Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2016••• •••• ••••• •••• ••• City of Apple VaValley Meeting Location: Municipal Center 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AGENDA 7:00 P.M. This agenda is subject to change by deletion or addition to items until approved by the Planning Commission on the date of the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2016 4. CONSENT ITEMS --NONE-- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Uponor Expansion —Public hearing to consider rezoning vacation of drainage and utility easements, replatting of two existing lots, and site plan review/building permit authorization to expand the Uponor Annex building at 14800 Everest Avenue on property. (PC16-34-ZGFB) LOCATION: 14751 Energy Way PETITIONER: Uponor North America B. Quarry Point Park Communications Tower —Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit to allow for 79 -foot tall cell tower in Quarry Point Park. (PC16-31-C) LOCATION: 15725 Pilot Knob Road, PETITIONER: Verizon Wireless and the City of Apple Valley 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Larson Fence Variance — Consider a variance to allow an 8 -foot tall fence in the front yard where a 3.5 -foot fence is permitted. (PC16-33-V) LOCATION: 12500 Dorchester Trail PETITIONER: Mark J. Larson B. Grage Window Well Setback Variance - Consider a variance to allow a window well to encroach into the required ten -foot side yard setback where the house is approximately 5 feet from the property line. (PC16-35-V) LOCATION: 264 Walnut Lane PETITIONER: Zachary Grage 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. 8. ADJOURNMENT NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Wednesday, October 5, 2016 Regular Scheduled Meeting - Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, September 26, 2016 Wednesday, October 19, 2016 Regular Scheduled Meeting - Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 21, 2016 - Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, October 10, 2016 NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Thursday, September 22, 2016 Regular Scheduled Meeting Thursday, October 13, 2016 Informal Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 7:00 P.M. Regular meetings are broadcast live on Charter Communications Cable, Channel 180. Agendas are also available on the City's Internet Web Site http://www.cityofapplevalley.org. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Melander at 7:01 p.m. Members Present: Tom Melander, Ken Alwin, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, Paul Scanlan and David Schindler Members Absent: Angela Polozun Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, Planner Kathy Bodmer, City Engineer Brandon Anderson and Department Assistant Joan Murphy 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, approving the agenda. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AUGUST 3, 2016 Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, approving the minutes of the meeting of August 3, 2016. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. Abstain — 1 (Melander) 4. CONSENT ITEMS --NONE-- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Zvago Apple Valley/Village Pointe Plaza — Public hearing to consider amendments to PD - 739, subdivision by preliminary plat, and site plan review/building permit authorization for construction of a 58 -unit senior cooperative building. (PC16-30-ZB) LOCATION: Southwest corner of Galaxie Avenue and 153rd Street West PETITIONER: OneTwoOne Development and City of Apple Valley CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Planner Kathy Bodmer stated the petitioner, OneTwoOne Development, requests consideration of amendments to PD -739, subdivision by preliminary plat, and site plan review/building permit authorization for construction of a 58 -unit senior cooperative building immediately south and east of the Founders Lane roundabout (commonly referred to as the "Triangle Property"). The property is located within PD -739 which implements the vision of the Central Village Plan. The zoning performance standards are intended to create an integrated mixed use development in a compact, pedestrian -friendly form adjacent to the City's existing downtown. The Central Village Design Guidelines were adopted December 8, 2003. Several different proposals have been reviewed for this parcel. The property is located within Zone 2 which allows multiple family development, but commercial development must be included in the building. The proposed development would include multiple family development, but no commercial uses are shown at this time. The community elements of the building including the club room, fitness center, wine nook and game room would not be classified as commercial uses. However, a small salon, barber shop or gift shop may be considered a commercial use. The overall development plan shows that Zvago Apple Valley, the senior cooperative building, would be located on the west side of the site. Pads are shown to the east that would allow for 18,000 sq. ft. of single story retail and a 12,000 2 -story office building. The fact that the property to the east is being platted as an outlot suggests that the commercial development will occur in the future. The City of Apple Valley received a Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant of S 1,148,639 to assist with the purchase of the property. One of the conditions of the grant is that the development must include residential and commercial development and both must commence prior to December 31, 2016. PD -739 does not have a provision that would allow for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for senior development. The parking calculation shows that 2.3 parking spaces would be required per unit; 2.0 spaces are provided. In the City's experience, senior developments tend to request parking ratios of 0.9 to 1.1 spaces/unit. The preliminary plat shows the property is to be subdivided into two parcels. The location of the lot line is odd because it essentially cuts off the west side of the parking lot. The site plan should be revised to show the location of the drainage and utility easements. Commissioner Alwin asked what the width and length of the parking stalls were. Ms. Bodmer responded the parking stalls are 9' wide by 18 Y2' long. Commissioner Burke inquired if the PD -739 was the same PD -739 around Kelley Park. Ms. Bodmer replied yes that a subzone was created around these. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Tim Nichols, Principal of Lifestyle Communities, LLC and partner to OneTwoOne, provided additional information, Deana Meyer, Ecumen, explained the structure of the cooperative. John Hessel, Apple Valley, asked what the distance was from the east line of this property to the west line of the right-of-way for Galaxie Avenue. Enrico Williams, Kaas Wilson Architect, thought it to be approximately 250 feet. Mr. Hessel continued that he had concerns for resale with the requirement that one of the tenants needs to be 62 or over. He commented that puts a limit on your market the more you define it down. He is in favor of the development and is looking forward to it. Owen Hopkins, property manager of Galaxie Commons, the commercial property next to this project area, expressed concerned how they came up with an additional 30,000 sq. ft. of commercial property in an area that still has several buildings and also considering themselves and others that still have space available for rent. He asked the Commission if they are able to support that or are planning for that. He is not sure if the area can support that amount of commercial at this time. Chair Melander replied that the Commission does not choose what people make application for. The Commission evaluates the application if it is a suitable land use. He said he assumes the applicants make their own analysis. Commissioner Scanlan commented that if the original plans were for 70 units and now the plans have been decreased to 58 units because the market drive is for larger space, was parking the limiting factor in that. Tim Nichols answered could they go to more units because they have a one to one parking ratio. They found that the ratio they are pursuing within this application is really what the ratio is of the consumer's desire and need. They are trying to balance that. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS --NONE-- 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would take place on September 7, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2016 Pdage 4 of 4 8. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 p.m. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. Respectfully Submitted, A. --"Pt OA .2 Joa urphy, Planning De artme Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on Tom Melander, Chair 5A ITEM: September 21, 2016 City of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Public Hearings SECTION: PROJECT NAME: Uponor Annex Expansion PROJECT DESCRIPTION Consideration of the following land use actions to authorize construction of a 57,818 s.f. addition to the Uponor annex building located at 14800 Everest Ave/14751 Energy Way: 1.Rezoning from “BP” – Business Park to “I-1” Limited Industrial to allow contiguous zoning for the proposed parcel. 2.Final Plat/Replat of the two parcels to combine them into one parcel, allowing the expansion of the existing building. 3.Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements which were created as property line perimeter easements and will no longer be adjacent to property lines. 4.Site Plan Review/Building Permit Authorization for consideration of a building addition including office and warehouse totaling 57,818 s.f. STAFF CONTACT: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Alex Sharpe, Planner/Economic Dev Spec. Community Development Department APPLICANT: PROJECT NUMBER: Uponor NA Asset Leasing, Inc. PC16-34-ZGFB APPLICATION DATE 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: 8/5/16 11/4/16 12/3/16 Proposed Action  Open the public hearing, take all public testimony, close the public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take action on the night of its public hearing. Project Summary/Issues Uponor NA Asset Leasing, Inc. requests consideration of four land use actions which will allow them to construct an addition to their property at 14800 Everest Ave onto an adjacent property at 14751 Energy Way. Uponor is seeking to expand their current operations, which requires additional space. 14751 Energy Way is an adjacent vacant parcel zoned “BP” - Business Park. To expand their existing annex building at 14800 Everest Ave several land use actions are required which are detailed in the following report. Rezoning: 14751 Energy Way is zoned “BP” – Business Park. Uponor is requesting that this parcel be rezoned to “I-1” – Limited Industrial so that the proposed combined parcel has one zoning classification. Spot zoning is not an issue as this request creates a contiguous “I-1” – Limited Industry zone. As both parcels are guided for industrial use a comprehensive plan amendment is not required. Final Plat/Replat: The Planning Commission does not review final plats/replatting of existing parcels or vacation of easements, however to understand how this project can move forward, information is included. Review of the replat is underway. Additional easements for public infrastructure are likely required than what are shown on the draft submitted. Planning and Engineering staff have met with Uponor’s engineering team and are making progress. Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements: Similarly with a Final Plat, the Planning Commission does not review or recommend actions on a vacation. To understand the whole request and provide an informed recommendation, information regarding the vacation is being included in this report. The most practical way of removing the section of easements, which are no longer needed, is to vacate all of the easements established with the prior plats. These easements will be reestablished and dedicated through the new final plat as needed. Site Plan Review/Building Permit Authorization: Uponor is seeking to begin construction on this facility in 2016. To accommodate this goal City staff is working with the applicant’s engineering team to submit materials for review in advance of final approval/decisions. This is a common practice that allows an applicant to move quickly once all approvals have been issued. Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) Site Planset 1. Area Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Uponor Annex Expansion PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 14800 Everest Ave, 14571 Energy Way Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, WIRSBO 3 RD ADDITON And ND Lot 1, Block 1, KNOB RIDGE 2 ADDITION Comprehensive Plan IND - Industrial Designation Zoning Existing: I-1- Limited Industrial & BP – Business Park Classification Proposed: I-1- Limited Industrial Existing Platting Platted Current Land Use Existing industrial facility and vacant land Size: 14800 Everest Ave: 261,147 s.f. 14751 Energy Way: 114,970 s.f. Combined: 376,117 Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation Required plantings for Annex Additon Other Significant N/A Natural Features Adjacent NORTH Properties/Land Comprehensive Plan IND - Industrial Uses Zoning/Land Use I-1- Limited Industrial/BP – Business Park SOUTH Comprehensive Plan IND - Industrial Zoning/Land Use I-1- Limited Industrial/BP – Business Park EAST Comprehensive Plan IND - Industrial Zoning/Land Use BP – Business Park WEST Comprehensive Plan IND - Industrial Zoning/Land Use I-1- Limited Industrial Comprehensive Plan: As both properties are guided for industrial uses, a comprehensive plan amendment is not required. Zoning: A rezoning of 14751 Energy Way is proposed by the applicant to keep a contiguous zoning classification across the proposed joined parcel. “I-1” - Limited Industrial and “BP” - Business Park are similar zoning districts with subtle differences between permitted uses and their purpose as a zone. This parcel is located in the middle of the industrial park/district and as such the impact from a rezoning from one to the other is largely mitigated by this buffer. Because the purpose and uses of these zones are very similar the primary purpose of the request is to allow for a single zoning classification on the proposed combined parcel. Preliminary/Final Plat: Both parcels have been final platted in the past, this request requires that the property be replatted, however this replat is of the final plat, not a preliminary. Staff is working with the applicant as there are existing public utilities on the site which are not within easements. Working with the applicant staff will determine which of these utilities will continue to be utilized, and what additional easements may be required on the plat. Site Plan: The site plan circulation is being further studied for internal site flow. Parking requirements will be met for the new site with a combination of existing parking, and new parking as part of this addition. Grading Plan: The grading plan is under review by the City Engineer. At this time there are no outstanding issues to be noted. Elevation Drawings: The elevation drawing and perspective drawings show that the proposed addition will match the existing annex facility. The color perspectives attached to this report are inaccurate in that they show less glass and architectural variation than what is currently proposed. They also conflict slightly with the site plan in the south east of the 14751 Energy Way parcel. This will be corrected prior to final approval. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan included in the report is inaccurate and will be resubmitted. There are currently more trees and shrubs shown that what is required by City Code by over 1/3 rd. The applicant will work with staff to submit a plan which still screens all required areas, and is more in accordance with City requirements. Availability of Municipal Utilities: There are adequate sewer and water connections to the new addition, which is being served separately from the existing facility. There are currently looped public water and sewer mains at the 14751 Energy Way site, much of which will require removal as part of the construction. As these utilities were not utilized, and outside of easements, staff is supportive of any removals and will work with the applicant to obtain easements as required. Street Classifications/Access/Circulation: The immediately adjacent streets are local roadways. There is the potential that trucks from these facilities will utilize Upper 147th Street West to connect between sites. The traffic generation and impact are being studied by the Engineering department. Pedestrian Access: The site provides for internal flow using sidewalks surrounding much of the addition, and connection to the existing annex facility. There are not sidewalks on either Everest Ave or Energy Way for the internal sidewalks to connect to. There is no plan at this time to install sidewalks along these roadways. Public Safety Issues: There are no known public safety issues with the development of this site. Lighting Plan/Photometric Plan: The applicant has not submitted a lighting plan for review. The site lighting will be reviewed prior to the next Planning Commission or as part of the building permit. Recreation Issues: Park Dedication is usually paid when a property undergoes final platting. Staff will investigate to ensure that all fees and requirements were paid for Knob Ridge 2nd addition. Signs: No sign approvals are being issued at this time. No signs may be installed prior to the issuance of a sign permit. Public Hearing Comments: To be taken. Uponor Annex Expansion LOCATION MAP Apple„ Valley i= ,,7,J' a) fA:-' S _L ! Ow i• fit 11 a treg"tra lig 1 '-i 0"s""soMiall IMO 4 t _ 'roll Fill , II 00A d f 1.1Frsvi:Tio-141:Kaiw.,___J joil:ilip '01 .!...4117160W161.611 LI 4-Wrt 4, * ' 11,3L-thaNi a ..., • i 1 di.--... 01 I iriii 41 egilipyiEhn.471 1 1 a al 110.1°L 2 NM 1 SI 1 ntrilliWjh ea4.11 rilir 1 .wl I% Ili. *WWI 24 g o o o o o o o o n � BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED DATUM EXISTING LEGEND H j Z � RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE o ® o Qo zz aQ Q? oQ z 0 O O wmp w� � C7aQ a' W W OSS v� c�i ori o Owl m Q I L � � O II N H Q S J m d z II W o w O� S Oz0(joz �w� 3 O W O O��Ocn MW UO zpMrn� N I I O Q- H W o w 7�wy� 111 Q mOYy'(��yn'JamOWO�US�' U U w 0 0 ddO Will - 5 N U O Z License No: Z 3 f S 9 SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE o o o 0 o CO Grant D. Jacobson, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 23189 STATE OF MINNESOTA This instrument was acknowledged before me on My Commission expires DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT AS MARKED CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA Z ovoe, OVON 300121 3NVO ANNHOP H COUNTY SURVEYOR, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA proprietor of the following described properties: 3 2 I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS In witness whereof said Uponor NA Asset Leasing, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this 6 1 Department of Property Taxation and Records COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA H 0 00 _I _J co C ) DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: I hereby certify that this plat of WIRSBO FOURTH ADDITION was filed in the office of the County Recorder for public .M. and was duly filed in Book 2 2 '/Z DENOTES IRON MONUMENT BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED DATUM EXISTING LEGEND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: L`J Qo zz � oQ W � W Q Q z Z � wap w� � c7aQ U � � Q U m X o owo m Q I L UO Q I w J II N H Q S m d z II W o w p w O ZO d oo � wHOQHOZ� �p zoMcn� rn�w � W Q� U J O mUJa O� m Y� U U O O Q Z H UO d' Lc/9) W Z W � mm(A (A QY W w BOO 15-.! �cvQdd pU� o d H CN U PRELIMINARY PLAT O Z License No: Z 3 7 O O 2 O S6"6•£OV•"S6 6L£SS NIAI `HIdO)IVHS ISVJ J11NJAV HIS 17017 anaIaomraaHouV 3d T ma�1�iv.7i7i Orr NV Id rJNI,LNV Id -,( ' NOIldI2JOS30 31tl0 p g z z O J J ° m m 6 EA 7 Q J W E LL o o or w W = ;i! U U W p NE M ZN i J= �y S' o da o o N w 1 K 1tliiivuu sup 9TOZ-90-60 T ,5_ . NOISNVdXT JNICIII11H ' NIAI AH'I'IVA H'IddV L I O XINNV-2IONOdn p W p a J 0 W 0 co Z J 0 LL co 1a 0 O Q U m o Z 9 � U m a, � m m � U U fl N ~ a a a a O m N Q Q Q I IU > Xd � o o � N N D � d � m N X X m � � � o � _ N t a (p D X N � O � x � ly Juniperus virginiana'Skyroc 0 Z E raj O � L N ly0 O1 t6 _ .Q cn U) � � a I ��mm�=a�L7 -6 Y -o � D o s � � a �j " m m 'n 1m mx� O � `o °' � � -6 0 li i 3om.�oO�oo �U tW 1 10m m `m`t�a .� > W = Y �6 o t, °� o m f6 0 5 o O J O m W m J U' (A (n (n Y Q U m W (n Z U U' m U' D_ H m U d' Lcc ) Z 2 Y W pJ 8 a (c)A o Q U m o z d7 c�� (' (,)) D m O, AVM AJ cJ H N 3 • J z., cc v i 0 0o z = o�wz Qa Zm o N. �p zo�g YJ c�z � �o QQ ma� PPel 40 1 d� es Z o W 7 Z 40 g04°4740440tu, 11 le w "+ 1.11 - I - - - - - -_�. •Y•rn .>. r� :.+» •r:�.kr .�..tn.» : t� :. to .:» • �•t� .. to .�.» • : t� .�: t? '• .» . n '• : rm • : ^:.r.1�IVar 11:� �a.4rv:. ❑ Oo RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE EXISTING LEGEND W J J Zw Ww gujm Qz � U W O mJ Z W W Q Q 2 Z m Li m w J a LI, ~ � m rn Oi , o ~ m Qww H Qw H i Hto Q m c`i L * rn o - DENOTES IRON MONUMENT U Fza Jm o v� J -O a F a !Z`pHQif O1 w oHU !!, I � U apw Jo Ua O U p(n oOZ `8" W Zp a wN w o0 zaaa o Ow p U U p W a J W w a o OWZO Z Z Z Hz Q W� y�OH W L� J W fid' ~J w�m ZawW�OFYZwpOoaW a0OXQ�ZOUL''IjiYOZO~�_}OQZ� O!L!: OHao_ � W H O.,.. I = WJd C.F,aHcQ co ar J� W W d Z ~ > W W Z Z 01 Z O OOU�J )G N N7 F> O r O PROPOSED SLOPES AS SHOWN ARE NOT GREATER THAN E "CITY OF APPLE VALLEY UTILITY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND STORM SEWER SHALL BE PVC SDR 26 WHERE NOT INDICATED. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA OF SITE = 1.33 ACRES PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA OF SITE = 1.99 ACRES Z LL N 0 0 Z FAX (952) 469-4624 License No: 73189 E g ni Cd , E f U Z 13 C 2 5 01 2 < E > 0 15 Zi'! 0 , c a 11 i a 5 ' — — — — _ 1 —— — — 2Evq, Pfi 11) ruPaq F. 2E ILI NI I Ni.n.2.r NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9.12.2016 -E EJ, g C;r! 2 oi ill 0 < 1 & i C'l oseeeGcm3cicici E g M Cd N N Z 0 5 m < 0 'a z,!' '0,1 ] 2 0 , c a R . i a 5 ; ,— ' c i - t 2n?, ,1390N Li„, ' .Ers oU 2g'62 F. 2E ILI NI I Ni.n.2.r NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9.12.2016 Ei, & O. < ee i C'l oseeeGcm3cicici f 1 1 1 11 —0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 0 0 0 0 0 1111 111 1E 0 d) \\, • -s- 1 1 1 • L 0 0 2 0 111ffld)fflg1— 0 0 0 41) e —0- —0— —0- -0— '41 0 f — I I Cd 13 c 2 17 2 1 -_;iS, _liL ; _ 0 1 you II E ILI NI I Nu NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9.12.2016 ; oP''o ru 1 1 1 11 —0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 0 0 0 0 0 1111 111 1E 0 d) \\, • -s- 1 1 1 • L 0 0 2 0 111ffld)fflg1— 0 0 0 41) e —0- —0— —0- -0— '41 0 f — I I mA! \ , ,--CA -e 0 9—,-- q_ _ 0 _ _ - _ I j d) 0 HI Cd 13 c 2 '=5l<'0ooj L! 2TA>DolI t — —_ Z _ 4i 0 F. 2E ILI NI I Ni.n.2.r NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9.12.2016 ?ri -e PAg58 ,,co r,u, mA! \ , ,--CA -e 0 9—,-- q_ _ 0 _ _ - _ I j d) 0 HI p HYA,s,,,c, ,,`'l. 0 0 0 3 0 (XXXXXXXXXXXXX) li, zil rg rg rg X X rg Z 0 -e 0, Z - _---- - -0 — - 1 T I hi ,_,_,_, NI 0 .10 I , _L. 0 '.'rc'zig7.9, I r ippli I i co in o i \ 1 , › of 0 Ot 0 z L r NR 'fit, ui 3 o , Hi o 0 Z - V o 7 _ X/ 0 0 I R 1 _. 111 E \ 1 — 0 0 0 I 1111 hl — — Hi DI 0 In r co r co la 0 T 7 -h p -H ÷ a _I - _I, " :§,, 11 il A 5 ill . L!', g ,L r • • • r- - - L _ A in Z E g (0 g • r la , 0 ,,,__ c„ 0—E1- II -1 4 o j g ■i'°- ■M HISNIW - EMNMI ■ ■ EMMY f 1111111111111 e..e MOO 410• ,e. city of Apple Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 5B September.11,2016 Public Hearings PROJECT NAME: Quarry Point Park Cell Tower Conditional Use Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 79 -foot tall communications tower, equipment platform, and generator on 779 sq. ft. of property in Quarry Point Park. The 39 -acre public park is located along the north side of 160th Street West, just west of Pilot Knob Road. STAFF CONTACT: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department APPLICANT: . Verizon Wireless PROJECT NUMBER: PC 16-31-C APPLICATION DATE: 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: August 24, 2016 • October 22, 2016 December 21, 2016 Proposed Action Open the public hearing, receive comments and close the public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on a public hearing item the night of the public hearing. Project Summary/Issues The proposed project appears to meet all requirements for tower and antenna design and maintenance set forth in the City zoning code, with the exception of the required setback from the park's east property line. A setback variance would need to be part of any approval of this project. The City is in the process of platting the park parcel with the property directly adjacent to the east into one lot of record. The platting of the property will eliminate the need for a setback variance. Access to the site will be via a 12 -foot wide bituminous drive that will intersect with the existing 15 -foot wide driveway that provides access to the City's water tower from CSAH 46. The access drive will be located in a proposed 20 -foot wide "Access and Utilities Rights -of Way Easement", which will need to be approved by the City. The applicant proposes to construct an eight -foot high vinyl fence that will screen the equipment platform and generator. Landscaping that provides year round screening should also be installed around the perimeter of the site. The applicant shall submit a landscaping for review and approval by the City prior to any permit issuance. Grading of the site will be needed to establish a roadbed and pad site for the tower and equipment. If approved, the applicant shall be required to submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Budget Impact None Attachments Ordinance Compliance Statement Preliminary Plat Final Plat Development Plans QUARRY POINT PARK COMMUNICATIONS TOWER C.U.P. PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 15725 Pilot Knob Road Legal Description: Part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35 Township 115N, Range 20W commencing 150 feet west of the northeast corner; south 483.21 feet west 280 feet south to the south line of the Section; west 1215 feet north to the north line; east to the beginning (gravel pit); except that part platted as REGENTS POINT, Dakota County, Minnesota Comprehensive Plan Designation "P" (Parks and Open Space) Zoning Classification "P" (Institutional) Existing Platting Unplatted Current Land Use Public park Size: 39.24 acres Topography: Generally flat with significant slopes along the east edge of the property Existing Vegetation Turf grass Other Significant Natural Features The subject site is located in a community park that has athletic fields and playground equipment and a leg of the North Creek Greenway, regional trail that runs from Farmington to Eagan Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Fischer Sand and Aggregate Mining Operations Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "SG" (Sand and Gravel) SOUTH City of Lakeville Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential (less than 3 dwellings per acre) Zoning/Land Use "RS-# (Single -Family Residential) EAST Apple Valley Water Tower Site Comprehensive Plan "P" (Parks and Open Space) Zoning/Land Use "P" (Institutional) WEST Regent's Point Single -Family Residential Development Comprehensive Plan "LD" (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per acre) Zoning/Land Use PD -975" (Planned Development) Development Project Review LOCATION MAP Comprehensive Plan: The property is designated "P" (Parks) which is applied to all existing public parks, public playfields, trail corridors and golf courses. This park is designated as a "Community Play Field", which is defined as an intense recreational area for athletics and organized activities. This type of park will likely include facilities such as ball diamonds, football and soccer fields, tennis courts, community center and adequate off-street parking as field games, court games, crafts, apparatus area, skating, and neighborhood centers. Quarry Point Park has playground equipment, ball diamonds, soccer fields, a park building, and parking lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP "P" (Parks and Open Space) Zoning: The property is currently zoned "P" (Institutional) which are areas designed to serve the public and quasi -public uses and parks and playgrounds are permitted uses. Towers are regulated in Sec. 155.385 (Wireless Communication Towers and Antenna Site Design and Maintenance section) in the zoning code and are listed as a conditional use within this zoning district. The applicant has provided an ordinance compliance statement, which appears to address all the requirements set forth in Sec.155.385 of the zoning code, with the exception of meeting the required setback from the common lot line between the park and the water tower property. ZONING MAP "P" (Institutional) Site Plan: The site plan shows a 19 -ft. x 41 -ft. parcel of land that will be the location of a 79 -foot tower, 131 -sq. ft. equipment platform and 28 -sq. ft. generator. This area will be located approximately 230 feet from the park's south property line and 10 feet from its east property line. Access to the site will be via a 12 -foot wide bituminous drive that will intersect with the existing 15 -foot wide driveway that provides access to the City's water tower from CSAH 46. The access drive will be located in a proposed 20 -foot wide "Access and Utilities Rights -of Way Easement", which will need to be approved by the City. City code requires that a communications tower be set back a minimum of 1.5 x the fall zone. That would equate to a setback of 118.5 for this proposed tower. The tower will be located approximately 20 feet from the park's east property line. Therefore, a variance would need to be granted. The park property and water tower site are located on two unplatted parcels owned by the City. In lieu of considering a setback variance for this proposal, the City has opted to plat the two parcels into one lot of record. Removal of the common property line with the platting will eliminate the need for a setback variance. The applicant is proposing to construct an eight -foot tall white PVC fence around the perimeter of the site that will screen the equipment platform and generator. Landscaping should also be planted around the perimeter of the site to help screen and soften the site's visual impact. Grading Plan: Grading of the site will be needed to establish a roadbed and pad site for the tower and equipment. If approved, the applicant shall be required to submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Hearing Comments: Open the public hearing, receive comments and close the public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on a public hearing item the night of the public hearing. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT Application: Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Site Name: MINC Brittle Project Description: Verizon Wireless proposes a wireless communication tower site consisting of a 70' monopole with 9' lightning rod together with ground equipment and fencing as shown in the drawings. Address: 160th Street W (address to be assigned). Uses same driveway access point as water tank. Parcel ID Numbers: 01-03500-77-016 & 01-03500-76-041 Owner: City of Apple Valley Zoning: P - Institutional Per § 155.248(C) of the City of Apple Valley Zoning Ordinance, "Towers as regulated in §155.385." are allowed as a conditional use in the P - Institutional District. Compliance with the requirements of §155.385 is discussed below. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWERS § 155.385 TOWERS AND ANTENNAS SITE DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE. (A) Co -location requirements. All personal wireless communication towers erected, constructed,or located within the city shall comply with the following requirement: (1) A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower shall not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the communications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-half mile radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: (a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced or modified to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost; (b) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost; (c) No existing or approved towers or commercial/industrial buildings within a half - mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria; (d) Existing or approved towers and commercial/industrial buildings within a one- half mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional radio frequency (RF) engineer; and/or (e) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co -locate on existing towers and structures within a one half mile radius was made, but an agreement could not be reached. There are no existing towers within a half mile in the FCC antenna structure registration database. A search printout is attached. Neither are any evident from visual inspection. The city water tank is within the radius and was considered by Verizon Wireless but determined not to be viable because a location at the top was twice as high as needed which would cause overlap and interference with other sites in the system. Verizon did proposed attachment on the stem of the water tank but that was determined by the city not to be feasible. A letter from Verizon 's RF engineer Jordan Alstad is attached. 1 (B) Tower construction requirements. All towers erected, constructed, or located within the city, and all wiring therefor, shall comply with the following requirements: (1) Monopoles using stealth technology are the preferred tower design. However, the city will consider alternative tower types in cases where structure (RF) design considerations, and/or the number of tenants required by the city preclude the use of a monopole. This site is designed as a monopole and will accommodate co -location as required. The visual impact of a stealth monopole will not be significant because the built environment includes athletic field light structures and a nearby water tank that is over twice as high. (2) Towers and their antennas shall comply with all applicable provisions of this code. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement (3) Towers and their antennas shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Minnesota Building Code as adopted by the city and all other applicable reviewing agencies. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement See also subsection (14)(b) below. (4) Towers and their antennas shall be designed to conform to accepted electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Code. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement. See also subsection (14)(b) below. (5) Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement (6) Any proposed communication service tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and all other respects to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one additional user. To allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower, the tower shall be designed to accept antennas mounted at no less than 10 -foot intervals. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement. See also subsection (14)(c) below. (7) All towers shall be reasonably protected against unauthorized climbing. The bottom of the tower (measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground level) shall be designed in a manner to preclude unauthorized climbing and be enclosed by a six-foot high maintenance -free fence with a locked gate as approved by the city. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement The proposed screening fence is 8' high. (8) All towers and their antennas shall utilize building materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that effectively blend the tower facilities within the surrounding natural setting and built environment to the greatest extent possible as determined by the city. The site will blend with the existing vertical features on the parcel such as existing athletic field lighting and the existing water tank which is over twice as high. 2 (9) No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state, or local authorities. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement. (10) Towers and their antennas shall not be illuminated by artificial means, except for camouflage purposes (e.g., designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or the illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authority. No tower lighting is required by the FAA. The proposed monopole is less than half the height of the adjacent water tank (11) No part of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires, or braces shall at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street, highway, or sidewalk, without approval by the city through the building permit approval process. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement (12) All communication towers and their antennas shall be adequately insured for injury and property damage caused by collapse of the tower. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement. (13) All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City Council. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved state. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement (14) In addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this code, applications for building permits for towers and their antennas shall be accompanied by the following information: (a) Written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and any appropriate state review authority stating that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations; (b) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which does the following: describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation; demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards; documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co - located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas; describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; and documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with established public safety communications; and (c) A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower, as long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower, and there is no disruption to the service provided. Verizon Wireless will supply these items with its application for building permit as required® (C) Antennas mounted on roofs, walls and existing towers. The placement of wireless communication antennas on roofs, walls, and existing towers may be permitted on public facilities, industrial buildings, and other commercial buildings with a building permit approved by the appropriate city staff. In addition to the submittal requirements required 3 elsewhere in this Code, an application for a building permit for antennas to be mounted on an existing structure shall be accompanied by the following information: (1) A site plan showing the location of the proposed antennas on the structure and documenting that the request meets the requirements of this Code. (2) A building plan showing the construction of the antennas, the proposed method of attaching them to the existing structure, and documenting that the request meets the requirements of this Code. (3) A report prepared by a qualified and licensed professional engineer indicating the existing structure or tower's ability to support the antennas. (4) An intermodulation study to ensure there will be no interference with existing tenants or public safety telecommunication providers. Not applicable. This application concerns a new tower rather than mounting on an existing structure. (D) Obsolete or unused towers. All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations unless a time extension is approved by the council. If a time extension is not approved, the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to M.S. Ch. 429. In the event a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the city may act to abate such nuisance and require the removal of the tower at the property owner's expense. The owner shall provide the city with a copy of the notice of the Federal Communication Commission's intent to cease operations and shall be given 12 months from the date of ceasing operations to remove the obsolete tower and all accessory structures. In the case of multiple operators sharing the use of a single tower, this provision shall not become effective until all users cease operations for a period of 12 consecutive months. The equipment on the ground is not to be removed until the tower structure has first been dismantled. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or to an improved state. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement (E) Tower standards and requirements. Zoning District Maximum Height Distance from Structure (feet) Setback from Property Line R-1, R-2, R- 3, R-5 150 300 from residential 1.5 x fall zone M-1 - M-8 150 300 from residential 1.5 x fall zone LB, RB, BP, P 200 2 x fall zone from structures on neighboring properties 1.5 x fall zone GB, I-1, 1-2 2501.5 2 x fall zone from structures on neighboring properties x fall zone (1) For purposes of this division, the term FALL ZONE shall mean either: (a) If the tower is constructed with an engineered breakpoint design, then the measured distance from ground level to the lowest engineered breakpoint in the tower or from the top of the tower to the lowest engineered breakpoint in the tower whichever is the greater distance, but in no case shall the fall zone be less than the distance equal to 50% the height of the tower and provided the applicant complies with the breakpoint design requirements set forth herein; or 4 (b) The height of the tower if the tower is not constructed with an engineered breakpoint design or the applicant fails to comply with the breakpoint design requirements. In measuring the height of the tower or fall zone, all appurtenances located or intended to be located at the top of the tower, such as antennae, satellite dishes, lighting or illumination structures required by law or other equipment, shall be included. (2) Breakpoint design requirements are: (a) The tower shall be constructed using breakpoint design technology, whereby a specified point on the tower is designed to have stresses concentrated so that the point is more susceptible to structural failure than any other part of the tower so as to prevent structural failure at the base or any other part of the tower and the tower structure below the lowest engineered breakpoint shall be designed at 1.25 times the design requirements set forth in the Telecommunications Industry Association Standards ANSI/TIA 222 and Minnesota State Building Code, whichever is more restrictive; and (b) The applicant submits to the city with the conditional use permit application a written statement from a Minnesota licensed structural engineer certifying: 1. That the design of the tower consists of breakpoint design technology and 2. The point of the tower (elevation height) at which the breakpoint is located; and (c) If the tower is designed with one engineered breakpoint, the breakpoint shall not be located at a point in the tower that is less than 50% of the height of the tower, including any permanent base platform and any appurtenances located or intended to be located at the top of the tower. The proposed location is more than 3x tower height from any property line and much more than that from any structures on neighboring properties. The proposed monopole height of 70' is well under the 200' allowed in the P — Institutional zoning district. (F) Transmitting, receiving, switching equipment and other ground 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 properly screened in accordance with the requirements of this section. The proposed equipment, including an emergency backup generator and outdoor equipment cabinets on a platform, will be enclosed by an 8' screening wall as shown on sheet A-5 of the drawings provided. Verizon Wireless respectfully requests Conditional Use Permit approval for this project. Faulk & Foster, by Ralph Wyngarden, for Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless 5 Date: August 9, 2016 8/9/2016 Federal uticat;ons Comm omrnission ASR Registration Search Results Antenna Structure Registration FCC > WTB > ASR > Online Systems > ASR Search ASR Registration Search Registration Search Results Ck New Search ek Refine Search No matches found Printable Page To try again, you can perform a new search or refine your existing search. Specified Search Latitude='44-43-6.2 N', Longitude='93-10-42.9 W', Radius=0.8 Kilometers ASR Help ASR Online Systems About ASR Registration Search A FCC Site Map RCM HELP = Pending Application(s) ASR License Glossary - FAQ - Online Help - Documentation - Technical Support TOWAIR- CORES - ASR Online Filing - Application Search - Registration Search Privacy Statement - About ASR - ASR Home By Registration Number • FCC Wireless ULS I CORES Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Help 1 Tech Support Phone: 1-877-480-3201 TTY: 1-717-338-2824 Submit Help Request http://wireless2.fcc.g ov/U1sApp/As rSearch/asrRes ultsj sp;JSESSION ID ASRSEARCH=GdSVVXq 3FNMRHMcfpBt2SnC2MJRMI4JpnvsnKid-ldmg rg cjFHscz2n... 1/1 12 February, 2015 Ms. Carol Blommel Johnson City of Apple Valley Public Works Superintendent — Utilities 7100 147th St. W Apple Valley, MN 55124 RE: Elimination of city water tower at 5551 160th St W, Apple Valley, as a potential candidate for proposed Verizon Wireless cell site, MIN Brittle. Dear Ms. Johnson: This letter serves to confirm that the water tower that has been proposed as a location for the MIN Brittle cell site will not meet the objectives of the cell site, and placing antennas on the tower would denigrate, rather than enhance, the existing Verizon network. The purpose of the site is as capacity offload: two existing sites, one to the northwest in Apple Valley, and the other to the southwest in Lakeville, experience a high amount of daily traffic. This high traffic results in slower speed and reliability to Verizon customers in the area, as wireless equipment at a certain site can only handle a certain amount of connections effectively. When a site is unable to provide the speed and reliability that Verizon is committed to providing, we must create a new cell site that will offload some of the traffic of the existing sites. Capacity offload sites need to be carefully designed and located. If the proposed site is too far from the existing site, or the centerline of the new antennas is too low, then it will not provide the offload required. If it is too close to the existing site or the centerline of the new antennas is too high, then the new site will overtake too much traffic from the existing sites, and will cause interference issues for customers whose devices are trying to connect to multiple sites simultaneously. Analysis of the existing sites showed that the city water tower would be an acceptable location, though it was outside of the originally planned search ring. However, the proposed centerline at the top of the water tower (-150') presents a problem. A 150' centerline cell site typically has a range of 1.5-2.0 miles, depending on the terrain, and other obstructions in the area. The existing cell sites mentioned above are both approximately 2 miles from the water tower, so a cell range of 1.5-2.0 miles would overtake too much traffic, and create interference issues with the existing sites. For this reason, we previously proposed placing our antennas on the water tower stem, around 70'. A typical 70' centerline will provide Letter to Carol Blommel Johnson 2/12/15 Page 1 of 2 a cell range of between 0.75-1.0 miles, which is the ideal distance for balancing the traffic between the new site and the proposed site. As previous discussions with the city determined that placing antennas on the stem would not be feasible, it is required for Verizon to find a suitable replacement, which is why a light pole replacement in the nearby park has been proposed. The —75' centerline that could be achieved by such a site would provide the needed offload without overtaking the existing sites, and would greatly benefit the Verizon network and our customers in Apple Valley. The water tower site, as proposed, would only serve to cause interference and additional capacity issues with the antennas at the top, and Verizon would be unable to utilize it to our advantage. Sincerely, Jordan Alstad RF Engineer Mobile (612)719-5587 Verizon Wireless Letter to Carol Blommel Johnson 2/12/15 Page 2 of 2 c 1CIVO.Y _1(.2 7/di 11; 2:F1 OS v 3S 3, JO H.L 0 11 C., ISV3 • = IS3A, 10 , Sv, 0 _J 0 0 og- sys 6g9Z .00 N ' LiT1 vs a IS., a 00 SZ=8 ,.,00 OD i • , 9 13.1Ycl 9CL. 3 „tZ,..00 S VICINITY MAP B, I-11,JON 3111\13AV HSI19N3 Lf.08g HMON C): so) 0, "30,1 •S, -D3S JO FLOOS 3, , 31-11 3, .LS, 69.191.1 zz£1,6,4,89 3 .00 S 0 wd z 0 z 00 0 69'1,1. 3 .SZ,C1..00 S 69 M N HIS PLAT PREPARED BY BOLTON g, MENK, INC. r b 6 �.rw�wr UJ d W J X Q 2 G] tr I 1 J BONN 101d o w 0 o z LU 2 Z E" co 1- z ZIlo o 9, so, DRAWN BY; LT, 03N003 maw m0003 01 03M01 .Z-,OZZ 01 TOWER LOCATION PLAN SCALE1" = 8U-0" OW.` N /41Uj 50 c 4 4 !i Q z O RECEIVED AUG 03 2 cv S: • t2. 0) H Z w LL, z tL 0 J 1.1.1 LU t 0 = r-= 0) C C C'V mcZ is m iI 9 r,. 11 9 4008515041/00504 KEY lCOPi i )DIAMETER RUN Tyr, MANUFACTURER MODEL f DIELECTRIC I (INCH) (FEET) TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT RRU RiCSSON PRUS (13 () 005ENBERCER H 712015 w7 A-2 HYBRID JUMPER DIST. BOX TO RRU TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT RRU ERICSSON RRUS-12 B2 (1) ROSENBERGER Hsi -712045 W/ A-2 HYBRID JUMPER Oi5T BOX TO RRU TERMINATE. THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON R80512---82 FOR 4 WAY 0X_ CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RRUS12-82 FOR 4 WAY Rx 1 RRU ERICSSON 8805-12 84 (1) ROSENBERGER HJ --712015 8/ A-2 HYBRID JUMPER DIST, 808 TO RRU CONNECT THIS PORT TO82MODULI ON RRUS-813 FOR 4WAY R8 CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON 0005-813 FOP4 WAY RX .__......._..._< CONNECT THIS PORT T04.2 MODULE ON RRU5.2-84 FOR4 WAY RX . ....... . .... CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RRUS12--84 FOR 4 WAY Rx TERMINATE THIS P0RT TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT 51041NATE 540 PORT_. __...___.____._...._.,.. TERMINATE THS PORT . _ N._ _..._. TERMINATE THIS PORT m.-__ ✓ TERMINATE TH€S PORT TERMINATE TH5 PORT RRUS 813 (1) ROSENBERGER H 712015 1 RPU ERN„550N Wi A-2 HYBRID JUMPER DIST. BO?' TO RRU TERMINATE THIS POR TERMINATE THIS IS PORT. 88505-12 62 (1) 005140E80/40 41-712015 RRU P88555ON W/ A-2 850400 JUMPER DIST, 805 TO RRU TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 M©D1111 ON R811S12-82 FOR 4 WAY R,8_ CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RRUS12-82 FOR 4 WAY RX RRUS 12 641 ROSENBERGER 8J-712.015 RRU FRK;SSON ( ) 8/ A-2 HYBRID JUMPER DIST. BOX TO 811 CONNECT THIS P0RT TO A2 MODULE CN RRUS-B13 FOR 4 WAY RX CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RRUS-813 FOR 4 WAY Rx CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RRU5,2-84 FOR 4 wAY Rx CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RP,U312-E4 FOR 4 WAY RX TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT ............. ..... ............... -TERMINATE THIS PORI TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT 1 P.RU (81(8 04 RRUS 813 (1) ROSENBERGER HJ --712015 W� A-2 HYBRID JUMPER DI5T. 850 00 RRU TERMINATE THIS PORT TERM'NATE THIS FORT RRUS-12 52 (1) ROSENBERGER 8J-712015 1 RRU1 ERIC55ON 8/ A-2 HYBRID JUMPER DIST. BOY, TO RRU TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MOCULE ON RRU572-82 FOR 4 WAY R8 CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MOCULE ON RRUS 2-12 FOR 4 WAY RX 1 J ` RRU 1 _ ERICSSON 1 8/ 4-2 L HYBR C JUMPEROSENBE4 ER DIST. BOX1 TO 1 RRU CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RRUS-813 FOR 4 WAY RX CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON 8805-813 F(.8 4 WAY RX -._CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RRU512'-84 FOR 4 WAY RX _ _ ~ CONNECT THIS PORT TO A2 MODULE ON RRUS12-84 FOR 4 WAY RX TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMiNATE THIS PORT TERMINATE E_.... TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT TERMINATE THIS PORT 9 8 ES ANTENNA KEY _ AZIMUTH P0541ON FUNCTION QTY MANUFACTURER MODEL MOD ANTENNA ANTENNA ANTENNA I DO ELEC i MECH TYPE LENGTH TIP CENTER OOWNTILT WNTILT 1 fi t 1 # 1 € 1 €; 1'al l i € I t i 1 fi i l i E E 1 1 b 1 Igai 1 1,b1 1 i! 1 f ; l i 1# l b{ of I !p3 z I 1 1 1 ? i 1 1 1 i i ;p} € fi € I 1 # I i I 1) 1 fi r 1 1 1 1 1: r 1C:3' € 1€ i t I t 1 I -I T? 1 1 11 i I j} i lv I l0: 1 I 11 # 1 C l i I I 1 01 i t0j t 1 i 11! l i } € i i 1 1 1 1! 1 1 i ] 1 1 t ! t 1 9 f 1 I I i i I lt-jk E i{ i I I l 1! I 1# i l t I i €i.} €} -! # ( 1 1 t 11 1 1 1 may! I ipl 11< i 3 ?€ fi l i f 1 6 1 IT -----,.i (2) DISTRIBUTION BOX, #RXXDC-3315-PF-DC (ON PIATFORI8) (12) RET JUMPER CABLE, ERICSSON #ASG 2.5 RET (FOUR EACH PER SECTOR) (2) 5-12 HYBRID CABLE, ROSENBERGER #HL -9612090 (36) TERMINATORS, 1-2W 505 (FOR AU PORTS LABELED AS FUTURE) (2) 2'5081810)0N BOX. 18040c -3315 -Pr -pc (nv r7w4-00 1 I } € r I i t • i (1,',# I I i t f i i Zv' ! € "st-1i 1 , .: 1 i} f i i i I 1 1 11 i 3. ,1 i 1 3 I i l fi l 1 r .fi. � i 'f i t l# t '• i ! I {'. 1 i I ! i{ 1 4 F F_, i i i i 01 ! 1. 1 01 I (? l '. 1? t i t iv 1 ls. € N 1 I I i t i 7 f l l l { oi- i i ) 1 P I i i # 1 i • ;�,.} r ! € f i 1 1 1 iv' €ii I s„J. 1 d N! i it -I N' ! I i! € i'<Y' ! 1 1 ' ! fi 1 l l t t 11 t i t 1 QI1 f i ' 1! 1'; � 11 #! I #1 1 1 i ,..0 i i t 1# 1 t II 1# i t l C) € t# i l z '} G I i 1 1 1 1 1 i tg. 1 I 1 ##; 1 1 °'}. p:( t 1 1 ? I 1i� 1 € t 11;(# a, {# all, t; It 11 h i l i I 1( I f i rt 1 l i I I c, I I fy 4[121111€ 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 d;t 1 I i•I slit+ 1 1 l l I p iItIIISit I l i 1 1 i t l - 1 i I1111 l i # i l i t 1; #! I I 1 1 1 i >€Iilili n1 1 # I 2# 1 1 # t t I Ii i ., 1 4 1 c#iljclijflii€11 r'l i i # I i i l t € l Cyt I I „: k t t t # I I I ©# Q1111's6.i ,: I fi i l l ' # l i .# i oli(€li#! (bj1111i)I;-i - i' l I V 1 1 1 I 11 CI1 11 Pi l l( 1# 3 1 i plJllj€;f ^( I l i 1 c l I tabs(. i€ �I i t! ( I l t +w,i t c [ I w 11 iii a�, 1! l i imet t 1 1 #i I f tv, 1 i l # vilIlliii �' 1 1 1? 1 1 1 1 t I r 1 t I 1 2 ®i } 1 1 1 1l•llljill °r1 I fi I I l 1 l t t t t r i 1 ! i i# ,1 1 1 lijij€(I1 l# I t l �r 1 I i l i i 1 I # tall(( tllit a'2 1 E 1 11 1 1 I 1 l i 1 R ,# 1 1 X111111=111 ° 's i 1 #fi i i l ',�F�, i t€? t i l 1 1 1 1 o2 i;€€{Ii1 i I 11 ## I 1 1 1 1 t 1 I I I 1 i w#i#(('sir(} °s1°[ # 1 i 1 . i 1 # I I II(1t1€ ) 1! S I I 1 I I 1 11( #tltil Q11 i 1 1 1 1 ? lit i 1 1 1 1i#lilil;l a'( l 1 1 1 1 ni 1 1j iI iQl l 1 f�+ an hi li .k a# 'Ik�'Ik' l; k n'�nl niuy n wl"rl 1;1 =-; i y I lual,,,;te I I 1 1 1 a t i f t� INt # wI� I 1?lu,l �j jt� l 11 �^,^1 '� �,1,�,+ ,� t,, *1 #�' j l fk} Ik_'it # i 1 1y & I j`�` �1� td '�Ivla.# "�#� ' .., #k i 1( J w; 1 1�'' < f i •t 4 t1l lwlwlwlw 1 1 I�Sl E of ! 1 `' IC`I r t t l .slwi•rly, I fik# 1 1 6 1 1 li'fi # 1C�It� fi i a=.•ri ( v: 1 1 lye, ; ' 1 f t 1 ,,iii,,,.e k�'ik�'#tik'Ikt'I 1 F2,1 wI I ° I i l i lr 08NHH-1255L 2ND PORT 3RD PORT 4TH PORT 5TH PORT _ - 811, PORT S8NHH-10052 2N0 PORT 3RD PORT MTmm 4TH PORT ......- 5TH PORT 8TH PORT 081,MR-1505C 2ND PORT .. ._. 3RD PORT 4TH PORT 5TH PORTPORT SEM -ill -1055C 2ND PORT 380 PORT 4TH PORT _ 5T71 POR~ - - _. SRI PORT SENHH-15552 2ND PORT 34D PORT 4TH PORT 5TH 5TH PORTv 1 6THPORT } 1 t 1 =izl w }i Eti1MRf- # 1 1 I i 11 1 1 r- ' I1[� �� 1t '�i� 1 11! 1 SI t(� i t I1 i I 114, I[*.ti r22`�S' In l� '1 11 I 1 7 1 SBNH}1 2ND PORT15,650 _ 3RD PO4RT 4� 02 5TH PORT 6TH PORT S84HH-10552 _ 2ND PORT 3RD PORT 4TH PORT _ w 5TH PORT `_ F 6TH PORT 1# 1! r# # i ttttt1�111 # I ',1 tt is 2 1 �€� it 1 1{# 1 1 5 1 SSNH11-10656 2ND PORT_ 3RD PORT'_ _ _ y 4TH PORT 5044 PORT�- 6TH PORT S8NHH-1065C 2N0 PORT 3RD PORT 4TH PORT_ 5TH PORT 6TH PORT c.:, 3 ! i; i 9 vj i'I G 11tIi 1 fi v• i j I iii € 1r 11 1. 0, 1 1, •# I ---i---f r t 1 1 1 1 11 t i; t` i ? 1 1! 0 1 1 I �� 1 I# 1 I i 1 1 ! I c l 1 1 rel 1!# 1 t f mo# 1 1 1 1 t 0,1 1 Tstir t Chi to } I I # 1 b € 1 1 3! cal +frr w1 1 1 1 a. nS i i fi 1i 1 1 1 1€ c,l 1 Is , wi 2 11 l I i 1 1 1 1 1 1# 1 i t - (' f( i 1 € 1 E } 1 - 1 1 ,I 3 1 1 1 E i 1 1 1 �-- € 1 1 I i r i i j "- i I 17 1€ 1 1 I i 1 T } I i i i 1 I i l i!. } i f 11 j �-^ 1 (1 i i € 1 i 1 r 1 t t ; I l i .-.1 1 1 1 9 i 2 1 € i 1 t I C 1 i `^1 , 1 I 1 i 1 1 ms,' _1 1 (1!!>111 fc. ,,i, 1 l •...1 1 1 1i I cv'r�� 1{ €1tk f i t 1 ' ' �,jrevl,.�"evlM ,I# �'t�: 1 l i 1 2 ! ( 2 , i ) t2 1 i ! [( t •l i lc :x 1 # i ': fi ! ` { #i # O x 1 \I 1 I 1 11\I"w.4 ,r''' tz 1 ittA 2 1 X bfix C¢�� t i a 1 ;! ,; 11!€ t 1 @ 1 1 i t I._. 1 #xr I I I 1 1' i",,i'1.! fi ^..I�.i 1 1,--1r.,# I 2# rc x. ! € t X:Ci: t 1q.i i# k1 i t f i 1 1 2 we lx' 1 Cr�11�X ^�..1^�.iiq fiy.., 1 1 s 1 A k' i 1 f f t , 1 1 l �3tk% }. .=j. } - 1 # i I l i 2 ItC7i;tt�t= -;NIY7i^Q'. •�«',e cv rvinilr #c r 1# ! 11 1 i , 1.,' �t �.£%. €n lam, ri1 l 1 1}! ,CV'r'ilvi:ai;r In alter, tI•tj 4 +rt I i l i 1 CM;M:C'#x;47 1 1 it '' IC^-01h`7,4'iisi47' �il� gcv # 1 r�lc #cv i lcty r1 t lr-i ri;r, i CJ; +5i+5 i t�?sq v vvr r 1 I P Irvltnl.• .- At - I•- 1 1 l - iCV fMk tUt:4? cv,ci?cv#w.,:fz>r`j 1 # # I ^'ttvl vl rFlct> ,', „>I iil=it 1 1 1 E 1 i � t j.44.'' V.V. ? I # 1 I 1 I 7 1 1l 0's 1 1 1 1I i1 i# E 0 i 1 ( " i f i 1 '} € 1 1 ( i t t j ( 1 1 1 col; l ! i 7 # ) r( 1 1 1 fi I 1 4 3 1 �I 1 11 i 1 1 1. 1 a ? i col 1 1 l I 1 € 2 1 ciI 1( 1 1 I 1 i 1 f 1 1 ?� 11( ~ i 1 ! 1 ! # a' 1 1#( 11 # 1 i 1 1 t { 1 1 1 1 I ( 1t t 1 1 t 1 i,,i2 pet# 3 1 1t 2 1 t 1 001030 ,X, 001331 3,, # 9 # 601030 3., PMENT/CABLE KEY 0 W ANTENNA KEY f v v z to rzt� w c e✓ ci.: --- `� 1 ,_ cra i cs vac ixsrr• Q 0 CT cr � � '•�.,' o-.:. � iai � -� � ;�;. ,r; - ti t:a ,'� r. w t.ti. C t`.r � � .'"i..,. ?�2_ � LY' � t... ia_ LY5 (� L^ � �.• V's � t +� f.3 CS'1 ... _ �y p X1:,7 .. in ¢C`` !"j �--�_>'' plv C? #. C: c-" � i rJ i"� }.„. }-'� �`.� L9 _ 11+.i 1- ,rusauc>c c_•c� ��i CI1�.sQ1t~u W L. t>� L 0 0 0 *' ✓; us Ut ,,,_� a r ; r,,, rn V f th cn testa t� sn in cri to tt5 cn c to f ^,. if3{Prs � rry i i __. - I i 1 tt'7 t { Ah t i 1 r•. I I E: I ?C,,` (,..+, c. _ 1 C7 f Crr nn f oc7� cs, r • t rn zr, � � :� c�+t r� ©1 , Z i r— W f ti V! - CT {- �� i7 c Li n 7 c c iv ."tea LUI 4? d ©1 . � � as ,,.5 az, > m 5 t.. c> w a .ra k, M -EZ .m- «'' cis ._' i`_ en V z.''.� u �; ii; -' kC.-� U Jl, 0i ! i !i i al l a� 1 c t_ g E q a o. ., m 3 m v; a a 0 3c [s> i.> ,,.: a. v c : w w cr cr to �. F-7 in i 1 ([ 1 1 S V8 (-�\ -% 6.-•,3 V e uo k 0 ' i s 8 l?) 8 8 E-..) 8 Z rad cr 1110 /J 7 w, 2 C c � z W z z w c cn X Z 0 sr m r) a D LU W U W CC 1 i T 0 z GROUNDING PLAN 0 4 P D 0 D c . uarn t sc uGro f f 6A ITEM: September 21, 2016 City of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Land Use/Action Items SECTION: PROJECT NAME: 12500 Dorchester Trail Front Yard Fence Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION Mark Anderson, applicant and property owner has requested a variance to construct an 8’ fence in the front yard where 3.5’ are permitted by City Code. The stated purpose of the fence is to act as a noise barrier and screening from McAndrews Road. STAFF CONTACT: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Alex Sharpe, Planner/Economic Dev Spec. Community Development Department APPLICANT: PROJECT NUMBER: Mark J. Anderson PC16-33-V APPLICATION DATE 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: 8/17/16 10/8/16 12/7/16 Proposed Action The Staff reviews variance applications based strictly upon the requirements of the state statutes and the City Code which require that the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties present in order for a variance to be granted, and that logical alternatives are not available. approval Staff recommends of the variance with the following motion:  Recommend approval of a variance for an 8 foot fence in the front yard where 3.5 feet are permitted for 12500 Dorchester Trail, subject to compliance with all City Codes, based on the following practical difficulties with conditions. Practical Difficulties 1. The property is bounded on three sides by roadways, one of which is a large county road (McAndrews). The fence is proposed as a screen for noise and light from the county road. 2. The property owner has attempted to mitigate headlight wash and road noise through selective plantings (row of coniferous trees) but has been unable to reduce the negative effect of the adjacent roadway. 3. An 8’ fence is permitted in the rear yard, the applicant wishes to extend this along the entire north property line to screen the house from noise, without this extension the fence will not meet its intended purpose. Conditions of approval 1. The fence shall have 2”- 5” ground clearance to allow for proper drainage. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the fence. 3. The property owner shall identify the location of the north property line and note the correct location of the fence in relation to this property line. 4. The face of the fence shall be alternating or face the public ROW. Project Summary/Issues Mark Anderson, 12500 Dorchester Trail, has requested consideration of a variance to the maximum fence height in the front yard. City Code allows fences a maximum height of 3.5’ in the front yard. Mr. Anderson proposes an 8’ fence along his northern property line (adjacent to McAndrews Road) to screen from noise and headlight wash onto his property and house. An existing mature conifer tree line is currently screening the property, the applicant intends to retain these trees and bolster their intended effect as screening with the fence line. These trees will need to be trimmed for installation of the fence, but will be allowed to grow and provide further screening in the future. A neighborhood identification sign was present on the site in the northwest corner. This sign was installed at the time the houses were being built and has not been maintained since that time. An association was supposed to be created for the neighborhood to address the ongoing lighting and maintenance of the sign. Staff has found no evidence of an association, or an easement for the sign. The ongoing lighting and maintenance of this sign has been placed upon the property owner. Mr. Anderson has applied for a demolition permit for the sign, which the city has issued. This variance is not impacted by the removal of the sign. At this time staff has not received any concerns or been contacted by any surrounding property owners. Definition of “Practical difficulties”:  reasonable manner The applicant proposes to use the property in a not permitted by the zoning provisions of the code;  circumstances unique to the property The plight of the applicant is due to not created by the applicant; and  not alter the essential character The variance, if granted, will of the locality.  Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In order to grant a variance, the City considers the following factors to determine whether the applicant established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision(s) of this Chapter: Special conditions apply to the structure or land in question that are particular to the property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district or vicinity in which the land is located; The property is unique in that it is bordered on three sides by roadways. One is a high volume County Road (McAndrews Road). not be contrary to the intent of this chapter The granting of the proposed variance will ; 1. The granting of this variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The property owner intends to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by the zoning code. do not result from the actions of the The special conditions or circumstances 2. owner/applicant; and The conditions of this lot were not created by the property owner and existed prior to their ownership. No part of the request involves economic considerations and the variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood. not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant The granting of the variance will , but is necessary to alleviate practical difficulties in complying with the zoning provisions of this Code; and The property owner has attempted to mitigate the noise and headlight difficulties with natural screening (conifer trees along the northern property line). These trees have been allowed to mature prior to the applicant’s request and are providing the maximum noise and light mitigation they are able to offer. The proposed fence is to supplement these trees and provide a permanent solution. minimum variance necessary The variance requested is the to alleviate the practical difficulty. 3. The fence is along the northern property line and only includes one 8’ in length section at an angle along the western property line. The request is the minimum variance to alleviate the practical difficulties of the site. Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) Site survey 1. Plat drawing 2. Area Map 3. Zoning Map 4. 12500 Dorchester Trail Fence Variance PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 12500 Dorchester Trail Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Hunters Ridge Comprehensive Plan LD- low Density Residential 2-6 units per acre Designation Zoning R-3, Single Family Residential Classification Existing Platting Platted Current Land Use Single Family Home Size: 22,879 sq. ft. Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation Row of Conifer Trees Other Significant County Road Drainage ditch to the north Natural Features Adjacent NORTH Properties/Land Comprehensive Plan Parks and Open Space Uses Zoning/Land Use PD -168 Valleywood Municipal Golf Course SOUTH Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single Family Residential, 11,000 s.f. EAST Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single Family Residential, 11,000 s.f. WEST Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single Family Residential, 11,000 s.f. f 6M 3 .1 a4,L'? sm.x- nfri If.o V ;ftr -.•1; ....if, 4....,4• 0 .7 ,OZ. .6 - . irg---- -,,,,,,,-,1 i r -,L11.• '‘V. ';', - ''. i ' , e' ."...,iii, ,..,i, 6t4 ,.... / --7,,11 ' ::0:::: ir---______ * .,? . i ,*,:o_ii_zAryes.._,_,,, - :.,,,,:-II- I, .tiv ,..,-_!,1 zbas.a,„ ,47,,,_ ...i....,,,,Q . 36 • 0 'I, 1 _' _ft, -,... • .$' s v,. ii., ...... ''''Sc, . s. /11 - • - - -3 Izi r CI ,,, , .....-....„,,,,,.,,__., ,...,.i: rArz , 4":;1 4? ttv; Cll. 3..0is ' "t' / CO , ' '-'• 7/ ) ,q, -, *.-o ' '. ...i. \ y , -,- ,,,,...,,cr, .,, Ir.P !.. , '',ilr .-4 'b62F , • /4fAcv .,,,.., .) / 1,.' L.,. 2":" .4--; 4 - 1./ /.,,,, .., , , ff - 7...›...,-7 1 .., ii, 7,, N. F.--,-.: k,9-%.- 4,1'!ii% ..4- '''.,' J_ .,--- --r...1), 4 ' ' / --...2'.. , s. .,,, , ,i - ibY• •- ii- ' ! V ‘ • - i<,. .., ,,, ... . ..,. „..,,,. , ,.. ,-;,....,..., -.- 0-1,--:., \ ,"-' , .,... ..., 4,d, -i., .17,-- 1 - ..., ...,.. _,.., .,, - -...,--* \t, . •,--. -0. , .,.. .,- • .....,..) ..... R: \ (4 it /,- . 1 •.) ''''-' a .41.5:, .4,- , ,,,,,..,.„,,,,,,,, ....., ...# -i,,.46. t, ..---.y_._.. ti 1/44, 9F a It - %'ZiL ,',/s- r -1.- L..44 , t, V -- .,/ ' / ..., - ,,,, i • 1.4 .• 4,. ,,,4`i ' P ' , '- ' , •?:,' .,_... , '.:',7 / i/ . i 9, .x, ,.,,. 1: v.i ,,,,- ,,, ' "I'' „4 ' 4V/ ':!‘ff-L.-c, '''' • , i ... i, '...... , , ?W.,/ 71 f,l3 .,- 01, --_, , ..c -,2:,.. ...!!......kf 'Cf , r,, b ,-. z _..z --,-,, cyx- 1 c , : . . :__. ,,,, .0 , i ..,-, cS k'pr 't, ,,,.,„ ca. ,..., CA, 6----,-.• , fy3 -- (:). (`'. •.'-' ,,, i -c.. E .44 -:8" 2 C,11 I 1 ' '' • ...::: '' ' , I 1 17 ' ' t c,_ id- t„o Qa!-70 ,str. 1 c'Z -4•-• "g c., ,,p..,2 , ^•,., ,„ iS O 1- P Z. sp, a. 0 • IMO to. ?,11$ 117 ti r!, It, cc _ Fr/J -210- 5 ---- ;KZ— s $• - • "Al OS% 51e5 I 11 --ErFess * /35 97,,,v Ai / Lin 3 5 PD -168 Valleywood Municipal GC MCANDREWS RD 12500 Dorchester Trail ZONING MAP 1,3 d Iva r 1 1 A :® "to "1St- ■ V '13 j_ , NVOlkt A AMU ■' 6B ITEM: September 21, 2016 City of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Land Use/Action Items SECTION: PROJECT NAME: 264 Walnut Lane Side Yard Setback Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zachary Grage, applicant and property owner has requested a variance to the side yard setback allowing a 2 foot encroachment where a 5 foot setback is required by City Code. The purpose of the variance is to install an egress window allowing a basement bedroom to be code compliant. STAFF CONTACT: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Alex Sharpe, Planner/Economic Dev. Spec. Community Development Department APPLICANT: PROJECT NUMBER: Zachary Grage PC16-35-V APPLICATION DATE 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: 9/12/16 11/10/16 1/9/17 Proposed Action The Staff reviews variance applications based strictly upon the requirements of the state statutes and the City Code which require that the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties present in order for a variance to be granted, and that logical alternatives are not available. approval Staff recommends of the variance with the following motion:  Recommend approval of a variance to the side yard setback allowing a 2 foot encroachment where a 5 foot setback is required for 264 Walnut Lane, subject to compliance with all City Codes, based on the following practical difficulties with conditions. Practical Difficulties 1. The lot is in the portion of town that was established before Apple Valley was incorporated. As such many of the zoning regulations which are standard throughout the community can cause conflicts in this area. The home on this property is considered legal non-conforming for its side yard setback. Code requires a 10 foot side yard setback, in this case the home is setback 6 feet. 2. If the home were setback the correct 10 feet the window well would not require a variance. Conditions of approval 1. The window well shall obtain a building permit for final inspection. 2. The property owner shall identify the western property line and have this clearly marked for inspection. Project Summary/Issues Zachary Grage, 264 Walnut Lane, has requested consideration of a variance to side yard setback allowing a 2 foot encroachment where a 5 foot setback is required by City Code. The applicant has been working to finish the basement in his home, and has obtained all permits required through the process. During review the building department noted that in order for the room to be considered a legal bedroom it requires an egress window. Mr. Grage resubmitted plans showing the window on the western side of his property and was issued interior framing permits. At the final inspection for framing the inspectors noted that the window well had been mostly installed, and explained that an additional permit was required for window wells. Mr. Grage applied for the window well permit; unfortunately the window well was too close to the western property line and required a variance. The house was constructed in 1964; Apple Valley was incorporated in 1969 which established the first zoning code. R-3 is the most common single-family zoning in the City and requires a 10’ side yard setback for houses. Many of the houses in this neighborhood do not meet this provision, including this home which is setback 6’ 10”. Code allows window wells, air conditioning units, and other items which are ancillary to the home a 5’ side yard setback. In the case of 264 Walnut Lane, had the home been constructed with a 10’ side yard setback a variance for the window well would not be required. City staff have reviewed this request and found that there will be adequate site drainage, will not affect the drainage of the neighboring property and provides for the required 3’ of clearance to the property line for fire access. Definition of “Practical difficulties”:  reasonable manner The applicant proposes to use the property in a not permitted by the zoning provisions of the code;  circumstances unique to the property The plight of the applicant is due to not created by the applicant; and  not alter the essential character The variance, if granted, will of the locality.  Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In order to grant a variance, the City considers the following factors to determine whether the applicant established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision(s) of this Chapter: Special conditions apply to the structure or land in question that are particular to the property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district or vicinity in which the land is located; The property is unique in that it was constructed prior to the establishment of the zoning ordinance. The house is setback 6’ 10” where 10’ are required, had the home been compliant there would not be a need for the variance. not be contrary to the intent of this chapter The granting of the proposed variance will ; 1. The granting of this variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The property owner intends to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by the zoning code. do not result from the actions of the The special conditions or circumstances 2. owner/applicant; and The conditions of this lot were not created by the property owner and existed prior to their ownership. No part of the request involves economic considerations and the variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood. not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant The granting of the variance will , but is necessary to alleviate practical difficulties in complying with the zoning provisions of this Code; and The property owner has graded the site to drain adequately, were the window to be moved to the rear (south) side of the home the site drainage would be affected. minimum variance necessary The variance requested is the to alleviate the practical difficulty. 3. The window well is the minimum size required for building safety to allow the basement room to be considered a bedroom. Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) Applicant Narrative 1. Site Plan 2. Plat Drawing 3. Area Map 4. Zoning Map 5. 264 Walnut Lane Side Yard Setback Variance PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 264 Walnut Lane Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 4, Apple Valley 2 nd Addition Comprehensive Plan LD- low Density Residential 2-6 units per acre Designation Zoning R-3, Single Family Residential Classification Existing Platting Platted Current Land Use Single Family Home Size: 10,241 sq. ft. Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation Turf Other Significant N/A Natural Features Adjacent NORTH Properties/Land Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) Uses Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single Family 11,000 s.f. SOUTH Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single Family 11,000 s.f. EAST Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single Family 11,000 s.f. WEST Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single Family 11,000 s.f. Letter of Intention Variance Permit 264 Walnut Lane, Apple Valley, MN Egress window placement At the beginning of this year, I had applied for what I thought was all necessary permits needed to finish my basement. I was certain that it included the egress window permit that had been laid out in initial layout plans sent to the inspector’s office. Throughout the spring I had various inspectors come through to inspect framing, electrical and mechanical additions I had made. I had discussed options for installing an egress window into the future bedroom of the home and realized through talking with professionals and the inspector that I was correct in my initial decision to place the window on the west wall, which would mean I would need to remove the existing window (a window that was positioned above ground but too small to meet egress code) and install a larger one with a well. The reasons were that when I purchased my house, I had issues with water standing in my backyard. Through landscaping I have got it so the water moves more freely away from my house and into the drainage area on the opposite side of my house from where the window is. Placing the egress in the backyard would compromise the grading previously done and create issues with water getting into my basement. Further, using the egress as the escape into a backyard that is fully fenced did not sound like a reasonably safe option. Also, the block removed for the existing window matched the width needed for the egress that I installed, keeping more of my block intact throughout the basement. I had decided to move forward with this plan thinking all permit requests had previously been approved and I was good to start the project (medical issues made for a period of time where no work was done; possibly adding to the confusion of me not having an egress window permit). Before starting to dig, I had all utility lines marked and made sure that none went past the egress (opposite side of window from road) so I had no reason to worry about encroaching into utility easement as utility and drainage is on opposite side of house (Item 4, shown below). Furthermore, I had read this with the only concern to me being that I was further than 36 inches from a driveway (Item 3, shown below). I moved forward and dug the well, cut through my wall and installed an appropriate window for the bedroom with the belief that I met all city codes, and that I had already had the permit for the egress window. After trying to set up an inspection, it was pointed out to me that I did not yet have the permit. After submitting a request, I was told that a variance would be mandatory for me to continue with the egress window as is. I am hopeful that the variance will be approved as my options are very limited due to the unique circumstances of the property being grandfathered in with a 5’ setback instead of the now required 10’, and the backyard being an unsuitable place for an egress well. The variance I have requested is minimal in the fact that it will not interfere with any future city/utility projects, and is in a safe and unnoticeable area of my yard. Thank you, Zak Grage Owner of Property - COUNTY ROAD 42 150TH_ST W 150TH ST -W COUNTY ROADA2 264 Walnut Lane LOCATION MAP •�r AppValle Valley RAWING NUMBER UMBELIBML—,BANLCAUEDRAV 4 , LP, DRAWING - -Mb mu • Mt. VICE arrow, VIII ^ MOM FIY111114.075Pr t tHAW 77 DUCHESS LN