The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/02/2016••• •••• ••••• •••• ••• City of Apple VaValley Meeting Location: Municipal Center 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 NOVEMBER 2, 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. CONSENT ITEMS A. Approve minutes of October 19, 2016 B. Embry Place Second Addition —Consider model home building permit. (PC15-46-F) LOCATION: 15222 Emory Ave PETITIONER: D.R. Horton, Inc. - MN 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Christ Church Communications Tower —Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit amendment to allow for an 87 -foot tall cell tower. (PC16-40-C) LOCATION: Christ Church, 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road PETITIONER: Verizon Wireless and Christ Church B. Mount Olivet Church Communications Tower —Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit amendment to construct an 84 -foot cell tower. (PC16-39-C) LOCATION: Mount Olivet Church, 14201 Cedar Avenue PETITIONER: Verizon Wireless and Mount Olivet Church C. 7525 147t" Street Building —Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit to allow for a drive-thru window in conjunction of with a proposed coffee shop and site plan/building permit authorization to allow for a 4,567 sq. ft. building. (PC16-38-CVB) LOCATION: 7525 147th Street West PETITIONER: 7525 Cedar, LLC 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS --NONE-- 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. 7. ADJOURNMENT NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Regular Scheduled Meeting - Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 - Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 28, 2016 Wednesday, December 21, 2016 Regular Scheduled Meeting - Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 23, 2016 - Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, December 12, 2016 NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Thursday, November 10, 2016 Informal Regular Scheduled Meeting Tuesday, November 22, 2016 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 7:00 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 OCTOBER 19, 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, Angela Polozun, Paul Scanlan and David Schindler Members Absent: Tim Burke and Keith Diekmann Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner/Economic Development Specialist Alex Sharpe, 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 Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the agenda. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Polozun, approving the minutes of the meeting of October 5, 2016. Ayes - 3 - Nays - 0. Abstain — 1 (Melander) Commissioner Schindler arrived at 7:02 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS --NONE-- 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Menard's Redevelopment of the Hanson Property — Consider 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and text amendments and rezoning to allow for 18.5 acres of commercial and 18 acres of industrial. (PC15-36-PZ) LOCATION: Northwest corner of CSAH 42 and Johnny Cake Ridge Road PETITIONER: Menard, Inc. Planner Tom Lovelace stated Menard, Inc. is requesting a text amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, amendment to the 2030 Land Use Map, and rezoning of 50.66 acres of CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 2 of 6 property. The subject property is located in the northwest corner of 150th Street West and Johnny Cake Ridge Road and is currently guided and zoned for industrial uses. The original request was to re -designate the southwest 16.5 acres "C" (Commercial) for commercial/retail uses and the remaining property tech/flex, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's "MBC" (Mixed Business Campus) designation. Menard, Inc. has revised their request and is now asking that the southwest 18.5 acres be designated for commercial uses, the southeast 9.25 acres for office/medical office uses, 8.75 acres for industrial uses, and 7 acres for storm water/open space uses. Parcels 1 and 2 are currently designated "IND" (Industrial) on the 2030 Land Use Map. Others currently own portions of these parcels. The "MBC" designation is currently limited to the property in the City's South Central Planning Area (SCPA), which is bounded by CSAH 42 on the north, Pilot Knob Road on the east, 153rd/155th Street West on the south, and Flagstaff Avenue on the west. The applicant is requesting a text amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to allow for the inclusion of select areas north of CSAH 42, adjacent to the South Central Planning Area into the "MBC" designation. Finally, the applicant is also requesting that the property be rezoned from "I-2" (General Industrial) to "PD" (Planned Development) to allow for a mix of commercial/retail, medical office and limited industrial uses. Commissioner Alwin commented that when we look at where we would ideally place commercial business in Apple Valley when we look at land use, he feels that this is just pushing the sprawl further east on County Road 42. It is not anywhere near the rest of our concentrated commercial district. Aside from rather we want to lose industrial space, he felt this is just random planning, not a thoughtful placement of more commercial when we already have an existing place of commercial space. He said yes this is an empty site but it does not seem right to stick a Menards store there. It would be more of the same. He asked why put more commercial in this place. He felt there was a disconnect. Mr. Lovelace said this is what the applicant is proposing from a land use perspective. Commissioner Alwin said historically we had resisted variances to let commercial operations go in industrial or office zones in order to protect the integrity of the other zones. He feels that this is the reverse by putting commercial in that had been zoned industrial and it seems like it would degrade other commercial areas in the City because it contributes to sprawl. Commissioner Scanlan questioned the traffic and that staff had discussions with Holiday. He asked if there were similar discussions with Uponor. Mr. Lovelace answered yes that City Engineer Brandon Anderson would be able to expand on that. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 3 of 6 City Engineer Brandon Anderson said he looked at seven different options for various traffic controls at these intersections. The main concern is at 149th Street that had a potential for backup. He reviewed 4 -way stops, signaled intersection and roundabouts. Commissioner Scanlan inquired how big trucks would handle multiple roundabouts and if 147th Street would be fully signalized. He asked about a 3rd roundabout as shown. Mr. Anderson said the 147th Street intersection would be fully signalized. He added that he looked at every type of traffic control configuration and that it is a challenging corridor due to spacing and volume. He said creating a mix creates a higher level of operation at the intersections. Mr. Lovelace asked Mr. Anderson for clarification if the 147th Street signal is already warranted or is pretty close to being warranted. Mr. Anderson said that 147th Street intersection currently meets the warrants for a signal but a 4 - way stop is functioning now. Commissioner Scanlan inquired about the medical and that they are just proposing medical at that site and if there was a developer yet in play looking at constructing based on proposals. Mr. Lovelace answered that in 2015 a potential developer was looking at the property. Commissioner Scanlan inquired about the medical office building and what the timeframe was. He asked where we are at with the property to the south and possibly able to build on that. Mr. Lovelace said the City is having discussions and showed commercial development areas south of County Road 42. He reviewed active mining areas. Commissioner Scanlan was concerned if the Commission were to go ahead and approve, looking at these two medical buildings, how might that affect the real intent of those southern properties going forward in the future. Commissioner Polozun inquired if Menards is only interested in selling the existing site or do they have any interest in redevelopment themselves. Chair Melander asked what percentage of Apple Valley's land is industrial now versus the neighboring communities. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist reviewed a comparison table. Chair Melander asked for clarification that when Menards bought this land it was zoned industrial. Mr. Lovelace answered correct. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Chair Melander asked if there were no promises made at the time that the City was going to change it or revise it. Mr. Lovelace answered no and that they did not approach the City at the time that they purchased it. Chair Melander confirmed that Menards bought it as industrial and they were not looking to expand. He commented he saw the old Menards in Burnsville sit for five years and that he does not want to see the current Menards sit vacant should this be approved. Theron Berg, Real Estate Department for Menards, answered Commissioner Polozun's question regarding if Menard's is only interested in selling the existing site or do they have any interest in redevelopment themselves. He said honestly they would do it either way. He said when it hits the newspapers, they get calls. He said they could have sold the current store location 3 or 4 times over. Time kills deals so that is why they do not have a user for the old store yet because they do not know the outcome of this proposal. They are very confident that the current Menards site will redevelop. Commissioner Alwin inquired where they might be with other potential occupants on these other parcels like office rather than the store. Mr. Berg commented that ISD 196 is interested. Menards had also been approached by a developer about a year ago. He said they could sell the old Menards store. Chair Melander referred to the site to the south and west of this with Pete Fischer and asked if that would still be a possibility for Menards. Mr. Berg commented that Menards bought the Hanson property because it was on County Road 42, seemed like a great piece of real estate and was inexpensive. That was a Menard family investment. Menards was approved for a store on the Fischer property but the road access including ROW from Home Depot and a roundabout did not get resolved. He said Menards tried to extend the purchase agreement but Fischer said no. Chair Melander inquired what the occupancy was for the Hebert industrial buildings to the west (Apple Valley Business Campus). Mr. Lovelace answered that those building are fully occupied. James Madsen, James Barton Design Build, Inc., said he owns land in Apple Valley that is directly impacted by this proposal. He said when his company was looking for land, he was told to find land not along the corridor but to find it in an industrial area. He referenced rules on landscaping, screening and storage. He said he was shoved out there to be light industrial. He asked where do small companies like his go. Where does light industrial go. He said you want to bring in medical. He added that does not seem to fit the master plan in Apple Valley. Where is the City headed. He expressed concern for safety. He commented there were lots of accidents at that location. He said a great business neighbor is Uponor but that they have a lot of semi -trailers and truck traffic that goes CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 5 of 6 to Lakeville 24/7. His trucks cannot get in. He has people that need to get to the daycare center that is one of his tenants. Trucks run over their grass and irrigation. How are they going to make a roundabout turn. Now you want to add a bus garage. His main concern was for traffic flow. Dave Edquist, Manager of Real Estate for Holiday Station Stores, commented Holiday initially had concerns with the 3/4 turn access that was originally proposed but they really appreciate Menards and the City's input and spending time to come up with a plan that certainly works and functions far better than what we were looking at in the past. He said they think this is a plan that works. He appreciates everyone's efforts to look at both sides. Mr. Madsen asked if there was anyone from engineering that could explain how he was to get out of his parking lot with the way this is designed. He will lose the access to his building. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Madsen's comments on the access are duly noted. These are concept plans that were developed with multiple options to accommodate all the concerns with traffic along this corridor. The median as it is conceptually shown will go through a design process and we will probably flush out. There is the potential that could probably be striped, change the configuration to allow access to each of the points. These are conceptual traffic drawings intended to identify a land use for Menards and help identify right-of-way needs, concept planning. There are still some details that need to be resolved with just the specifics. The point of the median that Mr. Madsen is referring can be rectified. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, recommending approval of re -designation of the south 18.5 acres of the East 1/2 of Section 26 from "IND" (Industrial) to "C" (Commercial). Ayes - 2 - Nays — 3. (Scanlan, Melander, Alwin) Motion failed. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, recommending approval of the re -designation of the northwest 7 acres+/- from "IND" (Industrial) to Water/Pond. Ayes - 2 - Nays — 3. (Scanlan, Melander, Alwin) Motion failed. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, recommending approval of rezoning of the south and west 46.5 acres of the East 1/2 of Section 26, from "1-2" (General Industrial) to "PD" (Planned Development) that would allow for a mix of retail, office and medical office uses. Ayes - 2 - Nays — 3. (Scanlan, Melander, Alwin) Motion failed. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist introduced the plans for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and said staff is meeting to achieve the Metropolitan Council required deadline of December 2018. The Planning Commission will again be taking a lead. Discussion will continue routinely after that. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 6 of 6 The usual parts of the Plan will be enhanced: Vision, Keys, Housing, Land Use, Water Resources, Parks/Trails, Transportation and Economic Development. Areas of emphasis include the Mixed Business Campus planning, redevelopment opportunity, business attraction, retention and expansion. A new area is establishing policies on community livability and vibrancy. This is where concepts we are becoming increasingly familiar with include: vitalocity, resilience, regional, national and global connection, equity and healthy living. B. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would take place on November 2, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. He announced that Commissioner Polozun has resigned from the Planning Commission effective October 28, 2016, and thanked her for her years of service. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin to adjourn the meeting at 8:49 p.m. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. Respectfully Submitted, J Jo Murphy, Planning Department % sistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on Tom Melander, Chair 4330. 66,6* OM. *60* *0. city of Apple II Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 3B November 2, 2016 Consent PROJECT NAME: Embry Place Second Addition Model Home Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for model home permit to allow for a single-family dwelling and parking lot in the Embry Place Second Addition development, the second phase of an 86 -lot single-family development located along the east side of Pilot Knob Road, just west of Embry Path. STAFF CONTACT: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department APPLICANT: D. R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota PROJECT NUMBER: PC15-46-F APPLICATION DATE: N/A 60 DAYS: N/A 120 DAYS: N/A Proposed Action Staff recommends authorization of model home permit with a six -space surface parking lot on Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, Embry Place Second Addition. Project Summary/Issues D. R. Horton, Inc. — Minnesota is requesting approval to allow for construction of a single-family model home and six -space parking lot on two lots located on the southeast corner of i52'' Street West and Emory Avenue. City code requires the review of a model home by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. These lots are part of the Embry Place Second Addition final plat, which was approved on June 23, 2016. Curb, gutter, and utilities to serve the site have been installed. It is expected that the first lift of bituminous for Emory Avenue and 152nd Street West will be done by the end of October. Six off-street parking spaces will be installed on the lot located directly to the north of the model home. The model home parking lot will also be paved, however the applicant may only get the gravel base down this year. Paving of the parking lot will be dependent on the timing of the installation of small utilities and closing of the bituminous plants for the season. On -street parking directly adjacent to the model home will be allowed on both sides of 152" Street West, east of Emory Avenue; and on the west side of Emory Avenue only. Construction shall be in conformance with the building elevations included with this report and all signage in a model home area shall adhere to the City's sign code. Budget Impact N/A Attachments Location Map Certificate of Survey Building Plans Final Plat Parking Lot Site Plan EMBRY PLACE SECOND ADDITION MODEL HOME d **Z9-069 (MO ii,09-069 (NO :3+10Hd LCZGS .3111ASN8118 10Z1. ains 'zt OVON 00SZ elf1S S.ct IoN3 SUN • .3u1 sewer 0 •oloseuuwi 'Alunoo ON003S 30Vld Ad8IN3 '0 >1 y JO aiLVD 2o-Imcncr, CL II II II II 0 V) <0 0 e crm olco nr %E) ON ci- HU CU (II c.),S2a E q 5:0 +6 2 220a ci VI rtle„),. C ILI 0 z r•i 48' r\ - LL) M„Z 1,o0ON 00g9 9,17 0 6 9.91r6 0 0'01,6 9 101 6) lAnd 233d IN3YOSV3 - Ainiin 7ii 30VNIV210 `,, 9'Lls76. , KV.1,6 1 NY1d ONION/80 83,1_ 1 I OVci 0018 AO eiNf3'\. 8 - - . .3 " 0 01 0 0 4:6 in — EL, Lo 4 .... L.I.J , , 7 i 0 II in ,, , c...) ›; eV- Z0. LLI rn 1-- Lii 0) CO , - < C o • LU CO 0 thIS LO 9, /0 LI 10 (3) icg I cx i(Ota) 30V 2:1V0 . (0.0g6) AVM3A180 03S0d06d S6*Li76) g. *6) Qgtr (3s) /7 3S(10H 03t010eld r) (L916)" L9176 ci z 0 0 o�.9 ( M Lit/ LOOON \--amp 03SOdald (NOLL01181SNOD 630,111) anNa/iv N Q uJ uJ CD 1.4-1 —1 *NOLLIOOV TON vrt >. f at <- 0 0 5m.-06...- -..- tn , 6,5 wc\rz•-,,, m, > -- r, a rn 00 04, a z N ,0 w 2o-Imcncr, CL II II II II 0 V) <0 0 e crm olco nr %E) ON ci- HU CU (II c.),S2a E q 5:0 +6 2 220a ci VI rtle„),. C ILI 0 z r•i 48' r\ - LL) M„Z 1,o0ON 00g9 9,17 0 6 9.91r6 0 0'01,6 9 101 6) lAnd 233d IN3YOSV3 - Ainiin 7ii 30VNIV210 `,, 9'Lls76. , KV.1,6 1 NY1d ONION/80 83,1_ 1 I OVci 0018 AO eiNf3'\. 8 - - . .3 " 0 01 0 0 4:6 in — EL, Lo 4 .... L.I.J , , 7 i 0 II in ,, , c...) ›; eV- Z0. LLI rn 1-- Lii 0) CO , - < C o • LU CO 0 thIS LO 9, /0 LI 10 (3) icg I cx i(Ota) 30V 2:1V0 . (0.0g6) AVM3A180 03S0d06d S6*Li76) g. *6) Qgtr (3s) /7 3S(10H 03t010eld r) (L916)" L9176 ci z 0 0 o�.9 ( M Lit/ LOOON \--amp 03SOdald (NOLL01181SNOD 630,111) anNa/iv N Q uJ uJ CD 1.4-1 —1 $119-068 $109-069 (Z913) atiOfid LEC88 NMI 13111ASN211113 0Z1 31.1115 crroa AiNnoo LS3S1 •olosauum %Iuno0 D10)1.0 aN011100V 0N003S 30V1d Ae18113 `Z N0018 'L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 7, Block 2, EMBRY PLACE SECOND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota PROPERTY ADDRESS 15212 Emory Avenue, Apple Valley, Minnesota 11 E w• c mm E•g2 Q_ 1.2"gla2,4 g oc ye wLe'cuw 16'. ED 8 • m to '7. • c _mc 165 t -° : 13;5 ° -a 12 t•*4 Etdc.05.00 2t ocE2t4lEmN.. ° 2V21111;21 • 8ggt*Eii)T. iti 14.4tEcirO, ‘e. P.. cu o • a) 0 VPREi.." CA-40°All Ec 4,=-° tall_ POI!"1" TO ca 00 Z 0 ms cyi it; ti S.0 . I/ 1, t.5 _LA..., 1 a w cn i.), c‘l M„Z L,VLDOON S,..• — 0009 BENCHMARK Top nut of hydrant located at lots 8 and 9, Block 1 = 946.66 0 0 CO 000 z t▪ . (9-91r6) r Van=04 YU 10 ILLY 3d kt,L,*tt,6) --I/ { iVld 83d 1N3N13SV3 9 3DVNIV80-. NVld motto 83d__ 0Vd 0018 0 Y38 1 id (• !) 1 • ci cL 0 ,.., \to \ \16‘\\ S 0 r". (C9V6) 0QLJ / >ilVM3OIS 03S0d08d 00'09 01,9 - M„Z 1,,t71.000N anNHAv 3L-Ic 7 1 1111111111 ICAD FILE Civil 3D\360742 PROJECT NO. 360742 0 co 1— Li w L. 0 2,0 w —J 14.rt - c) 0 1 1 1 N (04 inch = 30 feet SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 0 0 00 4.4 E c ?22 401, 5:3142t2tti. Ifftitt --cCCC 0)0)50) 000000 w.. 41041sre, 0. a 8g PERMIT/CONSTRUCTION nt.L e 01,4 E EgojIItflIUIilIllIMIIIiiiIt 5 --u z 0 > w 0 EE 0 U.1 w cr w cr SIDING LEGEND LAP SIDING "A" (COLOR 1) LAP SIDING "Fr (COLOR 1) z —J a. 0 0 cc 11 8 W N W Z U W <Cr O cmc C G WW N N PERMIT/CONSTRUCTION PLAN OPTIONS WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE ROUGH OPENING 53 3/4" X 83 1/4" 36 1/4" X 60 1/4" 36 1/4" X 601/4" 0 00 O X X . to T N n ^ 0 0 co co X X v v cD c0 M M 0 O X to N U M C:3 N O = O M M O O M M M O M M O CO O cc 0 — r r U < O M M O O M M O O M M O O M O M M M N M cc 0Q w O O, g M w F- w= cc cc �j 0 0 N U p 1O- 0 0 Z O_ Cr w J J LU LIJ CO CO 0 T T !- T T T f- T CALL -OUT 3-0 DOOR _ _ 2W 3050 SH 6068 SGD 3050 SH 3050 SH Cn C.0 0 co CO in 1.0 LOM O O O M CO N 95 ,rl i i ml rn, 2/ 1 46! vl 1ST FLOOR PLAN 2 CL] Q� K _d I N, � r` �, 95 ,rl i i ml rn, 2/ 1 46! vl 1ST FLOOR PLAN 2 CL] Q� K _d .7—eit) 6 I r'---------------- - ',6=1;-_---------,,,-----, - - < I N 1-1 i, <k, -(X-';--- _ ---;-----' 41)._ \ . 1 , i ' 1 -1- ,,----- „--- rAM./ C. PERMIT/CONSTRUCTION _J 0 PLAN OPTIONS FINISHED FAMILY/REC ROOM LOOKOUT BASEMENT (FULL LOT) - ---- --------- - -X` X 1— z L1-1 Z < LU -J WO - CO< (-) w Ec* co 0 LLW 4 .„ t 8uh 0000 •ss* city of App te Vahey ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: q,4 November 2, 2016 Public Hearing PROJECT NAME: MING Johnny Cake Cell Tower CUP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Verizon Wireless has applied for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for an 87 foot tall Wireless Communication Tower at 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road (Christ Church). A Conditional Use permit was issued in 2010 for a 90 foot tall Wireless Communication Tower. STAFF CONTACT: Alex Sharpe, Planning and Econ Dev Spec. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless PROJECT NUMBER: PC16-35-V APPLICATION DATE 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: 9/13/16 11/11/16 1/10/17 Proposed Action 1. Open the Public hearing, receive public comments, and close the public hearing. • It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take action an item in the night of its public hearing. Project Summary/Issues Verizon Wireless has applied to amend the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road (Christ Church) for a Wireless Communication Tower (cell tower). In 2010 Clearwire wireless applied for, and was approved for a 90' tower on the eastern portion of the lot. The property is zoned "P" Institutional, which conditionally permits cell towers. The location of the approved CUP is on the eastern portion of the lot, and was incorporated into a parking lot light pole. The proposed location is on the western portion of the property, behind the church building. The tower is incorporating stealth technologies, allowing for a sleeker and less visually impacting appearance. Budget Impact There is not an impact to the budget with this application. Attachment(s) 1. Area Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plans 4. Photo Simulations 5. Applicant Narrative 6. Site Justification Letter 7. City Engineer Memo 8. Approved CUP Site Plan/Photo Simulation 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road (Christ Church) Wireless Communication Tower CUP PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Christ Church Comprehensive Plan Designation INS - Institutional Zoning Classification P - Institutional Existing Platting Platted Current Land Use Church Size: 278,999 sq. ft. Topography: Mostly Flat with small elevation changes to the south Existing Vegetation Turf Other Significant Natural Features N/A Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Comprehensive Plan LD -Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use M-3 Multiple Family (3-6 units/acre) 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 INS - Institutional Zoning/Land Use P - Institutional WEST Comprehensive Plan INS - Institutional Zoning/Land Use P - Institutional Comprehensive Plan: The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The cell tower is being designed to have a break point at the half of the tower height. The break point causes the tower to fold upon itself in the event of a catastrophic event. Due to this, the tower is able to meet all applicable setbacks and is unable to fall on an neighboring property structures. A cell tower use is conditionally permitted within the Institutional zone. The applicant has included a letter which addresses all of the provisions of the zoning code and how the tower is in compliance with these provisions. Conditional uses are those activities that the zoning ordinance permits if certain conditions set forth in the city ordinances are met. It is difficult for a city to deny a CUP if an applicant satisfies all the conditions. Preliminary/Final Plat: The property has been final platted previously. Site Plan: The site plan places the cell tower on the western portion of the property behind the church structure. An 8' tall, 25' x 46' cedar fenced enclosure will house the ground equipment for the cell tower. This equipment includes a steel platform which will house 4 equipment cabinets, the cell tower, and a generator. An additional easement which will include utilities such as electric and gas for the cell tower runs parallel to the southern property line. This easement area has been shifted from initial submissions to reduce the potential impact with existing old growth trees. Grading Plan: There will be minimal site grading associated with this project which will not impact any neighboring properties. Elevation Drawings: The elevation drawings show an 87' monopole cell tower and an 8' cedar fenced enclosure. The applicant has supplied renderings of the visibility of the cell tower from the north, south and east. Due to the potential impact on the properties from the south staff has requested a rendering from the southern property line which will be available at a future Planning Commission meeting. Landscape Plan: City code requires 2.5% of the total cost to construct the project be put towards landscaping. The current site plan includes 7 conifer trees in the southwest comer of the church property. A complete landscape plan will be required for review prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Availability of Municipal Utilities: There are adequate electric and gas utilities to serve this installment. There are additional easements proposed along the southern property line to serve the tower. Street Classifications/Access/Circulation: Johnny Cake Ridge Road is a classified as a Major Collector; McAndrews Road is a Minor Expander. Additional traffic is not anticipated with this application. Pedestrian Access: There is no change to the pedestrian access of the site. Public Safety Issues: The cell tower will be designed to prevent access, and in such a way that it is difficult to climb. The cell tower is being designed to have a break point at the half way point, which causes the tower to fold upon itself in the event of a catastrophic event. Due to this break point the tower is able to meet all applicable setbacks and is unable to fall on an neighboring property structures. Lighting Plan/Photometric Plan: Additional site lighting is not proposed with this application. All lights associated with the cell tower shall meet the zoning code, or be in place for public health and safety. Recreation Issues: Park Dedication is not required as part of a CUP and was paid as part of the Christ Church Addition plat. Signs: No signs will be permitted with this use other than those required for public health and safety. Public Hearing Comments: Comments will be taken at the public hearing. tr-*ygt-t4**s.g.#wx-*'' „gogovr gliffgO, Christ Chruch 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road FALCON RIDGE TRL --, 130TH ST W R 3L>jj< 131ST ST W U z >- z 0 1 12925 JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE RD APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 O U .9„ U w • MINC JOHNNY CAKE ISSUE SUMMARY ISSUED FOR REVIEW 03.25.16 ISSUED FOR OWNER APPROVAL ISSUED FOR BID/CONSTRUCTION 10.11.16 I I SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT INFORMATION. TOWER ELEVATION. & SHEET INDEX ENLARGED SITE AND GRADING PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLAN ANTENNA AND COAX KEY,ONE LINE DIAGRAM AND ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS GROUNDING SPECIFICATIONS GROUNDING PLAN & GROUNDING DETAIL INDEX SITE UTILITY PLAN & NOTES ENLARGED SITE UTILITY PLAN & HAND HOLE DETAIL 111111111111,111111111 DETAIL DESCRIPTION VZW9.4X14-GLSP-4: 9,4":(14,0" PLATFORM W/ CANOPY 20REOZK: DIESEL GENERATOR W/ ICE SHIELD BOLLARD DETAIL 0 CABLE BRIDGE SECTION CABLE BRIDGE SECTION @ PLATFORM (SIM) 20 2 ONE -LINE ELECTRICAL RISER DIAGRAM (GC TO VERIFY) - ce w-1 0 u) w w2 w EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING CONDITION z ,001 - db i4 1)r Weir 2 1- 2 0 0 wwLIJ 0 g 0. VOel 30QW 3)IV3 RIVNHOr 2 0 a r 1/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 -1'8'1 1 1 ''1 40,4 F.O. REPINING WU. TO Fa"1.1. // ', I // g 'S 21------_-_—__ hit - - - - - W • 1 I ii IR _i'4:1191 ////, / w , ,(Iv,,,okii, z il fqrapA k490d 0 11 111 0 0 01 01 0 SITE PLAN 0 >- Z z z 0 w u g 2 8 8 te. a 4-; EXISTING CONDITION 0 z 0 1z0 L-11 Wco 3 cci2) F. 3 Csj GROUNDING DETAIL INDEX DETAIL DESCRIPTION 9'-4" X 14'-0" PLATFORM WI CANOPY GROUNDING ELEVATIONS REBAR GROUNDING DETAIL TYPICAL GROUNDING CABLE BRIDGE DETAIL TYPICAL TOWER GROUNDING DETAIL H -FRAME DETAIL (SINGLE POST OPTION) A z (i Ov31 NMI N10213 31V JVd3S 1 S008 33IA213S 312113313 N3311138 ,0—,Ol ,C-----7 C)(‘' 1 (14) J 1 �/ 1 I kfi 0 hjjjO iw s 1 1 ( i� zo�� §z ! o O � w N dm� ® ® W��o hig g= 7' r BI-DIRECTIONALS W z z W zQ r- oaa O z z W z z U U ®� `. / 4[------ —1 —1 8 \ t �.) II H II 1 .;1.0 , )/ ) tsc % i 4E:1 m } O U m GROUNDING PLAN s Oh (7) 5iN (1) r w cA 0 Eg w'- j 0 0 uJ 0 Z Z 0 0 z z 5 w z Z 2 0 LLE• Oo 5 :I • 2 0 hg . • R8 gq\ 11$4 nigh 6 ff PULLBOX LOCATION PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = I-0" M :,.8;MS 1,1 i,g;timi ;oas jowl, puo oin3 twaPx3 AVM 30 1.14018 °nand C1021 BOCII2J B>IVO ANNHOr / l9909, ..N OJad ,uswaso3 / r- P.. AomP.08 PP, ,OG 3H0- _„. 1 1.018 Haan. Isla... Al!on Puo PP, ,0* .1_ 1 St - w w —J HM0 000I rst (i) w 04 0 'kcLL 04 "C11 w w s --- .-G r1 F2 0 LfiriA VJJsi) .° cod*® 0D'oci. 00 • • , , •,, I -''''t ' ' .''''•'' ' 6 ..- , tq S 3O I, , ,,‘ .•,,,„, ,, ..1,, \\ t••",;; ' 0\ ' c ' ,.-.--;vii] 74uPuF4.,°-.'u,' \a,,.. f ., ; B) A winti:;',..72F,‘-s*--"-5:r":‘ - --' -- i \r- i a ----- ----- , •., , '-',.': WIDSETH SMITH NOLTING Engineering 1 Architecture 1 Surveying 1 Environmental 15, c's 2/17/16 & 2/18/16 1 CHECKED BY: SMK SITE NAME: MINC JOHNNY CAKE Dakota County, MN c Carrier: Verizon Site: MINC Johnny Cake NO at MIH O cu 0 ia 0 4, o 0 •� 1_, • cr, co .5; bo 1 � Z 0 NA O a -• Q O HA o a x1 Carrier: Verizon Site: MINC Johnny Cake x Carrier: Verizon Site: MINC Johnny Cake c x Ordinance Compliance Statement Application: Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Site Name: MINC Johnny Cake Project Description: Verizon Wireless is proposing to construct an 80' stealth monopole (w' a 9' lightning rod) along with ground equipment and a generator w/in 25' x 46' lease area in order to improve wireless coverage in the area. Address: 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road Parcel ID #: 01-17260-01-010 Owner: Christ Church Zoning: P - Institutional 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 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. The two existing structure options within/near % mile from Christ Church are the Crown Castle stealth monopole in Hagemeister Park and the city water tower Foliage Lane. Verizon Wireless' Engineering group fully analyzed both location. Their response as to why they aren't viable: "The existing Crown Castle stealth tower will not meet this search ring's objectives because of the low centerline and the restrictive design. One main objectives of the proposed Johnny Cake site is to improve coverage at the Minnesota Zoo. In order to meet these objectives we would need to be able to clear the obstructions in the propagation path between the proposed site and the Minnesota Zoo. The maximum antenna height available at the Crown Castle is too low and will not allow us to clear these obstructions. This means that even though a new site at this location would provide some coverage at the Minnesota Zoo, it will not provide dominant coverage. This in turn will result in a degraded costumer experience at the Minnesota Zoo than what is currently present because the new site would add interference to the current site serving the Minnesota Zoo (the site called Eagan) which will continue to be dominant in that area. The existing city water tower on Foliage Avenue was also deemed inefficient for meeting the coverage objectives of the search area. The water tower is closely located to the Verizon Wireless site called Palomino which will be turned online later this year. The Palomino site will provide good dominant coverage to the area surrounding the city water tower. Placing a new site on the water tower will result in added interference to the Palomino site which will have a negative impact on users served by Palomino. Furthermore, a new site on the city water tower will not provide sufficient and dominant coverage at the Minnesota Zoo because of its location being further away from the Zoo. A new site on the city water tower will not be able to dominantly serve the Minnesota Zoo which is currently being served by Eagan. We will need a location closer to the Minnesota Zoo that will allow us to overpower the Eagan site. Thus the proposed location on Johnny Cake Ridge Road and McAndrews road was chosen as the best candidate for a new Verizon Wireless site." (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. We are proposing a stealth monopole (antennas flush mounted to the pole as well as other ancillary equipment (that's typically placed on the pole) will be located at the ground level on the equipment platform. The proposed location was chosen as it's well screened behind the church and near tall trees located in the NW corner of the property. Lastly, the monopole can painted a variety of colors to further blend it in with its natural surroundings. (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. The tower manufacturer's certified engineer will sign/stamp the final drawings that will be submitted with the building permit application process. (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. (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. The proposed monopole will be constructed to accommodate at least one other wireless provider at, approximately, 10' below Verizon's antennas. (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. Verizon is proposing to construct an 8' tall cedar fence around the lease area to prevent unauthorized climbing. (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. Verizon is proposing a stealth monopole with its antennas flush mounted to the pole, ancillary equipment (radios) that typically are installed external to the pole will be placed at the ground level w/in the ground equipment, the monopole will be located in the NW corner of the property well situated behind the church and near tall trees, additional landscaping (arborvitaes) will be placed in the SW corner of the property to further screen the tower and equipment from view along Falcon Ridge Dr. (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. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement. Lighting is not required per the FAA. (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. The entire lease area and equipment will be contained wlin private property owned by Christ Church and all utility and access routes will also be within privately owned property owned by Christ Church. (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. Insurance provisions are contained within the lease agreement between Verizon Wireless and Christ Church. (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. These provisions are addressed within the lease agreement between Verizon Wireless and Christ Church. (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 a 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 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 as Verizon is proposing to build a new monopole not locate antennas 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 as it's addressed within the lease agreement between Verizon Wireless and Christ Church. (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, 1-2 250 2 x fall zone from structures on neighboring properties 1.5 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 (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. Verizon Wireless will be utilizing break point technology. The tower will be designed to have a collapse point at the 'A point of the tower. An 84' tower (with a 3' lightning rod) would require a 65'3" setback. Verizon will met this requirement. This is well under the 200' height limitation allowed per this zoning district (P - Institutional). (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. Verizon Wireless is no longer utilizing equipment buildings. However, the equipment cabinets, located on a platform, and a small generator will be placed within an 8' cedar fence located behind the church and screened from view by the church, existing woods, and added landscaping (arborvitaes). Rob Viera Buell Consulting c/o Verizon Wireless 5096 Merrimac Lane N Plymouth, MN 55446 August 31St, 2016 RE: Verizon Wireless Proposed New Tower MIN JOHNNY CAKE in Apple Valley, MN To Whom This May Concern, The proposed Verizon tower MIN JOHNNY CAKE to be located on Johnny Cake Ridge Road in Apple Valley, MN has two objectives. The first one is to improve coverage within the city of Apple Valley along Johnny Cake Ridge road and McAndrews road, as well as around and within the Minnesota Zoo. The second objective is to improve network capacity by offloading traffic currently being served by existing Verizon Wireless sites in the neighboring area. Introduction Network coverage is the most important concept in wireless communications as it relates to the ability of an user to connect to the network. There are a lot of factors that have an impact on the coverage signal strength experienced by an user such as the distance between the user and the cell site, terrain in the area between the user and the serving cell site or any obstructions in this path (man-made or natural). Verizon Wireless provides the most expansive network in the US covering more square footage with our LTE network than any other carrier. It is our priority to maintain this competitive advantage and keep expanding our coverage so that we can serve our customers anywhere they go. If there are areas identified as having insufficient coverage, a new cell site will be needed in the area. In this document the concept of network coverage will be illustrated by means of Received Signal Reference Power (RSRP) maps. Network capacity is an important concept that relates to the user experience in terms of throughput speeds. Not only does Verizon Wireless want to guarantee that our customers are able to connect in as many areas as possible, but also that our customers connections are reliable and fast. When a user connects to the network, their device connects to one specific cell site (and more specifically to a certain sector of a cell site) that is located in their proximity. The user is allocated resources on the cell site as well as a specific frequency spectrum that will be available for the user's transmission and reception of data. The more frequency spectrum available, the faster the speeds that the user device will be experiencing. The user will share the serving site's resources and available spectrum with other users that are using their devices. The more and more users try connecting to the network and using their devices, the more resources are utilized at the serving site. If the number of users is high, the serving site can reach its capacity and will no longer be able to accept new user connections. Also, if the serving cell site is running at or near capacity, the users who did manage to connect will experience very slow data speeds or could even lose their connections. Verizon Wireless monitors each cell site's performance and if a cell site's sector speeds are below a certain threshold, the sector is considered exhausting and in need of capacity offload. Capacity offload is achieved by building new cell sites that will take over some of the traffic on the exhausting cell site's sector. The location of the new cell site needs to be chosen carefully such that enough separation is maintained between the exhausting sector and the new site to minimize interference. At the same time the new cell site needs to be close enough to a specific identified area that is driving a high amount of traffic on the existing exhausting cell site' sector. This will guarantee that the new cell site will be able to take over that traffic and thus offload the existing exhausting site. The concept of network capacity will be illustrated in this document by means of best server maps. MIN JOHNNY CAKE Project The MIN JOHNNY CAKE project has two objectives: first is to improve the levels of coverage in the city of Apple Valley along McAndrews and Johnny Cake Ridge Road as well as at the Minnesota Zoo. The second objective is to provide capacity offload to the existing Verizon Wireless sites called Valleywood and Eagan, and more specifically the West facing sector of Valleywood and he East facing sector of Eagan, which are currently serving the targeted area and are projected to be in exhaust. By satisfying these two objectives we will ensure that Verizon Wireless users will have access to a high-quality connection. This document will illustrate how the proposed MIN JOHNNY CAKE site will help meet the two objectives. In the analysis, two types of maps will be shown, each using different metrics: Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) and Best Server coverage plots. Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) is a metric used to measure the strength of a signal received by a device and it is measured in dBm. Different RSRP levels translate into different probabilities that a user will be able to connect and maintain a reliable connection to the network. Typically there are 3 levels of RSRP that are referred to as good, fair and poor coverage. Typical RSRP values corresponding to the three levels are: RSRP > -85 dBm is considered "good" coverage and correspond to areas where devices both outdoors and indoors will be able to establish and maintain reliable connections. RSRP between -85 and -95 dBm is considered "fair" coverage and corresponds to areas where users will be able to establish and maintain connections outdoors, but indoor connections may be compromised. RSRP between -95 and -105 dBm is where all connections may be unreliable, especially indoors, or in areas surrounded by obstructions and foliage. Areas where the RSRP is lower than -105 dBm usually corresponds to areas where connections will be highly unlikely indoors or in areas with a lot of foliage. Best server coverage plots are used in capacity analysis and show where each of the cell sites serving in the area are dominant (also referred to as serving sites), and it is used to determine the traffic levels experienced by each site. Each cell site is generally composed of 3 or more sectors, each of which can handle a certain amount of connections. If the area served by a specific sector of a site is large and covers several high traffic areas such as neighborhoods, commercial areas, sport centers, schools or highways, the experience of a user connected to that sector will generally be degraded. This is due to the fact that the server might be running at full capacity at the given time when the user is trying to connect and use its phone or smart device. Best server analysis allows us to pin point specific high data traffic areas in the serving footprint of a site's sector and propose a new cell site that will overtake the high traffic area and thus will offload the overloaded existing sector. The new cell site will serve mainly the high traffic area, while the existing site will be focused to still cover the remainder of its coverage footprint outside the high traffic area. In other cases, if an existing site is covering a Targe geographical area, expanding over several miles, a new site will be needed to allow the area to be divided amongst the existing and the new site. This will result in better coverage at the edge of the coverage footprint of the existing site, as well as better data speeds for our customers. The following map shows the existing RSRP (Figure 1) in the area surrounding the proposed site without the simulated effect of the proposed site. The map includes contribution from existing Verizon Wireless sites as well as soon Verizon Wireless sites that are to be turned online in 2016. As can be seen in the Figure 1 below, the area surrounding the proposed Johnny Cake site is mostly described by fair coverage with several areas where coverage is poor. Existing RSRP Coverage in Area Surrounding Proposed Site (Cutoff >-105dBm) Legend 40 Existing Site Proposed Site 1 mile RSRP Coverage • Good Fair 1111 Poor Figure 1: The above map shows the existing RSRP levels in the area surrounding the proposed MIN JOHNNY CAKE site, without the contribution of the proposed site Figure 2 below shows the Best Server map for the area around the proposed site MIN JOHNNY CAKE without the simulated effect of the new site. Of note are the West facing sector of Valleywood which serves a significant area just south and east of the proposed site which include schools and residential as well as highly travelled roads in the city of Apple Valley. Also of note is the east facing sector of Eagan which currently serves the Minnesota Zoo. Existing Best Server Coverage Plot in Area Surrounding Proposed Site (Cutoff >-105dBm) Legend Existing Site Proposed Site Figure 2: This map shows the existing Best Server coverage plot in the area surrounding the proposed site. Each color on the map is associated with a sector of a Verizon Wireless site, representing the serving area of that sector. The contribution of the MIN JOHNNY CAKE site is not included in this map The following two maps will show the effect of the proposed MIN JOHNNY CAKE site. Figure 3 will show the expected effect on RSRP coverage, while Figure 4 will show the expected effect in terms of Best Server distribution. Expected RSRP Coverage in Area Surrounding Proposed Site (Cutoff > -105ciBm) Legend Existing Site Proposed Site 1 mile RSRP Coverage • Good Fair Poor V • 111 Figure 3: The above map shows the existing RSRP levels in the area surrounding the proposed MIN JOHNNY CAKE site, including the simulated effect of the MIN JOHNNY CAKE site As can be seen from the above map, the proposed Johnny Cake site will improve coverage along Johnny Cake Ridge road as well as Mc Andrews Road which includes residential, schools and Minnesota Zoo. Expected Best Server Coverage Plot in Area Surrounding Proposed Site (Cutoff >-105dBm) Legend lop Existing Site Proposed Site Figure 4: This map shows the existing Best Server coverage plot in the area surrounding the proposed site, including the simulated effect of the proposed site. Each color on the map is associated with a sector of a Verizon Wireless site, representing the serving area of that sector. The contribution of the MIN JOHNNY CAKE site is included As can be seen, with the addition of the MIN JOHNNY CAKE site the area along McAndrews as well as Johnny Cake Ridge road will benefit from improved signal strength. The area surrounding the Minnesota Zoo will also benefit from improved coverage. Also, we can see that the MIN JOHNNY CAKE site will take over serving a significant area that is currently served by VALLEYWOOD which in turn will translate in higher throughput speeds in the area and a better user experience of the network. Alternate locations Verizon Engineering has analyzed various other locations in order to select the candidate for this project that will meet the objectives of this search ring area. The alternate locations are the existing Crown Castle stealth tower at the Hagemeister Park and the existing city water tower on Foliage Avenue. The existing Crown Castle stealth tower will not meet this search ring's objectives because of the low centerline and the restrictive design. One main objectives of the proposed Johnny Cake site is to improve coverage at the Minnesota Zoo. In order to meet these objectives we would need to be able to clear the obstructions in the propagation path between the proposed site and the Minnesota Zoo. The maximum antenna height available at the Crown Castle is too low and will not allow us to clear these obstructions. This means that even though a new site at this location would provide some coverage at the Minnesota Zoo, it will not provide dominant coverage. This in turn will result in a degraded costumer experience at the Minnesota Zoo than what is currently present because the new site would add interference to the current site serving the Minnesota Zoo (the site called Eagan) which will continue to be dominant in that area. The existing city water tower on Foliage Avenue was also deemed inefficient for meeting the coverage objectives of the search area. The water tower is closely located to the Verizon Wireless site called Palomino which will be turned online later this year. The Palomino site will provide good dominant coverage to the area surrounding the city water tower. Placing a new site on the water tower will result in added interference to the Palomino site which will have a negative impact on users served by Palomino. Furthermore, a new site on the city water tower will not provide sufficient and dominant coverage at the Minnesota Zoo because of its location being further away from the Zoo. A new site on the city water tower will not be able to dominantly serve the Minnesota Zoo which is currently being served by Eagan. We will need a location closer to the Minnesota Zoo that will allow us to overpower the Eagan site. Thus the proposed location on Johnny Cake Ridge Road and McAndrews road was chosen as the best candidate for a new Verizon Wireless site. Respectfully, Mihaela Oxley Radio Frequency Design Engineer, Verizon Wireless Mobile: 612-900-5479 E-mail: Mihaela.Oxley@VerizonWireless.com BDO1L BNVO ANNHOr LLJ z a 'O11 `dfO2iO NOIS3a NOIIV3INf VI 4100! 04110, 000 CITY OF Apple1Vailey MEMO Public Works TO: Alex Sharpe, Planner FROM: Brandon S. Anderson, City Engineer DATE: October 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan Review — Christ Church Communications Tower Alex, The following are comments regarding the Christ Church Communications Tower project. General 1. All work and infrastructure within public easements or right of way shall be to City standards. 2. No trees will be permitted in public easements. Permits 1. A right of way permit will be required for all work within public easements or right of way. 2. A Natural Resource Management Permit (NRNP) will be required prior to any land disturbing activity commences. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control 1. Final grading shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 000 .000 00000 0000 000 City of Apple Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 4B November 2, 2016 Public Hearing PROJECT NAME: Mount Olivet Cell Tower CUP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 84' tall wireless communications tower west of the Mount Olivet youth center building, 14201 Cedar Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Kathy Bodmer, Planner DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless and Mount Olivet Assembly of God Church PROJECT NUMBER: PC16-39-C APPLICATION DATE: 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: October 5, 2016 December 3, 2016 February 1, 2017 Proposed Action Hold public hearing, receive comments, close public hearing. • It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take action on an item on the night of its public hearing. Project Summary/Issues Verizon Wireless and Mount Olivet Assembly of God Church request consideration of a conditional use permit to construct an 84' tall wireless communications tower (cell tower) west of the youth building at 14201 Cedar Avenue. The tower is requested in order to improve network capacity and improve coverage along Cedar Avenue. The construction of the cell tower will include construction of an equipment platform and a generator. The tower and equipment will be located within a 21.5' x 25' area with an 8' tall cedar fence around the perimeter. The property is zoned "P" (Institutional) which allows a cell tower by conditional use permit, subject to a number of performance standards. In order to obtain a conditional use permit, the petitioner must demonstrate that all of the performance standards of the zoning code are met. A letter of zoning compliance is attached to the staff report. The City may place reasonable conditions on a conditional use to mitigate any adverse impacts association with the use. A typical cell tower is constructed with a standard array of twelve antennas and ancillary equipment that extend 6'-8' from the tower in all directions. The antenna array proposed at this location was designed so that the antennas are flush -mounted to the pole and the ancillary equipment is placed within the ground equipment area to give a sleeker appearance. The revised design helps to address concerns regarding visual impacts to adjacent properties. The setbacks for the tower are based upon the use of an engineered "breakpoint." The breakpoint ensures that in the unlikely event there is a failure with the tower, the first place the failure would occur would be at the breakpoint. The breakpoint is designed at the mid -point of the tower so that the tower would fall upon itself. All setbacks from property lines and structures on abutting properties are met using this technology. Verizon Wireless provided a letter that elaborates on why this site was selected. The zoning code requires co -location on existing towers within the 1/2 mile area. The only available existing tower is located at Apple Valley High School. According to the letter, the antenna centerline height and terrain of the area would not meet Verizon's offload or coverage needs. Budget Impact None. Attachment(s) 1. Applicant Letter 2. Applicant Ordinance Compliance Statement 3. Engineering Memo 4. Location Map 5. Zoning Map 6. Title Sheet with Tower Elevation 7. Site Survey 8. Site Plan 9. Enlarged Site Plan 10. Antenna Mounting Detail and Fence Elevations 11. Generator Plan 12. Site Utility Plan 13. Photo Simulations 14. FAA Determination of No Hazard Letter 15. Manufacturer's Letter 16. Resident Correspondence PROJECT REVIEW Existing. Conditions Property Location: 14201 Cedar Avenue Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, MOUNT OLIVET SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Comprehensive Plan Designation INST-Institutional Zoning Classification P -Institutional Existing Platting The church property is platted. The communications tower will be located within a leased area of the church property. Current Land Use Church Size: 7.65 acres Topography: Flat site with increasing elevations to the north and decreasing elevations to the southwest and south. Existing Vegetation Urban landscape. Other Significant Natural Features None identified. Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Mount Olivet Assembly of God Main Church Building Comprehensive Plan INST-Institutional Zoning/Land Use P -Institutional SOUTH American Bank Comprehensive Plan C -Commercial Zoning/Land Use LB -Limited Business EAST Mount Olivet Youth Building Comprehensive Plan INST-Institutional Zoning/Land Use P -Institutional WEST Pennock 4th Addition Townhomes Comprehensive Plan MD -Medium Density at 2-6 units/acre Zoning/Land Use M -4C -Multiple family residential, 6-8 units/acre Development Project Review Comprehensive Plan: The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "INST" (Institutional) uses. A church is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation. Zoning: The property is zoned "P" (Institutional). A wireless communications tower is a conditional use in the P zoning district, subject to a number of performance standards. Verizon Wireless submitted a letter outlining how the cell tower complies with the requirements of the zoning code. The City may place reasonable conditions on a conditional use to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the use. Conditional uses are those activities that the zoning ordinance permits if certain conditions set forth in the city ordinances are met. It is difficult for a city to deny a CUP if an applicant satisfies all the conditions. Preliminary Plat: No subdivision of the property is requested or required. Site Plan: The site plan shows the location of the 84' tall wireless communications tower (cell tower) along with an equipment platform and generator west of the youth building and south of the church's main building. The tower and equipment will be located within a 21.5' x 25' area which will be enclosed with an 8' tall cedar fence. The tower will be designed with an engineered "breakpoint" technology which will ensure that if the tower fails and collapses, it will fall upon itself. With the breakpoint, the minimum setback of the cell tower to a property line is 63'; the cell tower is located 91' from the south property line, 150' from the west property line, and approximately 470' south of the north property line. All setbacks to property lines are met. The minimum setback for the cell tower from a structure on neighboring property is 84' (again, due to the engineered breakpoint); the cell tower is 189' from American Bank building to south, 196' from the townhome to the northwest and 248' from the townhouse directly west of the tower. All structure setbacks are also met. Grading/Drainage Plan: No grading plan has been submitted at this time. Minimal grading is expected for the installation of the cell tower and associated equipment. Final review and approval of a grading plan by the City Engineer will be required. Elevation Drawings: A typical cell tower is constructed with a standard array of twelve antennas and ancillary equipment that extend 6'-8' from the tower in all directions. The antenna array proposed at this location was designed so that the antennas are flush -mounted to the pole and the ancillary equipment is placed within the ground equipment area to give a sleeker appearance. The revised design helps to address concerns regarding visual impacts to adjacent properties. Landscape Plan: No landscape plan has been received to date. A landscape plan will be required. The value of the landscape plantings is required to be valued at a minimum 2-1/2% of the value of the construction of the tower based on Means Construction Data. Additional landscaping will help to provide additional screening of the area from adjacent properties. In addition, trees that are scheduled to be removed should be identified. Availability of Municipal Utilities: No municipal utilities are needed for this project. Street Classifications/Accesses/Circulation: The proposed cell tower will be located approximately 340' from Cedar Avenue (Principal Arterial) and 470' from 142nd Street West (Local Street). No impacts to adjacent roadways is expected as a result of this project. Pedestrian Access: The cell tower site will not be regularly visited by members of the public; pedestrian access to the site will be discouraged. Instead, it is expected that only maintenance crews will have access to the site and will need to use vehicles outfitted to maintain cell towers and associated equipment. Pedestrian access to the site will be limited to the maintenance crews. Public Safety Issues: Zoning Code §155.385 regulates Wireless Communication Towers and provides several performance standards that must be met in order to obtain a conditional use permit. Provision (B)(7) states that all towers must be reasonably protected from against unauthorized climbing and designed to preclude climbing from ground level to 12' above ground level. Recreation Issues: Not applicable. Signs: No advertising signs or identification of any kind is permitted, except for applicable warning and equipment information signage. Public Hearing Comments: To be taken. August 31* 2016 RE: Verizon Wireless Proposed New Tower MIN TOFFEE in Apple ValleyMN To Whom This May Concern, The proposed Verizon tower MIN TOFFEE to be located on Cedar Avenue in Apple ValIey, MN has two objectives. The main objective is to improve network capacity by offloading traffic currently being served by existing Verizon Wireless sites in the neighboring area. Another objective is to improve coverage within the city of Apple Valley along Cedar Avenue. Introduction Network coverage is the most important concept in wireless communications as it relates to the ability of an user to connect to the network. There are a lot of factors that have an impact on the coverage signal strength experienced by an user such as the distance between the user and the cell site, terrain in the area between the user and the serving cell site or any obstructions in this path (man-made or natural). Verizon Wireless provides the most expansive network in the US covering more square footage with our LTE network than any other carrier. It is our priority to maintain this competitive advantage and keep expanding our coverage so that we can serve our customers anywhere they go. If there are areas identified as having insufficient coverage, a new cell site will be needed in the area. In this document the concept of network coverage will be illustrated by means of Received Signal Reference Power (RSRP) maps. Network capacity is an important concept that relates to the user experience in terms of throughput speeds. Not only does Verizon Wireless want to guarantee that our customers are able to connect in as many areas as possible, but also that our customers connections are reliable and fast. When a user connects to the network, their device connects to one specific cell site (and more specifically to a certain sector of a cell site) that is located in their proximity. The user is allocated resources on the cell site as well as a specific frequency spectrum that will be available for the user's transmission and reception of data. The more frequency spectrum available, the faster the speeds that the user device will be experiencing. The user will share the serving site's resources and available spectrum with other users that are using their devices. The more and more users try connecting to the network and using their devices, the more resources are utilized at the serving site. If the number of users is high, the serving site can reach its capacity and will no longer be able to accept new user connections. Also, if the serving cell site is running at or near capacity, the users who did manage to connect will experience very slow data speeds or could even lose their connections. Verizon Wireless monitors each cell site's performance and if a cell site's sector speeds are below a certain threshold, the sector is considered exhausting and in need of capacity offload. Capacity offload is achieved by building new cell sites that will take over some of the traffic on the exhausting cell site's sector. The location of the new cell site needs to be chosen carefully such that enough separation is maintained between the exhausting sector and the new site to minimize interference. At the same time the new cell site needs to be close enough to a specific identified area that is driving a high amount of traffic on the existing exhausting cell site' sector. This will guarantee that the new cell site will be able to take over that traffic and thus offload the existing exhausting site. The concept of network capacity will be illustrated in this document by means of best server maps. MIN TOFFEE Project The MIN TOFFEE project has two objectives: first is to improve the levels of coverage in the city of Apple Valley along Cedar Avenue. The second objective is to provide capacity offload to the existing Verizon Wireless site called Apple Valley and more specifically the NW facing sector of Apple Valley which is currently serving the targeted area and are projected to be in exhaust. By satisfying these two objectives we will ensure that Verizon Wireless users will have access to a high-quality connection. This document will illustrate how the proposed MIN TOFFEE site will help meet the two objectives. In the analysis, two types of maps will be shown, each using different metrics: Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) and Best Server coverage plots. Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) is a metric used to measure the strength of a signal received by a device and it is measured in dBm. Different RSRP levels translate into different probabilities that a user will be able to connect and maintain a reliable connection to the network. Typically there are 3 levels of RSRP that are referred to as good, fair and poor coverage. Typical RSRP values corresponding to the three levels are: RSRP > -85 dBm is considered "good" coverage and correspond to areas where devices both outdoors and indoors will be able to establish and maintain reliable connections. RSRP between -85 and -95 dBm is considered "fair" coverage and corresponds to areas where users will be able to establish and maintain connections outdoors, but indoor connections may be compromised. RSRP between -95 and -105 dBm is where all connections may be unreliable, especially indoors, or in areas surrounded by obstructions and foliage. Areas where the RSRP is lower than -105 dBm usually corresponds to areas where connections will be highly unlikely indoors or in areas with a lot of foliage. Best server coverage plots are used in capacity analysis and show where each of the cell sites serving in the area are dominant (also referred to as serving sites), and it is used to determine the traffic levels experienced by each site. Each cell site is generally composed of 3 or more sectors, each of which can handle a certain amount of connections. If the area served by a specific sector of a site is large and covers several high traffic areas such as neighborhoods, commercial areas, sport centers, schools or highways, the experience of a user connected to that sector will generally be degraded. This is due to the fact that the server might be running at full capacity at the given time when the user is trying to connect and use its phone or smart device. Best server analysis allows us to pin point specific high data traffic areas in the serving footprint of a site's sector and propose a new cell site that will overtake the high traffic area and thus will offload the overloaded existing sector. The new cell site will serve mainly the high traffic area, while the existing site will be focused to still cover the remainder of its coverage footprint outside the high traffic area. In other cases, if an existing site is covering a large geographical area, expanding over several miles, a new site will be needed to allow the area to be divided amongst the existing and the new site. This will result in better coverage at the edge of the coverage footprint of the existing site, as well as better data speeds for our customers. The following map shows the existing RSRP (Figure 1) in the area surrounding the proposed site without the simulated effect of the proposed site. The map includes contribution from existing Verizon Wireless sites as well as soon Verizon Wireless sites that are to be turned online in 2016. As can be seen in the Figure 1 below, the area surrounding the proposed MIN Toffee site is mostly described by fair or good coverage with several areas where coverage is poor. Again, the main objective of the proposed site is capacity offload, however we will also help improve coverage in areas where customers are currently experiencing low coverage levels. Existing RSRP Coverage in Area Surrounding Proposed Site (Cutoff > -105dBm) 0.5 miles RSRP Coverage II Good Fair MI Poor a 11,1„2„t„. irl .11,ReEllperfrili!geff!„„„•,,,• . * - • 001 Figure 1: The above map shows the existing RSRP levels in the area surrounding the proposed MIN TOFFEE site, without the contribution of the proposed site Figure 2 below shows the Best Server map for the area around the proposed site MIN TOFFEE without the simulated effect of the new site. Of note is the NW facing sector of Apple Valley which serves a large area including residential but also commercial areas, restaurants, gas stations, schools and banks. The NW facing sector of Apple Valley will need capacity offload in order to help meet the customer demand and provide reliable and fast network connections to customers in this area of Apple Valley. Existing Best Server Coverage Plot in Area Surrounding Proposed Site (Cutoff > -105dBm) Legend 14r. Existing Site proposed Site - - - - • - -_, -, -- , •----_--_-,---,---_ _ ; , - -- - - - -, - -.---- --/-_ ", • ,= -- ,- ---....,=,..,- ;..,......„.... , , . --,-, ,_, ,,,/_:_:_ _ _____i__„_______ __,;:_ __. ,. ,. _ _>- -:-- >--t *,:: _ _,,, , _ _ ____, _ __,__:_,___:__ _- -:1 _' --- - - - -- . - _ _ _ _ __ , _ , ______ ____ _ __-.!- ----7- - '--: .f- ' -/ -_,,__, % -_' - ',7, ,_ _ „..„ ._,:- : - '. .• r-- --':>- - --75, ,, __- - '-:7_.,._-_ : .=*L-r_t_c _ -r- -' -. --4i-*- . -t. -c' ,,,„ P- ----;%--Z-,-----,1-; ,._------,-.."_ ,--_-_,,,:•,,, --,-5 _ _--_---,--,-,--7---. --,----,----- : .,_ -,- _____;_ia - - - - - - - - - -'"-- - - - -%-- ---__ - -- ---'--- --- . r* --1 - - '----- - --- ':::,-- --; - ------ ----''' '-'-=- - - --:- - :, -%-----_- -- - -_ ; - -- ----; .:T - --- - ,___-_ :_-------<1-----r:-- - - -- --- - - -, - - %---------1 - - -- - = -- - - ----- ---- ----- - - - --- - ----; - T, - --, - , ------- - - - - - - - --:-. - - - - - -- = - ------->"---- ---:- - -: -- - - - - : - - : - ------ ,- -- - -- - ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- :-=--,r-----------------,--- -_____ _ ,--__,, ,--_-__,-----,-----_,_ /_3--,:-------,----__ _---------,%:._-,------------------ ----------------- ---%-- ------''' ---------:-:________„_-_,-,----,,,,-5-r, ___----,----____ __.--:---------%-:,___ -----------------,--------------:-------;__:z:-------7::;>_,-__---:______--___---:---„,-:r_---.__&>----:--------:,_,,T__ ____,-,-_-r,_ _ -------__r:_-%,_:__-„e,,,_,„_---:----,--.--:,-----_„______,_---------------<,,,r__:r_.„---:---------_-- -----_ -------__,,--------,,-----;:-----------,_„_:-----------„,---,____---- --:::---------___,-_-__71- -_T__I'r_:::;:L--t-l__, _ - = - - - - -__ <-%- - --'-',_.%>- --- ----------------- - - - - - - - ---->'-- - '-----: -------- 5 - - ---- - : -----'-' -;-----;-- -- - ---- -___. __.-,,-- --- - - -- - ---, -- - --- - - ---- - - - - ----- - 1 ---- ---------'-'-------- - ----- - - - ,;, , , -,,, . . ----------rl-_--.--,..-O-*- ----,-______ - . -- _ . . - -,. .. •. .. , ,-, :. .. .-- - - - -_,.....,.: ...-.. , , , , -,--:----'-'-r---------------:'''--------- --------------------''''-':''''I'-'--- - ----- ,-,---,-..-...7:----,,,---1--m, ---- -4------'--''I'-----:_-------"'Il------>-----------<''-±----'<---------------r__-----r_i:-_---'-'-':--'-'-'7-------i--::----:'-'-':------<'-'--------:----1----'-'-'-:.--:------ ----..__---,----,-_, ...-:----_,-----:-.,-.-:_-----*--.-----f-,,, ...„„,7* -,...„..„-,-174----i--------,:-.„ ------ ----'---------------------------T-----,„---,------j-----___------,__----------------- --------- ,..._..„.„-_-_____,_„ _ ,,.. „-----: _,-,--------%-,---__---,-:-_-__-----------%----------„-_-_,-----i__IT--r--------------------5-------:---___,-,T------------,-----1 -77,71-11:1 .„..._ ,.....„._„___ ,,._____-___,--,--,----------_---- ---_-----____-__----„..-----;:------7-:::- ---7-:. ..,..„.......„.., = - - - - - - - Figure 2: This map shows the existing Best Server coverage plot in the area surrounding the proposed site. Each color on the map is associated with a sector of a Verizon Wireless site, representing the serving area of that sector. The contribution of the MIN TOFFEE site is not included in this map The following two maps will show the effect of the proposed MIN TOFFEE site. Figure 3 will show the expected effect on RSRP coverage, while Figure 4 will show the expected effect in terms of Best Server distribution. Expected RSRP Coverage in Area Surrounding Proposed Site (Cutoff > -105dBm) 0.5 miles RSRP Coverage 1111 Go-od Fair 1111 Poor J1111111111111i. 1 "1""!"""'"'"• ,-!:itiirrrirrrrrrrrrlirrrrattrrry:rrr,r§PsF;'"-''---- 11111111111,112111,11,011,11:::L„,„.,,,„ „„iiiiiii111111111111: Figure 3: The above map shows the existing RSRP levels in the area surrounding the proposed MIN TOFFEE site, including the simulated effect of the MIN TOFFEE site As can be seen from the above map, the proposed MIN TOFFEE site will improve coverage East of Cedar Avenue and north of 140th Street. Coverage West of Cedar Avenue and South of 140th Street will also be improved. Expected Best Server Coverage Plot in Area Surrounding Proposed Site (Cutoff > -105dBm) Legend Existing Site Proposed Site • Figure 4: This map shows the existing Best Server coverage plot in the area surrounding the proposed site, including the simulated effect of the proposed site. Each color on the map is associated with a sector of a Verizon Wireless site, representing the serving area of that sector. The contribution of the MIN TOFFEE site is included As can be seen, with the addition of the MIN TOFFEEE site the area along Cedar Avenue and North of 140th Street will benefit from improved network coverage. The new site will take over a significant portion of the existing Apple Valley's NW facing sector which will result in more network resources being available for users in this area and thus better, more reliable and faster connections for our users in this area of Apple Valley. Alternate locations Verizon Engineering has analyzed various other locations in order to select the candidate for this project that will meet the objectives of this search ring area. The alternate location that was analyzed was the existing light standard tower on the Independent Scholl District 196 grounds. The antenna centerline height from this location was only 45'. This low centerline combined with the characteristics of the terrain in this area will not help meet the capacity offload nor the coverage objectives for this search ring area. Placing a tower at this location will not provide sufficient capacity offload to Apple Valley which will result in continuous poor network experience for our users in this area of Apple Valley. Respectfully, Mihaela Oxley Radio Frequency Design Engineer, Verizon Wireless Mobile: 612-900-5479 Ordinance Compliance Statement Application: Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Site Name: MIC Toffee Project Description: Verizon Wireless is proposing to construct an 80' stealth monopole (w' a 4' lightning rod) along with ground equipment and a generator w/in 28' x 25'6" lease area in order to improve wireless coverage in the area. Address: 14201 Cedar Ave Parcel ID #: 01-49400-01-010 Owner: Mbunt Olivet Church Zoning.: 2 - Institutional WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWERS 3§, 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: (I) 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 he 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. The only existing structure wiin 112 mile is located at Apple Valley High School: "Verizon Engineering has analyzed various other locations in order to select the candidate for this project that will meet the objectives of this search ring area. The alternate location that was analyzed was the existing light standard tower on the Independent Scholl District 196 grounds. The antenna centerline height from this location was only 45'. This low centerline combined with the characteristics of the terrain in this area will not help meet the capacity offload nor the coverage objectives for this search ring area. Placing a tower at this location will not provide sufficient capacity offload to Apple Valley which will result in continuous poor network experience for our users in this area of Apple Valley." (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. We are proposing a stealth monopole antennas flush mounted to the pole as well as other ancillary equipment (that's typically placed on the pole) will be located at the ground level on the equipment platform. (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. The tower manufacturer's certified engineer will sign/stamp the final drawings that will be submitted with the building permit application process. (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. (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 all 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. The proposed monopole will be constructed to accommodate at least one other wireless provider at, approximately, 10' below Verizon's antennas. (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. Verizon is proposing to construct an 8' tall cedar fence around the lease area to prevent unauthorized climbing. (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. Verizon is proposing a stealth monopole with its antennas flush mounted to the pole, ancillary equipment (radios) that typically are installed external to the pole will be placed at the ground level Win the ground equipment, the monopole will be located in the S/SW corner of the property with existing trees all along the southern and western borders (the residential properties to the south and west are located at the much lesser elevation than Verizon's equipment/monopole). The church asked for the monopole to be painted a light yellow (similar to the exterior of the church and other buildings on the property), but may be open to other colors if deemed necessary. (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. Verizon Wireless will comply with this requirement. Lighting is not required per the FAA. On 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. The entire lease area and equipment will be contained wiin private property owned by Mount Olivet Church and all utility and access routes will also be within privately owned property owned by Mount Olivet Church. (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 Insurance provisions are contained within the lease agreement between Verizon Wireless and Mount Olivet Church. (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. These provisions are addressed within the lease agreement between Verizon Wireless and Mount Olivet Church. (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 a building permit as required. (C) Antennas mounted on rooft, walls and existing towers. The placement of wireless coinmunication 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 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 as Verizon is proposing to build a new monopole not locate antennas 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 wilt comply with this requirement as it's addressed within the lease agreement between Verizon Wireless and Christ Church. (E) Tower standards and requirements. Zoning District Maximum Height Distance from Structure (feet) Setback from Property Line R-2, R3, 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, 1-1, 1-2 250 2 x fall zone from structures on neighboring properties 1_5 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 (h) 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 p‘NSI/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. Verizon Wireless will be utilizing break point technology. The tower will be designed to have a collapse point at the 1/2 point of the tower. An 80' tower (with a 4' lightning rod) would require a 62'5" setback. Verizon will meet this requirement. This is tower height is well under the 200' height limitation allowed per this zoning district (P -Institutional). (I') 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. Verizon Wireless is no longer utilizing equipment buildings. However, the equipment cabinets, located on a platform, and a small generator will be placed within an 8' cedar fence located S/SW of the church and screened from view by the church and existing landscaping on the south and west areas of the property. Rob Viera Buell Consulting c/o Verizon 'Wireless 5096 Merrimac Lane N Plymouth, MN 55446 000 0000 0000* 0000 060 CITY OF App el, Valley MEMO Public Works TO: Kathy Bodmer, Planner FROM: Brandon S. Anderson, City Engineer DATE: October 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan Review — Mount Olivet Church Communications Tower Kathy, The following are comments regarding the Mount Olivet Church Communications Tower project. General 1. All work and infrastructure within public easements or right of way shall be to City standards. 2. No trees will be permitted in public easements. Permits 1. A right of way permit will be required for all work within public easements or right of way. 2. A Natural Resource Management Permit (NRWIP) will be required prior to any land disturbing activity commences. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control 1. Final grading shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. c x O } 9 ui W Y CD 4 N d 0 U ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET OR DETAIL ISSUED FOR REVIEW 03-22-16 ISSUED FOR ZONING 08-25-16 ISSUED FOR ZONING 10-24-16 SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT INFORMATION. TOWER ELEVATION. & SHEET INDEX ENLARGED SITE PLAN ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT/CABLE KEYS ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL. CABLE BRIDGE PLAN & CEDAR FENCE EQUIPMENT PLATFORM PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS GENERATOR PLATFORM PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS STRUCTURAL PLANS, NOTES AND DETAILS (4 SHEETS) GROUNDING SPECIFICATIONS HAND HOLE DETAIL. & NOTES 11111111111111 09 4/t 3N ay} 10 .un 4.3 -98£492 3,41,40.ON- L£'OS£1. AVM !0 1H018 on end £Z 'ON 'H'V'S'O 3f1N3AV ?iva30 I ' ♦P♦ Z9446S '0N }uawnilsu) 6617.£6,LI700 00t i-- +I ♦ a- Jad luawaso3 (i1 I}N ('L 1, ,- 4/t 300,'414 N a41 1° 4/t 3S a4} 4 }aa} OO4 4 a4a )0 au i a6n0S ter': I W w $ ft 69'£4£ M„0£,SZ.tN I I I 1'1'1 fi I 1M130 3S 46l2! sa131I)a0 1oi oti _d .- 78 ...33vap)M OZ snoNtorrue ONLLSIX3 09 w CL a w w J W 140TH STREET W 1- 4/l 3N a4l 1° 4/l 35 ay} ;o aup ypoN --� FUWO Z ? J J m W W co J O Ow !Lxi" wgzOU ww►Q- JW O! UPI" CZ 'ON 'WV S'O I.. 111111111 C•, a z p O g m N011100Y Radfl03 NOONN3d 9 }old gad wawaso3 A}(((}0 puo 960u(0,) -i T .n/ N T / 1 w 0 N w 0) 3f1N3A`d bVO30 U LL 0 w w st W J 3AI11O MBIA N3OiVO w —J 150TH STREET z 1- 0 z 1— r� T/ i Engineering 1 Architecture 1 Surveying 1 Environmental m FIELD WORK: 2/17/16 SITE NAME: MINC TOFFEE Dakota County, MN z 161 4 :5; i)‘ DETAIL INDEX DIESEL GENERATOR 20REOZK (SEE A-6) BOLLARD DETAIL CABLE BRIDGE SECTION (SIM) CABLE BRIDGE ELEVATION (SIM) ei ei TELCO ENTRY DETAIL ONE -LINE ELECTRICAL RISER DIAGRAM (GC TO VERIFY) METER PEDESTAL LLJ o_ 0 co OL LLJ 0 SITE PHOTO LOOKING NORTHWEST 3 n N3AV 8V030 SITE PHOTO 0 0 111.11.1,1 • z c75 SCALE: i" = 60,)T X -Gasses moz TWJ NM .97,0 97,06 - 0360d0W--- LAJ cJ, 11.1111. 1.11.11 z a !Ik ..1�fn pr1W aaoo � Z O ^w� rnw°' CO U O CC 1Y CY ci igEfg 16gd $zi,q EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN 31433 co 00 0) 00 IP 1°12103V1d 11 (103 X J W 31YJ 33 r0 -,t rZ-49 co 0 z 1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/4" _ h g 1! h h 2w-41 2 (4a eb E. gR.12- AP ggAg Ag4 FHA Ag 4Ei`p_P 1 th a .9 -al 4 NIN .0-.9 h AP / Fieh 4 !I " at .-7r71 /NON 0- 0 11.1 0 CC 0 uJ ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - uJ 0 W Ljc Z 2 0 o 1— > 9 CHECKED BY: tsQ 20M1 "yq@ Mig ElLm S (U E p CABLE BRIDGE PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1-0 hYE t p y Sg��mvi �o�cQin> >8?om�o II -11 11 g 28 2 2 a a RIGHT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION U SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" A c OM O z Y;iv,U o a NO gW W 51 P--i- S2N -32 c' m—m� �O`� U9 a. UW o o rnw° (HELICAL PIER FOUNDATION, SEE STRUCTURAL) FOUNDATION SECTION U 11 1 I 1 I 1 1 I L 1 it i II I II CANOPY PLAN W U W Z u - 2O 2s ID z U / \ / 1 I IW \ ,,/ a a 2- 70 3 Lg g 23 NE r1 r-= i 0 Q W cem W N r cr Z3) r ,.LT g G 3 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0 (VzW-PS# 21148828) 0 0 0 (1) 03 p ip d' CO CD CD CO 1 r N > N N fn CCD w �Q00 a) - 00 ▪ C>° Q (!)Q -o it 0 bJ U N 0 c p U CN C., (l) W s 3008 t3 '� .9/L L -,Z 3Mf10013N3 09000 4___.91/U 0t -,Z .tl .0 ,£ .0 ,5 d' OS ■ N yt'�j tC GENERATOR PLAN SCALE: 3/8" = IHELICAL PIER FOUNDATION, SEE STRUCTURAL] FOUNDATION PLAN z o W z g� O aw Ur“, LTJ W W W = z z (0 60 A 0 1 m 0 U CHECKED BY: GENERATOR ELEVATIONS 0 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" O 0 NOT USED A sv EAR gE§ *R2• g i2 i!b dU g ,T,„,s 4g ila "12 11 S2 4 ZEog go X88 116 Q 2">6- c4§ cLuo W8 2'0,6W o Ailnc.5 2,!, tV M 2 z STREET WEST z N d- PULLBOX LOCATION PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" z VL 6 6 N a 0 ' 1°6! 1 1 Re9 if W Z U � � g 1111E w Ei it 1 z J 0_ ›- F- -J - J V♦ p T W co C Q � J w Z W v, Ls -E3 1 SITE UTILITY PLAN -11 x .40 Carrier: Verizon O V o � a) 0 a Calj o� ri .14 • OD 01 Z O •0 • a a� P -+C4 fa o H o a .2 a� Design 1 of Eden Prairie, LLC Simulation By: LI- WO tt __ __ ------------------ --------- ------- ,-._ ----:-----..,------.--„,-.----‘;------_____-----,,3-,,,--------„------„------,,-----------47,- -_:--_'-----v-„:,__r,_---ri---__;_,,T77---7--_i,i---f:,------.:::::::-,,-- ,,,_,_____ „_. ---,_ „ 124 as %i oa o Ad • TiCd 0 FL) rsN a C� O o a H� o a zis .14 o H Q o� x 2 a� Carrier: Verizon s z Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 06/17/2016 Network Regulatory Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC 1120 Sanctuary Pkwy #150 GASA5REG Alpharetta, GA 30009 Aeronautical Study No. 2016-AGL-6988-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Monopole TOFFEE Location: Apple Valley, MN Latitude: 44-44-33.99N NAD 83 Longitude: 93-13-09.65W Heights: 984 feet site elevation (SE) 85 feet above ground level (AGL) 1069 feet above mean sea level (AMSC) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) To coordinate frequency activation and verify that no interference is caused to FAA facilities, prior to beginning any transmission from the site you must contact Victoria Weaver, MSP Radar SSC Manager, (612) 713-4113. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L. This determination expires on 12/17/2017 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. Page 1 of 4 (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination of No Hazard is granted provided the following conditional statement is included in the proponent's construction permit or license to radiate: Upon receipt of notification from the Federal Communications Commission that harmful interference is being caused by the licencee's (permittee's) transmitter, the licensee (permittee) shall either immediately reduce the power to the point of no interference, cease operation, or take such immediate corrective action as is necessary to eliminate the harmful interference. This condition expires after 1 year of interference -free operation. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates , heights, frequency(ies) and power . Any changes in coordinates , heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration , including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (847) 294-7575. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016-AGL-6988-OE. Signature Control No: 290824233-296013768 Vivian Vilaro Specialist Page 2 of 4 ( DNE ) Attachments) Frequency Data cc: FCC Page 3 of 4 Frequency Data for ASN 2016-AGL-6988-OE LOW HIGH FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP ERP UNIT 698 806 MHz 1000 W 806 824 MHz 500 W 824 849 MHz 500 W 851 866 MHz 500 W 869 894 MHz 500 W 896 901 MHz 500 W 901 902 MHz 7 W 930 931 MHz 3500 W 931 932 MHz 3500 W 932 932.5 MHz 17 dBW 935 940 MHz 1000 W 940 941 MHz 3500 W 1850 1910 MHz 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W 2305 2310 MHz 2000 W 2345 2360 MHz 2000 W Page 4 of 4 ...pig „1st 25. 2016. brian blettrieiner Design 1 ol Eden Prairie Valley Raab Eden Prairie. MN 5534,1 RE: Proposed 80" Sar e !L,licirtorrole tor t.,0 lir To.e.. MN Dear Mr, bent' tt, Ilintin receipt of order. we prinplafif,:: to deskain and supot line above referenced Sabre monopole for a basic third Speed of 90 mon with rig. Ite and -50 mph with arill radial mei Structure Class IL Exposure Category. B arid topographic Category 1 In accordance wen the Ielecommuneations Industry Association Sittindard ANS 2„.„ liStructural Standard tOf Antenna 'Righboirturici Structures and Arileinnasi When designed aindanding Mrs standard. the 'etind pressures and steel strength capacities includo several !iialtetly factors, resulting in an overall minimum safely factor of 2-5.1iliki nerefore,„ I is. hiliobly unlikely that Ine monopole wig struclurallii in a, wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded wittain the. range of the builtilin safety lectors, Ritiould the -wind speed increase beyond the capably ot the buitkin sat t tactors„ to the.. paint al failure ol one or more structural elements., the most likely location of thi taillure would be within the upper portion ot the monopole shaft Asisurning. that the wind pressure: probe is; similar to that tO deSitan ifilariDpoite„.: the michabole. "will buckle at, the 1.0.0atian thartioeial combined stress rata within the upper portion of the marippole shaft This is. likely to result in. the portion .of the. monopole alba,* lailding oven onto the porton below, essentially calebsing on itself. Please r the this feller only applies to the above referenced monopole designed andfrit.t.'szlaired by .Sabe Towers Poles.. lin the unlikely event of total separations,. this would result in the often above collaostri wrtnein radius of ot the rharionalle height S cereIy. Raberf E. .6eacom, PE.. S.E. SeniorJL..10Frioineer I hut ceilify1 fls. 1 Ji roport WAR pri4parod 17 ditect su dx Li. 13 it; nlY Liz,vetbiP.rosfessiona. Engirmet LiiNier the ,, tail; at Mi ii Print 04mte Rob Sip itNiurt) License eds156 Sabre I owers: and Potts 71411 Soutlytintigt, [fox . cox City, LA 1 114"641 p: 1 • From: Janet Malz [ Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:55 AM To: Murphy, Joan Subject: cell tower / Mt. Olivet Hi. My neighbors and I are concerned about and against the erection of a wireless tower on Mount Olivet property. We reside just behind the church on Glencove Trail. What type of feedback would have the most impact on the decision-making process for this land use permit? If it is a petition, how many signatures are needed to be taken seriously? How high is this tower going to be and what is the level of EMR emitted? There are many studies that show health hazards from the the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted from cell towers. It isn't just the risk of cancer; the radiation can cause sleep problems attention difficulties, headaches, and more. Here are some websites that mention the risks of EMR: http://emwatch.com/cell-tower-health-risks/ http://wwvv.geoengineeringwatch.org/health-effects-from-cell-phone-tower-radiation/ http://www.infowars.com/new-study-links-over-7000-cancer-deaths-to-cell-phone-tower- radiation-exposures/ Even if you believe that the levels of EMR are probably too low to have a negative effect, do you want to potentially risk the lives of the neighboring people just for another cell tower? I have Verizon service and there are no problems with phone reception in my neighborhood. Some of my neighbors and I will be at the November 2 meeting. I will spread the word about the cell tower issue with other residents and businesses nearby such as the daycare center just across the street from the church. I hope our concerns are taken seriously. I would like to believe that our local government listens to its residents and is concerned about their health and welfare. Thank you. Janet Malz Glencove Trail Apple Valley Original Message From: Pam Scott [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:55 AM To: Murphy, Joan Subject: Wireless Communication Tower I live in Greenleaf II just across Cedar from the proposed Communication Tower in front of Mount Oliver in Apple Valley. My address is: 7451 142nd Street Ct. W. I have two questions. 1. Why did I not receive notice of this construction hearing? My daughter, in greenleaf 3 received a notice of the hearing to be held on November 2. I have received nothing. 2. Construction has already begun. What is the purpose of the hearing? Because construction has already started, I am guessing that no matter what transpires at the meeting, the tower will be built. Sent by Pam Scott From: Garrett Zaffke [ Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 9:13 AM To: Murphy, Joan; Grawe, Charles Subject: We should have moved to Eagan... Hello Kathy Bodmer and Mary Hamann -Roland, I am emailing you in regards to the initial planning of putting up a cell phone tower off of Cedar and 142. I am greatly opposed to this because I just bought a house in the area (off of 145th and Pennock). I am extremely frustrated by the recent decisions of Apple Valley. First a level 3 sex offender moves in, then the planning council denies Menard's to renovate and bring new businesses into the area, and now this. What is going on? My wife and I are angry at not only the city but ourselves because we chose Apple Valley over other cities in the area because we thought this city was smart -minded progressive but it is appearing that we were completely wrong. There is plenty of open space east on 42, build a tower there. Not right in the middle of a residential neighborhood! Garrett Fromm: Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 8:30 PM To: Murphy, Joan Subject: Verizon/Mt. Olivet Cell Tower Hello Ms. Bodmer, 1 am writing to you as a concerned citizen and tax ping homeowner of Apple Valley to express my concerns regarding the proposed 80 foot cell tower being considered by Verizon and Mt. Olivet church at Cedar and 142nd St. I was unaware of this proposal until reading a posting by a neighbor at nextdoor.com. 1 live in the townhome complex at Cedar and 138th St. which is in close proximity to the area. My concerns include: Potential Health Risks: There are many families with children in this area including my 15 year old daughter. Considering that the World Health Organization has found increased rates of asthma, autism and ADHD among children in areas of increased electromagnetic radiation, any health impact would be unacceptable. Potential Safety Risks: My understanding is that these towers have a history of catching fire and also collapsing. Is this an acceptable risk given the number of people living in the area? Huge Eyesore: Apple Valley is a city with natural beauty and many parks. There has been an obvious investment in the beautification of Cedar with the planting of trees, greenery and installation of lighting. Why would a highly unattractive 80 foot tower be allowed to ruin the lovely landscaping of Cedar as motorists enter the city from the north heading southbound into downtown Apple Valley? Property Devaluations: An average of 15-20% property devaluations following the installation of one of these towers is not surprising considering the overall negative impact. 1 chose to make Apple Valley my home, purchased a townhome 17 years ago and have raised my daughter here who is attending a District 196 school for the llth year. This is the first time in 17 years that 1 have contacted any city official with a concern. It is mystifying that this issue is before the Apple Valley Planning Commission. With the above listed issues, why would this tower be a subject of debate in a highly populated city like Apple Valley? An ordinance should be passed banning all cell towers in residential areas. There are many large areas of open land nearby including south of Lakeville and east of Rosemount where there are unpopulated areas. Verizon is obviously a for profit company seeking to enhance their profit margins at any cost but it is difficult to comprehend why any legitimate church would seek financial gain at the cost of negatively effecting the city and surrounding neighborhoods and families. I trust that the elected and appointed officials of the city of Apple Valley take their duty to protect the common good of the city very seriously. I am asking the commission members to chose the responsible option and protect all citizens of Apple Valley by voting against any cell tower in the city, now and in the future. Thank you for your time. Lisa Medlin Granada Way Apple Valley, MN 55124 From: Janet Malz Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 10:20 AM To: Grawe, Charles; Murphy, Joan Subject: Cell tower at Mount Olivet Good day. I'm a neighbor of Mount Olivet Church and I'm extremely disappointed and angry that the construction of a wireless communications tower is even being considered in a residential neighborhood (across the street from a Montessori school and daycare and just yards away from a multi -family housing complex). Many believe that there are health issues to consider from long-term exposure to how -level electromagnetic radiation. There is plenty of research and documentation that indicates EMR affects our health (https://wvvw.emfanalysis.com/research/). The World Health Organization cited a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries and determined that exposure to EMR might induce long-term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer (http://www.iarc.frierilmedia-centreipr/2011/pdfs/pr208 _E.pdf). However, according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we cannot use health risk as an argument. So other issues to consider: - Towers can start on fire and/or collapse, creating another hazard to neighboring homes that are literally just yards away (http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/primers/cell-towers-cell- phonesicell-tower-fires-collapsing/). - It's documented that the fear that people still have about health hazards from cell towers will be adequate to drive down property values (http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily- news/2014/07/25/cell-towers-antennas-problematic-for-buyers). - The tower is unsightly in a residential neighborhood. have started an online petition against the construction of this cell tower and will deliver the signatures to the commission prior to the meeting on November 2. Some of my neighbors and I will also be attending that meeting to voice our concerns. There have been comments on the petition by Apple Valley residents expressing their disappointment and choice of selecting a home here because of a lack of consideration for their health and welfare (especially their children). There are many other locations in non-residential neighborhoods to consider for cell tower placement. We ask that you please deny this request and propose that Verizon selects a non- residential area to construct their tower. Thank you. Janet Malz Glencove Trail Apple Valley, MN 55124 <><<><<>< From: Janet Malz Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 2:04 PM To: Murphy, Joan Subject: No to CeII Tower at Mount Olivet Hi. Many Apple Valley residents and I are opposed to the construction of a wireless communications tower on Mount Olivet property. Due to the unsightly tower (I will see it out my living room window), the fact that it would greet visitors to the community along Cedar Ave., and the lowered property values of the homes near it, we would like Verizon and the city to consider other non-residential areas for the location of the tower. There is a power line going through Lebanon Hills park; why couldn't it be located there? There are existing towers in the business areas, why can't they attach additional antenna arrays to those? Attached are the names from an online petition I started: htt.://www.the • etitionsite.com/93 7/ 168/729/sa -no-to-cell-tower-in-residential-nei _hborhood/ Many signers include comments about their disappointment in the cell tower proposal. I hope that you will review them and consider them in your decision-making process. I also contacted John Stratton, EVP and President of Operations at Verizon. His office contacted me and they opened a case about opposition to this tower. Any emails they receive about it will go into that case; I sent notice out to the surrounding neighborhoods. Apple Valley is a pleasant place to live and we all understand the need for cell towers. However, we don't believe they should be in residential neighborhoods. Please consider the opinions of the Apple Valley residents that would be affected by this cell tower and say no to the land use proposal and construction of the tower. Thank you. Janet Malz 6lencove Trail Apple Valley, MN 55124 <><<><<>< State/Province Country Add a comment for more impact Say No to cell tower in residential neighborhood! co 0 (i) N c -I 73 co co -0 a) co _c L.) L.) 0) 0 4-; -o co 0 NJ >- 0 0) 4- E- o O 4-- , • a) Eo 2 • -0 t3.0 _c .5 sz, 0 CU >. E 4- 0 O 4-) 0 L.- 4-, = 4- = 0) 0 0) ▪ 0) 4— _c o cu a) 0) H -0 -0 United States Minnesota a) cu NJ (7) United States Minnesota >- 0) (0 a) 2 o_ NJ co 0 co CO cL United States Minnesota a) 0) 2 L._ a) *a-) E a) L.) 0 -o (0 0 c▪ o -o 0) L._ o_ m First a level United States Minnesota 0) CO 2 0. United States Minnesota a) a) 0. 0. LL -C CO United States Minnesota 0) (1-.$ 0) 0. 0. Cr) L.) 0 cc L._ co United States Minnesota 0 S.- -J co It's a bummer to see all of this stuff 0 4= co 0) a) 0. 0. 0. 0. co reconsider our decision to make this our forever home. United States Minnesota cu a) 0. 0. CO 0 United States Minnesota >- 0. 0. Betancourt co E United States Minnesota 0) a) 0. 0. 0 O " CD CI) 4-; = NJ Ca - Cr). - = CD •4 2-: CU L.., S.- O U CU .--S-,-- r° U • 0 •E 0 >- cu 4-, = 0 C -0 CI) 4-, 0 c cu E +, o 0 E • (,) — a CD 73 - .4.., 4""' a) 0 L V) .-o Cr) CIII co a) 4')cu tbo = co 4, _C s._ v)>. 1 . — v) 4- 0) CO 0_ v) ._ = 01 0 ...0 (I3 S-- 4-, United States Minnesota >• a) 0. 0. 0 CO community as a whole? United States Minnesota United States Minnesota 0 0. a) 0 0 C13 • 0 0 --_ - Mychildren attend daycare very close to this location. do not like the side affectsof these cell towers that is harmful to mine Brooke Farland Apple Valley Minnesota United States and other children. 'Betel Tesfaye Apple Valley Minnesota United States 1 like in a townhome complex in close proximity to this proposed cell tower. We have many children in this area including my 15 year old daughter. If there are ANY potential health concerns, along with possible safety concerns and potential property value devaluations, why would a tower even be considered in a highly populated suburb like Apple Valley? There are many open areas south of Lakeville and east of Rosemount that are unpopulated where potential dangers could be Lisa Medlin Apple Valley Minnesota United States minimized. Im against the erection of the unsightly 80 foot cell tower being proposed by Verizon near the Mt Olivet church in Apple Valley. Home values will be adversely impacted and the health of Apple Valley citizens is also at Ben Heimdal Apple Valley Minnesota United States risk. There are so many BETTER PLACES in our Patricia Houghtaling Apple Valley Minnesota United States area to put up a cell tower! jim coffey Apple Valley Minnesota United States Holly TonoUi Apple Valley Minnesota United States Kris Heath Apple Valley Minnesota United States U� Annoni A�|e�U�M�n��Un�� . |Vasant Butala Apple Valley Minnesota United States !Andrew Hammond Apple Valley Minnesota United States A cell phone tower at that location would be a significant eye sore. Further, do e really want to welcome visitors to our community with a tall ugly tower? 1 am not against cell towers - just the location of the one Walt Flynn Apple Valley Minnesota United States proposed. Yong Choih Apple valley Minnesota United States Jill Hatfield Apple Valley Minnesota United States Brenda Arends Apple valley Minnesota United States Cell phone towers aren't needed in B Rice Apple Valley Minnesota United States residential areas. Lisa Annoni Apple Valley Minnesota United States Michelle Pawek Apple Valley Minnesota United States I do not want to see a cell phone tower in my neighborhood do to property values Mark annoni apple valley Minnesota United States declining and health problems !Deborah Devine Apple Valley Minnesota United States What an eye sore. Very poor first Steve Devine Apple valley Minnesota United States impression. Barb Dusek Apple Valley Minnesota United States Karen Torres Apple Valley Minnesota United States There are plenty of other places to put it Joanne Zurcher Apple Valley Minnesota United States besides a residential area! Kerfoot Metz Apple Valley Minnesota United States No towers in residential home area Cell towers should be erected away from Shakila A. Apple Valley Minnesota United States residences and communities with children. Kathryn Szott Eagan Minnesota United States Bonnie Garnes Eagan Minnesota United States M E Nieters Mendota Heights Minnesota United States Deb Adir EDINA Minnesota United States Khrystyna Kirkov Lakeville Minnesota United States Apostle Kontos Athens Greece ICarl Rosenstock BARABOO Wisconsin United States Bernadette Porter BAYVILLE New Jersey United States Tania Naim Beirut Lebanon Winn Adams BELLINGHAM Washington United States Helga Ganguly Bothell, Washington United States Deborah Sullivan BRIGHTON Massachusetts United States Gary Butler Brisbane Australia Jean Wilson Cedar Rapids Iowa United States Nigel Griffiths Chesterfield United Kingdom Cathleen Gall Cross plains Wisconsin United States Elana Levinson FOREST HILLS New York United States Sam Dyson Gympie Australia Jordan Gx HARTSDALE New York United States john casablanca HOUSTON Texas United States Unless it is absolutely positively necessary to life and limb to put a cell tower in a neighborhood area I don't think it should be Frances Jacobs INDIANAPOLIS Indiana United States done either Cathy Botha Joburg South Africa Roger Garin Michaud Kansas City Kansas United States Marta Szweda Kozakowice Poland !Carol W. Lancashire United Kingdom 'Heather Olson LANSING Michigan United States W. Clark LYNCHBURG Virginia United States Isabel Araujo Mexico Mexico Mariana Lukacova Moldava Nad Bodvou Slovakia m smithurst Morden United Kingdom ITom Tree MUNFORD Tennessee United States Mirra Ao None United Kingdom I Pam Barciszewski 0 FALCON Missouri United States Catrin NoForwardsPlease ORLANDO Florida United States Joann Henderson PALM COAST Florida United States Trish Raffel RALEIGH North Carolina United States 'Barry Raffel RALEIGH North Carolina United States Ted Williams RALLS Texas United States IJL Angell RESCUE California United States Charmaine MacDonald Safi Morocco Steph L SCOTTSDALE Arizona United States Aaron Chia SG Singapore (Wendy Jones Surrey Canada Janet Beck Toronto Canada Serdar Murat Vienna Austria IMafalda Fonseca Vila Nova de Milfontes Portugal •0 MO. City of Apple Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 4C November 2, 2016 Public Hearing PROJECT NAME: 7525 147th Street West Retail Building PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for: 1. A conditional use permit to allow for a drive-through window in conjunction with a Class III restaurant. 2. Site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 4,567 -sq. ft. multi - tenant building on a .9 -acre lot. 3. A variance of 4 feet from the required 50 -foot building setback from Cedar Avenue. 4. A variance of 14 feet from the required 40 -foot building setback from 147th Street West. 5. A variance of 12 feet from the required 15 -foot parking setback from a public street. STAFF CONTACT: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department APPLICANT: 7525 Cedar, LLC PROJECT NUMBER: PC 16 -34 -BV APPLICATION DATE: 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: September 26, 2016 November 25, 2016 January 24, 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 applicant is requesting approvals of a conditional use permit, site plan/building permit authorization and several building and parking setback variances to allow for construction of a 4,567 - sq. ft. building, 48 surface parking spaces, and drive-through window in for a coffee shop. The site is located at 7525 147th Street West, the current location of a vacant motor fuel/convenience store. There are currently four access driveways from public streets to the site, two each off Glenda Avenue and 147th Street West. The most -easterly driveway along 147th Street West and the southern driveway off Glenda Avenue will be removed with this development project. The applicant will be required to blend the curb, sidewalk, and install streetscape amenities at this location, consistent with the existing ring route design and 147th Street West and new curb and gutter along Glenda Avenue. The drive-through lane provides stacking for 12 vehicles, but does not show a bypass lane for vehicles that may want to exit the drive lane. The applicant shall provide a traffic report that analyzes the potential impacts the drive-through lane will have on trip generation and distribution for the site. One parking space and the drive-through window aisle encroach into the minimum 15 -foot parking setback along 147th Street West. The parking space in the southwest comer is located 5 feet from the property line and the drive lane is 3 to 10 feet from the south and east property lines. Removal of the parking space should not have an adverse impact. However, having the drive aisle meet the minimum parking setback will have an impact on the site layout, which likely result in the reduction in the size of the building All mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with City code requirements. Final grading and erosion control plans, and specifications shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Natural Resources Management Permit. License agreements will need to be obtained for any infiltration basins located in a drainage and utility easement and maintenance agreements shall be executed for all infiltration areas to ensure their ongoing operation. A detailed planting price list shall be required for verification of the City's 21/2% landscaping requirement at the time of submission of plans for a building permit. Landscaping should be added along the north and east side of the property. City staff has concern about the location of some the trees in and around the proposed raingardens. The applicant should work with staff on relocating trees that may be impacted by the raingardens. An outdoor seating area is shown on the south side of the building, directly adjacent to the proposed drive-through window lane. Decorative fencing should be installed around the perimeter of outdoor seating area that will provide a buffer between seating and vehicle lane. Outdoor seating is also shown in front of the proposed coffee shop. Any seating shall be located in a manner that will not impede the use of the sidewalk. The site plan identifies connections from the development to these sidewalks. They show a crosswalk that traverse diagonally for the northeast comer of building to a sidewalk connection from the site to Cedar Avenue. This crosswalk should be removed. The width of the sidewalk that runs east/west between the north side of the drive-through lane and a row of parking is approximately 4 feet wide. The 1.5 -foot encroachment allowance beyond the parking lot curb of cars parking in the adjacent spaces will have an impact on the ability to use that sidewalk. A sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of Glenda Avenue, which is shown directly behind the street's curb. The sidewalk should be located one -foot from the west property line. In addition, a pedestrian connection should be made from the font of the building to the sidewalk along Glenda Avenue. One parking space and the drive-through window aisle encroach into the minimum 15 -foot parking setback along 147th Street West. The parking space in the southwest corner is located 5 feet from the property line and the drive lane is 3 to 10 feet from the south and east property lines. Removal of the parking space should not have an adverse impact. However, having the drive aisle meet the minimum parking setback will have an impact on the site layout, which likely result in the reduction in the size of the building. Budget Impact None Attachments Applicant's Letter City Engineer's Memo Development Plans 7525 147th STREET ST RETAIL BUILDING PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 7525 147th Street West Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 3, VALLEY COMMERCIAL PARK 1ST ADDITION, EXCEPT THE West 40 feet thereof, together with the vacated street adjacent on the East of said Lot 4, Block 3 Comprehensive Plan Designation "C" (Commercial) Zoning Classification "RB" (Retail Business) Existing Platting Platted Current Land Use Vacant motor fuel station Size: .92 gross acres - .06 acres of right-of-way easement area - .13 acres of easement area = .73 acres net buildable area Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation Landscaped Other Significant Natural Features None Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Kennedy Transmission Building Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "GB" (General Business) SOUTH Bank of America Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "RB" (Retail Business) EAST Applebee's Restaurant Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "PD -290" (Planned Development) WEST Cedar View Animal Hospital Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "RB" (Retail Business) Development Project Review Location Map Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is currently designated "C" (Commercial). The commercial designation includes a wide variety of retail, office, and service uses that vary in intensity and off-site impacts. The City uses the zoning ordinance to regulate the intensity and characteristics of development based upon land use criteria and performance standards. The redevelopment proposal is consistent with this designation. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Zonhig: The property is zoned "RB" (Retail Business). Retail business districts are areas, which are centrally located to serve the need for general retail sales. Multi -tenant retail buildings are a permitted use within this zoning district. The applicant has indicated that the proposed tenants will be a restaurant and coffee shop. 147th ST W D-290 3 LAZIER Zoning Map Development History: The site is the current location of a vacant 4,734 -sq. ft. motor fuel station with a convenience store, car wash operation, and two motor vehicle repair bays. On December 12, 2015, the City Council approved site plan/building authorization to allow for construction of a 7,512 -sq. ft. multi -tenant retail building and 50 -space surface parking lot. Also included in that approval were the granting of building setback variances of 16 feet from Cedar Avenue and 10 feet from 147th Street West. On February 25, 2016, the City Council approved the following amendments to building setback variances: 1. A building setback variance of 16 feet to 17 feet from the required building feet from Cedar Avenue; 2. A building setback variance of 16 feet to 45 feet from the required building feet from Cedar Avenue for the south 5 feet of the east elevation; and 3. A building setback variance of 10 feet to 25 feet from the required building feet from 147th Street West. the approved setback of 50 setback of 50 setback of 40 Finally, the existing platted lot was combined with 30 feet of vacated right-of-way abutting the lot's east property and replatted as Lot 1, Block 1, Giselle's Comer. This replat was approved by the City Council on March 24, 2016, but has not been recorded at Dakota County. Conditional Use Permit Request: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit C.U.P.) to allow for a drive-through window in conjunction with a proposed coffee shop, which is defined as a Class III Neighborhood Restaurant. Approval of drive-through window C.U.P. is subject to the following requirements: 1. The City Council shall find that any noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles resulting from the operation of the window does not negatively impact surrounding residential and institutional uses. 2. The drive-through lane shall not impede or conflict with vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic circulation on the site, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. When a neighborhood restaurant is located less than 1,000 feet from residential or institutional use, the City Council may restrict the hours of operation of a drive-through window to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles. The drive-through provides stacking for 12 vehicles, but does not show a bypass lane for vehicles that may want to exit the drive lane. The applicant shall provide a traffic report that analyzes the potential impacts the drive-through lane will have on trip generation and distribution for the site. Site Plan: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,567 -sq. ft. multi -tenant retail building and 48 surface parking spaces on a .9 -acre lot, located at the northwest comer of 147th Street West and Cedar Avenue. Access to the property will be from driveways located along 147th Street West and Glenda Avenue. There are currently four access driveways from public streets to the site, two each off Glenda Avenue and 147th Street West. The most -easterly driveway along 147th Street West and the southern driveway off Glenda Avenue will be removed with this development project. The applicant will be required to blend the curb, sidewalk, and install streetscape amenities at this location, consistent with the existing ring route design and 147th Street West and new curb and gutter along Glenda Avenue. A raised center median is located in 147th Street West. It extends from just west of Cedar Avenue to just east of Glenda Avenue. This currently restricts vehicular access from the project site to right in/right out only. This condition will remain with the redevelopment of this site. The site plan shows 48 surface parking spaces for the 4,567 -sq. ft. multi -tenant retail building. City code requires one parking space for each 150 -sq. ft. of net floor area. The 48 spaces shown on the site plan is 18 spaces over the minimum required. A proposed Class II restaurant will occupy the 2,567 sq. ft. of the building and a coffee shop, which is a Class III restaurant, will occupy the north 2,000 sq. ft. Required parking for a Class II restaurant is one space per three seats. A Class III restaurant requires minimum of one space per 2.5 seats; and one space per five seats of outdoor eating area, excluding the first ten outdoor seats. The number of seats allowed in the two restaurants will be determined by the available off-street parking. One parking space and the drive-through window aisle encroach into the minimum 15 -foot parking setback along 147th Street West. The parking space in the southwest corner is located 5 feet from the property line and the drive lane is 3 to 10 feet from the south and east property lines. Removal of the parking space should not have an adverse impact. However, having the drive aisle meet the minimum parking setback will have an impact on the site layout, which likely result in the reduction in the size of the building Parking lots with fifteen (15) or more parking spaces shall provide for parking of bicycles near the building entrance and shall not encroach into the pedestrian walkway. The site plan shows two bike racks along the west side of the building. The trash enclosure will be located along the north side of the site, approximately 10 feet south of the north property line. The enclosure shall be constructed of the same materials as the principal building. The submitted plans do not identify the location of any mechanical systems that will serve the building. City code requires that all necessary mechanical protrusions visible to the exterior shall be screened or handled in a manner such that they are not visually obvious and are compatible with the surrounding development. For rooftop mechanical equipment, satisfaction of this requirement shall require that the equipment be fully screened visually by whether a parapet wall along the edge of the building or by a screen immediately surrounding such equipment. The height of the parapet wall or screen shall be at least the height of the equipment and must be an extension of the outside walls or screens constructed of durable, low -maintenance materials and be either a light, neutral color or the same color as the primary building materials of the outside walls. Rooftop equipment shall be setback from the edge of the roof a minimum of 20 feet. An outdoor seating area is shown on the south side of the building, directly adjacent to the proposed drive-through window lane. Decorative fencing should be installed around the perimeter of outdoor seating area that will provide a buffer between seating and vehicle lane. Outdoor seating is also shown in front of the proposed coffee shop. Any seating shall be located in a manner that will not impede the use of the sidewalk. Proposed Setback Variances: Minimum building setbacks from Glenda Avenue and the north property line have been met for this project and all minimum parking setbacks have been met with the exception of the parking setback along the east side of the property. The applicant is requesting building setback variances of 4 feet from Cedar Avenue and 14 feet from 147th Street West. As stated previously, several setback variances were approved as part of previous site plan/building permit authorization request. The building setback variances requested with this proposal are less severe because the building area has been significantly reduced. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the official control and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. Practical difficulties are described as: • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner permitted by the ordinance. • The owner's plight is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the owner. The variance will not alter the locality's essential character. The subject property has gone through several changes since its platting in 1969. Several changes have occurred to this property since its platting. The west 40 feet are now part of the 60 feet of Glenda Avenue right-of-way. Thirty feet of road right-of-way, located between the east property and Cedar Avenue, was vacated and is now part of this site. With that said, trail, drainage, and utility; and temporary easements are located in the 30 feet of that vacated area. Trail, drainage, and utility, and temporary easements also exist over the south 10-18 feet of the subject property. Improvements associated with the reconstruction of Cedar Avenue and ring route amenities are located within these easements. These changes could be considered unique to the property that was not created by the owner, which would prevent the current property owner or future developer the ability to construct a typical retail building with a 60 -foot depth and associated parking within the required setbacks. Grading Plan: Preparation of the site for development for the proposed retail building will involve the removal of the pavement and base, the existing building and structures, and the underground fuel storage tanks and piping. Removal of the existing structures, pavement, base and fuel storage tanks and piping shall be done in accordance with local, state and federal regulations and all the required permits and inspections shall be performed. The site is relatively flat and a minimal amount of grading will occur in preparing the site for the proposed retail building. Redevelopment of this site will require the project meet the City's storm water requirements. This will include meeting the infiltration, water control, and rate control standards. Issuance of a Natural Resources Management Permit and building permit shall be contingent upon the City Engineer's approval the project's storm water management plan. The applicant is proposing to install infiltration basins to treat storm water runoff generated on this site. There is some concern about the potential soil contamination associated with the fuel storage and dispensing system. The City Engineer is requiring that soil/borings and testing be provided to ensure that the soil in the infiltration areas is not contaminated. No permits should be issued until the City Engineer has had a chance to review and sign off on the results of soil borings and tests. Maintenance of these basins will be the responsibility of the property owner. Maintenance agreements shall be executed for infiltration areas to ensure their operation. In addition, license agreements will need to be obtained for any infiltration basin located in a drainage and utility easement. Final grading and erosion control plans, and specifications shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Natural Resources Management Permit. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan shows a variety of live landscape materials that will be used on the site. City code requires that the minimum cost of landscaping materials (live plant material excluding sod) for commercial projects shall be 21/2% of the estimated building construction cost based on Means construction data. A detailed planting price list shall be required for verification of the City's 21/2% landscaping requirement at the time of submission of plans for a building permit. Landscaping should be added along the north and east side of the property. City staff has concern about the location of some the trees in and around the proposed raingardens. The applicant should work with staff on relocating trees that may be impacted by the raingardens. Availability of Municipal Utilities: The site is currently served by public utilities that extend from lines located in the 147th Street West right-of-way. The City Engineer has reviewed the utility plan and his comments are included in the attached memo. Revisions should be made to the utility plan per his comments. Street Classifications/Accesses/Circulation: Streets surround the site on three sides. Abutting the property's east side is Cedar Avenue, a principal arterial. There is currently no direct access to the site from Cedar Avenue and none is proposed. Directly adjacent to the south of the site is 147th Street West, a minor collector street. There are currently two driveway accesses from this street to the subject property. The applicant is proposing to remove the most easterly driveway as part of the redevelopment of the site. Staff supports the removal of this driveway. A raised median in 147th Street West will restrict this driveway to right in/right out movements only. Glenda Avenue, a local street, borders the site on the west. Two driveways currently exist that provide access to and from the site. The applicant is proposing the removal of the most southerly driveway and retaining the north driveway at its current location. The most northerly access and will allow full access to the site. Staff has no issues with the use of the existing access driveways, but there is concern about traffic impacts that may occur with the drive-through window lane. Elevation Drawings: The elevation drawings indicate a mix of brick and cast stone, with prefinished composite panels at all customer entrances and two sets of windows on the east elevation. Aluminum awnings will be placed over all the windows and entrances. The plans call for plywood blocking at the signage areas. The applicant should provide information on this detail. Pedestrian Access: Public sidewalks exist directly adjacent to the site in the 147th Street West and Cedar Avenue rights-of-way. The site plan identifies connections from the development to these sidewalks. They show a crosswalk that traverse diagonally from the northeast corner of building to a sidewalk connection from the site to Cedar Avenue. This crosswalk should be eliminated. The width of the sidewalk that runs east/west between the north side of the drive-through lane and a row of parking is approximately 4 feet wide. The 1.5 -foot encroachment allowance beyond the parking lot curb of cars parking in the adjacent spaces will have an impact on the ability to use that sidewalk. A sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of Glenda Avenue, which is shown directly behind the street's curb. The sidewalk should be located one -foot from the west property line. In addition, a pedestrian connection should be made from the font of the building to the sidewalk along Glenda Avenue. Signs: No formal sign application has been submitted, however, the applicant does show the location of building sign band area and the location of a sign along Cedar Avenue. All signage should be in conformance with the City's sign ordinance and applicable sign requirements. 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. D JR ARCHITECTURE, INC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 210, Union Plaza, Minneapolis, MN 55401 T: 612.676.2700 F: 612.676.2796 www.djr-inc.com September 27, 2016 Tom Lovelace City Planner 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 Re: 7525 147th Street West Apple Valley, MN Project Narrative: The project is a redevelopment of the Paul's Cedar Avenue Tire and Auto at 7525 147th Street West. The proposed project is a one story retail building at approximately 4,600 square feet with brick, storefront glass and composite panel materials on the exterior creating a four-sided building with visual interest on all sides. The proposed tenants are a national restaurant and a coffee shop. The site is being reconfigured with parking, landscaping and storm water improvements, removing the eastern curb cut on 147th street and maintaining the western curb cut on 147th Street. The southern curb cut on Glenda will be removed and the northern curb cut on Glenda Avenue shifted to the north. The siting of the building toward the corner of 147th Street and Cedar Avenue will provide a better visual anchor to the street intersection. In addition, parking will be largely screened from Cedar Avenue by the building. The architectural treatment of the east and south facades will greatly improve the streetscape along Cedar Avenue and 147th Street for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike. Both tenants will have an outdoor seating area, which will vitalize the building's perimeter. The project will retain the pylon sign on Cedar Avenue. A drive thru intended to serve the coffee shop will wrap around the building, and will be screened from the pedestrian traffic on Cedar Avenue and 147th by new landscaping features. Setback Variances Requested: We are requesting two setback variances from the Cedar Avenue Building Setback and the 147th Street Setback. The depth of the site and required setback (50'-0" on Cedar Avenue) do not allow for a typical depth of retail (50'-0") with an efficient parking layout at 60'-0" depth plus setbacks. Retail uses are a permitted use for the zoning of the site and the project is therefore requesting reasonable accommodation to make the project work for industry standards. We have sited the building in order to maintain a landscape setback on Glenda and one along Cedar Avenue as well. In reviewing setbacks relative to sidewalks along Cedar Avenue, five other buildings have similar setbacks — The Mid -Country Bank, Old Chicago and Chick-Fil-A, townhouses at 143rd and at 146 1/2 streets. We are requesting a minimum setback of 46.1' feet on Cedar Avenue with a minor setback of 4.7 feet from the ROW taking for city signage and monument wall at the SE corner of the site for approximately 5 feet in the length of the building frontage. See site plan for clarification. With respect to the 147th Street Setback — the project is requesting a setback from the property line of 30'-6" down from a required setback of 40-0". The project setback along 147th street is an attempt to use the average setback among other buildings on the street. Four of the seven buildings along the block are at the same setback or closer. The proposed setback is an average of these individual setbacks. �istf(� 00. MID* 0*•S City of Apple��ey MEMO Public Works Department TO: Tom Lovelace, Planner FROM: Brandon Anderson, City Engineer DATE: October 28, 2016 SUBJECT: 7525 147th Street West Tom, following is comments on the 7525 147th Street West site plan dated September 26, 2016. Please include these comments as conditions to approval. General 1. All work and infrastructure within public easements or right of way shall be to City standards. 2. No construction shall begin prior to a pre -construction conference with a City Public Works representative. 3. City of Apple Valley Water Department shall operate all valves on public owned mains and valves connecting private lines to public owned mains. 4. Public Work Department (952-953-2400) shall be notified a minimum of 48 hours for any required water main shut downs and/or connections. 5. A Staging and temporary parking plan will be required to be submitted prior to building permit authorization. 6. Provide trip generation and distribution analysis for site traffic impacts as traffic is anticipated to increase on 147' Street West due to addition of drive through. 7. Filtration maintenance agreement will be required for proposed Filtration area. Permits 8. A right of way permit will be required for all work within public easements or right of way. 9. Provide a copy of the executed Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Met Council, Department of Labor and any other required permits. 10. A Natural Resource Management Permit (NRMP) will be required prior to any land disturbing activity commences. Site 1. Sidewalk, pavement, striping, curb and gutter and median shall be replaced to match existing conditions. 2. Existing drainage and utility easement as indicated through middle of proposed building shall be vacated. 3. Trail, drainage and utility easement per Doc. No. 2754703 shall be amended to include the area required for electrical transformer relocation and traffic control box. 4. A drainage and utility easement is required for existing hydrant near south property line. 5. Provide Auto turn drawing indicating vehicle movements thru proposed drive-thru and internal circulation of delivery and garbage trucks. 6. Crosswalk in northeast corner of site appears to be sending pedestrians to corner of building; crosswalk must lead to a pedestrian access route or be removed. 7. Crosswalk in northwest corner of site needs to have ADA accessible pedestrian ramps/truncated domes. 8. Given the radius required to maneuver the drive through (no bypass or service lane is provided) as proposed, a service, emergency or commercial vehicle will have a difficult time maneuvering. The drive through lane should be modified to prevent vehicle conflicts. 9. Sidewalk along Glenda should be placed 1.0' from Property line and not directly adjacent to back of curb to accommodate snow storage and meet City Standards. Decorative fencing between the sidewalk and filtration area may be needed. Storm Drainage and Grading 1. Final Grading Plans shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 2. Given the proposed plan qualifies as redevelopment of the site, storm water requirements as identified in the Apple Valley Surface Water Management Plan must be met. This includes infiltration (or filtration), water quality, and rate control. 3. As indicated in the Storm Water Management Report provided, no infiltration is recommended. Two above ground and one below ground filtration basins are proposed. 4. The filtration areas must be staked off and marked to keep all construction traffic, equipment and material stockpiles out of the proposed filtration areas. 5. Filtration basins shall not be excavated until the contributing drainage areas with exposed soils has been fully stabilized and upland drainage areas have been diverted to prevent runoff from entering the excavated basin or into the work area. Do not use filtration basins as temporary sediment basins. 6. Care must be taken to avoid contamination of engineered soils with sediment, in-situ or topsoil during and after installation. Materials must be segregated. 7. Emergency overflows should be clearly identified on the grading plan. 8. Provide specification/product information regarding impermeable pond liner per detail 6 on sheet S W 1.2 . 9. Include the Overall site composite Curve Number (CN) for the development on the Grading Plan. Erosion Control 1. Perimeter protection is indicated on the proposed plan. 2. Street sweeping shall be provided should tracking occur during construction. 3. Rock construction entrance is indicated on the proposed plan. No construction access will be allowed onto 147th Street. 4. Inlet protection, silt fence and other erosion control features shall be maintained throughout the project. Utilities 1. Final locations and sizes of Storm Sewer shall be reviewed with the final construction plans and approved by City Engineer. 2. Every effort shall be made to re -use existing sewer and water services on the site. 3. Provide additional drawing showing required hydrant coverage for site. 4. Fire hydrants shall be provided per the Fire Marshall's recommendation. 5. The fire and domestic water shall be split outside the building; each shall have their own shutoff. Indicate correct size of services on drawing. 6. Should existing sewer and water services not be able to be utilized: a. Existing service shall be removed back to the tee or extended for use as domestic water if applicable. b. Notification is required 7 days in advance of lane or street closures. 7 -day advance warning signage and notices to affected businesses for the closure shall be provided by the contractor. c. A Traffic Control plan shall be submitted and approved for all lane or street closures by the contractor. Flagmen shall be provided as necessary. d. An obstruction permit shall be applied for and approved with Dakota County for detour routing prior to lane or street closures. e. Public Works is to be notified prior to any required water shutdown and/or connection. f. All work within 147th Street right of way shall be completed between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am and be open to traffic by 6 am each day. g. Bituminous patching on 147th shall be completed to base course the same evening as utility installation. h. Striping of 147th shall be completed within 2 days of base course completion. 7. Temporary bituminous center median in 147th Street West must be removed and replaced with concrete median. 8. Storm sewer within right of way for purposes of connection to public infrastructure shall be reinforced concrete pipe and meet all City standards. Natural Resources 1. Additional screening and/or plantings are required along the north property line. 2. Additional landscaping is requested in lieu of the lawn areas along Cedar Avenue. 3. Sheet L1.0 contains plans to maintain three large existing evergreen trees along Glenda Drive. This area also includes the edges of proposed new raingardens and new trees. There does not appear to be not sufficient space to maintain the trees and add new crabapple trees here. The location of the new trees also appears close to underground stormwater infrastructure. 4. Provide detail on elevation and plant location in Sheet L1.1 for the raingardens/filtration basins. 5. Cleaning out sumps and Rain Guardians and other pretreatment at minimum twice per year, once in spring and once in fall, should be included in the maintenance agreement for the filtration systems on site. 6. Vegetation maintenance for the first 3 years of plant establishment should be more intensive and take someone with a special knowledge of native plants in the basins. 7. Adding iron or other enhancements may increase the phosphorus removal of filtration systems on site. This property is in the East Lake TMDL watershed, making phosphorus reductions a priority. Iron enhanced sand may not be a good idea for planted basins, unless limited to an area around drain tile or a layer below the first 1' of engineered filtration soil, for plant health. Natural Resources staff can connect the applicant with free technical assistance if they wish. 00, 3L%-'1.3"12:ZSEF1'4',C,1 1WD N1 :nIi1Hv .N1 .S3.114:1:4 NO. C1211S N 0 '141;21!" TV1011.1flaIS ..L1Y.LNOD P.P.40 ,Aq un,e, alP0 ESC, ,i9Z/60 ,PP8 :ale() :anssi Q T.-,_;.--,---;,,------- : - - - -- - - - - --- : - --- 1- - - -- '-'; - - - ---e- ----' '----1 '71-- r'':'-''''---'-'ar,-,_ _ „, „-_-.--,- -- ':':ir•i,.=:t1:,-:*;:-- ,,,,,,31• ::::1,- -7:::::', -.', '. --„,-----------,---- o-„---,,,• --=---::--,,,---:,/-------,-,-,--,-, , - „. ___ -------,-,_ ___- ,---_____. :--------„-----':---------f:-------,----:,---a--,'-''-------::',7,-',---▪ ---,f,-:;-i--',':----:--I--.--,t;1 '''''':':',:----:--I--:',:17:„::--,:::--1'1,.':'-„I'::,:,:,„,:::"':7,..,„,.•.:::':;:::..,,r:„,...,:,,'.--...:,'T'_rr':.,,'''.,:„„:71--:-rll:':::':::L_':'''':--,--:1''''-:::,_':'<l'-'-''''','L':-:'_l'::;'-'ll,-14:---7T_1::::':::::''':;E;s-:r:','*':'"-:',---,-Y' ------- -----------11----111,--,111,', „,,r...„,:.„:,;„.,,r,.:.,i.:::,,,..„..., 'g' -r-'.-,:::<,--1:,,-'''',----::::;:_:1-•,,,,,-,':;:::::; •----f-----,,---__ ---,-:t,n..---,,,r=,,-.5-tt, ire ,_.....,„„ •.--,_,---i,o715,-Tim' ;EtLtt'„Zttafcvk--.Tii....„, ... „„ ,:?--4T-limmesorassammear lib leaqs Janoo i HU I SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL ij 8 6 SHEET INDEX - CIVIL 5. 8 3 14: 5. 8 6 10. - • \ A \'‘ - 1, 0. \ \ CP) 17' 10' - a h/ 10' / 4, ...-••• - , 3' - ; 6 - / 1T-4. 1T-4- 15, 12, 98' 0 •°- 7525 147TH ST. WEST Floor Plan Issuel Date: Resise, Per. Se, - Building .0.1i. 09/26t16 Project # 15-053 0 Date 1,4)926 Ap WENT Check „ S B F'FljaL5' DR' Daum by. CHTECTURE, EftpoTu7- iyaru.onbus UNT.Ja PZ60-9, £C0-5 palcud ,19,160 :33ec) :ens, suopene8 Jopoix3 NIN 90,, 7.1 A A Q - .8, ' LU - 1-114111111,,,,, 47TH STREET WEST N ti APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA ISSUED FOR: PLANNING SUBMISSION hZ0££ 8012,10-H `3 AVO "80 M Ia3AINOI 'N 09LZ X11 `2IVGJO SZSL 170695 NW 'AAT1VA d-lddd `M 1S Witt- SZSL ISJM 13JH1S H1LtP1. SZSL 1,3road PROJECT SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION NOTES: rj J O < LL o O zQ LL� z v 0 wQ T Oa' w q •� m� Z ate° a � m SHEET INDEX O i N N Z Z `-� _o_,2 F O � Z z0 O U o , ., z O J W '..Az a,z z z z S 5 5 S 'j a a a a °- Hi 0 0 L'1 W W~ w w wW a d a W � p O O O Q Q J J J Z a a o 0 0 J W d a Q w w LL a a a _� Q Q Q U` d Q Q W w w w (n i i J! Z_ i- J J J U U 3. 3 3 114-10MM!!!! ��00 ! ! FEHHF,,,iiiii Z TITLE SHEET MASTER LEGEND: DEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER: 5 EXISTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATION rn cMi �Q, ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 3 SURVEYOR: STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Pz AE EM ME EM ME • U U W O W 0 BENCHMARK SCHEDULE 132 SURVEY RELATED NOTES: DENOTES UnLITY EASEMENT PER RECORD PLAT t - .1,1011.100V 1St ,Thfrd .W0113116.) - 9Al2:1C:1 vaie U0 55055 VGI501d `31AVa "2710 'N 09LZ 011 `Jd®33 SZSL t'Z t0S NW `1.311VA 3lddV `MIS HJLt7 6 SZSL ISJM 139111S Witt. SZSL 1,3road wc�-Q=d REVISION SUMMARY Q W } Q Q p Z Q p G O m O UJ O Z J 3 O5 Z� OW U = Z ZO LL W W N REMOVALS LEGEND: OwJN~pJJQGZOO�x SWw d 1- ZtU-�_.J OF _U�O-z rU mqU�0VJ�y= UQ �O2�' 6m.zrdv) �Z Gw�O U HO NdO USOUO UUOZ= 2 O~~ ��_ �Z�> 0005l~i�Qmw1z1O U=O QOZw Ow 0� 0G�w��a a 2= Z�� F Up pQ � y�{ Wmu yd Z WO�� bli w U � mw�= i I p 0 ';`"-- H-: K U Q o� LL O W p Uw>w w ~ m ~> k z q z ��C�z� �w a�cnaOw m��J ¢ W HQ �p Q> Q m � O � N cH-: gm w 1111 p0 II ww2V-{W- !- S w' 2' a�?aaW m< rio ILITY OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 0 z �r� R N ~ O w G wl'-'- (`-:,3 H Z U W O Z O� p ¢ =0 3 z li x zO11! Q � p�wQ xZ m Z ! "HI H�>OG w UUUO~ z Z � 'y rill Om0 O=UO= �-- � w_4ppm HI cx) NUKhi U m W �pwz��OzU,Q �a 0wJJ> ZII; F- C7 W� � Z w Wz�=- Hir o -w m LL � O x oz ?� Jaz m w U 0 W o G 0 w Q m � o LL V) o i''' U} WOOU�m�O�>vizWuii!zpqo11E�¢�-'zZ��syII QOxZ��KOZK O p Zm00044_of 11 w o 01x- ag i m t� VZO££ V012,1O1d `�Inda '110 'N 09LZ 311 `Jtl®33 SZSL t�ZI SS NN '&J11VA 'M 1S HJ Lb6 SZSL 1S3M 133J1S H1Ln SSL lo3road REVISION SUMMARY SITE AREA TABLE; a ti PROJECT SPECIFIC SITE NOTES: SITE PLAN LEGEND: . SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED. WW _Z Jo w w tY W m � Q J = � H p O Q~ Z C O a Hii � U -J O il Gw p H Ili!: �rQ-Z�K ¢rn-�Ow U Z O o mt" �� 3 <cmQ�m¢ I-ci�wa0�owp0 �px x= OY�j ~�ZC C7vmi� iLL�J WO -”w°,,, �nwEcay> P wx �z ZF-zQ yW�K � !),g � a > m� Wa¢ U�J�Qo 0 zY�aOw c07QpuJw> Ho 0W�¢ z �UZm�Jr-mWi d O OZmO Q U O Q U¢ O 0. . r r r bli ZZ <O wW w�1mZjZ�U- W UN Z ZO1=-Q d' O J t• F- � m LL � �OUwt'CO Gr-OIp j� 1-1p pW � � H� � Si,ZQ 00WQ Q ��'mami� w0 z Z O z T H O z w �owa-m w O OUu'�sw z x= ¢ _a,p �y¢wQ0 m �ZaZ�aoQ�o �Z U mQaLLOOw� i--? - fV F Q Z � C � w Q O � Z � Z W O w s � � W Ov~-i � O LL Z > g J � U Z o� Qo (7 13. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS m w W: rn O w h- SITE LAYOUT NOTES - ADDITIONAL: MOM VGI?:101d 'AIAVO "50 Alla0AINn •N 0915 011 'NVG 30 SM. 4rn 50S NA 'A2T1VA 21ddV 'MIS H_LL 171, 5591 1S3AA 1.33N.IS RUN, SZS4.0 F., 08d APRON REPLACEMENT ENLARGEMENT 1 RIVIG EK. 4 • -,..._..._.,_______, ,---, I , , ,„ , , : - , , ,----,,,--- -0 • -t, ' _. _ h 4 D IZ00£ da12d0-1d `�Inda "2Ja "N 09LZ 311 `JVGJ3 SZSL trZ6SS NW `ADT1VA 1ddb `M LS HLLtr6 CZSL 1SJM 1B]2L1S HILPI- SSL 1,3f'ONd REVISION SUMMARY GRADING PLAN GRADING PLAN LEGEND OVERALL SITE CURVE NUMBER (CN) = 83 SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTER SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BACK OF CURB (TOP OF CURB) c) 0 m m ads o 0 0 - EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE ARROWS CITY OF APPLE VALLEY GRADING NOTES: EROSION CONTROL NOTES: GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: OZ N Z a Ou~j •m U p Z W Zw ~ X U w ti - 7. > U 7 Z w 0 G zmz U O C w U W O O_ O O w w N Y F O Z z p L.' W O H >-� a' a�J Q ZCWii Q¢ii O u`ni inUW g m w OIOOu� F- Y w u~iJII rnpOwZ HL,'Ll OQZZ �c. U 1-2O M ZO jZ w W wLL; _? W � W �J wmF U LL WJW W � Z V7 � J� 2 m WOW O � j �U W w O Wr2 w p U ma U m /- = h- 19:11! cn W O �.V0}m0=WpsNmW OF">w�'� VWj LL- owO 1- w W �S m� � v~iU�w OZ�- �= omF- W m�SC r -J wa�wo�o aaowUDWw W U UNaFO UW Wx z ULL O 0! 00[!1 I- Q� H O � aLL w 1- zy �� '- �o �ezo4p0 w nP �BOOK m iq W � � � N mo dGw1= w Qw a oK i-O"O OZ� W�� UW W O o W W H !,:-1-, UDui r -o0 N� w zm>ui Inzln a� a w0 0 w¢ a w 0 � w 1 =ate _il H o; ! ;a ozHNC'��Q :, 1C 52058 80128Old `81/\80 ''80 AllaigAINOI 'N 09L8 011 `NV®33 SZSL 08100 NW `AS 1VA dlddV `M IS H.11171. 0Z5L 1SJM 13Ja1S SZSL lo3road } CITY OF APPLE VALLEY UTILITY NOTES: Q W Q X O O 2 d a W L- Q W W J O m O W Z Q ~ ¢ w w W m zZ W 18 waJ z0�0 SOU ¢Fz-, SU 5o =d w zd �LL Q�w J} J� wZ wQ xz p qwc OtW- � W W �}W TUU ZLL Z U> F' V-ri E U� tnQz r-ww O� tno =o z tn¢Ftno'-c�tnorr�Uo= Yt- zVwv��eU[LL�wo�a�3n�W 9� w�pzc�¢UaaapZZ`;�mQJm Oni Q� U d� QJ UTILITY LEGEND: > wO Ow p L- V) c'3'' ' Z 111,11:- ! O Lm- �¢ z UZtZ tZ O� O� Q�mW w HOW 6E a U ZO Qo aOc2i s w� vwi Q Z� Zawp�w wvZrr r2-8to Q w wwZ�°J� 0¢�01UONz0wF HZw¢' W QH �w J au�=ZU018866x08V)WO�=xtr JONW J pLL�W��Z� to O 1:- Z W O J � Q wZ� t/)� II H W O O Q all~ W 2W' Y- aU�� 0 U:!-' UN�U=U OQ W m Q lir: WZ= 0 z z Z2=wo��ogo o�J m 1LLwIII OFJ3 J� � o d � Q to < O twi��¢ten ?-'=z�n z Z� L- to u wW- UWOUVUWUZ ii f nJO � Z w� (!Q�� ZQ � H o�m>a. _ �-? Z N III I1i,IliZr U Z_O�w = wO mw w w mz~~OQ zm vi �o wm��wog�cF.��out�z �¢ �ZO~' >w OOO za a z¢ lz zzwOOw_O¢<L- ,Pili �F�pII:H Q z 0 0 w O Z o w 8 K Z 5 Z Z �' (Y N W H a p Z O OZ J>�--� Wo� 8 _0 ' 1818 48 8 8 88 4008t0n1 �mo ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) UNLESS OTHERWISE N . Z C b cnZ H cn i N--.wU Z Ow O �H w O F- Z O O LLo O li$�'U6 W OU ! a w � �_ m tmn u>i a U O O W w � w mL- O � i w z S w = U J Ko o Q Z y U i.,1 OF QWy z O w�1 2 0a � � Z il a > wg a Q Wo � aww U < H -,iii 2 W N W Q wa 0 to ., N! zmo O 1-' i Li',-,!,,,,,:,,,!,1 Wi..U J� 2U� �H U1 LL ! ! Q !:qui 0 22. CONTRACTOR SHAH CORDINATE A 25055 V00d012 SIAVO 2a AIISSSANfl 5 09LZ 311 ‘11V030 SZL 251-09 NIN `A3-1-1VA 0lddV 'AA IS HILM 909L 1S9M 133aLS HILK 0 2 2 0 5612 CURI3 & GUTTER 9ZOCE 9019019 9(990 "801..LISAINn •N 09ZZ 011 '2:JVC190 SZGL 17Z99g NIN '9/3119A 31ddV gZSL 1SgAA .1.DAILLS HIL171- SZSLd REVIS MARY CIVIL DETAILS PAVEMENTAANDSCAPING/SOO 2 c(), -c<2 7t-4 5 0 0 (i) O VO.L6 Z (7) rA 3 t § o (f) oz sQ cianck o°zcS 0 (1) -t SS aLLTig >-F-U- H99 L2.L!, (/) z0 ! 99 7" d` cn 0 z z z LU 0 CD CD Lcj 99 9/ cr 33 g cz < H cr z >- 0 0 0 RIBBON CURB 5. PERFORM ALL OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 6. SEED AND MULCH ALL AREAS AFTER DISTURBANCE ION DEVICE UPON STABILIZATION OF CONTRIBUTING (1) >- z0 9/9/ iii=14 !1 1111, I ft[EIIJoLL,11n 0 z CURB CUT t73088 VOIHOld 'BIAVG -24C1kLISIJAAINII 'N 09L8 311 '11\1030 SZSL PZ 'A311VA 31ddY MIS'HILtl SZSL 1SW 1392:11S H11171, 0 8 8 8 55 88 fa\ 8 8 "AN g 8. '72 trZO E V012:1O1d 'DIAVO '11O .N 09LZ Y11 ` JVO93 SZSL t'Z lSS NW `Aa11VA d1ddY `M 1S HLL171. SZSL g z W Q Ur� vJ 0 z 1`,, ¢ � � w Jm U W W C ° Q O iil`� v=i w ° O J 1- w O O ¢ w r ��Np zZ a J iZ HIQ OUF-. OO H G ¢U wQ 3 O U p = 4 Z � W = �- �O 11!! � (n I- OU It! a!iRib, vowO��O��-W Ot-�U O ::: E�� F W- ��Z OH za H UK ; : ,,,i w o ;la U � ww _Z w U Z W C ra � m N �"' mZOy Za ON U Z � Hi ¢ wm O E O la z w. Q U zdF- O >4 UZ O pU U y w� O¢ U g ¢zgp z m R¢ rq W W y r r U¢ r HI w LL J fn =� �> J � ZO Ud � z � m N d> Y U ¢ w m W LL w O w m d w q J a o 0 0 mp z Wg�w J�ren�K¢ HUP¢�= ii!, U ¢z <z az¢ a � =� > x w = w a¢x LL U Vj cn� a rn cnw o Z O1wp OHrz =r O r o cn r� Hi w� w42 j pw cwiz�42 �¢<~aKj w Z Z U�� 0? Z w O � gW Z j ZW W O O X WZ WQ O W a J JJ O q w� viU Uw�w fnzg U� � ¢ ¢¢ Ua 7.4 3,3.4 hZ0££ VOIHOld 'AIAVO ''HO 'N 09LZ 011 `2JVGJ3 SZ5L PLANT SCHEDULE - FILTRATION BASIN PLANTS ONLY CD PLUG FORBS AND FERNS PLUG GRASSES, SEDGES PLUG FORBS AND FERNS Agastache foeniculum Q FILTRATION BASIN NOTES° 17Z6SS NW `AA11VA dlddd M 1S HILt'6 SZSL 1S3/V1193111S HILVI. SZ�L 13fOad W U W SSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY zE5 ILTRATION BASIN PLANTING fob V01 2,10 -1d g ava'da Alla1AAINC1 ' 09L 011 VCID0 SZgL P Lgg NA y]]1 A ]]ddV` IS HILtil. CZ9L i7ZO££ da12J0iH '�IAVO ''230 .1 L S212AINf1 'N 09LZ 011 2�V030 SZSL VZ LSS NW 'A3 11VA 3 lddd 'MIS HLLf SZSL 163M 1392:11S H1LI1. 5Z5L t3road n � ) N Cid a ¢ G M O co SWPPP NOTES: tZn£ 5012,1011 '1AVC] "'HO AlISUDAIN11 109ZZ 011 `11VC130 SL 15100 NW `AD1-15A alddV 'M IS HILVI, 959Z 1S3AA 1B3aLS SZ94,3_, TYPICAL PLAN VIEW TYPICAL SECTION VIEW 2 6 ,c OR OTHER APPROPRIATE TEMPOWY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO PREVENT TER SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPIS MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE ANY UP GRADIENT 8 00 _ c 01 DEMES AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRATNA AREA IS ADEOuATELY vEGE TATE, ONTINUING CONSTRUCTION. (7- 5 t 5 ca_ RAIN GARDEN - z z 0 BIO-RETENTI 1 1 1 , '--1,3 f: Id ,1.1WATIr. , ,r4 BACK OF CURB PERIMETER CONTROL WITH SIDEWALK , ',....„.N., --,,,„,,,,,:,.., i I . . l ' I PA.7.4?' 11.,!." 4; it !4 •-•,--, ek KAN BERM OR APPROVED EQUAL (I SILT FENCE ..............,.. ....j SIMMINININ*11111111111 V' 0, ca_ RAIN GARDEN - z z 0 BIO-RETENTI 8902 8018019 `1AV0 210 AilaGAINn •N 098Z 011 `UVODO SSL 89 900 NW `A31IVA 31ddV 'M IS 81851. 0858 163/V119311.LS SZ9L, 9150 SWPPP - NARRATIVE Co. GENERAL SWPPP REQUIREMENTS AND NOTES: 29 g 88 li LilL Rl'i,c2,1 gld) L--24 58 8888 11(55 255 855 z'; H 2(5 852 8 H 558 255 Luj a (Lu 1:11 1P4 -6 5885 `-/-1 AREAS AND QUANTITIES (PART 111A4.68,C): SITE AREA CALCULATIONS ;c2 gs 4 g 589 8 ;2 THE PERMITTEE MUST INSTALL TEMPOR.Y SEDIMENTATION BASINS AS REQUIRED IN PART I 8 2 }g2 Ltn, co— ri! 92 HPLb55 85 11„. 2 92 s0s 5!859555 51 INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE (PART IV.E): CC !bin955552 - § 1 ; H d h H d q h , p 5 8 58 8 1 - 5' i 88 I L' lig 'l 8509 5 90 58 8 11- i 55 1 i1 :nII )1 !' i, 95 1n25 1 • I,li„ i '88 0 ri!!HIn!z 00 ! i Pg 9585 888 • , 45 298 111 I 1-i- 9 8 558 888 55 L!. lq q g ill i '0 I 8 ii: 1 I Ill 1 I-_-'iL' '')- ! lli 11 'H ;-.' !- '-, --,9, -‘1 !..0 . HA ; 55 !,,_ ,,,i H, H izI ;,.*- 88 n I 111 ,Il 11 ti -;i-:- id ,P"r,,,-csI,(,i7,,,-▪ TL,,-, 5I- :viLL' g = p _ gk_ 9 998 8 98 !9 99 89 Hi !--: I '1' H 11 5 ':- 1 b ,-- 1 -1,0 PR! __..„.. 1 d ! i !ji 2 0 2 OF YVAY, CONTRACTS, COVENANT THE CONTRACTOR SI IALL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON THE SITE, SWPPP ATTACHMENTS: FA' 6 z, 55 55 85 55 coc, 85 28 88 559 'E5II 11 II II 55 55525 55o 2 96 0 0 96 ,),?„ 51 T, 65 w (7-) 'I. P', 2 Lkj 5 8 TAIL BUILDING. SITE AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 2 8 Lc L BMP REQUIREMENTS SITE SPECIFIC (IF REQUIRED): 82 L!,Li 15 2255 5 55 55 0 55 6- p "Id i, 11 i!, 58585 po , -:ilg i : i1 i! i !tc o, !! ',, i !:iiIIP• _5 re,! ! ,H„. i : 11q'I !: _ --i ' , , :11; iH9 l il Lg-,,, 9 D ii - ' 11-, !! Fi ” I il j'' 50 0 " 1 g n11:,-, ,`', , 15 90 9so8 -8 0 50 5 6o 1:8), F1' II 8 i IN l'a- . 5 5,_ tIRR-T H i 55 85 il '`58 0 t -i L;),- Pi 0 1 11 .‹. hi !II " '-- El lig PI E.1 li Fi'L, il 558 8 i Ip lhc1l_ 58 l SSS I-- 55 5555 li ii ;i i'1H't,11 i' l!i!" 1 11 i'D 55 1 11 ' 1 iii 2 ii ill - 558- 38 z LC II' 0 Liij III 1111 8 H li. 1 i 0di 5111 i !jig22 lk PPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 (OATS COVER CROP, FOR SPRING/SUMMER .PLICATIONS 4 h 5 5!H H ;' )1 UST MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS AND 55 h58 55 - 88 5 85 85! 55 85 5 5 85 ,9( Liju 5 65 52 88 LY, 5855 Lio!,'555! 555555