01-25-2000w9A PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
January 25, 2000
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1999, Study Session December 21, 1999
and Planning Commission study session January 11, 2000.
Public Hearing
ITEM #1 00- APUD -1 7600 Lyndale Avenue
Lyndale Gateway Phase II - Amendment of the planned unit
development plan to allow a reconfiguration of the site to
accommodate drug store
ITEM #2 00 -CUP -1 7600 Lyndale Avenue
00 -FDP -1 Lyndale Gateway Phase II — conditional use permit for
retail /office development. Final development plan for
retail /office development.
ITEM #3 00 -CUP -2 6401 Lyndale Avenue
VFW — conditional use permit extension to allow continued
use of property as VFW club
ITEM #4 00 -CUP -3 6244 Cedar Avenue
Conditional use permit to add 15 feet to an existing 90 -foot
monopole
New Business
Old Business
Liaison Reports
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
Adjournment
Auxiliary aid for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861-9702".
wA Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
November 23, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund; Commissioners: David Gepner,
Bill Kilian, Daniel Linnihan, and Mark Tolvstad.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Ahlstrom
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Tom Foley, Engineering
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Mark Andrle, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bjorklund at 7:00
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Gepner made one correction to the October 26, 1999 minutes.
Commissioner Gepner's statement should read, Commissioner Gepner stated that the proposed
store meets all the conditions for the C -2 district, but he did have a concern with the definition of
the Montessori School.
M/ Linnihan, S/ Kilian to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of October 26, 1999.
Motion carried: 5 -0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
NEW BUSINESS
November 23, 1999
Page 2
PC Letter 431
ITEM #1 Annual Review of the City's Comprehensive Plan
Traffic Engineer Tom Foley, reviewed the transportation component of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Foley reviewed the community values regarding transportation, which
included attractive streets, bikeways, pedestrian bridge, and improvements to I -494.
Commissioner Kilian asked how will the improvements to I -494 help Richfield. Mr.
Foley stated that when the freeway system doesn't work people will get off at Richfield and use
the side streets as alternative routes.
Mr. Foley reviewed the community goals related to transportation which include
expanded and improved accessibility, bike routes, tunnel at 77`h Street and Cedar, and Portland
and 66"' Street improvements.
Mr. Foley reviewed the schedule for several transportation projects, new bus routes,
sidewalk improvements and traffic calming projects.
Commissioner Kilian asked if the Comprehensive Plan addresses increased traffic to
areas near a redevelopment project that normally didn't experience high volumes of traffic
before the redevelopment. Planning and Zoning Administrator Julie Urban stated that the
Comprehensive Plan does cover increased traffic volumes and it is looked at during the review
process. The Commission asked that staff provide more detailed traffic information in staff
reports and that some stronger language be added to the Comprehensive Plan relating to the need
to review traffic impacts from new developments.
PC Letter #32
ITEM #2 Annual Review of the Zoning Ordinance
Ms. Urban presented four ordinances that need to be reviewed or amended by the
Commission.
Ms. Urban reviewed a possible ordinance change that would prohibit gas stations from
locating adjacent to single family zoned property. The Commission discussed having a gas
station within 300 feet of a school and required to be located on an arterial street. Commissioner
Kilian stated that a daycare should be considered the same as a school if that is the
establishment's sole activity. Chairperson Bjorklund stated that the definition of a school needs
to be expanded and that staff should write up an amendment that would limit gas stations from
locating adjacent to residential property.
November 23, 1999
Page 3
Ms. Urban reviewed the ordinance requiring frost footings for detached garages adjacent
to principal dwellings. The Commission discussed changing the ordinance to not require frost
footings on detached garages within ten feet of the principal building.
Ms. Urban reviewed the ordinance for building additions, stating that staff has received
complaints about the appearance of a residential building addition. The complaint specifically
referred to an attached garage with a barn -like roof.
The Commission discussed the need for a design review for large additions, whether or
not cubic feet would be a useful measure, if the addition should be required to be portional to the
existing house and that detached garage rules should still apply to attached garages. They asked
staff to bring back possible ordinance changes.
Ms. Urban reviewed the overlay zoning. The Commission may want to consider overlay
zoning provisions in some of the City's commercial areas. The Commission asked staff to bring
more detailed information the idea.
Commissioner Linnihan stated that the Commission agreed to meet with the Richfield
Chamber of Commerce twice a year. The Commissioners discussed having an open forum
where business owners can come and tell the Commission there thoughts and ideas.
Larry Wozniska stated that the Commission should look at ways to keep businesses that
are in a redevelopment area in Richfield. He also recommended that the Commission review its
planned unit development (PUD) ordinance, as it relates to allowable setbacks. Ms. Urban stated
that she will review other cities' PUD ordinances and report back to the Commission.
OLD BUSINESS
None
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: None
Community Services Advisory Commission: None
HRA: Commissioner Gepner reported that some bonding has been put off because of
fears of Y2K and that the buy out of the homeowners on Garfield has been delayed.
City Council: Mayor Kirsch reported that they had a hearing regarding the 66`" Street
and Hwy. 77 improvements.
November 23, 1999
Page 4
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m.
Brenda Bjorklund
Acting Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
Study Session
December 21, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom,
David Gepner, Bill Kilian, Daniel Linnihan, and Mark Tolvstad.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Perry Thorvig, Community Development Specialist
Mark Andrle, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bjorklund at 7:00
p.m.
PC Letter #33
ITEM #1 Update on Development of Master Plan for Cedar
Avenue /Airport Area
Perry Thorvig, Community Development Specialist, updated the Commission on the
Cedar Avenue /Airport area and stated that there will be three public open houses held on January
8th, 11th,
and 13th. Mr. Thorvig reviewed the format of the open house which will include several
information stations where residents can ask question and give comments.
Commissioner Kilian stated that the format of the open house may need to be changed
depending on the findings of the noise report.
Kent Carlson of Ryan Companies, presented several proposed land use plans for the
corridor which showed retail and office space to the east of the corridor and new housing to the
west. Plans showed green space along the corridor with a new park on the north end and smaller
parks mixed in along the entire corridor.
Commissioner Kilian stated that there should be better access to the freeway at the south
end of the corridor, which could include opening Bloomington Avenue to the freeway.
Commissioner Linnihan stated that one concept plan shows some homes on Bloomington
being taken for the project. He stated that because people have been told that homes on
Bloomington will not be involved, the plans shouldn't show any homes being taken unless there
is a real intent to take those homes.
December 14, 1999
Page 2
The Commission then discussed parking at the retail /office area of the proposed plans.
The Commission stated that there was too much area used for parking and suggested that a two
level parking ramp may be a better use which could create more green space in the corridor.
The Commission then discussed ways to keep existing businesses in the area during
redevelopment. Mr. Thorvig stated that many of the business are already in the process of
relocating because of the improvements to Hwy. 77.
Mr. Carlson stated that right now the critical thing is to get some funding for the project.
Once one stage of the project is complete it may be easier to get funding for the remaining
stages.
Commissioner Kilian stated that the new runway is scheduled to be operational in three
years. The redevelopment of the corridor may take as long as 10 years and that people need to
be aware that they will be living in the corridor with the noise for a period of time.
Mr. Thorvig stated that he will prepare a memo to the Commission with the results of the
open house.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:15 p.m.
Terry Ahlstrom
Planning Commission Secretary
djA Planning Commission Minutes
Study Session
January 11, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund; Commissioners: John Bjostad,
Donna Drummond, David Gepner, Gordon Hanson, Bill Kilian,
Daniel Linnihan, and Mark Tolvstad.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Ahlstrom
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Stark, Community Development Manager
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairperson Linnihan at
7:09 p.m.
Following introductions, staff and the Planning Commissioners provided an orientation
and training for the three new Commissioners. The items reviewed were as follows:
Role of the Planning Commission
Commission Activities and Common Terms
Explanation of City review process
Overview of City projects
Overview of Lyndale Gateway project
Upcoming items
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:05 p.m.
David Gepner
Acting Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Letter
January 25, 2000
Agenda Section: Public hearing
Item #: 1
Letter #:
Case #: 00- APUD -1
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Amendment to the planned unit development plan for the Lyndale
Gateway development to allow a reconfiguration of the building
layout in the commercial phase.
Applicant /Owner: CSM Corporation
Location: 76th and Lyndale Avenue, between Aldrich and Lyndale Avenues
and 76th and 77th Streets
Zoning: PC -2 (planned general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Commercial and single family residential
Proposed Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Community Commercial
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 536.01 -05; 536.21
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public
hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350
feet of the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of February 14, 2000.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: CSM Corporation has secured Walgreen's as a tenant in phase II of the
Lyndale Gateway PUD. Walgreen's has agreed to be a tenant on the condition
that the site plan be redesigned according to their prototype specifications.
The changes required by Walgreen's are as follows:
Reorient the entrance from the northeast to the southeast corner.
Reorient the drive - through from the west to the north side of the building.
Provide a double row of parking on the south side of the building in
addition to the double row of parking on the east side of the building.
History: On September 13, 1999, the City Council approved a planned unit
development (PUD) plan for the Lyndale Gateway development (See
Attachment A). The PUD plan consists of three phases: phase I includes 160
units of senior housing and office space, phase II includes retail and office
space, and phase III includes 40 townhome units.
Issues: • The proposed changes could be construed as contrary to the original goals
of the redevelopment plan for the area, so staff has required a review of the
redesign and amendment to the PUD plan.
The redesign was reviewed by Michael Schroeder from Hoisington
Koegler Group, the consultants who assisted the City in preparing the
redevelopment plan for the area. Mr. Schroeder made several design
suggestions to help make the revised site plan more consistent with the
original concept for the area. These suggestions include making a
pedestrian connection between the two buildings, making a direct
pedestrian connection from Lyndale Avenue to the Walgreen's entrance,
use a plaza -like design to emphasize this connection, and create a second
streetfront adjacent to the Walgreen's building on the east side by
incorporating street trees, wide sidewalk, and street lights. These changes
have been incorporated into the design. Mr. Schroeder also recommended
that real windows be used on the building elevations and used for retail
display purposes. Real windows will be used in the design; however, it is
unlikely, at this time, that Walgreen's will change the interior layout and
function of the store to create retail displays in the window areas.
The three PUD phases are intertwined and each phase is dependent upon
the other occurring. If phase II does not occur or is delayed by the
inability to secure Walgreen's as a tenant, the first and third phases may be
delayed or cancelled.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for an
amendment planned unit development plan for phase II of the Lyndale
Gateway PUD plan with the following stipulations:
1. That the design changes recommended by Michael Schroeder, from
HKGi, be incorporated into the final development plan.
Basis: 1. With the recommended design changes, the proposed site design can
be considered consistent with the redevelopment design concept.
2. The inclusion of a Walgreen's in the development accomplishes the
redevelopment concept goal of providing neighborhood retail.
3. The three PUD phases are intertwined and each phase is dependent
upon the other occurring. If phase II does not occur or is delayed by
the inability to secure Walgreen's as a tenant, the first and third
phases may be delayed or cancelled.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for an amended
planned unit development plan with a finding of fact that the proposed
design is inconsistent with the redevelopment plan for the area.
a
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
536.01. Planned Unit Developments. Subdivision 1. This Section 536 applies to planned unit
development zoning districts.
Subd. 2. Planned unit development defined. A planned unit development is a development of
land that is under unified control and is planned and developed as a whole in a single
development operation or in a programmed series of development stages. The development
may include streets, circulation ways, utilities, buildings, open spaces, and other site features
and improvements. A planned unit development is built according to a detailed final
development plan, as approved by the City Council.
Subd. 3. Short name. The term "planned unit development" may be referred to as PUD in
this code.
Subd. 4. Definition: original district. As used in this Section, the term "original district"
means the zoning district from which land is proposed to be rezoned to a PUD.
Subd. 5. Purposes. The purposes of this section are to:
a) provide for the establishment of PUD zoning districts where appropriate;
b) provide a means of flexibility to the strict application of the land use regulations in
this code, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety,
comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City and its
residents;
c) promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at
the same time, encouraging superior design and construction materials;
d) allow greater intensities and wider varieties in the types of environment available to
City residents;
e) preserve and enhance natural features and open space;
f) improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; and
g) provide transitions in land use in keeping with the character of adjacent land uses.
Subd. 6. Departure from original district regulations. The various zoning regulations and
requirements (e.g., use, building setback, height) which apply to the original district should be
considered as guidelines and may be departed from in the approval of any PUD to accomplish
the purposes described in Subd. 5 of this Subsection.
536.03. Unified control. A planned unit development shall be in a single ownership or under the
management and supervision of a central authority, or otherwise subject to such long -term leases or
other ownership controls as the Council deems necessary.
i--3
536.05. Integrated design. A PUD shall consist of a harmonious selection of uses in groupings of
buildings, services, parking areas, traffic and pedestrian circulation and open spaces, and shall be
planned and designed as an integrated unit.
536.21. Compliance with the PUD plan and final development plan. Subdivision 1. Chances. The
development of a PUD district shall be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan, final
development plan, and conditional use permit. Compliance shall not be considered substantial if there
is:
a) more than ten percent change in floor area in any one structure;
b) more than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings;
c) any change in the original approved setbacks from property lines;
d) more than five percent change in the ground area covered by the building;
or
e) any change in the ratio of off - street parking and loading space to gross floor
area.
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
0
0
I
0
o
i
I
i
I
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
37M .:ail
I
fiJ.'.. u• 7'11 /1 [
i I '
I i
I i
I
I
I
I--
I
w n
Y
Ya
N
I
i
9 R
I
F-_— —_— I --
I I • '
r i rrrr•r • •
I I
o0
0
W
w
I
Q
3:
w'
Q
ry
o Z
w
Z -W
J JZo
wow
Wj 0
0 w
0
i-i
m
rn
4
s
N
w
d
d
Nc
AQ
k
VlOS3NNe1 32
9YLiptenQ AMAN pnd am
I—S 1N3MdO13AZ(13H
AtlM3J,V`J ••..•'•• W
L33HISHIVn
1 7
t, 1 I V11 I -1— 11?*.
1
RI• ` I I ( I I I I ' I I I I I
I 1 sl
Yd i6 : — ., 1 •
np,.•oo I I _ ' .
oi.n d I
I —. —._
t ........
t
ICI
Ttte eIe
YaYr;
g d ate£'
B =Fg n 8 " .:d I ICI •I _I i
3s•$ • I ICI I I IS i
S ?
Y
Y;} d iy?En[ I •I 1
IId EI I 1
g ffij
1
IN,
1 I
3 Rr r } 4
eli ii
ffc . [
q: ( ^. ` {
i
I I ti I i I I ( I • I
1 Z
a 3 l I (I 7 ,4e I I
I' -. `
I ...
r.,... _ -ni I '•I I
1 i 1
iB it -
3'
FIY
Ili
q Nae I
I
z
I
I
9t•i y l t 4 e i d
1 7
t, 1 I V11 I -1— 1 1?*.
1
RI• ` I I ( I I I I ' I I I I I
I 1 sl
Yd i6 : — ., 1 •
np,.•oo I I _ ' .
oi.n d I
I —. —._
t ........
t
ICI
Ttte eIe
YaYr;
g d ate£'
B =Fg n 8 " .:d I ICI •I _I i
3s•$ • I ICI I I IS i
S ?
Y
Y;} d iy?En[ I •I 1
IId EI I 1
g ffij
1
IN,
1 I
3 Rr r } 4
eli ii
ffc . [
q: ( ^. ` {
i
I I ti I i I I ( I • I
1 Z
a 3 l I (I 7 ,4e I I
I' -. `
I ...
r.,... _ -ni I '•I I
1 i 1
iB it -
3'
i
u FIY
Ili
q Nae I
I iI
I
i
u FIY
i
i
i
1
Ad
Agenda Section
Item #:
Letter #:
Case #:
Planning Commission Letter
January 25, 2000
Public hearing
2
00- FDP -1; 00 -CUP -1
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Final development plan and conditional use permit for phase II of the
Lyndale Gateway planned unit development (PUD) plan
Applicant /Owner: CSM Corporation
Location: 76th and Lyndale, between Aldrich and Lyndale Avenues and 76th
and 77th Streets
Zoning: PC -2 (planned general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Commercial and single family residential
Proposed Land Use: Retail and office
Comp. Plan: Community Commercial/Office
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 536.15; 536.19
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public
hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350
feet of the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of February 14, 2000.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: CSM Corporation is requesting approval of the final development plan and
conditional use permit for phase II of the Lyndale Gateway PUD plan.
Phase II consists of a drug store of 15,120 square feet on the south end of the
site, an office /retail building of 28,903 square feet on the north end, and 220
total parking stalls.
a-(
History: The City Council approved a PUD plan for the entire PUD on September 13,
1999. An amendment to the original PUD plan is item #1 on the Planning
Commission agenda for January 25, 2000.
Phase I of the PUD plan consists of 160 units of senior housing and office
space and Phase III of the PUD consists of 40 townhome -style housing units.
Issues: Building Design: The north building is designed to give the appearance of
separate but integrated buildings. The primary entrances to the building are on
the west and south sides, although the design on Lyndale does not look like
it's a back entrance. The central portion of the building has the appearance of
a two -story structure. Although it will not be used as a second story at this
time, the building will be able to structurally accommodate a second story in
the future. The design of the drug store building is designed to coordinate
with the other buildings in the PUD and is not that of a corporate prototype.
Parking and Access: 220 parking stalls are provided for the development for
a ratio of five stalls per 1,000 square feet. The City requires a ratio of four
spaces per 1,000 square feet or 172 stalls. Eighteen stalls (8 %) will be
compact stalls. Full access is provided off of 76th Street. Right -in, right -out
access is provided from 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Left -in access is
also available on Lyndale Avenue. Dedicated turn lanes will be constructed
on both 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 76th Street will be converted to
three lanes for one block on either side of Lyndale Avenue with a dedicated
left turn lane in the center lane.
Landscaping: The streetscape landscaping will be constructed by the City on
both sides of Lyndale Avenue. Landscaping on the site will coordinate with
the streetscape design. On the west side of the development, a buffer of
evergreens and deciduous trees, will be provided on top of a berm. The
developer will attempt to preserve some of the existing boulevard trees on
Aldrich Avenue where possible. The trees and plantings currently located at
the end of the screen wall, near Lyndale Avenue, will be replaced at the new
end of the screen wall at Aldrich Avenue. An aluminum fence with brick
columns will be provided around the drug store end of the site to screen the
double rows of parking.
Pedestrian Connections: Pedestrian connections are provided throughout the
site from building to building and from Lyndale Avenue into the development.
Accommodations will be provided in the streetscape for transit users.
Lighting: The final lighting plan is being developed to coordinate with the
lighting plan for the streetscape. The lighting fixtures will be the same as are
being used at Woodlake Centre and will be used throughout the Lakes at
Lyndale area.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a final
development plan and conditional use permit for phase II of the
Lyndale Gateway PUD with the following stipulations:
1. That a final stormwater management plan be approved by the
Public Works Director.
2. That a final landscape plan be approved by the Community
Development Director and a landscape escrow be submitted.
3. That a signage plan be approved by the Community Development
Director.
4. That a final sediment and erosion control plan, including tree
protection specifications, be approved by the Public Works
Director.
5. That a specific plan for removal of the sound wall be approved by
the Public Works Director.
6. That a lighting plan be submitted and approved by the Community
Development Director with lighting fixtures to coordinate with
those provided by the City in the streetscape.
Basis: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Community Commercial /Office.
2. The proposed final development is generally consistent with the
design guidelines of The Lyndale Gateway: A redevelopment plan
and study.
3. The proposed parking is adequate for the needs of the proposed
uses.
4. Accommodations are made for pedestrian access, bicycle storage
and transit usage.
5. Significant landscaping will be provided including a bermed buffer
yard along the west side of the parking lot.
6. Trash will be screened with an enclosure behind the south building
and trash will be kept inside the north building.
7. Approval of the FDP /CUP will enable all three phases of the PUD
to continue forward.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a final
development plan and conditional use permit for phase II of the
Lyndale Gateway PUD with a finding of fact that the proposal would
have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a
whole.
3
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
536.19. Final development plan and conditional use permit. Subdivision 1. Upon approval of the
PUD application and rezoning, but prior to the commencement of any construction or development of
land, an applicant shall submit a final development plan, together with an application for a conditional
use permit for the development shown in the final development plan, which is consistent with the PUD
application. Approval of such final development plan and conditional use permit requires a two - thirds
vote of the Council.
Subd. 2. A final development plan shall consist of the following:
a) if required, a final plat of the land to be developed;
b) all materials required under Section 536.15, Subd. 6 of this code in "final" form;
and .
c) additional information as required by the Director or Council.
536.15. PUD application. Subdivision 1. Required materials. Upon completion of the required
actions in Subsection 536.13 of this code, an applicant for a PUD shall submit the application materials
outlined in this Subsection.
Subd. 6. Site plan materials:
a) a site plan indicating the boundaries, dimensions, and area of the proposed PUD
district;
b) a preliminary plan showing the location, dimensions, and gross floor area of
proposed structures;
c) a preliminary plan showing the proposed land use(s) for each parcel and each
building, the amount of floor area devoted to each use, and all areas to be designated
for mixed land uses allowed by Subsection 536. 11, Subd. 3 of this code;
d) a preliminary plan showing the location, arrangement, and number of parking
spaces, loading facilities, and mass transit facilities including bus turnouts and
shelters;
e) a preliminary plan showing the location and dimension of all curb cuts and
driveways, and their relationship to all existing and proposed public streets;
f) the proposed location, design, and dimension of pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
walks, skyways, plazas, courts or other related areas;
g) preliminary building plans, elevations, general specifications of materials, and
unusual structural systems, prepared by an architect registered in the State of
Minnesota;
a -v
h) a preliminary land /building use profile including computations of gross /leaseable
square footage, housing unit breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, persons /unit, and
parking requirements;
i) a preliminary storm water management plan and site grading plan including an
analysis of the adequacy of surface drainage, storm sewer and catch basin drainage,
storm water retention, and erosion control;
j) a preliminary plan depicting natural features and natural features to be preserved, as
well as existing vegetation with detailed locations of trees 12" or larger in diameter;
k) a preliminary utility 'plan showing easements, sewer, water, and power services to
all proposed uses;
1) a preliminary plan showing utilities and utility easements to remain, to be installed,
to be. relocated, and to be removed or vacated;
m) a preliminary plan showing the proposed location and dimensions of all walls, fences
and landscape plantings;
n) a plan showing the proposed location and dimensions of all signs and lighting
fixtures, including the illumination characteristics of all lighting;
o) a soils map that depicts surface and subsurface conditions that may affect
construction; and
p) additional information as required by the Director.
ViOUNNIM '01313HOld
IV"[ Mane AVIAn RVId BLIS
IN3PldOl3A3G38
AVAUVO
L33H.LSN[Vfq
E---,
z
E-
E-
D D
V) 0)
E- 0)
E-,
zw
E— E-
1j;
E—
ll;lb
H
HM
co
53
E-
0
Z
let
E-
z
m
M3 TT oY MIR
0
E---,
z
E-
E-
D D
V) 0)
E- 0)
E-,
zw
E— E-
1j; ll;lbll;lb
co
E-
m
02 9 e el 6 WAS
5
GC 9.h n i 13 wig 81,H869
al
R
ff. 's 3ddWo.a 4. Sidi
is
wv *31 galhi 1.1-
aMh
VIOS31'4N IW 'Q l3IJHJ I 1j gs
W.LL W911S M3IA3H N%qd 31IS
INMdO13AMM
fp!
L33211 SNl1 i r r r E
441
fp!
A
Grp . R
o Lj
LOT ,5 I
Iw
760)
GY14fE .. I. ,•
p1Y LOT 1
6tS (
1 LOT 14
407 2 •' ' `
tl 1
3 Iwo . - -- ,
616
LOT ,? . ...
LOT _ .a —
LOT 12
BUILDING -
1
LOT i
ul
ic „ 7627 LO ,
LOT
ol 10
LOT 9 : '
LOT i
f
c,kncc ' _
Sk
i
a
LOT r p •, ..
LOT 8
77TH p.EET
TO BE DSMAMD
y
77ni Sfl f
l-
n
i c.
1TT-
T -1Jl -1 T T
er
W Li i
k
J
ih
69COL Fa44 \1013 So•
ViOS3NNIn 'alISM318
v"mong AVIASV HVId SLIS
LN3VId0I3A343H
Ws.
L33HISNIV14
Ali
uL
I W
f
vto53NNrvr'a3313N318
lV"l118118 A81A88 NV9d 9t18 'x fI9
J,N3WdOl3A3432i "sue f;-
k i $
1338J,SN I V M s
Ly+j
3
eEd ' §CEO °
AMA!
a
Y
j L
tYt,
pp4
Y 4;
3LL
B11 3: 30
ss Yc'22 Y ;
xutE::En::
age
e
3
I
IL>_tr
I'
lalI
I
ILUI
IJIIQI
jZ I
ICI
Iill
I ?
I
D.
n>
Sn I
s,
I
I
I
I
x;. I
I
I$
r
I
IW..liiiiv m
aa..o.ii l : —
r:P.-, m WE 1RLEI
R I R
It
i
tz
LU
Z
LU
U
Q
i
pax
q
V1053NNIW '0131.1RlH
C` (
j,'
iruixene Aar!naa N"w 8418
J,33a,tsNtvw
r.
1 I
x
e
x
B sa
W
a
u x
a a
In
N
if1p
h
ui
6L—Lfl
co LU a
r.
1 I
x
e
x
B sa
W
a
u x
a a
In
N
if1p
h
S
Rl#
g$o
r
s.,
h 6L—Lfl
co LU a
VlOS3NNiY1M'
O131lHJRI:Y
vu mana tainaa NvIa gals x i f.
J,N3Wd0l3A3Q32I
A tl M 3 y tl 0 •.,...d.. a
iI
LSZHISNIVM ti
l
E11 ._33
ILU Lr \ •
ti
AW
Toyj$ F "egv Y P4 H.,N! IZ
y /I 8
r
c
li
II
4;a'. 1.') I
v`',", t
4 LiI ' r
D
I
Ate.
s
I j
1 EZ11S Hi -L2) L
a-lo
sya -aa
ra]mc
a
raa^s
na n
444
Ft•
E
If !
k i a
isa y6
df e
r g5t
or.6 c
3.
pgydp$.
ss
d o 3 "si :cis
tL f'B3 d
a-lo
sya -aa
ra]mc
a
3bd6
1n:3n
444
tEet
If !
pa isa y6
r. ..a
r g5t
3.
pgydp$.
ss
d o 3 "si :cis
a-lo
sya -aa
ra]mc
a
3bd6
1n:3n
444
N
r. ..a
r g5t
3.
pgydp$.
ss
d o 3 "si :cis
a-lo
y:'
V10S3NNIA'01313H31a
J IUM"ons A81Aita N"d Uls ij
IN3Wd0'I3Ams
AVM3d,VJ .,,•..,. °a tesa f B
L3321J,SN I V ii
dt®
etl1t
6lo
16 ;
1
@
dd
6 N i
5 mJ
titiIt9
ppt
s
iiiI
jj
t
V l OS3NNIY1 'al31lH3RI
9V"lN8n8 A81ABH NVU 9t18
A V M3,L V 0 •,.••a•• Ins,
J1332IJ,SNIVW
g-•
g
z
J
W
W
J
I-
LL
d `lA
z
J
W
W
J
I-
LL
d `lA
C 43
OS3NNIW'01313HOIN
A91A2H NYId 2LIS
AdM31,d0
L33H.LSNI V)l
vl
liviAlN9n6
LN3
i i of
l Tpi
pT
g
z
vl
liviAlN9n6
LN3
i i of
l Tpi
pT
g
zz
V 1053NNIn 'al3l3H01M
9V"IN8A19 AHIAVV NVId 9i18
ronnm n ra+r
11
J,N3Wd073A3a38
AVA31VJ - !j ... d
133HISNIVW
iV' 11
n acL
IEL .ji
E
lo; ailfryl i 6 Gr Cd c
iV' 11
n acL
IEL .ji
E
1ViOS3NN :11 id4H')
f
Lunans A%3L,,3a %rld 3115
00
0
m
CC I-- M
zl Z Z
0
uj
a. UL
W 76TH STREET
7T
7
Cz. A L
LU
7'
I<
IN
Ell
I I 1 11 1 bf
17 -
co
111M
W 77TH STREET
c>C — / (49
I
Ck I /
VIDS31,1NIN 'G-131JH3'.d E
L e
1; S A31A3H Nrld 3115
IRI1 I I
f5
x :
I n i
On.
13321 Lti IV IV
Ar
1.
1,
E
L e
1; q
IRI1 I I
f5
x :
I n i
W 76TH STREET
IF
1
7 z
IAl.
Lit
W 7 STREET=.._
LU
I.- z
00
i
B H
Z
Ott
Z Z0
uj CC
cc 0
CL U.
Nil
gig I - it Ito1% si I .
Illm ; lit I
i pig I .
9 11
I
W 76TH STREET
n!
7
IF
1
7 z
IAl.
Lit
W 7 STREET=.._
LU
I.- z
00
i
B H
Z
Ott
Z Z0
uj CC
cc 0
CL U.
Nil
gig I - it Ito1% si I .
Illm ; lit I
i pig I .
9 11
I
i1'LUIN9P_S M3L138 tSNld 311S
Zh3iVd0'I3A3Q3N 'a jiii "s
EE °
jltt s• -
Z ZS INI'U f E ltjiit; Ire i, o, 6 8
j
c °
r r- .....
Z
U
t
Q f!f
Z_ ZU)
J
W cr
cr
a a LL
c tCgy
Uav F Q
o
gat
z cc
m
i
1
b
t
Y
gg
5
y
O) '.
Rt
o b3 •:r. ;
ire
cc
bi a z- i •
N tl8 q i V 3S 7'y i
Of tj
g9
o$
m
T
p -
gg
1t
Ytl3
4
tl6LJ -Ll_
ey
I
J
I
l !!
0 qFQ tl5pfQT1 -r T-
F_d - - 2
GGyyII +
J -L+- yy gg
1J_Ll_
rrT- :ai aKY i
r }
3.1a
a a m
c bl
x
cz
cz
5
3
i
i
i
0 Planning Commission Letter
MAO
January 25, 2000
Agenda Section: Public hearing
Item #: 3
Letter #:
Case #: 00 -CUP -2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Extension of a temporary conditional use permit
Applicant /Owner: VFW Post 5555
Location: 6401 Lyndale Avenue South
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Commercial
Proposed Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Community Commercial
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 546.05, Subds. 4 and 6
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public
hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350
feet of the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of February 14, 2000.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The VFW is requesting an extension to their temporary conditional use permit
to allow them to continue operating the club at 6401 Lyndale Avenue until
their new facility is completed in September, 2000. The permit would be
extended until December 31 to allow for any unexpected construction delays.
3
3-1
History: On September 28 , 1998 , the City Council approved a temporary conditional
use permit for the VFW to use the facility at 6401 Lyndale for a temporary
club facility while their new facility is being constructed on Lake Shore Drive,
adjacent to the Gramercy Park Cooperative. The CUP was approved with an
expiration date of February 14, 2000. At the time the CUP was requested, the
developer anticipated completing construction of the VFW facility by that
time. Construction on the Gramercy Park Cooperative is now scheduled to be
complete in the Fall of 2000. The VFW is requesting an extension to the
temporary CUP until the new facility is completed.
Issues: Staff have not received any complaints about the facility in its temporary
location.
The VFW and the property owner worked with the other-businesses in the
center to provide designated parking spaces for existing businesses to
alleviate their concerns about parking constraints.
Traffic was raised as an issue at the Planning Commission hearing in
1998. Staff reviewed traffic counts in the area and found counts well
within normal numbers for residential streets. The City has focused its
traffic calming efforts in neighborhoods with 2,000 + cars a day on
residential streets. Traffic counts in this neighborhood showed counts of
470 cars at 65th and Grand, 266 cars on 64th Street east of the shopping
center entrance, and 258 cars at 67th and Pleasant.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a temporary
conditional use permit at 6401 Lyndale Avenue with the following
stipulations:
1. That the permit expire on December 31, 2000 or at such time that
the VFW relocates to a different facility, whichever is sooner.
Basis: 1. Use of the site is temporary; a new facility is in the process of being
constructed. The schedule for completing construction has changed
since the temporary CUP was issued.
2. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Community
Commercial; the proposed club facility is consistent with this
designation.
3. The proposed facility meets zoning performance standards;
adequate parking is available; a trash enclosure currently screens the
dumpster; and the parking lot was recently reconstructed in
compliance with City standards.
4. Traffic issues in the area were reviewed and found to be
significantly below levels at which traffic calming is needed.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional
use permit extension at 6401 Lyndale Avenue with a finding of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
3a
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 546 -ZONING: ADMINISTRATION
546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in
any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP)
from the City pursuant to this subsection.
Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt-of a completed application, a date shall
be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer
whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the
Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the
application.
Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless
it finds that all of the following conditions will be met:
a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or
urban design guidelines;
c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards
specified in Section 541 of this code;
d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements;
e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare;
and
f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and
g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for
the granting of such conditional use permit.
1
1
t s ' 0 . r•jtE
still
c fflt
tjs gEil.g; ",
gt
t +af
t tEt;tEl.
i •,Ete a'F,i,,a.
g iigg a 6 4 a
r rte. .a .e • - ,. .. •«
N- --U — TT - --1
i 12 • 1 ;
11
1
W A L a 11dNQ
Y
O L
O t I
U) •
77
i
EI
1
o !?
p J
p O
fl
r n
A .
1
1 I
9 aA -
Q
VIP l "
1
a .,c
O \.
w
W
1
1
t s ' 0 . r•jtE
still
c fflt
tjs gEil.g; ",
gt
t +af
t tEt;tEl.
i •,Ete a'F,i,,a.
g iigg a 6 4 a
r rte. .a .e • - ,. .. •«
N- --U — TT - --1
i 12 • 1 ;
11
1
W A L a 11dNQ
Y
O L
O t I
U) •
77
i
EI
1
o !?
p J
p O
fl
r n
A .
1
1 I
9 aA -
Q
VIP l "
1
a .,c
O \.
w
MAN
Agenda Section:
Item #:
Case #:
Planning Commission Letter
January 25, 2000
Public Hearing
4
00 -CUP -3
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Amended conditional use permit to allow an additional 15 feet to be
added to an existing 90 -foot monopole
Applicant /Owner: AT &T Wireless Services
Location: 6244 Cedar Avenue South
Zoning: C -2
Existing Land Use: Commercial /utility
Proposed Land Use: No change
Comp. Plan: Quasi - public utility
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 546.05, Subds. 4 and 6
City Code: 426
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public
hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350
feet of the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of February 14, 2000.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: AT &T Wireless Services is requesting an amendment to a conditional use
permit to allow them to increase the height of an existing commercial wireless
telecommunications tower from 90 feet to 105 feet. U.S. West currently has
three sets of antennas on the tower. There is no room for additional antennas
at a sufficient height on the existing tower.
History: On July 14, 1997, the City Council awarded a conditional use permit to U.S.
Westto construct a 90 -foot monopole on the U.S. West property at 6244
Cedar Avenue.
Issues: • The City's ordinance requires a setback distance between a tower and the
nearest residential use of 1.5 times the height of the tower (158 feet for a
105 -foot tower). The nearest residential use is approximately 400 feet
from the tower.
An approximately 300 square foot equipment shelter will be constructed to
the east of the tower. Approximately four parking spaces will be
eliminated for the equipment shelter. The site currently has more than
adequate parking to absorb the loss of four stalls. Seventy -five parking
spaces are provided; 47 spaces are required.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for an amended
conditional use permit at 6244 Cedar Avenue with the following
stipulation:
1. That the building materials for the equipment shelter match the
principal building.
Basis: 1. Federal law requires City to make reasonable accommodation for
commercial wireless telecommunication facilities.
2. The City's ordinance encourages co- location whenever possible to
avoid new tower construction.
3. The proposed loss of parking would have minimal impact on the
provision of parking.
4. The exterior materials of the proposed equipment shelter would
match that of the existing principal building.
5. The tower meets setback requirements.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional
use permit amendment at 6244 Cedar Avenue with a finding of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
qa
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 546 -ZONING: ADMINISTRATION
546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in
any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP)
from the City pursuant to this subsection.
Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall
be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer
whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the
Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the
application.
Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless
it finds that all of the following conditions will be met:
CITY CODE:
a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or
urban design guidelines;
c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards
specified in Section 541 of this code;
d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements;
e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare;
and
f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and
g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for
the granting of such conditional use permit.
Section 426 - Public commercial wireless telecommunication
services antennas and towers
Added, Bill No. 1996 -21)
426.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the safe installation and usage of
public commercial wireless telecommunication services (CWTS) towers and antennas. The provisions of this section
are intended to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community, while providing for well designed and
efficient telecommunications systems. The provisions are intended to minimize the adverse visual effects of towers
through careful design and siting standards, to avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through
structural standards and setback requirements, and to maximize the use of existing towers and buildings to
accommodate antennas and reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community.
426.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section and the zoning code of the city, the terms defined
in this subsection have the meanings given them.
q-3
Subd. 2. "Commercial wireless telecommunication services" means any licensed telecommunication services
including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized
mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the public.
Subd. 3. "CWTS antenna" means any structure or device which transmits and receives electromagnetic
waves, including but not limited to directional antennas such as panels, microwave dishes, satellite dishes, and omni-
directional antennas.
Subd. 4. "CWTS tower" means any pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof, including supporting lines,
cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus above
grade, for the purpose of provide CWTS to the public.
526.05. Location. Subdivision 1. The requirements in this subsection apply to CWTS towers and antennas erected,
constricted, placed, re- erected or replaced in the city.
Subd. 2. CWTS towers and related equipment shall be allowed in the following zoning districts with a
conditional use pen-nit:
a) C -2, C -3, MR -3 and I districts;
b) R district on church, park, government, school, utility and institutional sites; and
c) Planned unit development districts as approved in the final development plan.
Subd. 3. CWTS towers and related equipment in the C -2, C -3, MR -3 and I districts shall be allowed in the
rear yard and in an interior side yard provided that the side yard property line abuts another commercially or
industrially zoned property.
Subd. 4. CWTS towers and related equipment in the R district, as conditionally permitted in Subd. 2(b) shall
be allowed only in the rear yards.
Subd. 5. CWTS antennas shall be allowed as an accessory use in the following zoning districts:
a) MR -3, C -1, C -2, C -3 and I districts;
b) R district on church, park, government, school, utility and institutional sites; and
c) Planned unit development districts with administrative approval by the community
426.07. CWTS tower performance standards. Subdivision 1. These perfonmance standards apply to any CWTS tower
that is erected, constructed, placed, re- erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city.
Subd. 2. Minimum setback requirements:
a) Towers in the C -2, C -3, MR -3 and I districts shall meet the setback requirements for an accessory
structure for the underlying district.
b) Towers in the R district shall meet the setback requirements for a non - residential accessory structure
for the underlying district.
c) In addition to the setback requirements in Section 426.07, Subd. 2(a) and (b), towers in the C -2, C -3,
I and R districts shall have a separation from properties devoted to residential uses equal to 1.5 times the height of the
tower. Measurements shall be taken from the tower to the nearest lot line.
d) In addition to the setback requirements in section 426.07, subdivision 2(a), towers in the MR -3
district shall have a separation from adjacent properties devoted to residential uses, measured to the property line, equal
to 1.5 times the height of the tower. Further, the tower shall have a separation from any multi - family residential
structure that exists on the property in the MR -3 district on which the tower is located equal to 1.5 times the height of
the tower.
e) The city council, at its discretion, may reduce the required setback or separation to allow the
integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure or feature such as a church steeple, light standard, power
line support device, sports stadium or similar structure or feature.
q-q
Subd. 3. Heieht. The maximum height of a tower, including all antennas and other attachments, shall not
exceed 150 feet.
Subd. 4. i na e. No signage is permitted on a tower except applicable warning and equipment information
signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state or local authorities.
Subd. 5. Li ,htin . Towers and related antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by the
Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority. When incorporated into the approved design of the
towers, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to the tower.
Subd. 6. Design requirements. Proposed or modified towers shall meet the following design requirements:
a) Towers shall be of a neutral color and designed to minimize visibility and blend into the surrounding
environment except in cases where color is dictated by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state
authority.
b) Towers shall be of a monopole design unless the city council, at its discretion, approves an
alternative design.
Subd. 7. Co- location. All towers shall comply with the following requirements:
a) If a tower exceeds 75 feet in height, the tower shall be designed to structurally accommodate the
owner's antennas and at least one additional user unless the additional height required for an additional user is
prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration. The conditional use permit application should include technical
information demonstrating that the tower can accommodate a second user.
b) Shared use of existing towers or structures shall be preferred to the construction of a new tower. A
proposal for a new telecommunications tower shall not be approved unless the city council finds that the
telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved
tower or on a building over 75 feet in height within a one -half mile search radius. The applicant must demonstrate that
the proposed antennas cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or structure due to one or more of the following
reasons:
i) the unwillingness of the owner of the existing structure or tower to co- locate an additional
antenna;
ii) the planned antenna would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved towers
and facilities;
iii) the planned antenna would cause radio frequency interference with other existing or
planned equipment, which cannot reasonably be prevented;
iv) other reasons affecting technical performance, system coverage, and system capacity make
it impractical to place the equipment proposed on existing structures or towers; and/or
v) other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned equipment on an
existing or approved tower or building.
426.09. CWTS antenna performance standards. Subdivision 1. These performance standards apply all CWTS
antennas that are erected, constructed, placed, re- erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city.
Subd. 2. Heeht. The maximum height of an antenna is 15 feet without a conditional use permit.
Subd. 3. i na e. No advertising message shall be on the antenna structure.
Subd. 4. Screenin . Such structures shall be screened from adjacent residential uses and street rights -of -way.
Screening shall include materials compatible with those utilized on the exterior of the building for roof mounted
antenna structures. Screening plans shall be approved by the community development director.
Subd. 5. Lighting. Towers and antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by the Federal
Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority.
4-S
426.11. Accessory buildings and egui npgent. All buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally
designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum setback requirements of the
applicable zoning district.
426.13. Abandonment. All obsolete or unused towers and related antennas and equipment shall be removed within 12
months of the cessation of operations, unless a time extension is approved by the city council. If a time extension is not
approved and the tower is not removed within 12 months, the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to Section 925
of the city code. In the event a tower is detennined to be a nuisance, the tower and associated facilities may be
removed by the city and the costs of removal assessed against the property.
426.15. Interference. All new or existing telecommunications service shall comply with all relevant Federal
Communication Commission standards and shall not interfere with public safety and other city telecommunications.
At the discretion of the director of public safety, the owner of a telecommunications service may be required to submit
an inter - modulation study which provides a technical evaluation of existing and proposed transmissions and indicates
all potential interference problems.
426.17. Health - related standards. Antennas placed upon a tower shall be subject to state and federal regulations
pertaining to nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. If new, more restrictive standards
are adopted, the antennas shall be made to comply or continued operations may be restricted by the city council.
426.19. Support of public warningsystems. Telecommunications operators that utilize towers that are erected after the
effective date of this ordinance shall participate in the Emergency Alert System (EAS), as defined by FCC rules and
regulations, Part 11, by broadcasting warnings of severe weather and other life threatening emergencies to users of
personal communications equipment served by the tower. Telecommunications operators may be exempt from the
requirements of this subdivision under the following circumstances:
a) The telecommunications operator demonstrates that participation in EAS is not technologically
feasible:
b) The telecommunications operator is unable to acquire any FCC waivers or exemption from licensing
or other regulations that would prohibit participation in EAS; or
c) The state or regional EAS planning committees determine that participation in EAS by the
telecommunications operator is not necessary.
426.21. Permits. Subdivision 1. Required. Except as provided in subdivision 3, no person may erect, construct,
place, re- erect, reconstruct or replace an antenna or tower in the city without first making application for and obtaining
a permit therefor from the building official.
Subd. 2. Information. The applicant for the permit shall provide at the time of application sufficient
information to indicate that the erection, construction, placement, re- erection, reconstruction or replacement of an
antenna or tower will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons.
Subd. 3. Certification. Towers shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform
to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and the Electronics Industry Association.
Subd. 4. Exceptions. Permits are not required for the adjustment, repair or replacement of elements of the
antenna or tower, provided such adjustment, repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor,
426.23. Construction. Subdivision 1. Wind. Towers with antennas shall be designed to withstand applicable wind
load requirements as prescribed in the state building code.
Subd. 2. Treatment. Towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material.
Subd. 3. Climbing. A tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by
unauthorized persons.
Subd. 4. Anourtenant structures. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it, in any way, any
catwalk, crow's nest or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair.
462.25. Non- confonning installations. Subdivision 1. General rule. Antenna and towers in existence on November 1,
1996 which do not conform to or comply with this section may continue to exist for the purpose now used but may not
be replaced or structurally altered except as provided in subdivision 2 without complying with this section.
Subd. 2. Replacement. If a non - conforming tower or antenna is damaged or destroyed the tower or antenna
may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit
therefor, but without otherwise complying with these regulations, provided, however, that the cost of repairing the
tower to its former use, size or location does not exceed 50% of the cost of a new tower of like kind or quality.
426.27. Variances. The council may grant variances to the literal provisions of this section, except for Section 426.05,
in the same manner and subject to the same requirements that apply to variances granted under Section 546 of the
zoning code.
17J
ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC.
5201 EAST RIVER ROAD, SUITE 308
ucrEic rrrcu+crxs MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55421
h7i PHONE (6 125 571 —2500 FAX (6 1 2) 571 — 1 168
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
OF MINNESOTA, INC.
CEDAR /CROSSTOWN SITE
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GROUND LINE
BROOMED Cl
SHELTER Pti.,-., ..
MATCH EXTERIOR OF EXISTING
USVEST BUILDING. NORTHNORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: I" = 20' -0"
AT &T WIRELESS
SERVICES OF MN, INC.
ANTENNA SIZES
SECTOR ANT. NO, H I W D
ALPHA,
GAMMA PD10177 8611 10 3 /g" 5
ALPHA
BETA $, PCS -DS -17 -06507 48" 7.2" 2.3"
GAMMA
N
FV ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC.
5201 EAST RIVER ' ROAD, SUITE 308
utrEic MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55421
A7J PHONE (6 1 2) 57 1 —2500 FAX (6 1 2) 571 — I 168
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
OF MINNESOTA, INC.
CEDAR /CROSSTOWN SITE
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
D10177
5" 1 i
PCS -D5 -17 -06507
295*
PD10177
295° \
40 10177
II'
BETA
CS -D5 -17 -06507
4
4
0°
010177
10
GAMMA
a
ALPHA \
PCS -115 -17 -06507 P D 1017 7
150° 150°
3
51$
11
PD10177
150 °\
SCALE: 1/4 " = l'—O"
U
r
iF
1
O
Ff
art
1!
gf
Ybv •
T
I
i
6$
s
L
r
r
MARY qND TOPOGRAPHIC ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC.
fEY WJ EXISTING CONDITIONS,,,,,q
WIR LESS SERVICES wrr sm
CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH art SWMeorw setr
wise am mom A" Mtp ar
YDfYbal a
I f , c a '
us Iaaaua aw ao ;
4
Y wf[ -w4av1
Yr \
I .1141 a \
fill
Q +P.•` :V:f; :a •'js sir•• o i1.,. •i'• `tom iy ;
ea 9, • a
I •
I
CEDAR AVENUE I
LW La ff 0
r 01
i
SITE PLAN FOR PROPOSED SHELTER ULTEIQ ENWNEERS, /NC.
1O '} W// EXISTING CONDITIONS =W MW NM ~
A? &T WIRELESS SERVICES mwm an
62" CEDAR AVENUE SOM .nd%WGM eaMwrA mom
m MINMEAP US, MN so my"= mm anal amm -