.,G4i6- .4 1 14 .� 9 *W1 4 1 0 11 ! 1 b 11 a ,iP ssi3 '. .� 111..0 -11 s OrogYd 661)31 >» 10A03 uaryaf iseib 111 333 A n PO WV P* �! 1a • .1 -4 1 • HdO93(1 NOI510 rid ZS XOUNIS 09J11 urn!. un *►h 1, r WI ttMtt'll! I ITIMMN S 11 SIPCO' IN» II Y JI3INO "O YZ+Q tlblivT NON tat{ nl o MD ' ONI te 1h 3 INOKOI IWO 30 0 311153 t116030 Aim NW CNN 11111411111 s1M 1w) ii s /; )Ii,iuet ..1t A .r 014.h ow wt Nti iii eti As.$0110 1, .. ... «1t 61 iA t$ fia PA 101 Mq pp p*, It sitmos hi uo , it44 At )1 I 1 :1 1 it 01 ,1 I *.1 (1 +1 111 11 1$ 11 I1 I, 11iIIt 11 t1S R•.03 , kiMOO—r— YoulzAkrib oib3193 rtl! 0400t$313 0! s)*w olk 311+limtd s t0110 )1t1'Is11t111Y 011415 ']d 04r'&4PIN A AKj4001 d NE 1O 3111 'WAR 38 ISM S,431.01 tin) INOSit3 )+1 adrl nowiriv ►111A1 N!1r'10} 5 t i NQ 011WIL* 9 Relin J pQNA 45 311 18 03+51Mij DOM Ottf 51111:10 OLY11Vtt* OE is]A43 11 0 tllr St IMO EU0441N1,103 NtiV S4r3SAI 1 4 Tod 8)111,1 !OOSdis !O tY90 ; 3 ►lt Si i aw► S1M 00$1 dot it03 1t ratO Cot A toisko to Slt'7 ] 1YJ41133)3 11r 1Slt '1 3 SY 3 1 0 11 4514 •0,10 Mole 9 tY1It Its 1 1 03 M'SNll JIM !Q NMI 3tI>ti0b11'S11Y>d l+J +Ob H1YA 11}YjS 0w S]»4 SS1rs7i MCI WiM110) )11 *mai faTb mum tta dot w PM JO TM51mdb G1 1 a '0317111 > n 1i11101 3611E 30 1104!31 >'r+tdf 011 Thus 10111 16 KC 1f10 Qr11S oval lt7Mom 40 V38 1 mdS Mr.110 W ' 1 pNn 0 JO 1b0lsl 1 14 if OiNtlY 911.01[ 314'04dll ) 101 Yid Kw An till 0 HIffl iffilil 40 St100 01043 Zr( S 31 SA KS I~o! S»i v* fin IM 00 l 13+131 01 O3N CN SY S 1S 'us oivAwl 391 mino dD1y 101101W w t1tv Thil 131003 01 111191 1sK ? P f 'NOt1 NNIL 3S1 MO 0 3,E CH] 33S intr,15 lO 0143 +1+A SW( M it tlrllp7 Sly{ woo s5377r *Ma tit wolo ThLSM f QM) 9 NN(i 17:1 VIA 034,01+k 38 THS CV! WO MA MI 115 MO) 311 1041 MOS 000* 311 ORSti 'Ot'CAI 9 KlIrhjtj OM 01 is 3& mks sty* VA Moo 14 11 4 S1iv17t10t 1101102) nri91 Snare 1!+)lrr4 nN113)11 ujc11 iN lISO]v tmN I<}L1I5 X4114641 P+IY301 }II Iv I17 1111 iit 8111 $0{1.1 WOW »k011d 1 30g1Drh MO!lrtlrt9l iM1)hr,S 'piths N01133S / . 0 MI MAW 81M 1004 pytRommo Pit PS mon \00. .Ake SW NI tt del aA }3134 I A+ w10,1 I *G 14 01 1 •A8 0l 41 ltd z \--'"--' ..' '4I pit$ "'PM le M$10 34, 0/4 r% 1 'trY' 9 •101 'M' VINO $40161 01 Vel 11$00 qtY 101 .(i b0 A-11) • IHO13H ONIINIfOOI1 OM1SZ - HQI1d111SHM NOIS 09011 • 1 Tr , -z , t >t$1#11 i7ulte+� b� 1i00» 1a 'nett 003 ON '84 4 10. • 10 11 4 000VC A P1 14 iti1 kt) ..0 lir b00'M N dI as x+17 '41d Imh 7 1 0. Meg Omit .r. 31011 0 .0 % mnssaid ONYA JSd N 111ndorl Jo 11 PO4 *03 0 OP r` 1 tt 13M7 •a+W bt 1 • 11 • 0 q OA Pit IMO M!•f 11 '"' A 1 Np'! *WW1 Y*13113 3!411 ;,1 Siva 1 ill saw camp) 11110,1% 1 + MAX "pp toppou■ b j i 9 10" u) p)• 4 5 44 . H4330 ( WNW ) 1$ ,HMO) IM 1 w!I$1 *L.. t QD )) $ 110 , Ki Y003 vo RU Rb1; rnMIt1 M AO 1q pram 30 ka ro .0. 110,4 0 'UM pa , )) t1I034 $1 1I X11' $.,9 ON iyyty inks . A el ai+) ka *aj t,MO +w11 ioNto pm:* 03 V q i 0 4 4 >J A. 1074 • ► ►� t1 o. 'dot 1 • L 4 $a 501 trxIbl 6 )$ ' 1 )p *$ ei M a oi. Ot • Pi wr 10rt0001100r r C ~ .li X0.1 • 14 Off' s1Iv13a NOIIVcJNflOJ .114 '."+"."71"."1"''.."'"""..""1"... 0.1r7"' 4 --1 :40 '* T " """ "'a r 1 1 1i! 1 ! ! + ! ! ..... Iy Mr ■N bil WO MM a. trl l•! 00 M M 0111 MM 00 .0 M 00 M r ` I�1 i +i ► t 1 1 tpi m Pi's► • iI 111 . 1I ;II I 14I 14 III i! 1 I 1 1.$ JU •w....a..rw...N «�■ • ♦w�• •�•rais�� •. .�.�....A lel 'limas *. tiOW lrvuo prt Alt r .Y0 Mw 0. M. .w PM ►• 00 w a. OR .I' r w ' ww.rww•waraber►•• • •.,A & 4 4401 MASSMOWAI0 C r t�! l • • • c o 0 I i 11 I I • I H !I H asia oc ..sk a 1..sil E AIL It. ( -WC „8IL LL W 0 L .Et/L I. I se leelsk /PA PatunuPnIll I II a3e3 wnquinly 080 pa paleuprv-uoN 1 2/1 1, il 2/1 1-,V ! NE - , L L IV . r .L` 0 CD w EXHIBIT G • kdanielson @cityofoakparkheights.com, 03:24 PM 5/14/2001 -0500, Proposed Walgreens on Osgo {E©MOWE MAY 1 6 2001 To: kdanielson @ciryofoakparkheights.com From: Jeanne Anderson <jma @wrmed.com> Subject: Proposed Walgreens on Osgood Ave. Cc: Bcc: Attached: Dear Ms. Danielson: But, we can rearrange our priorities if we choose to. D Fhlrt nSURE ".' I am writing to object to the proposal to place a Walgreens on Osgood Ave. Though I do not know the zoning regulations, I will have to say, the neighborhood is residential, with churches, schools and professionals. Yes, a funeral home is aiso a "business," but who goes there if they doi i't have to? Compare the average person's infrequent visits to the funeral home with the average person's need for supplies at a place such as Walgreens. I don't know if there is a legal reason for distinguishing between these 2 types of businesses, but I do know that I go to Target or Wal- Mart frequently (probably once a week or so) but 1 almost never go to funeral homes (perhaps every several years or so). So there is a factual difference between the two types, making a major impact on the traffic volume and flow. I am concerned about the safety of children walking to the 4 schools in the area and I feel the addition of a Walgreens will draw more traffic up South Fourth Street and South Third Street, a detriment to the safety of our school children. It will also negatively impact our quality of living with the increased traffic noise and the safety of all pedestrians just trying to have a peaceful walk around the neighborhood or actually trying to visit a neighbor across the street. I live on South Fourth Street and my neighborhood is quite lovely. The elementary school is 2 blocks away and the junior high is also 2 blocks away. How wonderful for my kids and the other children in my neighborhood to be able to walk to and from school to home. This is an old- fashioned real neighborhood, the kind the new developers are trying so hard to recreate. I wish I could work full -time at writing letters and calling people and doing whatever I could to make it a better place by working to eliminate and slow down the traffic. ! would if 1 could, but 1 have to work full -time to support myself and my family instead. I don't understand why we cannot make the safety of children walking to school and the safety of pedestrians more important than rushing around in our cars. Especially in a residential neighborhood. There is something wrong with our priorities. doubt it it's common knowledge in my neighborhood that this project is proposed. I am sure if more people were aware of this you would hear objections from most. Please print this letter out for your planning commission and call me to discuss the status of this project. Printed for Jeanne Anderson <jma @wrmed.com> 1 • • kdanielson @cityofoakparkheights.com, 03:24 PM 5/14/2001 -0500, Proposed Walgreens on Osgo4 . Anderson uth Fourth Street er, MN 55082 430 -8457 (W) 439 -8093 (H) Printed for Jeanne Anderson <jma @wrmed.com> 2 • Kris Danielson From: Jeanne Anderson [jma @wrmed.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:25 PM To: kdanielson @cityofoakparkheights.com Subject: Letter to Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, City Planning Staff, City Administrator RE: MN DOT Highway 36 Proposal Impact on Safety of School Children and Other Pedestrians And on our South Hill Neighborhood 5/20/01 Page 1 of 4 am alarmed by a Minnesota Department of Transportation and Washington County proposal to burden the South Hill streets of South 4th and South 3rd with most of the Stillwater area traffic. I hope that the Oak Park Heights City Council and staff are or will become aware of the effect of this proposal on my South Hill neighborhood and act to change it before it becomes final. have been told that this make take some time and there is not yet funding for it and that it is not a final plan. I have also been told that this will only be done if there is a new bridge. But 1 hear conflicting things so I have to assume I must be heard. I wish to express my objection now, and not after all is said and done! Stop and think about that - all it would take is one legislative session and the DOT has the "green light" to permanently destroy my neighborhood. As I am sure you all know, MN DOT and Washington County plan to close access to HWY 36 from CTY 5 to the river, with 2 exceptions: Washington Avenue and Osgood. Traffic which now exits at those streets, including busy Greeley Street, will be forced to go down Osgood, which becomes South 4th Street, since Washington doesn't lead to the center of the City. It seems to me that the sole mission of MN DOT is to increase the driving speeds on HWY 36 to 55 mph, without regard to the consequences of closing off Greeley on the surrounding areas, and Stillwater in particular. first have to question the basic premise that we have to go 55 mph on this stretch of 36. It makes no sense to me that a road traveling through the middle of our 2 cities must be a 55 mph roadway. Our Stillwater high school kids have to make their way across 36 to get to school. Why make it more hazardous for them than it already is? And even if the bridge over the St. Croix River is built, won't drivers will have to slow down to round the curve to get to the new bridge (outlined as "Option 0" in various news reports)? Highway 36 in the Stillwater • area should be a divided parkway with a speed limit of 45. Let's not create such a barrier for residents of the 2 cities to travel between the cities to schools, businesses and for other reasons. Landscaping should be done, similar to the 5/20/01 Page 2 of 4 Highway 35 parkway in St. Paul. • Equally, or more importantly, Osgood /South 4th Street should not be chosen as one of the only two City streets as access points to Stillwater in lieu of Greeley Street because: 1) it leads through a historic, residential neighborhood and is at the end of town, not the middle; 2) it is not a through street; 3) since 4th is not a through street, drivers cut over to 3rd street so the increased traffic ruins 2 streets, not just one; 4) there are 3 elementary schools, (Oak Park Elementary , St. Croix Catholic School, Salem Lutheran Elementary) and a junior high school (Stillwater Junior High School) on or 1 block away from the affected streets; 5) both streets are already too busy and are dangerous for children and other pedestrians I have heard of at least 2 school children who have been hit walking to school. MN DOT's plan cuts off access to Greeley Street which is a more major collector street than Osgood /South 4th /South 3rd Streets, even though: 1) Greeley is mostly a commercial street; 2) Greeley is the main northsouth collector street 3) Greeley is a through street to the main eastwest collector street (Myrtle Street); 4) Greeley does not have schools on or near the street; 5) Greeley has modern commercial development and does not have the same quantity of historic homes as does South 4th and South 3rd; 6) Leaving access at Greeley affects only one street and not two; 7) Greeley and cuts right through the middle of town and brings drivers to the center of the City of Stillwater. 8) The Lakeview Hospital should continue to have the close access to Highway 36 for emergencies coming to the Hospital and ambulances transporting patients to Twin Cites hospitals. To date, Stillwater residents have no say in this plan; I was told that, instead the City of Oak Park Heights worked out the access points with Washington County and MN DOT, in particular, the closing off access to Greeley Street. At the Open House at the Government Center I learned that, in the first plan, Greeley was chosen as an access street to 36 instead of Osgood. This is logical, common sense. My impression is that the City of Oak Park Heights was able to change this common sense plan for its own new commercial and residential development plans. Our Stillwater children, our homes, and our neighborhoods have been given no consideration whatsoever. I don't know all of the facts and I am willing to be corrected by concrete evidence of facts, but 1 do know that I have no representation on this issue. If MN DOT's plan goes through as it now stands, the increased traffic will create a more dangerous situation on these streets for our school children and other pedestrians. The end result is to ruin the neighborhood for all of us. But there is still time to change the plan, and the time is now. If your city has not already adopted a resolution approving this plan, please do not approve it as it currently stands, or rescind it. Please consider the real effect of the current proposal. Just because my home is over the city limits of your city and into the city limits of the next city doesn't mean we aren't still neighbors who share the same community. I hope your considerations in your planning don't stop at the city limits! Alternatives, including a parkway concept, leaving Osgood access only at the South and different access points should be reviewed. Lets work to make your city plans in harmony with the goal of preserving my neighborhood and making South 4th and South 3rd Streets more safe for children walking to school. I am sincerely hoping that the Stillwater City Council will provide my neighborhood with representation on the City Council; our Council Member, Terry Zoller, can't vote for us on any MN DOT issues since he works for MN DOT and has a conflict of interest. Either he will have to resign and be replaced or the City will have to find another solution to the fact that Ward 1 has no Council Member on the Highway 36 issue (or the bridge). This has to be corrected! Our neighborhood is a real, old- fashioned neighborhood. Just the kind that the new developers are trying so hard to recreate. I reviewed your city's web site and I see proof right there - houses with front porches, just like mine! How ironic it would be that your city pressed to have Greeley closed and succeeded, so you could replicate a brand new neighborhood just like the one which was ruined by the closing of Greeley. I know you are good people who try to do the right thing. And I hope that you will give me, my children and my neighbors the same consideration you would want if you were in my position. Yours truly, Jeanne M. Anderson di 1109 S. 4th St. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651)439 -8093 5/20/01 Page 3 of 4 (651) 430 -8457 • 5/20/01 Page 4 of 4 Kris Danielson From: Jeanne Anderson Uma@wrmed.com] it nt: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:33 AM ): kdanielson @cityofoakparkheights.com Cc: jmawrmed.com Subject: Tonight's City Council Meeting - Letter to Pioneer Press D HWY36LetterToEdPionee rPress.wp... Kris - I wanted to update you and your Planning Commission and City Council and Mayor with my efforts to protect and save my neighborhood from the current MN DOT HWY 36 plan to close Greeley St. I am attaching my Letter to the Editor to the Pioneer Press, which I think they plan to print. It has not been rejected and I know they are considering it. I believe they will. As a courtesy to you and your city officials I wanted to give you a "heads up , on this. Also, I would appreciate it if you would print out a the letter for your Council and Mayor before tonight's meeting. It is similar to the one I sent you Friday, but has been updated with new information. I hope that you will print out both for each Council member. e ope to be there tonight as well to learn more. Thank you for your time and consideration. Your neighbor, Jeanne M. Anderson (651) 430 -8457 (W) (651) 439 -8093 (H) • • 41) May 22, 2001 St. Paul Pioneer Press Letters to the Editor St. Paul, MN Attn: Ron Clark Via Facsimile to (651) 228 -5564 RE: MN DOT Highway 36 Proposal Impact on Safety of School Children and Other Pedestrians And on our South Hill Neighborhood Open Letter to Stillwater Residents, Oak Park Heights Residents, Stillwater City Council, Oak Park Heights City Council, Local School Officials and State Legislators: I am alarmed by a Minnesota Department of Transportation and Washington County proposal to burden the 4th tYp p South Hill streets of South 4 and South 3r with most of the Stillwater area traffic. Stillwater and Oak Park Heights residents, the Stillwater and Oak Park Heights City Councils and Staff, local school officials, and Sen. Bachman and Rep. Holsten should be very concerned about this proposal and act to change it before it becomes final. I pray that we are not lulled into complacency by the County's statement in an April 25 Pioneer Press article that this will take 20 or 30 years. At an Open House, I have learned that the reason that statement was made is that funds for the project are not yet secured. Stop and think about that - all it would take is one legislative session and the DOT has the "green light" to permanently destroy our neighborhood. MN DOT and Washington County plan to close access to HWY 36 from CTY 5 to the river, with 2 exceptions: Washington Avenue and Osgood. Traffic which now exits at those streets, including busy y Greeley Street, will be forced to go down Osgood, which becomes South 4 Street, since Washington doesn't lead to the center of the City. The sole mission of MN DOT seems to be to increase the driving speeds on HWY 36 to 55 mph, without regard to the consequences of surrounding areas, and Stillwater in particular. I have to question the basic premise that we have to go 55 mph on this stretch of 36. It makes no sense to me that a road traveling through the middle of two cities (Oak Park Heights and Stillwater) must be a 55 mph roadway. Our high school kids have to make their way across 36 to get to school. Why make it more hazardous for them than it already is? I don't know if this idea dates back to an older plan for a bridge located closer to the crest of the 36 hill into downtown Stillwater, but it does not seem to fit the current circumstances we find ourselves in. The current bridge plan, should it come to be built, appears to require drivers to slow down to round the curve to get closer to the new bridge which is now closer to downtown Page 1 of 3 • • (outlined as "Option C" in various news reports). Highway 36 in the Stillwater area should be a divided parkway with a speed limit of 45. Let's not create such a barrier for residents of the two cities to travel between the cities to schools, businesses and for other reasons. We are really one city - I just heard that in tY J fact Oak Park Heights used to be part of Stillwater and was known as "South Stillwater." Landscaping p g should be done, similar to the Highway 35 parkway in St. Paul. Equally, or more importantly, Osgood/South 4th Street should not be chosen as one of the only two City tY streets as access points to Stillwater in lieu of Greeley Street because: 1) it leads through a historic, residential neighborhood and is at the end of town, not the middle; 2) it is not a through street; 3) since 4th is not a through street, drivers cut over to 3rd street so the increased traffic ruins 2 streets, not just one; 4) there are 3 elementary schools, (Oak Park Elementary , St. Croix Catholic School, Salem Lutheran Elementary) and a junior high school (Stillwater Junior High School) on or 1 block away from the affected streets; 5) both streets are already too busy and are dangerous for children and other pedestrians - I have heard g p of at least 2 school children who have been hit walking to school. MN DOT's plan cuts off access to Greeley Street which is a more major collector street than Osgood/South 4th/South 3rd Streets, even though: 1) Greeley is mostly a commercial street; 2) Greeley is the main north -south collector street 3) Greeley is a through street to the main east -west collector street (Myrtle Street); 4) Greeley does not have schools on or near the street; 5) Greeley has modern commercial development and does not have the same quantity of historic homes as does South 4th and South 3rd; 6) Leaving access at Greeley affects only one street and not two; 7) Greeley and cuts right through the middle of town and brings drivers to the center of the City of Stillwater. 8) The Lakeview Hospital should continue to have the close access to Highway 36 for emergencies coming to the Hospital and ambulances transporting patients to Twin Cites hospitals. To date, we Stillwater residents have no say in this plan; instead the former City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights worked out the access points with Washington County and MN DOT, in particular, the closing off access to Greeley Street. I have learned that, in the first plan for 36, Greeley was chosen as an access street to 36 instead of Osgood. Osgood was set to be closed as an access to 36. This is logical, common sense. My impression is that the former City Council City of Oak Park Heights was able to change this common sense plan for its own new commercial development plans, which ironically include plans to build brand new homes with porches to resemble a real old fashioned neighborhood. Just like the kind this very development would destroy, only this one has living, breathing people in it! Our Stillwater children, our homes, and our neighborhoods have been given no consideration whatsoever. If MN DOT's plan goes through as it now stands, the increased traffic will create a more dangerous Page 2 of 3 situation on these streets for our school children and other pedestrians. The end result is to ruin the neighborhood for all of us, including those attending the lovely weddings at St. Michael's Church or on the 411, lawn of the Historic Courthouse, Christmas at the Courthouse, or the River Town Restoration House Tours, people enjoying the Saturday Farmer's Market at Riverview Parking Lot with its gorgeous view of the St.Croix River. 1 • But there is still time to change the plan, and the time is now. Some time in the next month or so, MN DOT and Washington County are going to ask the Stillwater and Oak Park City Councils, to adopt a resolution to support this plan. At least for Stillwater, this proposal is in direct conflict with its Comprehensive plan, where 3 of the 6 goals for transportation are to "prevent intrusion of non - residential traffic in neighborhoods," "to relieve cut through traffic on residential areas," and "protect residential areas from non- residential traffic." The Comprehensive Plan is the law of the City; it cannot be ignored by the Stillwater City Council. Our City and State officials, local school officials and Stillwater and Oak Park Heights residents must consider the real effect of the current proposal. Alternatives, including a parkway concept, leaving Osgood access only at the South and different access points should be reviewed. Trucks should be prohibited from traveling down South Hill neighborhood streets. Our City and State officials and local school officials should be working to make South 4th and South 3rd Streets more safe for children walking to school, (children from both cities!) and need to strongly object to plans which make them less safe. I am sincerely hoping that the Stillwater City Council will provide my neighborhood with representation on the City Council; our Council Member, Terry Zoller, can't vote for us on any MN DOT issues since he works for MN DOT and has a conflict of interest. Either he will have to resign and be replaced through a special election, or the City will have to find another solution to the fact that Ward 1 has no Council Member on the Highway 36 issue (or the bridge). This has to be corrected! Our neighborhood is a real, old - fashioned neighborhood. Just the kind that the new developers are trying so hard to recreate. I hope that 5, 10 or 20 years from now we aren't wondering why we didn't care enough to take the time to write a few letters and make a few phone calls. I hope we aren't wondering why we let this happen. I know we residents and City and local school officials can do the right thing, make the right choice. Now is the time to speak up and state your objections. Yours truly, Jeanne M. Anderson 1109 South Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439 -8092 (Home) southhill @uswest.net (651) 430 -8457 ( Work) jmawrmed.com Page 3 of 3 • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd, Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • (651) 439 -4439 • Fax 439 -0574 Memo June 8, 2001 To: Planning Commission Scott Richards From: Kris Danielson, Community Development Director ENCLOSURE 5 Re: Waigreen's Please be advised that Walgreen's representative, Mr. John Kohler of Semper Development has asked that the public hearing for their application be continued to the July 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Based on the meeting that Walgreen's has had with Washington County and MNDOT, plans will need to be re -drawn to reflect the road access issues. Also enclosed with this memo is a letter we have received from Stillwater resident Jeanne Anderson regarding her opposition to the project. Please contact me with any questions you may have. TREE CITY U.S.A. • b o t Minnesota Department of Transportation I 1 #4. 44° �,g Metropolitan Division OF Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 May 29, 2001 City of Oak Park Heights Attn: Kris Danielson 14168 North 57 Street P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Dear Ms. Danielson: f11 SUBJECT: Walgreen's Minnesota Department of Transportation Review #S01 -024 N of TH36 / E of Osgood Oak Park Heights, Washington County C.S. 8214 C�p The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the Walgreen's site plan. Please address the following issues prior to further development: • As currently proposed, Mn/DOT does not support the southern access to this development from the frontage road. As you know, the TH36 Sub -Area Study has designated this frontage road to be closed. In the meeting held today with John Kohler of Semper Development, Mn/DOT agreed to allow the frontage road access, provided the developer closes the frontage road from Osgood to the east limits of the subject property where there is access. It was also discussed that the City and/or developer would be responsible for removing that portion of the frontage road as part of the Walgreen's development. This must include re- constructing the intersection and new terminus of the frontage road to Mn/DOT standards. If you have any questions regarding these issues please contact Todd Clarkowski in our Design section at (651) 582-1169. • If this option is taken, an Access Permit will be required along with a permit to allow the work within Mn/DOT right of way. As part of the removal of the frontage road, the developer may submit with the permit application a "restoration" plan for the frontage road area. Please contact Keith VanWagner in our Permits section at (651) 582-1443 to obtain the appropriate forms and guidelines. • Mn/DOT also supports the Counties position that the southern right in only access off Osgood is too close to the TH36 /Osgood intersection. An equal opportunity employer • City of Oak Park Heights May 29, 2001 Page 2 • • Existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff affecting Mn/DOT right of way must be perpetuated. The sites storm water discharge rate must not increase. Though the current site plan does not show any increase in drainage, if the plans change in any way they must be re- submitted for review. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT drainage issues please contact Bonnie Peterson in our Water Resource Engineering section at (651) 634 -2080. • As a reminder, Osgood Avenue is Washington County State Aid Highway 24. Any work on a State Aid route must meet State Aid standards and specifications. You may go to the following address on the web ( http: / /www.dot.state.mn.us /stateaid/) which shows or has links to the applicable forms and the Mn/DOT State Aid Manual. Please refer to the Mn/DOT State Aid Manual, Chapter 5- 892.200 for information regarding standards and policies. If you have any additional questions please contact Jim Deeny in our State Aid section at (651) 582 -1389. If you have any additional questions regarding this review please call me at (651) 582 -1468. Sincerely, CAn scnitAALi Sharon Anderson Transportation Planner Cc: Sandra Cullen / Washington County Transportation Engineer Joe Lux / Washington County Planning John Kohler, Semper Development Ltd. BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRIC 1825 Curve Crest Boulevard, Stillwater, MN 55082 Tel: 651 -430 -6826 Fax: 651 -43 May 14, 2001 Ms. Janele Taveggia, Project Representative Landform Engineering 650 Butler North Building 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55043 RE: Proposed Walgreens project - City of Oak Park Heights Dear Janelle: lE@IEQUE JUN - 1 2001 Our office has received and reviewed the construction plans and specifications dated April 20, 2001, for the proposed Walgreens project site, located at the existing Bradshaw Funeral Home in Section 34, Town 30 North, Range 20 West, City of Oak Park Heights. This project is the redevelopment of an existing property. As part of our review we visited the site and discussed the plans with you. In January of 2001, the Minnesota Board of 411k ater and Soil Resources approved an Order for the enlargement of the BCWD that expands the watershed trict's boundary to include the land for the proposed Walgreens site. However, the BCWD Board of Managers has delayed permitting in this new area. Permitting has been delayed until issues unique to the enlargement area have been resolved with local communities, the precise boundary has been delineated and agreed upon and pending resolution of legal action by the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization in opposition to the enlargement Order. Therefore, while these comments provide a greater level of compliance with the BCWD Rules, they are advisory and may be incorporated into approvals by the City of Oak Park Heights. Based upon the site conditions observed and the proposed plans we would offer the following comments: 1) Stormwater Management There appears to be an increase of 0.36 acres of impervious area for the proposed site. The site is 1.45 acres of which currently 0.85 acres (59 %) is impervious. The proposed project would have 1.21 acres (83 %) of impervious surfaces. No water quantity or quality ponding is currently used or proposed for this site. We would recommend that the applicant provide water quality /quanity ponding on -site, or document why on -site ponding is infeasible. If on -site ponding is not feasible, then the applicant should implement stormwater best management practices such as grass swales, infiltration trenches and in -line structural stormwater treatment (trade names such as "Stormceptor ", "V2B 1 "). Based on my observation of the site and the proposed plan, grass swales, infiltration trenches and in -line structural stormwater treatment systems would very likely address the incremental increases in stormwater runoff from this site. The following, table summarizes the incremetnal O anges in runoff from the pre and post development condition. Managers Craig Leiser, President • Karen Kilberg, Vice - President • Don Peterson, CAC Liaison • E. J. Gordon, Treasurer • Jerry Turnquist, Secretary Condition I 1 Year Storm 2.3" Rain/24 hrs 10 Year Storm 4.2" Rain/24 hrs 100 Year Storm 5.9" Rain/24 hrs Pre Development Discharge (Cubic Ft/Sec) 0.82 2.30 3.80 Post Development (Cubic Ft/Sec) 1.50 3.30 4.90 Difference (Increase) (Cubic Ft /Sec & %) 0.68 cfs, 83% 1.00 cfs, 43% 1.10 cfs, 29% • Ms. Janele Tavcugia May 14, 2001 a Two Walgreens — Oak Park Heights Pre and Post Development Discharge Summar 2) Grading and Erosion Control Since much of the site work is located adjacent to impervious areas, steep slopes and or fragile soils erosion control requirements will need to be closely followed to minimize soil erosion. If a straw mulch is used for temporary protection, it must be weed and seed free. It has been our experience that straw or hay bales are not effective in reducing sediment from leaving construction sites. Due to the slopes and sandy soil conditions prevalent on this site, we recommend substituting heavy duty, geotextile silt fence in place of the straw or hay "bale checks ". We believe that the location of these practices is appropriate, just simply replace bale checks with silt fence and keep the other existing silt fence as shown. In the event of concentrated flow leaving the site, we would recommend that the contractor be prepared to place an additional row of silt fence in low areas to inimize sediment from leaving the site. Silt fence along the project perimeter should remain in place until the site is restored and stabilized. The specifications should require the mechanical anchoring of straw mulch on the contour, however, most equipment can not operate safely on slopes steeper that 4:1. Therefore, we recommend that all slopes steeper that 4:1 be covered with erosion control matting, such as a wood fiber blanket, instead of straw mulch. I hope that these comments will assist you with the review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 430 -6826. Sincerel ( Mark J. Doneux, CPESC Administrator cc: David Beaudet, Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization Tom Malena, City of Oak Park Heights * Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control E:'wp \wp\WSD\ BCWMO \WD \RULES' \5 -14 -01 Walgreens Comment Letter.doc 1 TIDE EVEREST GROUP 7900 HIGHWAY 7, SUITE 125 ST. Loins PARK, MN 55426 FAX (952) 253 -6370 DAVID HUIHUT, PROJECT MANAGER (651) 334 -4044 JAREN JOHNSON, ZONING ATTORNEY (612) 578 - 6247 WENDY METCHNEK, ZONING ATTORNEY (612) 396 - 9312 Kris Danielson Community Development Director City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Dear Kris, Tuesday, June 12, 2001 Re: Request to Table Sprint's Application at century Power Sports and Voluntary Extension of the 60 -Day Rule As you know, Sprint PCS ( "Sprint ") has an active land use application before the City of Oak Park Heights (the "City ") for construction of a wireless telecommunications facility on property at Century Power Sports, 5920 Memorial Avenue North (the "Yamaha Application "). Although the Yamaha Application, at present, appears on the City Planning Commission's agenda for its meeting Thursday night, June 14, 2001, Sprint now formally requests that the City and the Commission table any further consideration of the Yamaha Application until the Commission's next meeting on July 12, 2001. The reasons for this request are two fold. First, the City enacted new and more stringent zoning requirements when the Council approved Ordinance 1410 on May 22 " 2001 which, after speaking with City Attorney Mark Vierling, now apply to the Yamaha land use application which was pending prior to May 22 Specifically, the new ordinance has substantially reduced the allowable setbacks from adjoining property lines and Sprint would like to explore the possibility of meeting the more stringent setback requirements. Second, the lengthy Staff Report prepared for the Commission with respect to the Yamaha Site (the "Report ") raises a number of important issues. The City Ordinance requires that existing structures are preferable to building a new monopole, and to the extent existing structures are not feasibly available from an engineering standpoint, Sprint must so indicate with evidence to support the infeasibility assertion. Sprint would like to analyze the existing structures before proceeding with the Yamaha Application. Sprint would also like more time to prepare a full response to the Report and to submit additional, supplementary materials, if necessary. Sprint asks, therefore, that the City table the Yamaha Application and that the Commission not consider the Yamaha Application at its meeting on June 14, 2001. In order to meet the City's requirements for speedy resolution of the Yamaha Application, pursuant to Section 15.99 of the Minnesota Statutes, Sprint also, hereby, voluntarily extends the so- called "60-Day Rule" for an additional thirty (30) days beyond the deadline for action previously announced by the City. Sprint remains ready to discuss this issue at your convenience. Please feel free to call me directly, at (612) 578-6247, if 1 can offer further clarification or assistance. Sincerely, Jaren Johnson CC: Johanna De Mara, Sprint PCS Evan Rice, Faegre & Benson Scott Richards, City Planner Tom Melena, City Administrator Mark Vier ling, City Attorney • • • PLANNING REPORT 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 962.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planner is ?nacpIanning.com TO: Tom Melena FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang / Scott Richards DATE: June 7, 2001 RE: Oak Park Heights — Sprint Tower; CUPNariance FILE NO: 798.02 — 01.03 BACKGROUND FAQ CL OSURE 6 Sprint PCS is proposing to construct a 160 -foot telecommunications monopole with accompanying ground -based equipment area on a property located within the Kern Center. The address of the property is 5920 Memorial Avenue North, and Trunk Highway 36 is at the northern boundary of the property. The subject site is zoned B -3 J , Highway Business and Warehouse, in which telecommunication antennas and structures are a conditional use. The Council approved Ordinance 1410 on May 22 p Y , 2001, which is an ordinance regulating the placement of telecommunication towers and antenna. Ordinance 1410 takes priority over the Zoning Ordinance, and the standards of the new ordinance are discussed in this report. In business districts, the maximum total height of the antenna and structure is 45 feet. As such, the ro osed 160 -foot p p telecommunications monopole requires CUP and variance approval. Attached for reference: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Site Location Maps showing existing Sprint towers in the vicinity Maps showing coverage with and without new tower Site Plan Enlarged Site Plan Tower Elevation ISSUES ANALYSIS • Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is guided for Highway Business/Warehouse by the Comprehensive Plan. The current B -3 Highway Business and Warehouse District zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Coverage Analysis. The Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to demonstrate that location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the cellular system and to provide adequate portable cellular telephone coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district. The applicant has provided maps claiming an existing in- building coverage gap in the general area of the proposed antennas. The applicant has also provided a map claiming that the proposed antenna would fill most of the gap. Engineering data in a narrative form was not submitted to support the claim. Preferred Land Use Areas. When selecting sites for the construction of new Antenna Support Structures and /or for the placement of new antennas, the most preferred p location is public land and existing structures. The second most preferred location is industrial zoned property, and the third most preferred location is freeway development corridors in non - residential areas, at least 1,000 feet from the edge of the road right of way to the antenna support structure. The proposed location is within 1,000 feet of Highway 36; therefore, it falls within the third most preferred category. An existing • i structure is a more preferred location than a new structure in a freeway corridor; therefore, all existing structure options should be explored before a new structure is approved. Existing Structures. Antennas are required by the Zoning Ordinance to be located on an existing structure, if feasible, and shall not extend more than 15 feet above the structural height of the structure to which they are attached. Feasibility is determined according to generally accepted engineering principles. Possible existing structures in the area include Excel Energy transmission line towers southeast of the proposed site. Excel has affirmed that their towers are available for co- location. A new support structure may only be approved if the applicant shows, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, that a "preferred support structure" is not feasibly available for use from an engineering standpoint. Preferred support structures include existing power, lighting or phone poles, co- location on existing public utility or antenna support structures, church steeples, and sides of buildings over two stories high. Without evidence that antennas on these structures are not feasible, the City may not approve a new structure. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the use of an Excel Energy tower is not feasible. Setback. In all districts, all new antenna support structures are required to be set back from property lines at least a distance equal to the height of the antenna support structure. In this case, the structure must be set back at least 160 feet from all property lines. The monopole is located 195 feet from the west property line, 65 feet from the south property line, 325 feet from the north property line, and 725 feet from the east 2 property line. Therefore, the setback from the south property line is not sufficient, and if • the CUP is approved, the site plan must be revised so that all setbacks from property lines are at least 160 feet. Antenna support structures of over 150 feet in height are required to be set back at least 500 feet from any residential structure. The proposed monopole is located within a business/warehouse area that does not contain any residential structures. • Variance. The maximum height of an antenna in a business district is 45 feet and the proposed monopole is 160 feet in height; therefore, a variance from the height limitation in needed. Zoning Ordinance Section 401.04.A.5 states that a variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. a. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. b. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Title. c. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to a reasonable use. 3. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. 5. The request is not a result of non - conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 6. The request is not a use variance. 7. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. 3 • 8. The request does not create an inconvenience to neighboring properties and uses. The applicant has alleged that restricting the height of the tower to the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance would render the proposed telecommunications tower ineffective due to the topography of the area. No engineering data has been submitted to verify that claim. The question remains whether restricting the height would cause a hardship. If the antennas could be placed on an existing structure(s), such as an Excel Energy tower(s), the new structure would not be needed. It is the duty of the applicant to demonstrate from an engineering standpoint that the use of the Excel tower is not feasible. The applicant has not demonstrated under engineering standards that the tower is not feasible. Fencing. The Zoning Ordinance states that unless the antenna is mounted on an existing structure, at the discretion of the City, a security fence not greater than eight feet in height with a maximum opacity of 50 percent shall be provided around the support structure. The structure is proposed to be surrounded by a chain link fence that is eight- feet -tall, including barbed wire at the top of the fence. This is compliant with the requirement for a security fence. The fenced area is a 28 by 28 foot square area. Monopole Design. The pole is proposed to have a galvanized steel finish and not contain any lights. The finish and lack of lighting are consistent with City requirements. The pole is tall enough to accommodate co- location by other telecommunications • carriers; however, the number and location of co- locators has not been specified on the elevation drawing. Co- location information must be shown on the elevation. The Zoning Ordinance requires a support structure that exceeds 100 feet in height to accommodate at least two additional users including, but not limited to, other cellular communication companies, Personal Communication Systems companies, local police, fire and ambulance companies. Equipment. Equipment related to the monopole is proposed to be located on a galvanized steel platform adjacent to the pole. This is located in the rear yard as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance also requires the equipment to be screened from view by landscaping where appropriate. Screening the equipment and chain -link fence on the west, south, and east sides with evergreen trees may be appropriate. Existing trees are located to the north and somewhat to the east and west of the pole. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Section 1410.060(1)1 of the City Zoning Ordinance states that no new antenna support structures shall be constructed if it is feasible to locate the proposed new antenna(s) on existing support structures. Feasibility shall be determined according to generally accepted engineering principles. The applicant has not submitted evidence that placement of the antennas on an existing structure is not feasible from an engineering standpoint. Without evidence that placing the antennas on an existing structure is not 4 feasible, construction of a new tower is premature. Additionally, the applicant has not • demonstrated hardship as required for the variance criteria. Therefore, our office recommends that the requested CUP and variance to construct a 160- foot -tall telecommunications tower not be approved. Our office recommends that the applicant explore the possibility of co- location on the existing Xcel Energy tower. • • pc: Kris Danielson 11' 0 - 11 IIN ‘tItetMEI 1 re 1.111 ■ 1 ��H11 !"I111l- , 1111 iii!■ �' 1 uIII!■ �� 111! ! I► 1111 ■ !■ ;illl�VI \ .iIIIEIIII_ 1� Ill VP 111111111111111] ni;i ill! 1 {��Il 1111111i111a1'� :1!!,11 (1111 j 1111111111111 111!�i1i111 ;(! Ii111111111 11111 it I111l11!: 111I W IIIIt111111 !' :i 1:T11111 i11f1111 ,6i�`11',111111' 1111111 VIII 1111 iii111111 �� , VIII ' Il i IIIIl1U11lIIII; VIII iiali1111111 11IIIII11111111 i 11111 . 111111 II ! 11 IIIIV�LII IAI 11 111111 Hamm VIII 111 11 111111 minium • - ,IttworApa Nq 44 , .0 .A41.-rta " �I kitALLFpikly wrirpoiort "koigipqa rior immum r . e 1 . a 111111 „� Tr... w n � 111 ..11111 \1 � - .111\1\ \ \ \11 „ �„ .•• 1 U 11� ,11�i�� i���;l tt�ul luau 1111 1 1. i11111� IN\ 11 � 1111• ' • u► 1 11 111 111111 i d i 111111 111111 'y\ ;mu 111111 EP. i :: :t 1 I�� 11111111 IIII 1111 1 111 111111111 !!11111111 C : :: ...I 1 II I IiI1 a ! ! I L!!! I 11 111 ll IIlI IIl, 1 i �i l ) 1n 111 1111111 I hIIIY (1111 Il1i:!Ul►: � � 111111111! II : 11' Illy l IlHllllftll 11111111111; 11111' 11111 1111111 1111 Illltll °111 I': :11 111 I1 1111 1111111111 1 1 1111111 1111111 111 111111!111 1 I II1 11 111111 11111 1 11 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 !11111111111 11111111111 111111111111 11111111119 11111111!111 111111111111 III/ 111 �1 1 11111111111 111 1 1111111111 111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 11111111111i 1111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 11111111111' 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 N TA co 0 L f - 4-J 0 L (13 - o 0 ▪ 0 "0 (0 L CO 0 0 1:3 0 OE, L-) M, C 4 al ▪ 0 io I ▪ cn • c AI 0 0 >0 J C. C L E 0 C 0) H '' u o 1) ••'DL t- a LW j Q L 0 < C 3 CI_ u u - tai di 0 3 I I 10 0 0 0 Proposed tower not in use. • u = 0 ft! (.1) U1 (1) L (0 L 03 ro a >- 0 < -'J O 4- Cr) Lf) LE 0 10 LC) OD 0 CO - 0 E (O� I c • 0 I (71) C\J E 0 r, L r 0 LOU .D L (0 C ro • E 0 C • o c () co cu c1 3 a_ cf u o_ c o (r) q • 1 Proposed tower in use. • EXHIBIT C c5 g N h O b oto u O ,' h • hV 141:111 b OO� O b 8 :: b� 1 Wo� ..' V v imu 11° 4 iEbQi h t r� y b O ....%.,,,. O •C . 3 .•w . m h • ; :,%,„1.„-F. w 1 3 °�'hr Nbo q% u a °e O+ ° c b ° b b u rrol v Zz.0 , O O j O ... h V . i.ocii t _ 6 itiantlt ot C .. 4O h2 s2" a $...%) =!,�. %a h.1i. t C w • v� O N Q bill; �bA u suj 6uV o O Nh O a j01"10 a b ••. ` •., a t E 4 s o O. w Ni O N p u'h bb brak � ( O v p •pO O c �•N V b OOt1 C1h ..0 6. t' W ..ZtSZi c1 6t43664. 3 O V � � C O Q E, "::4,- Q o k = v "� », o � b C., c w ugh�� r €� litntak 1hW °m bo lV t b2 ..J V �:.: b y h b rrhh h toU be '4obCN % vJ 3 3 j O �O Or� p~ N i L U b p O 6 E t 9 A a � o' ° Q O ° o a 11°71t% z b g b t iii : tzi t N "•• q � 0 O �C.5 Z 1 0 v G V•y b t V Nu. 0p.t..N to �i M % ... ‘C.5 CI b OUjb o. O j 11 +: 0 0... 3 V Or u b 0 `` � 4 O b W 32 c 0 8 uh ile � o+ %Ntuo° I � Cp =b q (, v V .:«- .,;0 - tt .5 p VCb � O h a E h h 0 O •J K .5 4 CJW bN 1_ -0 031),12 g a � u o S00° 31:0 Eo �j. <" 1 � W Z 99 8 / I .3r 0 W V S to O 5.00 ,.r o R 0 m g m '8 1 i 1 I 1 1 k , ! k , 1 'i, L i' ,:t laYfiSig i § §f 1§ • 1 (8) m + 11 0 0 600 i bit T t 1 1 040444 01001006 11 $ W d t 1 tj 0 C L' •i 30.00 9 JO, SOV31'OS "E 35.00 \\ N00. 1.0S 8 1 \ • r j .J 400 31 i 1 0 W O H- LL CL' 2 W a_ O (r) U <LLJ > Q D H O I— V) O i i0 c\ o cc z • >4 J 3 z 0 8 I a Z O 1 Z J tla 1• u o� o . a • n 4' 8 0 WJfa I 00" A ° w cn 0 0 a 0 z 0 r 0 a. O O a Z 2 0 0 M 000 Ex Sit IN to .0et w O Z OXb�o bO103S Xl 61 _ . . , NV vo10 3S 321j F— O z w z z c.L z 0 (00N 9NIN1H9I1 d0 d01) ,.0 -,S9 (YNN3INY 30 831N33 310d 0N011 o 30 dol) M o - ,os � 0 NOI1VGNf10.A L 30 d01 „9 r 1 0 W J W 0 H Ov 00 Z in O 8 %Ao Op O o 0: 20 0 • • rs wit: and RESOLUTION NO. PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE SPRINT PCS REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE AND ANTENNAS AT 5920 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH SHOULD BE DENIED WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has received a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) and variance for installation of a 160 foot telecommunications monopole with accompanying ground based equipment on a property located at 5920 Memorial Avenue North; and after having conducted to public hearings relative thereto the Planning Commission of the City of Oak park Heights makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as follows; to Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Kern Center, Washington County, Minnesota; 2. The subject site is zoned B -3, Highway Business and Warehouse, in which telecommunication antennas and structures are a conditional use; and 3. The City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights approved Ordinance 1410 on May 22, 2001, which is an ordinance regulating the placing of telecommunication towers and antenna; and 4. In the B -3 District, the maximum total height of the antenna and structure is 45 feet, as such, the proposed 160 foot telecommunications monopole requires a CUP and variance approval; and 5. The Ordinance requires the applicant to demonstrate that the location of the antennas, as proposed, are necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the caller system and to provide adequate portable caller telephone coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the connections in a less restrictive district; and • 6. The proposed tower location is within 1,000 feet of Highway 36, within a freeway development corridor, therefore falls within the third most preferred location for placement of antennas and antenna support structures under the provisions of the Ordinance; and 7. Antennas are required by the Ordinance to be located on an existing structure, if feasible, and a new support structure may only be approved if the applicant shows, to the satisfaction of the City, that a "preferred support structure" is not feasibly available for use from an engineering standpoint; and 8. Possible existing structures in the area include Xcel transmission line towers, in which Xcel has affirmed that their towers are available for co- location; and 9. Without evidence that antennas on these structures are not feasible, the City may deny the application for a new structure; and 10. The applicant has failed to provide evidence that an existing preferred support structure such as the Xcel towers are not feasible for co- location; and 11. The applicant has not demonstrated reasons, from an engineering standpoint, for a "hardship ", as that term is defined within the ordinances of the city, to justify a variance from the Ordinance related to tower height; and 12. All new extension support structures are required to be set back from property lines at least a distance equal to the height of the antenna support structure, which under this application, shall be 160 feet; and 13. The proposed antenna has been applied be set back from all property lines at least 160 feet except for the south property line which is proposed at a setback of 65 feet; and 14. The applicant has provided maps claiming an existing air coverage gap in the general are of the proposed antennas and that the proposed antenna would fill most of the gap; but has not shown that co- location of its equipment on the Xcel Energy towers would be inadequate to address the coverage issues. 15. The applicant's engineering data in a narrative form has not addressed the requirements of the ordinance requiring the applicant to show that co- location on preferred or existing structures is not feasibly available for use from an engineering standpoint. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING: 1. That the CUP and variance, submitted by Sprint PCS, for installation of a telecommunications monopole and antennas affecting the real property as follows: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Kern Center, Washington County, Minnesota. 2 • • • City of O ak Par Hei June 8, 2001 To: From: ENCLOSURE 7 14168 Oak Park Blvd, Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • (651) 439 -4439 • Fax 439 -0574 Planning Commission Memo Kris Danielson, Community Development Director Re: Telecommunications Ordinance Please be advised that the City Council voted to adopt the enclosed telecommunications ordinance at their meeting of 5/22/01. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review the ordinance and recommend any additions or amendments to the document. Please contact me with any questions you may have. TREE CITY U.S.A. • • AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: 1410.010 Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and businesses (while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community), the council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to: (1) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers through artful design and siting standards; and (2) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements; and (3) 1410.020 Definitions. (2) Antenna. Any device, which by use of any means, is designed to transmit or receive any electromagnetic, microwave, radio, television, or other frequency energy waves, of any type, for any purpose. Antenna, Accessory and/or Secondary Use. Those antenna including radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs two (2) meters or less in diameter, short-wave radio dispatching antennas, or those necessary for the operation of electronic equipment such as radio receivers, ham radio transmitters and television receivers that are 1410 The terms defined in this ordinance have the meanings given them. (1) Amateur Radio Antenna. Any equipment or device used to transmit, receive or transmit/receive electromagnetic signals for "Amateur Radio Service" communications as defined in 47 C.F.R. Part 97.3(4), and as used in 47 C.F.R. Part 97.15(a). (3) Maximize i ze the use of existing and approved towers, structures and buildings to accommodate multiple antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. • • • • customary and incidental to allowed principal uses within the various zoning districts of the City. (4) Antenna. Camouflaged Structure. A monopole in which the pole is hidden from view. (5) Antenna, Co- Location: Locating more than one antenna or set of antennas on the same antenna mount. (6) Antenna. Guyed Tower. A communication tower that is supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground anchors. ( Antenna, Height. The vertical distance measured from the base of the antenna mount at grade to the highest point of the antenna. (8) Antenna, Lattice Tower. A self-supporting communications tower P g consisting of an open work structure made of crossin g bars or rods forming a network used for support. (9) Antenna Monopole. A self - supporting communication tower consisting of a single pole. (10) Antenna, Mount. Any structure which supports an antenna including communication towers, alternative tower structures, and the roofs or walls of buildings. (11) Antenna. Public Utility Microwave: A parabolic dish or cornucopia shaped electromagnetically reflective or conductive element used for the transmission and/or reception of point to point UHF or VHF radio waves in wireless telephone communications, and including the support structure thereof. (12) Antenna, Radio and Television, Broadcast Transmitting. A wire, set of g o wires, metal or carbon fiber rod or other electromagnetic element used to transmit public or commercial broadcast radio, or television ro r P g g, and including the support structure thereof. (13) Antenna. Radio and Television Receiving. A wire, set of wires metal or carbon fiber element(s), other than satellite dish antennas, used to receive radio, television, or electromagnetic waves, and including the support structure thereof. (14) g Antenna. Satellite Dish: A device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, or cornucopia. Such device is used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or • • orbitally based uses. This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only) and satellite microwave antennas and the support structure thereof. (15) Antenna. Satellite Dish Height: The height of the antenna or dish measured vertically from the highest point of the antenna or dish when positioned for operation, to the top of the foundation which supports the antenna. (16) Antenna, Short -Wave Radio Transmitting and Receiving. A wire, se g � set of wires or a device, consisting of a metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conductive element used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for short -wave radio communications and including the support structure thereof. (17) Antenna, Support Structure. Any building or other structure other than a tower which can be used for location of antennas. (18) Antenna Tower. A self- supporting lattice, u ed or monopole structure gY p e constructed from grade which supports personal wireless service antennas. The term tower shall not include amateur radio operators' equipment, as licensed by the FCC. (19) Antenna. Temporary Mobile. Any mobile tower, pole, or structure locate p � located on a trailer, vehicle, or temporary platform intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus for personal wireless services, also commonly referred to as Cellular on Wheels (COW). (20) FAA. This shall mean the Federal Aviation Administration. (21) FCC. This shall mean the Federal Communications Commission. (22) Personal Wireless Service. A device consisting of metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conducive rods or elements, usually arranged in a circular array on a single supporting pole or other structure, and used for the transmission and reception of wireless communication radio waves including cellular, personal communication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services and including the support structure thereof. (23) Structure. Public. An existing tower edifice or building of any kin or an g Y � any piece of work artificially built up or comprised of parts jointed together in g some definite manner which is owned, or rented and operated by a federal, state, local government agency or public /semi- public utility. • (24) Registered Engineer. An engineer that is registered in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. • • (25) Wireless Communication Site: A tract, parcel of land or location that contains wireless communication facilities consisting of the antennas, support structure, and related equipment like storage buildings or equipment cabinets. 1410.030 Preferences for Antenna and Support Structure Locations. When selecting sites for the construction of new Antenna Support Structures and/or for the placement of new antenna, the following preferences shall be followed in order of listing: (1) Preferred land use areas. A. Public land and existing structures. B. Industrial zoned property C. Freeway development corridors in non - residential areas, at least 1,000 feet from the edge of the road right of way to the antenna support structure. D. Athletic complexes, public parks, and golf courses. E. Parking lots if the monopole replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards of the lot. F. Private open land when such a structure is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. G. Other land use areas where towers and antenna have been defined as conditional uses upon the grant of a special use permit, as designated in the community zoning and land use code. (2) Preferred support structures. A. Existing power, lighting or phone poles. B. Co- location on existing public utility or antenna support structures. C. Church steeples. D. Sides of buildings - over two stories high. • • (3) Prohibitions. 1410.040 Dimensional Requirements. A. No new support structures shall be approved, at any location other than a "preferred land use area," unless the applicant shows to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that such locations are not feasible from an engineering standpoint. B. No new support structures shall be approved for construction, unless the applicant shows, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, that a "preferred support structure" is not feasibly available for use from an engineering standpoint. (1) Zoning Districts. In addition to the districts specified below, any proposed YP P antenna or tower must meet the requirements of any zoning district and any zoning overlay district, e.g., flood zone and the Lower St. Croix Bluffland/Shoreland Management Ordinance. Where in conflict the provisions of this Ordinance and the preferences established hereby shall be construed to have priority over the provisions of the zoning code. A. Residential Districts. Towers are not preferred in any Residential District. Subject to the priorities and preferences established herein antenna may be allowed if not greater that 15 feet higher than the supporting structure. The total height of the antenna and structure shall not exceed 35 feet. B. Business Districts. Towers are not preferred in any Business District. Antenna, if placed on the roof or exterior of the building must not be greater than 15 feet higher than the supporting structure. The total height of the supporting structure and antenna shall not exceed 45 feet. C. Industrial District. Towers under 45 feet are preferred in this District. Towers over 45 feet are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Towers over 150 feet are not allowed. Antenna are allowed if the height of the supporting structure plus the antenna is not greater than 60 feet. Any proposed antenna where the antenna plus the supporting structure would be greater than 60 feet and less than 150 feet requires a Conditional Use Permit. D. Agricultural District. Towers under 45 feet are allowed in this district. Towers over 45 feet are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Towers over 150 feet are not allowed. Antenna are allowed if the height of the supportin g structure plus the antenna is not (3) 1410.045 Tower Design. greater than 60 feet. Any proposed antenna where the antenna 1 pus the supporting structure would be greater than 60 feet and less than 150 feet requires a Special Use Permit. E. Open Space District. Towers are not allowed in districts designated as open space(0). (2) Exceptions to Maximum Height Restrictions. The maximum height restrictions in sub - paragraph (1) shall not apply to public structures used as an antenna support structure. Additionally, no antenna may extend more than fifteen (15) feet above its antenna support structure. Setback Requirements. In all districts, all antenna support structures shall be setback from the nearest property line at least a distance equal to the height of the antenna support structure. This provision does not apply to existing antenna support structures unless said structure is enlarged or structurally modified. Minimum land Requirements. Minimum land area for freestanding monopoles on vacant properties in residential districts shall be five (5) acres. Distance from Residences. A. Antenna support structures of up to one hundred fifty (150) feet in height shall not be constructed within three hundred (300) feet of any residential structure. B. Antenna support structures of over one hundred fifty (150) feet in height shall not be constructed within five hundred (500) feet of any residential structure. General wireless communication structures shall be designed so as to reduce the visible impact on the Excelsior skyline and impact to surrounding residents and businesses. All wireless communication structures shall reflect a high quality of design when viewed from near or far by using designs compatible with their surroundings. The following requirements apply to all wireless communication towers or structures: A. General wireless communication towers shall be of a monopole design gn unless the City Council determines that an alternative design requested b g q by the applicant would better blend into the surrounding environment. This . g provision does not apply to amateur radio towers or commercial and public radio or television towers. B. If the equipment cabinets or storage buildings contain machinery that produces noise, the cabinet, or building shall be designed so that the noise g is not perceptible outside the structure. • C. The equipment cabinets shall be buried, screened by landscaping, or y the storage buildings constructed so as to be similar to buildings found in the area. D. Access to the site shall be similar to driveways typically required or found in the area. E. When the equipment, monopole, or stealth structure is not longer needed . . g or being utilized, they shall be removed. F. New structures (monopoles, stealth towers) shall be designed to permit • . g P future co- locations (placing additional antennas owned by different providers on the same structure). G. Wireless communication sites on or in existing structures such as g buildings, communication towers, water towers, sins clock towers, bell signs, , towers, and light standards shall comply with the followin g standards: (1) Antennas requiring roof mounts or side mounts attached to buildings and structures like clock towers are to be screened, camouflaged, used as a decorative element to blend in with the structure, or otherwise blend in with the structure. (2) Antennas on signs or light standards shall be placed inside the sign whenever possible or mounted so as to be accessory to the structure not overwhelming the primary use. The equipment cabinets are also to be screened, camouflaged, hidden, or placed in a manner similar to other types of mechanical equipment associated with the structure. (3) H. Wireless communication sites consisting of shorter monopoles located where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provided screening shall be hidden among trees or buildings to allow g g the antennas to transmit while hiding the pole. Wireless communication sites that cannot be screened or camouflaged . g shall utilize stealth towers constructed to resemble more commonly accepted structures, such as church steeples, light poles, bell towers, clock towers, gateway elements, and monuments for the purpose of hiding antennas, shall comply with the following: (1) When the stealth structure is part of an existing building like • • (3) 1410.050 Permit Requirements. adding a steeple to a church, the construction of the tower and p equipment cabinet enclosure should complement and match the existing isting building. (2) When the stealth structure is independent of an existing building, it should fit the context of its surroundings and look as though it could serve the purpose of the real structure. The equipment cabinets or storage building should be integrated into the structure or located with similar structures. J. Shorter monopoles with low profile antenna arrays like cross polarized antennas which can blend in with other structures or resemble more commonly accepted utility poles: (1) The antennas should have a low profile, such as being close to the pole. (2) The monopoles should closely resemble utility poles in height and size and not require security fencing or blend in with other structures, such as flag poles or light standards. Equipment cabinets should be buried or resemble cabinets associated with other utilities; storage buildings should resemble similar buildings in the area. Storage buildings may need to be placed away from the pole to keep from drawing attention to the pole. K. Wireless communication towers in historic districts shall follow established review procedures for construction or alteration. L. Wireless communication towers in areas subject to design guideline . .l g g provisions shall follow established review procedures for construction or alteration. (1) General Rule. Except as indicated below, Conditional Use Permits are required before any antenna or antenna support structure is installed or constructed. Applications for Conditional Use Permits shall be made on forms available from the City and shall be processed in the manner as are other Conditional Use Permits pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing an application, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning and zoning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience, and the g eneral welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, the effect on rop e rty values of p • property in the surrounding areas, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The Council shall maintain a written record regarding the basis for its determination for each application and shall issue its determination to each applicant in writing. (2) Administrative Permits. A Building permit may be issued by the City Administrator to any applicant whom the City Administrator determines has complied with all of the terms, requirements, regulations and conditions of this Ordinance for the following: A. Antennas to be constructed or collocated on a public structure. B. Satellite dish antennas larger than two (2) meters but smaller than six (6) meters in size. (3) C. Antennas or antenna support structures erected temporarily for test P Y purposes or for emergency communications. "Temporary" shall mean that the antenna or support structure is removed within seventy -two (72) hours following the termination of testing or emergency communication needs. Any person aggrieved by the City Administrator's decision shall be entitled to appeal that decision to the City Council. No Permits Required. No permits are required for the following: A. Household television antennas extending less than fifteen (15) feet above the highest point of a residential structure. B. Satellite dish antennas two (2) meters or less in size for residential use purposes. C. Adjustment, repair or replacement of the elements of an antenna, provided that such work does not constitute a clear safety hazard. D. Antennas and antenna support structures used by the City for City purposes. 1410.060 Antenna Regulations in All Districts. (1) The following standards shall apply to all antennas and antenna support structures: A. All obsolete and unused antennas and antenna support structures shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of • • • operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the Zoning Administrator. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved condition. The City may require that a Letter of Credit be posted with the City to guarantee compliance with this provision. B. All antenna shall be constructed in compliance with City building and electrical codes. C. Structural design, nd installation o g of the antenna shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications. P The plans shall be approved and certified by a registered professional engineer at the owner's expense. g D. When applicable, written authorization for antenna ' a erection shall be provided by the property owner. E. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna structure. F. The height of the antenna shall be the minimum necessary to function satisfactorily, as verified by a registered electrical ' Y g cal engineer. G. Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated and d must not display strobe lights unless required by law or by a governmental en . g agency to protect the public's health and safety. When incorporated into rp the approved design, the tower may not support light fixtures used � to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or other similar areas. H. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. g Y No new antenna support structures shall be constructed ' structed if it is feasible to locate the proposed new antenna(s) on existing ing support structures. "Feasibility" shall be determined according to generally g g Y accepted engineering principles. If a new antenna support structure is to be constructed, it shall be designed structurally and electrically Iectrically to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two (2) additional users if the antenna support structure is over one hundred (100) feet in height, or for at least one (1) additional user if the tower is over sixty feet in height. xtY Any antenna support structure must also be designed to allow for future re- arrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at different heights. Other users shall include, but not be limited to, other cellular communication companies, parues, Personal Communication Systems companies, local police, fir . p fire and ambulance companies. • • J. Antenna support structures shall be constructed and painted t p to i reduce visual impact and according to all applicable F.A.A. requirements. K. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. Towers must be self - supporting without the use of wires, cables, beams or other means. The design should utilize an open framework or monopole design. gn. Permanent platforms or structures, exclusive of antennas, are prohibited. L. The base of any tower shall occupy no more than five hundred (500) square feet and the top of the tower shall be no larger than the base. M. Antennas and antenna support structures must be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through use of color and camouflaging architectural treatment, except in instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities. All locations should provide the maximum amount of screening from off -site views as is feasible. Existing on -site vegetation shall be P reserved to the maximum extent practicable. Q. N. The base of all antenna support structures shall be landscaped P according to a plan approved by the City Engineer. Accessory structures shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the principal antenna support structure. 0. Antennas shall be subject to state and federal regulations pertaining g P g to non - ionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. If new, more restrictive standards are adopted, antennas shall be brought into compliance with the new standards b y the owner and operator. The cost of verification of compliance shall be borne by the owner and operator of the antenna. P. Except as approved by the City as to public utilities, no art of any y antenna or support structure, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires, or braces shall at any time extend across or over any part of any right -of -way, public street, highway, sidewalk, or property line. P All metal towers (and all necessary components) shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material. R. All antennas and support structures shall be reasonably insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse or other catastrophic failure. 1410.070 S. All new antenna support structures shall be constructed to provide space for the installation of a City emergency /fire siren in such a fashion that it will not interfere with any antennas. Said space shall be available for said use by the City at no cost to the City. (2) The following regulations shall apply to all antennas and antenna support structures for which a Conditional Use Permit, Building Permit or Site Plan is required under this Ordinance: A. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district. Said analysis shall also demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that the proposed use will not interfere with the radio, television, telephone and other similar services enjoyed by the properties in the area. B. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping. C. 1. Unless the antenna is mounted on an existing structure, at the discretion of the City, a security fence not greater than eight (8) feet in height with a maximum opacity of fifty (50) percent shall be provided around the support structure. D. At least annually, and at each time a new user is added to an antenna support structure, the owner or operator shall provide to City a report from a registered engineer that the antenna(s) comply with all applicable regulations regarding emission of radiation and electromagnetic waves. E. The base of all antenna support structures shall be posted with signs stating "Danger High Voltage" on all sides. (1) Exemptions. 2. All antenna support structures shall be reasonably protected p against climbing. • Antennas and antenna support structures for federally licensed amateur radio operators are hereby exempted from the provisions of this ordinance. • (2) Site Plan. (3) 1410.080 Effect on Existing Towers. 1410.090 Inspections and Violations. No amateur antenna support structures shall be constructed unless Site Plan approval has been given by the City Administrator. Any person aggrieved by the City Administrator's decision shall be entitled to appeal that decision to the City Council. Support Structure Construction. Amateur radio support structures (towers) must be installed in accordance with the instructions furnished by the manufacturer of that tower model. Because of the experimental nature of the amateur radio service, antennas mounted on such a tower may be modified or changed at any time so long as the published allowable load on the tower is not exceeded and the structure of the tower remains in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. II/ Antennae and towers in existence prior to the enactment of this ordinance which do not conform or comply with this section are subject to the following provisions: (1) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing but may not be replaced or structurally altered without complying in all respects with this section. (2) If such towers are hereafter damaged or destroyed due to any reason or c Y y cause whatsoever, the tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location, and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit g g P thereafter, but without otherwise complying with this section. However, If the cost of repairing the tower to the former use, h sical dimensions, and PY , location would be 50% or more of the cost of a new tower of like kind and quality, then the tower may not be repaired or restored except in full P compliance with this section. All towers, monopoles, antennas and the like must obtain a building permit and are • gP subject to inspection by the city building official to determine compliance with construction standards. Any person who shall do or commit any act that is forbidden by the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. r AT I'EST: Thomas Melena City Administrator Passed: May 22, 2001 SECTION TWO. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By David Beaudet, Mayor From: Charles Hedlund [charleshedlund©qwest. net] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 6:15 PM To: jhultman @cityofoakparkheights.com O ubject: RE: Letter acknowledging acceptance of re- appointment • • Julie Hultman To: Julie /Kris /City Council From: Chuck Hedlund Subject: Re- appointment 1 here state my willingness to continue to serve on the Planning Commission of the City of Oak Park Heights. I acknowledge re- appointment. Thanks to everyone for your support and help. 1 ENCLOSURE .8 Meeting Date: May 22, 2001 Agenda Item Title: Planning Commission Vacancy Estimated Time Required: 5 Minutes Agenda Placement: New Business Originating Department/Requestor: Community Development Requester's Signature: Action Requested: Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action Accept Resignation /Authorize Advertising for Position 1 , Please be advised that we have received a letter of resignation from Planning Commissioner Ann Wasescha effective at the end of her three -year term. Ann has been a very valuable member of the Commission since its inception, and her presence will be missed by the City. While the term expires in May, Ann has expressed a willingness to continue to serve through June, 2001 to allow the City time to advertise for and identify a new commissioner. The City Council is requested to 1) accept Commissioner Wasescha's resignation, 2) allow a one -month extension to her term, and 3) authorize staff to begin advertising for the Planning Commission vacancy. • Please contact me with any questions you may have at 439 -4439. 2.. Administrative Recommendation: Approve Denial No Recommendation Comments: S:ISHARED\Forms\0OUNCIL ACTION REQUEST.doc May 1, 2001 David Beaudet, Mayor di City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N. PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 It is time for a shift in focus for my community efforts and thus my decision on re- appointment. will continue to follow the efforts of the commission and the city going forward and may step forward to become involved again in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to serve and thank you for the good work all of you are doing. Best regards, Ann M. Wasescha • Dear Dave: As the time approaches for the close of my three ear term on the planning commission Y p g cornmiss�on 1 need to inform you that 1 will not seek re- appointment to the commission at this time. This has been a very interesting and rewarding position for me. The city and the commission have Y a e wrestled with many issues during these three years and !have been leased to be involved ' p ed jn the process. cc: George Vogt — Planning Commission Chair -Cris Danielson, Comm. Dev. Director mcaoYE0 MAY - 7 ZOO MAY - 7 1 i Meeting Date: Agenda Item Title: Estimated Time Required: Agenda Placement: Originating Department/Requestor: Requester's Signature: Action Requested: The following advertising is taking place: to receive applications. Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action June 12, 2001 Planning Commission Vacancy Advertising 1 Minute Planning Community Development Receive Information Please be advised that we have begun advertising for the Planning Commission vacancy that was created when Commissioner Ann Wasescha completed her term in May 2001. • Announcement on cable access television Letters sent to past Commissioners and applicants for both Parks and Planning Notification on the City's website No applications have been received to date. 1 will continue to keep you informed as we begin Administrative Recommendation: Total Cost:: Budgeted: Budget: 40 Approve Denial No Recommendation Comments: S: \SHARED \Forms \COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST.doc • Central Business District The Central Business District has been created. To move forward ' d the City Council must approve when the following will be addressed: • Site Clean -up • Stormwater Ponding • Official Mapping of Roads • Grant/Funding Opportunities SEVEN GOALS FOR 2001— 2002 Disposition of Bell Property The Economic Development Authority has acquired • y q and cleared a parcel of land, which is now prepared for development. The Council will first determine what type yp of i development if any is to take place on this arcel. The next step ' p pis to actively seek a purchaser /developer for the property, if appropriate. ro riate. Funding and Completion of City Park in B • Boutwell 's Landing Project Area The Boutwell park area must be completed and developed this construction p struction season. The City Council will accept the Boutwell Park Area once the area has been completed and developed to meet the requirements of the development agreement p gr t and other laws. As outlined in the development agreement funds from the developer are available . p ailabie for a park shelter, additional City funds could be identified for the ark shelter ' p building. • Complete Well #3 The future of well #3 must be determined ie: use of present site vs. alternative sites. If alternative site is chosen, what happens to the p resent bore hole. Seal Coat All Remaining City Streets Seal coating is an annually scheduled project. However, in the past c J p couple of years the financial resources for this project has been used for other ro'ects p � .Through amended Council action a substantial portion of the city streets will undergo a seal ' Y g coating this construction season. With %2 of to be completed in 2001 and last 1/2 in 2002 Streetlights The City franchise agreement for streetlight maintenance and service with Xcel Energy will expire in a few years. The Council will determine if the City will re-franchise ' y franchise with Xcel Energy or if it will own its own lights. There are areas within the City that do not have streetlights or where streetlights are in need of improvement. The Council 1 will determine what will be done in these areas and set up a time table for upgrading. p pg g. Oakgreen Avenue Upgrade Oakgreen Avenue is a major arterial roadway within the St. Croix Y o x Valley. The City would like to support the County on working towards establishin g a time frame for an upgrade. The Council will want to ensure public safety for foot and bicycle traffic at both trail crossing and will continue to investigate options for school bus stop safety. p p ety. ENCLOSURE 9