The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/04/2017••• •••• ••••• •••• ••• City of Apple VaValley Meeting Location: Municipal Center 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 JANUARY 4, 2017 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 December 7, 2016 B. Palomino Highlands Replat — Consider the subdivision by preliminary plat to adjust the common rear lot lines of three existing lots. (PC16-43-SF) LOCATION: 100 and 102 Belmont Road, and 12980 Hershey Way PETITIONER: Timothy and Carolyn Ellison, Lee and Gretchen Gilbertson, Robert Parkhill and Dennice Briol 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS --NONE-- 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Christ Church Communications Tower — 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 — 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 — 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 D. Qdoba Restaurant C.U.P. Consider conditional use permit and variance for a Class II PC16-38-CVB) restaurant in a 4,567 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building. ( LOCATION: 7525 147th Street West PETITIONER: 7525 Cedar, LLC. E. Cobblestone Lake Medical Center Consider the subdivision of an existing 1.97-acre lot into two lots and site plan review/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 10,000-sq. (PC16-42-SB) ft. medical office building on a 1.45-acre lot. LOCATION: 15875 Emperor Avenue PETITIONER: Stanley Lynn, LLC 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. 7. ADJOURNMENT NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. -Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 21, 2016 -Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Wednesday, February 1, 2017 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. -Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 4, 2017 -Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Thursday, January 12, 2017 Informal 5:30 P.M. Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Thursday, January 26, 2017 Regular Scheduled Meeting 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 DECEMBER 7, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Melander at 7:01 p.m. Members Present: Tom Melander, Ken Alwin, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, Paul Scanlan and David Schindler Members Absent: Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer, 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 Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the agenda. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, approving the minutes of the meeting of November 2, 2016. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, recommending approval of a 10 foot variance to the required front yard setback to allow a house to be constructed with a. 20 foot setback from the front property line, subject to compliance with all City Codes. Ayes - 5 - Nays — 0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, approved the 2017 Planning Commission Calendar. Ayes - 5 - Nays — 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Palomino Highlands Replat — Public hearing to consider the subdivision by preliminary plat to adjust the common rear lot lines of three existing lots. (PC16-43-SF) LOCATION: 100 and 102 Belmont Road, and 12980 Hershey Way PETITIONER: Timothy and Carolyn Ellison, Lee and Gretchen Gilbertson, Robert Parkhill and Dennice Briol CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Commission Schindler arrived at 7:02 p.m. Planner Kathy Bodmer stated three property owners request consideration of a replat of their properties to allow them to shift their common rear lot lines. The parcels are located on the north side of Palomino Drive between Belmont Road and Hershey Way. The Ellisons at 102 Belmont Road have a shed and fence that are located on the Gilbertson property at 12980 Hershey Way. The replat is requested to shift the common rear lot line southwest so that the shed and fence are located completely on the Ellison property. Robert Parkhill and Dennice Briol would also like to adjust their rear lot line to align with the Ellison property rear lot line. No new parcels are created and no new development will occur as a result of this replat. In connection with the replat, the owners will be requesting the vacation of the existing 10drainage and utility easement adjacent to the rear lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Palomino Hills 3rd Addition (Belmont Road parcels) in order to relocate the easements adjacent to the new property line. The rear yard of Lot 4, Block 1, The Highlands has a large drainage easement in the rear yard that provides stormwater ponding and drainage. The City Engineer will need to review the request to vacate the drainage easement to determine whether vacating the easement would impact the functioning of the ponding area. At its December 8, 2016, meeting, the City Council will set a public hearing to evaluate whether the public use of the easement is still needed. Requests for vacation of easements and right-of-way are reviewed by the City Council. Lee Gilbertson, 12980 Hershey Way, said he owns the larger lot. He stated to help out the other property owners from having to move their fence, trampoline and shed, he would agree to sell them that trunk and it made sense to do the neighbors as well. He is concerned about the easement. He does not see the correlation between the easement and the land swap. He is the least vested in this. If he says it is an all or nothing deal and he says no, then the other two property owners will be hurt. It does not affect him one way or another. He has two retaining walls that are fairly close to the line now. Again he feels there is no correlation with the easement and the property line 600 feet behind it. Commissioner Alwin inquired if the storm sewer was open for drainage or just a pipe sitting there for future use. Mr. Bodmer answered that it is a functioning storm sewer. She clarified that staff would be working with legal staff and the neighbors and that regarding the dedication of easements, the City has the authority to require that with platting. There is a concern with the retaining walls but staff does need to look more closely. Chair Melander asked what happens if they just leave everything like it is. Ms. Bodmer answered there would be no change. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Chair Melander asked if then they would not have to dedicate the easement. Ms. Bodmer answered no. The fact that the property is being subdivided is an opportunity to address an issue. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. B. Qdoba Restaurant C.U.P. — Public hearing to consider conditional use permit and variance for a Class II restaurant in a 4,567 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail building. (PC16-38-CVB) LOCATION: 7525 147th Street West PETITIONER: 7525 Cedar, LLC. Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated the applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and variance to allow for establishment of a Class II restaurant in a proposed 4,567 - sq. ft. building, located at 7525 147th Street West. This is the current location of a vacant motor fuel/convenience store. The property is currently zoned 'RW' (Retail Business), which allows for Class II restaurants when located no closer than 1,000 feet from any residential or institutional use. The property is located approximately 300 feet from the Glazier Avenue Townhomes, a 15 -unit townhome development located at 14641-59 Glazier Avenue; and 550 feet from the Christian Science Society church, located at 14515 Glazier Avenue. He reviewed why Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are requested in the City and summarized why variances may be granted. He identified other locations in the City with similar approved variance requests. He added this restaurant will be sharing space with a proposed coffee shop that will have a drive- through window that will require approval of conditional use permit. The public hearing for the drive-through land and review of the site plan/building permit authorization was held at the November 2, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. City staff requested that the applicant provide traffic forecast information for the proposed building and uses. That traffic information is currently under review by staff and the City's traffic consultant. Any recommendation on the proposed conditional use permits, variance and site plan/building permit authorization shall be made upon completion of the City's review of the development's traffic impacts. Commissioner Diekmann asked for a clarification of a Class II restaurant. Mr. Lovelace described a Class II restaurant and that service inside dictates how the City defines it as. Commissioner Diekmann said he is just trying to draw a correlation between this restaurant and the Applebees across the street that is a Class 1 restaurant. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Scanlan asked if the City has some specific requirements for ventilation systems for mechanics and maintenance of these systems to minimize the effect of whatever is being cooked at the location. Mr. Lovelace answered that is correct. Sheldon Berg, DJR Architecture, said he believes the consideration for the mechanical system is something they can maintain and does not believe this facility would have anything different than a full service restaurant would have. Doug Torseth, Apple Valley Car Clinic, 7540 — 147th Street W., expressed concern for parking and if there would be overflow parking into his lot on the evenings and weekends which is kitty corner from this proposed project. Mr. Lovelace said this could be addressed as part of the traffic analysis as it relates to this overall development on this site. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. C. Cobblestone Lake Medical Center — Public hearing to consider the subdivision of an existing 1.97 -acre lot into two lots and site plan review/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 10,000 -sq. ft. medical office building on a 1.45 -acre lot. (PC16-42-SB) LOCATION: 15875 Emperor Avenue PETITIONER: Stanley Lynn, LLC Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated the applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two for the purpose of constructing a 10,236 -sq. ft. office building on the 1.45 -acre lot. Access to the two lots will be via Emperor Avenue, a private street located in easements, of which 35 feet of the easement area is located along the east property line of the two proposed lots. This easement provides direct access to 157th Street West and indirect access to Cobblestone Lake Parkway, two public streets. An underground storm water infiltration system will be located in the northeast comer of the site. A maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure its ongoing function. He reviewed site plan, landscaping plan, parking lot and temporary barrier along the south side for future development and sidewalk connections. The applicant should show the location of a bike rack on their plans. The sidewalk along Emperor Avenue should be extended south to the North Creek Greenway path located south of the subject property. He reported the City Engineer has reviewed the grading and utility plans and there were concerns. Revisions to those plans per the Engineer's comments should be made prior to final approval. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Scanlan asked if the second building is just a concept or the idea that it will be built in a certain period of time. Mr. Lovelace answered there is no period of time that is proposed but that it would be a future building that would come back to the City for approval. Commissioner Scanlan expressed concern that the design for parking is focused on the first building and if the developer comes back with something else for the second building it could be limiting for the structure than what is being shown here. Mr. Lovelace commented that is a very good point and it was part of the discussion for the parking situation. Depends on the type of users in the first building and the amount of parking needed here could affect the size of the second building by not meeting the parking ratio needed. Commissioner Scanlan asked if the need for the trash enclosure would support both buildings. Mr. Lovelace answered yes that the trash enclosure would be for both buildings. Commissioner Scanlan asked if the sidewalk would connect to the trail system. Mr. Lovelace answered yes. Commissioner Scanlan commented on the berm area and that there is a lack of maintenance to those areas. Mr. Lovelace said he would express that concern to the City's Natural Resources Coordinator so the proposed materials are acceptable and not be infiltrated with weeds. Bruce Miller, MFC Properties, referenced the parking situation and thought they would have the ability to address that concern and provide revised plans. Jonathan Falkowski, proposed dental clinic, said they would be taking up a little less than half the building as their dental clinic. He commented that it is a great idea to have the sidewalk extend to the greenway. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS --NONE-- 6. OTHER BUSINESS CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2016 Page 6 of 7 A. Times Square Sketch Plan — Review potential construction of two separate retail structures totaling 10,400 sq. ft. with two drive-thru lanes. Planner/Economic Development Specialist Alex Sharpe stated the Sketch Plan is for the construction of two separate retail structures totaling 10,400 sq. ft. with two drive-thru lanes. This requires the demolition of the eastern portion of the south building where the former TCF Bank facility was located. Tenants have not been identified as part of this plan, but would suit the small retail and drive through markets. The plan proposes construction of two separate retail structures totaling 10,400 sq. ft. with two drive-thru lanes. This requires the demolition of the eastern portion of the south building where the former TCF Bank facility was located. Tenants have not been identified as part of this plan, but would suit the small retail and drive through markets. Commissioner Alwin expressed concern for the traffic flow with a drive-thru and the stacking of vehicles because of the popularity on weekends. Chair Melander asked if there was adequate parking on the site now. Mr. Sharpe answered yes. Commissioner Schindler identified the conflict that the City is requiring the front face Cedar Avenue. He felt it was a tough spot with cars coming from five different directions. Bob Levine, managing partner of Times Square Shopping Center, said he was open to discussions. Commissioner Diekmann asked Mr. Levine what kind of image he was trying to portray with these types of buildings and how that would coincide with the City's vision with the downtown and walkable environment. Mr. Levine answered they have a consultant and that there is huge demand for drive home facilities where people can stop and pick things up on their way home from work. He commented he has had a 10,000 sq. ft. vacancy for 15 years. B. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would take place on December 21, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2016 Page 7 of 7 MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. Respectfully Submitted, MI( ( tit Jci n Murphy, Planning •epart e t Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on Tom Melander, Chair 00. 4V* * • *OM .6** 6** city of Apple Is/alley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: January 4, 2017 Consent PROJECT NAME: Palomino Highlands PROJECT DESCRIPTION Consideration of a replat of three existing parcels to adjust a common rear lot line. No new lots or new development will occur as a result of this replat. STAFF CONTACT: Kathy Bodmer, Planner DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department APPLICANT: Lee and Gretchen Gilbertson Tim and Carolyn Ellison Robert Parkhill and Dennice Briol PROJECT NUMBER: PC16-43-SF APPLICATION DATE: 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: November 9, 2016 January 7, 2017 March 8, 2017 Proposed Action Recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Palomino Highlands in accordance with the preliminary plat dated November 18, 2016, subject to compliance with all City Codes and the following condition: o Perimeter drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the three properties as depicted on the draft Final Plat of Palomino Highlands. Project Summary/Issues Three property owners request consideration of a replat of their properties to allow them to shift their common rear lot lines. The parcels are located on the north side of Palomino Drive between Belmont Road and Hershey Way. The Ellisons at 102 Belmont Road have a shed and fence that are located on the Gilbertson property at 12980 Hershey Way. The replat is requested to shift the common rear lot line southwest so that the shed and fence are located completely on the Ellison property. Robert Parkhill and Dennice Briol would also like to adjust their rear lot line to align with the Ellison property rear lot line. The shifted lot line would increase the size of the Ellison lot by 3,194 sq. ft. to create a 22,092 sq. ft. lot and increase the size of the Parkhill/Briol lot by 3,690 sq. ft. to create a 26,108 sq. ft. lot. The Gilbertson lot on Hershey Way remains a 3.5 -acre parcel. No new parcels are created and no new development will occur as a result of this replat. At the December 7, 2016, public hearing, staff noted that a 12" storm sewer pipe is currently located along the west property of the Gilbertson property at 12980 Hershey Way. Staff requested an additional five feet (5') of drainage and utility easement along the west property line to accommodate the storm sewer and allow for future repairs of the line. The property owner objected stating that additional easement may impact retaining walls that are located in the rear yard. The City Attorney opined that the dedication of additional drainage and utility easement along the west property line is not related to the proposed platting of the property. As a result, the City is not able to require the dedication of additional easement for the existing storm sewer line as a condition of approving the plat. Staff removed the condition from the recommended motion. Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) 1. Engineering Memo 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Existing Lot Areas 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Final Plat 7. Easement Vacation Exhibits PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location (Legal Description): 12980 Hershey Way (Lot 4, Block 1, THE HIGHLANDS) 102 Belmont Road (Lot 2, Block 4 PALOMINO HILLS 3RD ADDITION) 100 Belmont Road (Lot 1, Block 4 PALOMINO HILLS 3RD ADDITION) Comprehensive Plan Designation LD (Low Density Residential, 2 to 6 units/acre) Zoning Classification R-3 Single Family 11,000 s.f. Existing Platting All three lots are platted lots of record. Current Land Use Single family residential. Size: Address: Existing: Proposed: 12980 Hershey Way 152,381 sq. ft. (3.5 acres) 100 Belmont Road 26,108 sq. ft. (0.6 acres) 102 Belmont Road 22,092 sq. ft. (0.5 acres) Topography: Existing Vegetation Urban landscape — heavily wooded area Other Significant Natural Features N/A Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Belmont Road, Lot 20 Block 3 and Lot 23 Block 2 Palomino Hills 3rd Addn Comprehensive Plan LD -Low Density Residential (2-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single family, 11,000 s.f. SOUTH Lot 3, Block 1 The Highlands Comprehensive Plan LD -Low Density Residential (2-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single family, 11,000 sl. EAST Lot 3, Block 1 The Highlands and Palomino Drive Comprehensive Plan LD -Low Density Residential (2-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single family, 11,000 s.f. WEST Lot 5, Block 1 The Highlands and Lot 3, Block 4 Palomino Hills 3rd Addition Comprehensive Plan LD -Low Density Residential (2-6 units/acre) Zoning/Land Use R-3 Single family, 11,000 s.f. City of Apple.,Vally MEMO Public Works Department TO: Kathy Bodmer, Planner FROM: Brandon Anderson, City Engineer DATE: December 1, 2016 SUBJECT: Palomino Highlands Preliminary and Final Plat Kathy, following is comments on the Palomino Highlands Easement Vacation, Preliminary and Final Plat documents. Please include these comments as conditions to approval. General • Please revise drainage and utility easement along the north property line of Lot 3 Block 1 from 5' to 10' to accommodate existing public storm sewer along property line. • The modifications to the property lines and drainage and utility easements proposed for lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 do not appear to impact public utilities or drainage. ,Atizawflo:04 R3 BELMONT RD - HANNOVER CT R-3 ! o 2 N N N N N N N N N 3 � y N N 3 Single Family Lots N Existing Zoning : R-3 SINGLE FAMILY 11,000 SQ.FT N N 0 � / / / 7 / @ m 2 . \ < i < ƒ S � » z c � o < z 3 < � K/ u § o a & m 1 0 m o m\} 2 �w Iw2� !(IX6�� /o< \\k NT \/�\ /�2\ t\�\WI, x! -H i�Rƒ e}\ PA; nLa /\\/ ƒ\// N N N N N N N N N 0 ) / ki / �:- � �� » . �� § 7 / §3 V 2 u Z 2 -; - - - 7 / ^ / cd z / // / \ / W G / w < / r, � 2 o 0 -6 0 2 8 5 N N 3 Single Family Lots Existing Zoning : R-3 SINGLE FA f g 0 S N O 4.+ O o 0 0 0) 4.- 0 c �+ 00 z'0 CW EDCO 03 � L CO Q Z 0 d1 c 0.0 L.L. O (0a u)v) c a 0 _c m 4,Q) >, s L0 �N Q) i .0 0 *000 *Il*0 *000 City of Apple Val ey ITEM: 5 A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 4, 2017 SECTION: Land Use Action Items PROJECT NAME: MINC 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. APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless APPLICATION DATE DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department PROJECT NUMBER: PC16-40-C 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: October 7, 2016 December 5, 2016 February 3, 2017 Proposed Action Recommend approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) amendment for an eighty-seven foot (87') tall wireless communication tower at Christ Church at 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road, subject to compliance with all City Codes and the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall apply to property located at 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge g Road, legally described at Lot 1, Block 1, CHRIST CHURCH. 2. All conditions and findings approved in Resolution No. 2010-131 shall hereby be amended; the following conditions shall direct apply for the conditional use. 3. The wireless communication tower shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan (sheet A-1), and the elevation plant (sheet T-1) and Landscape plan (sheet A-1.2) dated October 11, 2016. 4. The antennas shall be flush mounted to the communication tower in accordance with the elevation plan (sheet T-1) dated October 11, 2016. 5. A building permit shall be obtained from the Building Inspections Department prior to any construction on the site. 6. The telecommunication service applicant shall provide verification of written final authorization/agreement with the landowner for the placement of the communication tower on the property prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. A nursery bid list shall be submitted that confirms that the value of landscape plantings meets or exceeds 2.5% of the value of the construction of the communications tower per city ordinance. 8. The landscape plan dated October 11, 2016 (sheet A-1.2) shall be revised to replace the 8' Colorado Blue Spruce with 8' Black Hills Spruce. 9. Tower construction, maintenance, and operation shall comply with the communications tower requirements set forth in the City code, Section 155.3 85. 10. The cedar fencing and equipment platform shall be maintained to prevent visual deterioration. 11. Construction plans which are certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to be in conformance with: the latest structural standards: acceptable engineering methods and practices and the National Electrical code; designed in all aspects to accommodate both the operator's antenna and on additional user shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. The conditional use permit may be revoked upon any violation of City Code, the conditions set forth in this permit, or any applicable federal or state law or regulation. Project Summary/Issues Verizon Wireless has applied to amend the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road (Christ Church) for an 87' tall 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. As such, staff is recommending that the City amend the prior approval, rather than rescind the CUP. Conditions from the prior resolution that apply have been brought forward. The property is zoned "P" Institutional, which conditionally permits cell towers. Conditional uses are permitted within a zone, with standard and site specific conditions. By state law these conditions must be reasonable to the site to mitigate any adverse impacts. If the applicant is able to address these conditions the use is permitted within the zone. 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 communication tower will include construction of an equipment platform and a generator in a 25'x 46' area, surrounded by an 8' tall cedar fence. The tower is incorporating stealth technologies, allowing for a sleeker and less visually impacting appearance. Typical cell towers are constructed with 6'-8' antenna arrays which extend from the cell pole. The initial proposal at this site was to construct a more standard cell tower. City code requires the use of stealth technologies to address concerns over the visual impact of the cell tower. Site setbacks are based upon an engineered "breakpoint" in the cell tower. In the unlikely event the tower were to experience a failure the breakpoint ensures that the tower will fold in upon itself, rather than tip onto adjacent properties. Due to this breakpoint all setbacks are able to be met, and all adjacent structures are outside of any fall zone. City Code requires that cell tower applications provide evidence on the need for an additional tower and why co -location on adjacent towers is not a viable option. Verizon Wireless has provided a letter which details the need, and that the service area is primarily the Minnesota Zoo. The coverage maps provided display that this area is in a poor service coverage area, which has been confirmed by an independent consultant the City hired. Consultant Review Due to concerns by the community after the public hearing the City contracted a communications consultant, Garrett Lysiak, P.E. of Owl Engineering. Owl Engineering was contracted to work on the Clearwire Cell tower approved in 2010 to determine the need at that time. Since that time cell technology and demand has increased. Upon review of Verizon's application Mr. Lysiak has provided the following findings: 1. The Zoning Code Requirement for demonstration of the need for an additional cell tower is met. 2. No existing towers or tall structures within one mile would be able to provide the required coverage or eliminate the coverage gaps. 3. There is no evidence that the new cell tower will cause interference to the present frequencies or any public safety or City communications equipment. 4. There is not a demonstrated radio frequency (RF) radiation hazard to the general public. 5. The tower will accommodate one additional communication system and is in complicance with all structural requirements of the ordinance. 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/Building Official Memo 8. Consultant Analysis 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 Zoning/Land Use SOUTH LD -Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre M-3 Multiple Family (3-6 units/acre) 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. Zoning: The cell tower is being designed to have a break point at 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 a 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 applicant has updated the landscaping plan to screen the adjacent residential from the base of the cell tower and equipment area. The proposed landscaping is 8' tall Blue Spruce. The Natural Resource Coordinator has stated that this species should be changed to Black Hills Spruce, as it survives better in the northern climates. 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: The Planning Commission asked about the color of the tower to help it blend into the background. The applicant has supplied 3 different color renderings for the Commission to chose from. Christ Chruch 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road 130TH ST W j R _ 131ST.,ST } O (4. co N MINC JOHNNY CAKE SHEET OR DETAIL ISSUE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION ISSUED FOR REVIEW 03.25.16 ISSUED FOR BID/CONSTRUCTION 10.11.16 1.1 ISSUED FOR BID/CONSTRUCTION 10 ISSUED FOR BID/CONSTRUCTION 11.10.16 SHEET INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION, TOWER ELEVATION, & SHEET INDEX SITE PLAN, STANDARD DETAIL INDEX AND LANDSCAPE LEGEND ENLARGED SITE AND GRADING PLAN W 5 ENLARGED SITE PLAN ANTENNA AND COAX KEY,ONE LINE DIAGRAM AND ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL CABLE BRIDGE PLAN, CEDAR FENCE AND MISC. DETAILS OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS GROUNDING SPECIFICATIONS GROUNDING PLAN & GROUNDING DETAIL INDEX 11111111111111111111 0 U Z 0 Qo O U 4'4 00 P, w'- j d 2 2 .21 8 0 0 0 1— SCALE: NONE C.) 0 0 SCALE: 1" = 10,0" .40P 2 0 a 0 0 z (oP ccii 0 10 Z P x w oi F- 111 00 Ow wo iz a ;-: 0 10 0 0z I—z cOw 41' 01 N 8 to - 3 ea z 0 in= 0 z 0 0 u) A W 2 0 0 z0 0 0 Ly, co 6 c) w 0 z0 0 P LI; xco LU -j z Vf U w� w >wmZ mwa' U z>- �z 0 1-} zLLI z2 zZ o z( o <o 0 W W V)8O m gig tig I!! b�j�.� 151 �j = 0 z EQUIPMENT/CABLE KEY AMETEMANUFACTURER MODEL METRICD(MO RUN ERICSSON RRUS (1) COMASCOPE WT412-4529-30 Kew JUMPER 2212-B13 FIBER FEED TAI. DIST. BOX 7O RRU ERI N RRUS (1) OOM SCOPE NFT412-4529-30 IBM JUMPER 2212-85 FIBER FEED TAI. DIST. BOX TO RRU ERIN RRUS 2212- (1) CO86ISCOPE IFT412-4529-30 HORD AMER B66A FIBER FEED TAI. DIST. 8OX TO RRU �� RRUS (1) COMMSCOPE 611412-4S29-30 N1 JUMPER 2212-82 FIBER FEED TAI. DIST. BOX TO RRU PAIR WITH RRUS 2212 813 PAIR WITH RRUS 2212 85 PAIR WITH RRUS 2212 B66A PMR WITH RRUS 2212 B2 (1) COM SCOPE IFT412-4529-30 WWII JUMPER FIBER FEED TAT. DIST. BOX TO RRU (1) COMISCOPE N1T412-4S29-30 IffBRO JUMPER FIBER FEED TAIL DIST. 8OX TO RRU (1) CO6I6COPE I#T412-4529-30 HYBRID JUMPER FIBER FEED TAIL DIST. BOX TO RRU (1) COIBISCOPE NFT412-4S29-30 H1 ,TAPER FIBER FEED TA_ DIST. BOX TO RRU PAIR WITH RRUS 2212 B13 PAIR WITH RRUS 2212 B5 PAIR *161 RRUS 2212 B66A PAIR RP RRUS 2212 B2 NE 0! v (1) COM►1900PE I*T412-4S29-30 H11BRD JUMPER F8ER FEED TAIL DIST. BOX TO RRU (1) OOMASCOPE I#T412-4529-30 HYBRID JUMPER F6ER FEED TAIL DIST. BOX TO RRU (1) COMM6COPE IFT412-4S29-30 HYBRKI JUMPER I FIBER FEED 11I_ DIST. BOX TO RRU PAIR WITH RRUS 2212 B13 PAIR WMH RRUS 2212 B5 PAIR WITH RRUS 2212 866A PAIR WITH RRUS 2212 82 �! 1 N _N n _N N ANTENNA KEY AZ9AUTH POSITION FUNCTION QTY MANUFACTURER MODEL MOD ' ' ELEC MECN COAX TYPE LENGTH T0' CENTER tt,,,ui DOWNTU QTY TYPE 11 l 1 1 l l b l l l l l l l b l l l l l l l b l l l l l l l b l l l l l l l b l l l l l l l ^O II 1 TOTAL24'11 NI 1 tV I 1v I Iv 1 Zv 1 t 4 1 tv 1 14 1 t 1 Zv 1 14 1 tv 1 tv 1 1 t. 1 tv I r 1 1V 1 1V 1 14 1 iv 1 1 r 1 Ia n 1 1 I I I 1 I ^ 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � I I I 1 i, i I� 1 1 1 1 1 1 I lia O^ O �r t qD I I I I 1 1 1llgg ^ I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I n l I I I, 11 I I 11 11 II 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1bd3 1 illli :IRRtE v 1 ! 1 N i 5 p 1 li !0 di I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I N 11I 1I1 1I1 i1I 1I III III _1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I ►1I a ._111 I I 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I 1 I N r< 11 wg xO x}� xxxX�{ xOx xx �,[�( gggggg�+C}� , rig M,(. , , Nx, ( V —.,' "� " tV n n nC3mI N.tg1o1,mN n N a cl� r.— *-q- uonmN n m *Illi - W ... 11 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'mil'''. 1 tEC .^f N m 0 0z z 0 2 < O Z� Z W '1 >- W ANTENNA KEY 1 -i. ,EHH g 1 og i rat N we g 411 I. ) , .. •,... .9-2 .9-2 Nri.O—,t 000 w'- j 0— 0 — 2 8 L.11 5 Lk' 0 Z ; < —J NI sc CALE: 1/4" = 1,0 GROUNDING DETAIL INDEX DETAIL DESCRIPTION TEST WELL DETAIL GROUND RING & ROD DETAIL TYPICAL GROUNDING CABLE BRIDGE DETAIL H -FRAME DETAIL (SINGLE POST OPTION) 5 c,? BI-DIRECTIONALS A (N31 NMI now 3.lVelVd3S S0021 301A213S 01813313 N911t13E1 • E.) W of 0 - 0 Lc1 0 a_ Zz D z O ui 0 d A z 0 (7) COh N ▪ H▪ z L g 8 - 0 g g P4Ei 1/11 §pg 11 hi 11 z —J X SCALE: 1/8" = 1,0" cJ 00 •6u8 '8 5LL •dM1 �L aaS VL MS ay} ;o null }so3 -� n 3 ml}n'J Pus 4mJ 6uRst.3 8 / AVM AO 180)8 308ftd aYON 38881 3NVO ANNHOr ;' 099088 ON 'oo0 .led }uewes03 / % - 188-41S PUO AD.000N aplM 09 Cl +' l )pole 'L }03 jo ewl }s.3 - /; 14080H0 1S18H0 .ad }uaumsD3 r 80991 Pug 06040,0 9Pi# A4 (.8 2a X SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS 0 0 0 J Z w ¢ J w¢ 0 W O � m w J =� O Z F- Z O Q W O I ,‘ 91 p ec ®❑ Kr - Westerly line o1 Lot 1• Slo SITE NAME: MINC JOHNNY CAKE Dakota County, MN z (7) c d x -,.e-�:u�s� .�s��za.�%`,`w �^� ��y.• :T r- � ..,fir-.;��- �,��_��`�%-`�'�t�.�'�...�'":�,s��`r•; `� j��;�.a�-- �, „�„ ��' cam' F�l�r. r ew}rt:.��' � w co co cd X to Z iI ac.) • E .bA0 14 474 O �,.. N � 2 2 bi) .0 i 4 z 0 O -1 1:44 < .O a .� O 014 -u V)fa O °' HA 0 x .2 a> Carrier: Verizon C Johnny Cake Simulation By : Design 1 of Eden Prairie, LLC d O 00 oce, o 0 4 1,4 p4 x 624 CIS NO 14 Cn 4.0 O O 0 0 U 4.1O .- tV � 0 tw 1 ,g O Oa g '4 O ara fa imis o Hp o� a� Carrier: Verizon Site: MINC Johnny Cake Simulation By : Design 1 of Eden Prairie, LLC d d s �+a 0 0 0 0 0 Q) 03 w (/1 .• ral Ctt 14 bAO 0 a • 0 0 • to • (1) Nt 0 .14 t4 •I Z o a <4 2 a 4,, • a •.• 4 V • ra d (1) ("4 A o a M .74 Site: MINC Johnny Cake Simulation By : Design 1 of Eden Prairie, LLC tae �^��`i �i ��'�t�� ;c��.,� d 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- 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 two existing structure options within/near 112 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 w/in 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 R-1, R-2, R-3, R-5 Maximum Height 150 Distance from Structure (feet) 300 from residential Setback from Property Line 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 neighboring on 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 (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 FIGURE 4- FCC TOWAIR STUDY TOWAIR Determination Results *** NOTICE *** TOWAIRts findings are not definitive or binding, and we cannot guarantee that the data in TOWAIR are fully current and accurate. In some instances, TOWAIR may yield results that differ from application of the criteria set out in 47 C.F.R. Section 17.7 and 14 C.F.R. Section 77.13. A positive finding by TOWAIR recommending notification should be given considerable weight. On the other hand, a finding by TOWAIR recommending either for or against notification is not conclusive. It is the responsibility of each ASR participant to exercise due diligence to determine if it must coordinate its structure with the FAA. TOWAIR is only one tool designed to assist ASR participants in exercising this due diligence, and further investigation may be necessary to determine if FAA coordination is appropriate. DETERMINATION Results Structure does not require registration. There are no airports within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the coordinates you provided. Your Specifications NAD83 Coordinates Latitude 44-45-41.3 north Longitude 093-11-24.0 west Measurements (Meters) Overall Structure Height (AGL) 26.5 Support Structure Height (AGL) 26.5 Site Elevation (AMSL) 311.2 Structure Type MTOWER - Monopole August 15,2016 Mr. Tom Lovelace City Planner — Apple Valley 7100 1.47th Street W Apple Valley, 55124 RE: Proposed Wireless Communications Facility Site Address: 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Rd, Apple Valley, N 55124 (VZW Ref. "MIN Johnny Cake") Dear Mr. Lovelace: Pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Apple Valley, MN 155.385 (B) (14) (c), acknowledge the following statement to be true: Verizon Wireless and their successor(s) will 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. Sincerely, Katie Poser Verizon Wireless Great Plains Real Estate Manager Bloomington, MN 55438 612-968-6077 Mr. s 9973 Eden Pat Edon Pr: ow Road 5- EProposeB Upon receipt of a Basic Wind Exposure Catequ Industry Asseciation Structures e dor oppose to • *C"Irt Mph with ne 'Topographic several fari factors. rultiroverall mit- untikelly that monopole Jeturally niu _ded - the rang n safety apple, referenced abtR£ mph with "l/4"F ice. urela nee with the Talecdmmunicau. 'heard for Antenna Supporting . 0 i n n e c Fl ,e, elentients,, tie MOS xs upper p tie ironed.° raft Assuming 11 design pole. to mre o will buciati witnin the Lippe! .. r cif literror i above 'tieing °ye. onto the ponior below. cssentia letter only applies to the abovereferenced sono designed a fur v To & Poles. ir the unlike!' . o total separation, :his wouldresult in the portion above h monopole I II PROFESSONAL ENGINEER wreby certify that this plan, specification, r report was phepared by me or tinder direct Divi%ion arid that ant a duly Licensed Professional Enwider the f the State of tAirme. and szererrpt citor ofpTier oni whore" r ell safety sure }high mbined iri the portior of the£ itself. Please note tha this to he pow uld be wt, r .Robedg within a r. .. Berrria �:." E� Sabre To .ers and Poles 712-251:-.E ; 712.277`021 Print Naitin Skghaturt Mtn '. ° 638 City of Apple Valley MEMO Building Inspections TO: Kathy Bodmer, City Planner FROM: George Dorn, Building Official DATE: October 7, 2016 SUBJECT: MINC Johnny Cake Cell Tower • Separate mechanical and electrical permits are required. •0* *000 CITY OF Apple Valley 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. ENGINEERING EMC TEST LABS. INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS E EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Valine Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 REPORT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A 87 -FOOT COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT CHRIST CHURCH 12925 JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE ROAD APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA FOR VERIZON WIRELESS PREPARED BY: GARRETT G. LYSIAK, P.E. NOVEMBER 25, 2016 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABSI INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 H mline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Apple Valley Ordinance for wireless telecommunications towers requires the demonstration of a need (gap in coverage) or a showing of need for the proposal. This analysis demonstrates the proof of need requirement is satisfied. This new tower will eliminate both coverage and capacity problems. It would provide the required Personal Communication System ("PCS") coverage to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area for the expanded service. There are no existing towers or tall structures identified within 1 -mile that could be used to provide the required coverage and eliminate the predicted coverage gap. All towers in the nearby area were examined and none were found that could be used. Due to the lack of any existing towers or support structures in the vicinity, the new site would need to locate very near to the proposed location in order to fill the coverage gap. There is no evidence to show this new tower will cause interference to the present frequencies and also any Public Safety or City communications systems. There is no demonstrated RF Radiation hazard to the general public, even when other additional PCS systems are added to the study using maximized RF power output conditions. As required by the ordinance, this tower will accommodate one additional communications system, and it is in compliance with all the structural requirements of the ordinance and present tower standards for both wind and icing conditions. h � ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS. INC CON ULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445. Fax 651-784.7541 TABLE OF CONTENTS ENGINEERING STATEMENT FIGURE 1 SITE MAP FIGURE 2 AERIAL VIEW FIGURE 3 AIRSPACE MAP FIGURE 4 FCC TOWAIR STUDY RESULTS ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LBS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 H mline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 Engineering Statement The documents submitted by Verizon to The City of Apple Valley for a new 87 -foot tower were reviewed for compliance with the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance. The site is located at 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge Road Apple Valley, MN. The site location was plotted on a USGS 7.5 -minute map (Figure 1 "Site Map"). In addition, an aerial photograph is included to show the proposed site location and the surrounding area (Figure 2 "Aerial Site Map"). As can be seen from these two figures, the proposed location is within the property of the church and the closest residence is more than 170 -feet away. Airspace Study The proposed tower site was examined for any impact on the local airspace and airports. Since the pole is only 84 -feet (with an additional 3 -foot lightning rod at the top) it was not expected to have any impact on any aviation sites, either commercial or private facilities. Figure 3 is a portion of the local aviation map showing the proposed site and surrounding area. The tower height is proposed to be under 200 -feet and is therefore not usually required to get Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval, unless it is located near an airport. The "FCC TOWAIR' program was used to examine the proposed tower for any FAA & FCC notification requirements. The results (Figure 4) show that notification is not required since the proposed tower is lower than 200 -feet in height and is not in the proximity of an airport. Coverage Study In reviewing the submitted data, it was determined that Verizon has designed its communications facilities in the Apple Valley area with several surrounding sites providing area wide coverage. The first steps in analyzing the proposal is to determine the present existing coverage. Verizon submitted maps showing both the present and the proposed coverage. I did verify them using a propagation computer program. The present system coverage is shown below. The fair signal coverage area is shown in "yellow" and the poor coverage area is shown in "red". The stated project objective 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. 1 0 ENG NEERING EMC TEST LABS NC Legend ExistingSite Proposed Site 1 mile RSRP Coverage • Good Fair al Poor CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Namline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 Present Coverage Different signal levels translate into different probabilities that a user will be able to connect and maintain a reliable connection to the network. Another variation in obtaining and maintaining reliable connections is due to the performance of the user's phone, that can vary widely. Typically, there are 3 signal levels that are referred to as good, fair and poor coverage. Typical signal values corresponding to the three levels are: "good" coverage ("green") and corresponds to areas where devices both outdoors and indoors will be able to establish and maintain reliable connections. The g "fair" coverage corresponds to areas where users will be able to establish and maintain connections outdoors, but indoor connections may be compromised. "Poor" coverage is where all connections may be unreliable, especially indoors, or in areas surrounded by obstructions and foliage. Areas where the signal level is lower than "poor" usually corresponds to areas where connections will be highly unlikely indoors or in areas with a lot of foliage. 2 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Namline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 1 mile RSRP Coverage RI Good Fair • Poor _I 1 • Predicted Coverage The predicted coverage shown above shows that the new tower site will eliminate the coverage in the targeted area. The applicant provided capacity information that demonstrated the need for the site in order for adjacent sites to off-load traffic that would provide for improved coverage and allow for higher data speeds. Their application states: "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." My analysis of this data concurs with their submission. 3 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-7847445' Fax 651-784-7541 Existing Tower Sites The nearest towers were reviewed as possible substitutes for the proposed tower. They are: 1. Crown Castle (stealth) at Hagemeister Park. 2. Water tower on Foliage Ave. Both of the above towers are located outside of the Search Ring and they would not provide the required signal levels to eliminate the coverage gap. The existing Crown Castle stealth tower will not eliminate the signal coverage condition because of the low antenna centerline (height on the tower) available and the restrictive structural design. One of the objectives of the proposed Johnny Cake site is to improve coverage at the Minnesota Zoo. In order for the site to work it 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 would also result in a degraded customer connection 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 the dominant site in that area. The existing city water tower on Foliage Avenue is also predicted to be inefficient for meeting the coverage of the search area. The water tower is closely located to the Verizon Wireless site called Palomino which will be operational later this year. The Palomino site will provide good coverage to the area surrounding the city water tower. Placing a new site on the water tower is predicted to result in added interference to the Palomino site which will have a negative impact on users predicted to be served by Palomino. A 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. Site Construction The site construction plans show the tower that is planned for this project. The tower drawings supplied show compliance with the requirements of TIA-222-G standard which requires loading for: 1. Exposure C to the standard. 2. 90 mph basic wind, with no radial ice. 3. 50 mph basic wind with 1/2" of radial ice. (ice is considered to increase in thickness with height) 4. The tower is designed to withstand the Ultimate Wind Speed for this area. 4 0 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS. INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 The proposal shows that the tower is currently designed to accommodate an additional antenna system. This will eliminate the need for an additional new tower in the vicinity for some time. Interference Study A search was performed using the FCC frequency database1 to determine the frequency and location of any city or county public safety facilities within one -mile from the proposed tower location. Using all the identified frequencies either utilized by the city or county an intermodulation (interference) study was performed to determine if any predicted interference products would be generated by the proposed Verizon Wireless facility. The Y results of the study indicate that there are no interference products predicted to be generated that would cause interference to any of the identified protected frequencies. The study shows that there are no predicted low order) interference intermodulation products generated from combinations of existing and proposed channels at this site. When the proposed communications facility is constructed, antenna separation, antenna pattern directionality properties and equipment filtering will further reduce the potential of intermodulation induced interference. This analysis is a mathematical study and will not account for interference mitigation that will occur due to the differences in technologies and equipment configurations and filtering. This study assumes a worst-case scenario using as many as four transmitters operating simultaneously (which is a rare occurrence). Additionally, due to the high frequencies used on this new facility there is no predicted interference to occur on any other communication devices such as televisions, personal computers, telephones, garage door openers, security systems, and other electronic equipment. In summary, the use of good engineering and installation practices should mitigate any interference to any nearby existing communications systems or an additional future system on the tower and it is my opinion that the Verizon Wireless system frequencies should not cause any harmful interference problems to any of the existing communications systems. RF Radiation Analysis Using the data submitted by Verizon Wireless we performed a "Worst -Case" radiation analysis to determine the amount of RF energy that would be present at the base of the tower. In making our calculations we assumed that all of the RF energy generated by the facility would be directed downward and three separate antennas at maximum power 1 Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau —"Universal Licensing System" 5 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 levels were used for the calculations. This is not the real world situation since the antennas used by PCS systems are designed to radiate towards the horizon. Additionally, calculations were performed including a future antenna system on the tower and added to the total RF exposure level. However, using this analysis method we are able to determine that the maximum level of RF radiation reaching the ground at the tower base is less than 20 percent of the ANSI standard value for the general public exposure limit and as such is not classified as an excessive RF radiation hazard. When you factor in the antenna patterns the predicted RF radiation level will be less than 1 percent of the general public exposure maximum. This proposal satisfies the current Federal guidelines for RF Exposure2. Health and Safety Concerns Over the past thirty years there have been many studies made to determine what potential effect there is on people when they are in the presence of RF energy. This problem has received more attention in recent years with the advent of smaller RF devices such as PCS telephones, Blue -Tooth headsets, RFID devices and the list goes on. The FCC initially implemented a Standard in 1992 (Office of Engineering Technology) OET65 in conjunction with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for the RF Radiation levels permitted. This currently used standard has been modified over the years and it now has two levels of exposure3. There is one for controlled -areas (occupational/workers) and one for the general population. The difference between them is that the controlled standard is for a six (6) minute period while the general population standard is for thirty (30) minutes. Since 1992 the FCC has regulated computing devices and implemented a testing authorization program that requires that all devices using digital techniques must demonstrate that they do not produce any harmful interference. In the case of transmitters that are considered Intentional Radiators they must also demonstrate that they do not produce RF intensities greater than the allowable levels. Part of this authorization procedure is that the various products must be tested and marked with an ID# to show compliance with the Rules for both licensed and unlicensed equipment. The FCC has many Frequently Asked Questions on its web site that addresses many of the commonly asked questions and topics4. 2 FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin OET-5 Edition 97-01 3 https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf 4https://www.fcc.goviengineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency- safety/faq/rf-safety#block-menu-block-4 6 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC ONSULT NG COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Namline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 The heating effect from RF devices causes the most concern from a safety point of view. The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) has been around for many years but recent developments have improved the test methods. With the proliferation of cell phones, wireless headsets and the use of higher frequencies, RF absorption by the head has caused safety concerns. The dose of RF exposure is linked to exposure time: maximum SAR is normally averaged over a 6 -minute period during a 24-hour day. In the past I have attended many public meetings regarding the placement of radio towers in communities. It would not be unusual for a member of the public to cite a recent study that they say clearly demonstrates the dangers of RF radiation exposure. However, my research and analysis has never been able to substantiate these claims. In fact, the World Health organization (WHO) has reviewed many RF Radiation studies over the past several years that have looked at Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (ES). The thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on the body are established, self -described sufferers of ES report responding to non -ionizing electromagnetic fields at intensities well below the limits permitted by current safety standards. The majority of the trials to date have found that self -described sufferers of ES are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and fake electromagnetic fields,5 6 and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. In 2005 the WHO conducted a review of the results of thirty-one (31) experiments testing the possible role of electromagnetic fields in causing ES. Each of these experiments exposed people who reported suffering from ES to genuine and sham electromagnetic fields under single or double-blind conditions. The review concluded that: "The symptoms described by 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to electromagnetic fields can trigger these symptoms." The FCC has authored a very complete document OET56 "Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields"7 that addresses and answers many of the questions that the general public has regarding this issue. 5 Rubin,James: J Das Munchi J Simon Wessely (March -April 2005) "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocative studies" 6 Roosli M (June 2008). "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health https://transition.fcc.gov/bu reaus/oet/i nfo/documents/bu I letins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf 7 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 Health and Safety issues continue to be an on-going topic of concern and changes will occur in the applicable standards as technology advances and more studies are performed and reviewed. Summary The review of the proposed Verizon Wireless tower indicates that: • It would provide the required wireless system coverage to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area and provide enhanced existing coverage. • The site is not predicted to cause any interference products to any protected frequency in the area and is not predicted to be an RF radiation hazard. • The tower is designed to accommodate one additional communications system. • The proposal is in compliance with the structural requirements of the ordinance. • Due to the lack of any existing towers or adequate support structures in the vicinity, the site would need to locate very near to the proposed location to fill the coverage gap. Respectfully submitted, Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E. 8 1 (MINNEAPOLIS SOUTH) 093° 12' 47.5843" W 044° 47' 05.5621" N (BLOOMINGTON) 044° 44' 17.9926" N ST PAUL WEST ST PAUL SW QUADRANGLE MINNESOTA TOPOGRAPHIC SERIES (ST PAUL EAST) 093° 10' 00.9966" W 044° 47' 05.5621" N , r 4,4 --fel k fL, 093° 12' 47.5843" W (ORCHARD LAKE) Declination GN 0° 08 W MN 0° 19' E (FARMINGTON) SCALE 1:24000 0 0 Mile 0 1000 Yards Kilometer CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM 1929 (INVER GROVE HEIGHTS) 044° 44' 17.9926" N 093° 10' 00.9966" W (COATES) ST PAUL SW, MN 1967 FIGURE 1 - SITE MAP FIGURE 2 - AERIAL VIEW 1 (SAINT PAUL SW NW, MN) 093° 11 30.1546" W 044° 45' 47.6603" N (SAINT PAUL SW SW SW, MN) 044° 45' 35.0926" N 093° 11' 30.1546" W SAINT PAUL SW SW NE, MN SAINT PAUL SW SW SE, MN QUADRANGLE MINNESOTA (SAINT PAUL SW AERIAL PHOTO SERIES SE NW, MN) 093° 11' 17.6606" W 044° 45' 47.6603" N (FARMINGTON NW NW, MN) Declination GN 0° 08' W MN 0° 19' E 0.0 0.0 (FARMINGTON NW NE, MN) SCALE 1:1800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1; 0.1 0.1 '4 1 Miles Yards 0 0.0 100 0.1 Kilometers CONTOUR INTERVAL UNKNOWN NONE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM 1929 (SAINT PAUL SW SE SW, MN) 044° 45' 35.0926" N 093° 11' 17.6606" W (FARMINGTON NE NW, MN) SAINT PAUL SW SW SE, MN, MN APR 1, 2006 a. Q 2 W 0 Q 0 0 it Q M W te m LL *0* ***0 0**** *0** **0 City of Apple Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 5B January 4, 2017 Land Use 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 7, 2016 December 5, 2016 February 3, 2017 Proposed Action Recommend approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an eighty-four foot (84') wireless communications monopole at 14201 Cedar Avenue subject to compliance with all City Codes and the following conditions: 1. The monopole shall be constructed in accordance with the Site Plan (Sheet A-1) dated October 24, 2016 and the Enlarged Site Plan (Sheet A-2) dated October 24, 2016. 2. The antennas shall be flush -mounted to the monopole in accordance with the South Elevation Plan (Sheet T-1) dated October 24, 2016. 3. A building permit and electrical permit shall be obtained from the Building Inspections Department prior to any construction on the site. 4. The telecommunication service applicant shall provide verification of written final authorization/agreement with the landowner for the placement of the tower on the property prior to issuance of the building permit. 5. A nursery bid list shall be submitted that confirms that the value of the landscape plantings meets or exceeds 2-1/2% of the value of the construction of the monopole and antennas. 6. The site shall be constructed consistent with Landscape Plan (Sheet A-4) dated November 17, 2016, subject to replacing the 8' Colorado Blue Spruce with 8' Black Hills Spruce. The landscape plan is further subject to final review and approval by the Natural Resources Coordinator prior to issuance of the building permit. 7. Tower construction, maintenance, and operation shall comply with the communications tower requirements set forth in the City code, Section 155.385. 8. A qualified and licensed professional engineer shall submit certified construction plans which are in conformance with the following: the latest structural standards; acceptable engineering methods and practices and the National Electrical code. 9. A qualified and licensed professional engineer shall certify that the cell tower is designed in all aspects to accommodate both the operator's antenna and one additional user. 10. The co -location certification letter shall be revised to state the following: "... and there is no disruption to the service provided, except disruption as may be necessary for normal maintenance and employee safety." I I . The eight foot (8') cedar fence securing and screening the equipment platform shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of § 155.351(C). 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 monopole west of the youth building at 14201 Cedar Avenue. The monopole is requested in order to improve network capacity and improve coverage along Cedar Avenue. The construction of the monopole will include construction of an equipment platform and a generator. The monopole 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 wireless communications 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 associated 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 monopole 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 monopole 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 of the AVHS light standard tower would not meet Verizon's offload or coverage needs. Consultant Review: The City hired Garrett Lysiak, P.E., Owl Engineering, a communications engineer to review the Verizon application. He provided the following findings: 1. The Zoning Code requirement for demonstration of need for additional cell tower service is met. 2. No existing towers or tall structures within one mile that would provide the required coverage and eliminate the predicted coverage gap. The existing light standard tower at Apple Valley High School is not tall enough and the site terrain characteristics will not address the service need that has been identified. 3. There is no evidence that the new cell tower will cause interference to the present frequencies and any public safety or City communications systems. 4. There is no demonstrated radio frequency (RF) radiation hazard to the general public. 5. The tower will accommodate one additional communication system and is in compliance with all structural requirements of the ordinance. Budget Impact None. Attachment(s) I . Applicant Letter — Review of Commercial 8. Sites ( I 1-17-2016 — New) 9. 2. Applicant Letter — Review of AV High 10. School Site (11-30-16 — New) 11. 3. Landscape Plan — New 4. Palomino Reservoir and Lattice Tower - New 12. 5. Owl Engineering Report - New 13. 6. Applicant Letter 7. Applicant Ordinance Compliance Statement 14. City Engineer Memo Building Official Memo Location Map Zoning Map Title Sheet with Tower Elevation Site Survey Site Plan Enlarged Site Plan Antenna Mounting Detail and Fence Elevations Generator Plan 15. Site Utility Plan 16. Photo Simulations 17. FAA Determination of No Hazard Letter 18. Manufacturer's Letter 19. Certification of Co -Location Letter 20. Resident Correspondence MOUNT OLIVET CELL TOWER 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: 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 and antennas based on Means Construction Data. A landscape plan was submitted that shows that 22 Colorado Blue Spruce would be installed along the west side of the church parking lot and will provide screening of the cell tower site and equipment platform. The City's Natural Resources Coordinator reviewed and she says that the trees should be replaced with Black Hills Spruce which is better suited for this climate. 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 impact 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: 1. Review options for commercial sites south of the subject site. Staff response: The petitioner provided a letter discussing sites south of the church that were reviewed for possible cell tower locations. The following is a quick summary of the findings: • 14295 Cedar Ave (American Bank) — Low elevation, close to existing installation at 7300 -147th Street (Commons I). • 14325 Cedar Ave (Wells Fargo) — Even lower elevation. • 7600 143rd St (Dakota Business Center) and 14370 Glenda Circle Court (Tutor Time) — Lots too small to meet setback requirements. Sites at lower elevations require installation of taller towers. At the same time, sites as little as 500' away become less desirable than the Mt. Olivet site because they are too close to the existing antennas located on the Commons I building at 147th Street. The Mt. Olivet site is preferred because it can help offload existing service while improving service to businesses north of the church and service along Cedar Avenue. 2. Is moving the pole east within the enclosure area an option? Staff response: No. A storm sewer line is located east of the proposed pole location. The current location on the site provides screening from Cedar Avenue. Additional landscape screening west of the cell tower area should address visibility concerns from the west. 3. Who owns the tower located on the Apple Valley High School property? Staff response: According to City building permit records, ISD 196 and ATT. As indicated previously, the reason for not selecting the tower on the Apple Valley High School site is not because it is currently occupied by a competitive cell provider. Instead, the location and height of the AVHS tower will not address the issues that have been identified as needs for this project. 4. What are some of the existing cell towers in the City and the distance from residential? Staff response: The proposed Mount Olivet Cell Tower would be located approximately 150' from residentially zoned property. Antennas may be constructed on City facilities such as water towers and other towers which may be located within residential areas. As a result, antennas are located approximately 20' from the tower on the Palomino Reservoir site on 128th Street West north of McAndrews Road. A cell tower was recently constructed at the Frontier Communications switching building on Gardenview Drive and Walnut Lane. The cell tower is approximately 40' from residentially zoned property. 5. Concerned about appearance of the tower and that it will be visible from property. Staff response: The petitioner provided photo simulations that help to illustrate how the cell tower would look from various vantage points. The petitioner also submitted a landscape plan that shows extensive planting of 8' Colorado Blue Spruce along the west portion of the site to help screen the tower and site from the residential neighborhoods to the west. The Natural Resources Coordinator states that the tree species should be switched for 8' Black Hills Spruce which are better -suited for this region. In addition, she raised a concern that the plans call for removing existing vegetation to install new plantings. The final landscape plan is subject to final review and approval by the Natural Resources Coordinator. 6. Installation of cell towers may lead to lower property values. Staff response: Property values are determined by a complex set of variables that are difficult to attribute to a single adjacent land use. Instead, property values are impacted by overall City development patterns. Residential properties adjacent to other cell towers in the City have not experienced a decline in property values. The City finds that over time, infrastructure like cell towers tend to become invisible as neighbors become used to seeing the structure. November 17, 2016 City of Apple Valley Kathy Bodmer — Planner 7100 West 147th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 Re: Verizon Wireless — Mount Olivet Church Kathy - This letter serves to address other properties in the aohy'This|etterservestoaddresootherpropertiasinthe area that were analyzed as possible locations for the wireless communications tower and why they weren't selected: 14295 Cedar Ave: This site is much lower in elevation, even closer to an existing Verizon site (7300 147th Street W — rooftop installation), directly across the street from a residential area (143rd Street Ct W), and still within a few hundred feet of the residential areas of Glendale Drive, Glencove Trail, and Glencove Path. Because the site is lower in e|evation, we'd need to increase the height of the tower (100' +) which would make setbacks an impossibility to meet (1 .5X the fall zone). Furthermore, the back of the property serves as a drive-thru teller system. A wireless communications system comprising near a 1000 square foot area isn't feasible in this location for the aforementioned reasons. 14325 Cedar Ave: This site's even lower in elevation (requiring an even taller tower), lacks any type of screening/landscaping whatsoever, is fairly close to homes along Glenda Ave, is far too close to our existing site (7300 147th Street W) to mmeet the systems objectives, and the only area on the property that would meet setbacks would be the middle of the parking lot taking multiple parking spaces that would interfere with Wells Fargo's operations, and be very visible to nearby residences. 7600 143rd Street W, 14370 Glenda Circle: Neither property could meet the setback requirements and both are too close to our existing site at 7300 147th Street W. Any property further south of these isn't even worth mentioning as it's far too close to our existing site on 147th Street W and wouldn't meet our coverage objectives and system requirements. As you know, we are trying to increase capacity in this area, notjust coverage; meaning, we need to find a location that's perfectly situated in between existing sites so as to offload wireless "traffic" from those sites while increasing capacity to this area of Cedar Ave S. Thus, even a location less than 500' from the church won't serve to meet the objectives of the Verizon's already over -taxed wireless communication system. The Mount Olivet church site is an ideal candidate. As you know, | recently met with Janet Malz; Board President of the neighborhood assooiation for townhomes west of the church. We had a productive meeting. We discussed various ideas and how we could incorporate additional landscaping to better screen Verizon's proposed installation from view. To that end, we have devised a plan to add Colorado Spruce trees on the western border of the church property that are 8' at their planted height, emabure height of 50'+ tall, and a mature width of 10'Given the location ofthe townhomes atthe base ofthe hill, the distance of the tower away from the western property line, and the proposed landscaping on the western property line, the tower and associated equipment shouldn't be visible from any of the townhomes in question. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, Rob Viera BueII Consulting c/o Verizon Wireless 5096 Merrimac Lane North Plymouth, MN 55446 robertjviera@yahoo.com 612.801.2228 November 30th, 2016 RE: Verizon Wireless Proposed New Tower MIN TOFFEE at 14201 Cedar Avenue, Apple Valley, MN To whom this may concern, This letter is intended to further clarify the choice of location for the proposed new site MIN TOFFEE and explain what the advantages of building a new site at the Mount Olivet location are compared to a site on the Apple Valley High School property. As presented in a previous letter, the proposed Verizon Wireless tower called MIN TOFFEE to be located at 14201 Cedar Avenue in Apple Valley, MN is designed with the objective to provide additional capacity to the Verizon Wireless network and offload the north facing sector of our existing site located on 147th Street W. The existing Verizon Wireless site's north facing sector is providing coverage to Cedar Avenue, several businesses, banks and shops along Cedar, as well as the residential area along Cedar Avenue all the way to north of 140th Street W. Our study has shown that the existing Verizon Wireless site located on 147th Street West is processing a high amount of customer traffic and, in order to improve user experience in the area and to ensure fast and reliable connections in the next years, a new site such as the proposed MIN TOFFEE site is needed in the vicinity of the existing site in order to balance the traffic between the existing site and the new site. The location of a site such as MIN TOFFEE, referred to as a `capacity offload' site, is very important. The new site needs to be placed far enough away from the existing Verizon Wireless site such that the area currently served by the existing site can be divided between the existing and proposed site. At the same time, the proposed site needs to be close to the high traffic area within the coverage footprint of the existing site such that parts of the traffic can be shifted to the proposed site and result in capacity offload to the existing site. This in return will have a positive effect on user experience and network speeds for all users located within the coverage footprint of the existing site. This is because after the addition of the proposed site more network resources will now be available in the area which would have otherwise continued to be served by only the existing site. The Mount Olivet location is closer to the high traffic area around Cedar Avenue that is currently being served by the existing site. Due to the proximity to Cedar Avenue, and the characteristics of the terrain and antenna height, a new site in this location will guarantee that the user traffic along Cedar Avenue will be served by the proposed site and thus the needed capacity offload to our existing site will be achieved. A site in this proposed location will also improve coverage in the residential area North of 140th Street West. On the other hand, a new site on the Apple Valley High School property will not be able to take over traffic along Cedar Avenue and from the businesses along Cedar Avenue due to it being farther away from the target area than the existing Verizon Wireless site. The high traffic area would continue to be served by the existing Verizon Wireless site and user experience and network speeds will continue to be low. In addition, a new site on the Apple Valley High School property will not be able to provide coverage to the residential area North of 140th Street West which would continue to be served by the existing Verizon Wireless site. In other wordsan improvement in coverage in this area will not be possible. Sincerely, Mihaela Oxley Radio Frequency Design Engineer, Verizon Wireless NIB ... 111.1..121.0 --1r i f L L Q u,-- -� <f it Apple Valley Central Maint Facility 0 Jo 1 u � ----] E =...-1150TH ST -W (CSAH 7 42) = a ft= f 62 is w ®--160TH STgW (CSAH 46) 0 1,400,800 5,600 8,400 Feet 11,200 .rte..®..s... EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNA LOCATIONS LOCATION MAP N - 20' • Palomino Lattice Tower PALOMINO RESERVOIR AND LATTICE TOWER (128TH ST W) TREES TO BE A MINIMUM OF 13'-0" AWAY FROM THE EDGE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB. I 411 • PICEA PUNGENS 3 s cm' Ly3 w Z u_ uJ Zz (cPut wo LIz u2w 9 5, wor 1 LANDSCAPING PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30'-0' ENGINEERING EMC TEST LABS. INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • fax 651.784-7541 REPORT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A 88 -FOOT COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT MOUNT OLIVET CHURCH 14201 CEDAR AVENUE APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA FOR THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PREPARED BY: GARRETT G. LYSIAK, P.E. NOVEMBER 25, 2016 CO0 ENG NEERING & EMC TEST LABS INC I G COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784-7445 • Fax 651484-7541 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Apple Valley Ordinance for wireless telecommunications towers requires the demonstration of a need (gap in coverage) or a showing of need for the proposal. This analysis demonstrates the proof of need requirement is satisfied. This new tower will eliminate both coverage and capacity problems. It would provide the required Personal Communication System ("PCS") coverage to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area for the expanded service. There are no existing towers or tall structures identified within 1 -mile that could be used to provide the required coverage and eliminate the predicted coverage gap. All towers in the nearby area were examined and none were found that could be used. Due to the lack of any existing towers or support structures in the vicinity, the new site would need to locate very near to the proposed location in order to fill the coverage gap. There is no evidence to show this new tower will cause interference to the present frequencies and also any Public Safety or City communications systems. There is no demonstrated RF Radiation hazard to the general public, even when other additional PCS systems are added to the study using maximized RF power output conditions. As required by the ordinance, this tower will accommodate one additional communications system, and it is in compliance with all the structural requirements of the ordinance and present tower standards for both wind and icing conditions. ENGINEERING EMC TEST LABS INC CONSULTI G COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS p EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784-7445 • Fax 651.784.7541 TABLE OF CONTENTS ENGINEERING STATEMENT FIGURE 1 SITE MAP FIGURE 2 AERIAL VIEW FIGURE 3 AIRSPACE MAP FIGURE 4 FCC TOWAIR STUDY RESULTS 0 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS I C CONSULTIN COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Ha lin Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784.7445 • Fax 651.784-7541 Engineering Statement The documents submitted by Verizon to The City of Apple Valley for a new 88 -foot tower were reviewed for compliance with the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance. The site is located at 14201 Cedar Avenue, Apple Valley, MN. The site location was plotted on a USGS 7.5 -minute map (Figure 1 "Site Map"). In addition, an aerial photograph is included to show the proposed site location and the surrounding area (Figure 2 "Aerial Site Map"). Airspace Study The proposed tower site was examined for any impact on the local airspace and airports. Since the pole is only 84 -feet (with an additional 4 -foot lightning rod at the top) it was not expected to have any impact on any aviation sites, either commercial or private facilities. Figure 3 is a portion of the local aviation map showing the proposed site and surrounding area. The tower height is proposed to be under 200 -feet and is therefore not usually required to get Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval, unless it is located near an airport. The "FCC TOWAIR' program was used to examine the proposed tower for any FAA & FCC notification requirements. The results (Figure 4) show that notification is not required since the proposed tower is lower than 200 -feet in height and is not in the proximity of an airport. An FAA determination of no hazard was included in the application. Coverage Study In reviewing the submitted data, it was determined that Verizon has designed its communications facilities in the Apple Valley area with several surrounding sites providing area wide coverage. The first steps in analyzing the proposal is to determine the present existing coverage. Verizon submitted maps showing both the present and the proposed coverage. I did verify them using a propagation computer program. The present system coverage is shown below. The fair signal coverage area is shown in "yellow" and the poor coverage area is shown in "red". The objective of the application is to improve the levels of coverage in the city of Apple Valley along Cedar Avenue and also improve network capacity by offloading traffic currently being handled by other existing sites. However, based on current data of use, these sites are reaching their maximum capacity. 1 0 ENGINEERING EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamllne Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445* Fax 651484-7541 0.5 miles RSRP Coverage • Good Fair NB Poor POOR COVERAGE Present Coverage The different signal levels translate into different probabilities that a user will be able to connect and maintain a reliable connection to the network. Another variation in obtaining and maintaining reliable connections is due to the performance of the user's phone, that can vary widely. Typically, there are 3 signal levels that are referred to as good, fair and poor coverage. Typical signal values corresponding to the three levels are: "good" coverage ("green") and corresponds to areas where devices both outdoors and indoors will be able to establish and maintain reliable connections. The "fair" coverage corresponds to areas where users will be able to establish and maintain connections outdoors, but indoor connections may be compromised. "Poor" coverage is where all connections may be unreliable, especially indoors, or in areas surrounded by obstructions and foliage. Areas where the signal level is lower than "poor" usually corresponds to areas where connections will be highly unlikely indoors or in areas with a lot of foliage. 2 0 ENGINEERING EMC TEST LABS INC Legend ExistingSite Proposed Site 0.5 miles RSRP Coverage • Good Fair • Poor CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.7847445 * Fax 651.784-7541 Predicted Coverage The predicted coverage shown above shows that the new tower site will eliminate the coverage in the targeted area. The applicant provided capacity information that demonstrated the need for the site in order for the adjacent sites to off-load traffic that would provide for improved coverage and allow for higher data speed, In the application they state the following: "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." 3 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 Present Best -Server Analysis As can be seen in the above signal/capacity map the NW sector of the Apple Valley site encompasses the proposed Mt. Olivet ("Toffee") site. Based on the capacity information this sector is experiencing poor performance for both coverage and capacity. The analysis was repeated using the proposed Toffee site activated. The Proposed Best - Server map shows that the Toffee site does increase the system capacity in the NW area and it will also eliminate areas of poor coverage. 4 ENGINEERING EMC TEST LABS. INC Legend Existing Site Proposed Site CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS • EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784-7445 • Fax 651-784.7541 Proposed Best -Server Map My analysis of this data concurs with their submission. Existing Tower Sites The nearest tower as possible substitute for the proposed tower is an existing light standard tower on the Independent School District 196 grounds. The antenna center of radiation height from this location would be 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 coverage for users in this area of Apple Valley. 5 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS. INC MUNICATIONS ENGINEERS . EMC TEST LABORATORIES Nemline avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 Site Construction The site construction plans show the tower that is planned for this project. The tower drawings supplied show compliance with the requirements of TIA-222-G standard which requires loading for: 1. Exposure C to the standard. 2. 90 mph basic wind, with no radial ice. 3. 50 mph basic wind with 1/2" of radial ice. (ice is considered to increase in thickness with height) 4. The tower is designed to withstand the Ultimate Wind Speed for this area. The proposal shows that the tower is currently designed to accommodate an additional antenna system. This will eliminate the need for an additional new tower in the vicinity for some time. Interference Study A search was performed using the FCC frequency databases to determine the frequency and location of any city or county public safety facilities within one -mile from the proposed tower location. Using all the identified frequencies either utilized by the city or county an intermodulation (interference) study was performed to determine if any predicted interference products would be generated by the proposed Verizon Wireless facility. The results of the study indicate that there are no interference products predicted to be generated that would cause interference to any of the identified protected frequencies. The study shows that there are no predicted (low order) interference intermodulation products generated from combinations of existing and proposed channels at this site. When the proposed communications facility is constructed, antenna separation, antenna pattern directionality properties and equipment filtering will further reduce the potential of intermodulation induced interference. This analysis is a mathematical study and will not account for interference mitigation that will occur due to the differences in technologies and equipment configurations and filtering. This study assumes a worst-case scenario using as many as four transmitters operating simultaneously (which is a rare occurrence). Additionally, due to the high frequencies used on this new facility there is no predicted interference to occur on any other communication devices such as televisions, personal computers, telephones, garage door openers, security systems, and other electronic equipment. 1 Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau — "Universal Licensing System" 6 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 In summary, the use of good engineering and installation practices should mitigate any interference to any nearby existing communications systems or an additional future system on the tower and it is my opinion that the Verizon Wireless system frequencies should not cause any harmful interference problems to any of the existing communications systems. RF Radiation Analysis Using the data submitted by Verizon Wireless we performed a "Worst -Case" radiation analysis to determine the amount of RF energy that would be present at the base of the tower. In making our calculations we assumed that all of the RF energy generated by the facility would be directed downward and three separate antennas at maximum power levels were used for the calculations. This is not the real world situation since the antennas used by PCS systems are designed to radiate towards the horizon. Additionally, calculations were performed including a future antenna system on the tower and added to the total RF exposure level. However, using this analysis method we are able to determine that the maximum level of RF radiation reaching the ground at the tower base is less than 20 percent of the ANSI standard value for the general public exposure limit and as such is not classified as an excessive RF radiation hazard. When you factor in the antenna patterns the predicted RF radiation level will be less than 1 percent of the general public exposure maximum. This proposal satisfies the current Federal guidelines for RF Exposure2. Generator The proposed equipment will include a generator which is normally used only during extended power outages. City staff questioned the potential noise when it was in use. Based on the specifications for the proposed generator it should be well below the industry noise standard. Health and Safety Concerns Over the past thirty years there have been many studies made to determine what potential effect there is on people when they are in the presence of RF energy. This problem has received more attention in recent years with the advent of smaller RF devices such as PCS telephones, Blue -Tooth headsets, RFID devices and the list goes on. The FCC initially implemented a Standard in 1992 (Office of Engineering Technology) OET65 in conjunction with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for the RF Radiation levels permitted. This currently used standard has been modified over the years and it now has two levels of exposure3. 2 FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin OET-65 Edition 97-01 3 https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf 7 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651.784*7445 • Fax 651.784-7541 There is one for controlled -areas (occupational/workers) and one for the general population. The difference between them is that the controlled standard is for a six (6) minute period while the general population standard is for thirty (30) minutes. Since 1992 the FCC has regulated computing devices and implemented a testing authorization program that requires that all devices using digital techniques must demonstrate that they do not produce any harmful interference. In the case of transmitters that are considered Intentional Radiators they must also demonstrate that they do not produce RF intensities greater than the allowable levels. Part of this authorization procedure is that the various products must be tested and marked with an ID# to show compliance with the Rules for both licensed and unlicensed equipment. The FCC has many Frequently Asked Questions on its web site that addresses many of the commonly asked questions and topics4. The heating effect from RF devices causes the most concern from a safety point of view. The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) has been around for many years but recent developments have improved the test methods. With the proliferation of cell phones, wireless headsets and the use of higher frequencies, RF absorption by the head has caused safety concerns. The dose of RF exposure is linked to exposure time: maximum SAR is normally averaged over a 6 -minute period during a 24-hour day. In the past I have attended many public meetings regarding the placement of radio towers in communities. It would not be unusual for a member of the public to cite a recent study that they say clearly demonstrates the dangers of RF radiation exposure. However, my research and analysis has never been able to substantiate these claims. In fact, the World Health organization (WHO) has reviewed many RF Radiation studies over the past several years that have looked at Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (ES). The thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on the body are established, self -described sufferers of ES report responding to non -ionizing electromagnetic fields at intensities well below the limits permitted by current safety standards. The majority of the trials to date have found that self -described sufferers of ES are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and fake electromagnetic fields,5 6 and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. 4https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency- safety/faq/rf-safety#block-menu-block-4 5 Rubin,James: J Das Munchi J Simon Wessely (March -April 2005) "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocative studies" 6 Roosli M (June 2008). "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health 8 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hemline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651-784-7541 In 2005 the WHO conducted a review of the results of thirty-one (31) experiments testing the possible role of electromagnetic fields in causing ES. Each of these experiments exposed people who reported suffering from ES to genuine and sham electromagnetic fields under single or double-blind conditions. The review concluded that: "The symptoms described by 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to electromagnetic fields can trigger these symptoms." The FCC has authored a very complete document OET56 "Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields"7 that addresses and answers many of the questions that the general public has regarding this issue. Health and Safety issues continue to be an on-going topic of concern and changes will occur in the applicable standards as technology advances and more studies are performed and reviewed. Summary The review of the proposed Verizon Wireless tower indicates that: • It would provide the required wireless system coverage to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area and provide enhanced existing coverage. • The proposed site will increase the overall capacity in the desired poor performing area. • The site is not predicted to cause any interference products to any protected frequency in the area and is not predicted to be an RF radiation hazard. • The tower is designed to accommodate one additional communications system. • The proposal is in compliance with the structural requirements of the ordinance. https://transition.fcc.gov/bureausket/info/documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf 9 ENGINEERING & EMC TEST LABS, INC CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS EMC TEST LABORATORIES 5844 Hamline Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 651-784-7445 • Fax 651484-7541 • Due to the lack of any existing towers or adequate support structures in the vicinity, the site would need to locate very near to the proposed location to fill the coverage gap. Respectfully submitted, Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E. 10 (BLOOMINGTON) 093° 14' 32.8814" W 044° 45' 47.9744" N (ORCHARD LAKE) FARMINGTON QUADRANGLE MINNESOTA (/NVER GROVE TOPOGRAPHIC SERIES HEIGHTS) 093° 11' 46.3558" W 044° 45' 47.9744" N 11111111111 J011111111)''' 044° 43' 00.4049" N 093° 14' 32.8814" W (NEW MARKET) < rik‘ NW- 0" JI CORPOILL-T-* it 9401,,, Declination (CASTLE ROCK) GN 0° 09' W MN 0° 21' E SCALE 1:24000 0 0 Mile 0 1000 Yards Kilometer CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM 1929 (COATES) 044° 43' 00.4049" N 093° 11' 46.3558" W (RANDOLPH) FARMINGTON, MN 1974 FIGURE 1 - SITE MAP (BLOOMINGTON SE SE, MN) 093° 13' 22.1408" W 044° 44' 46.5575" N (ORCHARD LAKE NE NE, MN) 044° 44' 21.4221" N 093° 13' 22.1408" W SAINT PAUL SW SW SW, MN FARMINGTON NW NW, MN QUADRANGLE MINNESOTA (SAINT PAUL AERIAL PHOTO SERIES SW SW SE, MN) 093° 12 57.1607" W 044° 44' 46.5575" N (ORCHARD LAKE NE SE, MN) Declination GN 0° 09' W MN 0° 21' E 0.0 0 (FARMINGTON NW SW, MN) SCALE 1:3600 0.0 0.1 Miles 100 200 Yards 0.1 (FARMINGTON NW NE, MN) 044° 44' 21.4221" N 093° 12 57.1607" W (FARMINGTON NW SE, MN) FARMINGTON NW NW, MN, MN 0.2 APR 1, 2006 Kilnmptpr, CONTOUR INTERVAL UNKNOWN NONE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM 1929 FIGURE 2 - AERIAL MAP f I FIGURE 4 - FCC TOWAR RESULTS TOWAIR Determination Results *** NOTICE *** TOWAIR's findings are not definitive or binding, and we cannot guarantee that the data in TOWAIR are fully current and accurate. In some instances, TOWAIR may yield results that differ from application of the criteria set out in 47 C.F.R. Section 17.7 and 14 C.F.R. Section 77.13. A positive finding by TOWAIR recommending notification should be given considerable weight. On the other hand, a finding by TOWAIR recommending either for or against notification is not conclusive. It is the responsibility of each ASR participant to exercise due diligence to determine if it must coordinate its structure with the FAA. TOWAIR is only one tool designed to assist ASR participants in exercising this due diligence, and further investigation may be necessary to determine if FAA coordination is appropriate. DETERMINATION Results Structure does not require registration. There are no airports within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the coordinates you provided. Your Specifications NAD83 Coordinates Latitude 44-44-33.9 north Longitude 093-13-09.6 west Measurements (Meters) Overall Structure Height (AGL) 26.8 Support Structure Height (AGL) 26.8 Site Elevation (AMSL) 299.9 Structure Type MTOWER - Monopole Tower Construction Notifications Notify Tribes and Historic Preservation Officers of your plans to build a tower. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/towairResult.j sp?printable 11/30/2016 ver August 3f^ 2016 RE: Verizon Wireless Proposed New Tower MIN TOFFEE in Apple Valley, MN To Whom This May Concern, The proposed Verizon tower MIN TOFFEE to be located on Cedar Avenue in Apple Valley, 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 15 the mostimportant 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 • Good Fair al Poor „,,,,i111111111111111111:„. 55.5 Id III jgl„li„I„PTII„1„:1„Ill„II„IlIl„„li„1„li„IIIIIIIII!„„„„„„„„„„„E' ... , . 111!„„!11111111111111111111rrllIllIllIlrlli:„'„:'ll„„f„:1111116 '" -. "'''IPIIIIIIIIIIIPllaillirr ,,,,, ''„„„„1„1„141„111116. 1„:14 11' .. altill,,,,,„:„.,:f.,,,, 1. , .2!jr„ ,,,,„:„,...!,,,,,,,,,, ..,, ' .,„,,A::,.yg::::, • ,,,,, ...,..,;.,,r,.,,,,,,,,,74:,,.:::::::::;,7;:,,,,,,,,,,•.....f,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„.„.„.„,,,„:„ „„grourri 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 41r. Existing Site libr 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 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 • Good Fair • Poor • • • * ; 12. lita • 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) 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. 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: MINC 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: Mount Olivet Church Zoning: 8 - 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 existinv, 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 commerciallindustnal 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 Win % mile is located at Apple Valley High School: "Verizon Engineering has analyzed various other locations in order to seiect 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 he 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 Mirmesota 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 %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. (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 Win 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 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 antil 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-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, 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 ease 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; (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 % point of the tower. An 80' tower (with a 4' lightning rod) would require a 62'5" setback. Verizon wili meet this requirement. This is tower height is well under the 200' height limitation allowed per this zoning district (P -Institutional). (F) Fransmitting, 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. and Rob Viera Buell Consulting c/o Verizon Wireless 5096 Merrimac Lane N Plymouth, MIN 55446 CITY OF Apple II 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 (NRMP) 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. City of Applen Valley MEMO Building Inspections TO: Alex Sharpe, Planning Economic Development Specialist FROM: George Dorn, Building Official DATE: October 7, 2016 SUBJECT: MINC Toffee Cell Tower • Separate mechanical and electrical permits are required. f I1itV41R II ®®m e® IrLT sir AolltA un - Y K Lll AWN 6 4 CO 4 6 4 6 w c> N a J Z Q W > 2O 0 RON SIMMONS Ow NO W ¢ O� SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION SITE PLAN & STANDARD DETAIL INDEX ENLARGED SITE PLAN ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT/CABLE KEYS EQUIPMENT PLATFORM PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS GENERATOR PLATFORM PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS STRUCTURAL PLANS, NOTES AND DETAILS (4 SHEETS) GROUNDING SPECIFICATIONS GROUNDING PLAN & GROUNDING DETAIL INDEX SITE UTILITY PLAN, HAND HOLE DETAIL. & NOTES } Wcc,4 1111111111111111111 140TH STREET W 09 A. 40 .1.H. onend CZ 'ON •H'V'S'O 311N3AV tivaao --sircirsz 3„1,1,40.0N- 11V130 33S .A, Jo 146. m.,0... , 1 I LA9'i ),„3a 11111f I I 4461,, saip ,oz sn. .1.01 ONDIerdci V411118 ONLISIX3 .9° 0 -1- 3N ay, 0 :it 3, .44 10 LiPor, g° 0.1111 gi1104Pvtsi ..<11n5-APPO821 8 1 CZ 'ON 'HYS*0 P1111 *wait." N011100V H121003 NDONN3d 10 lold Apinn put, abou,c, 7" 4 T /2 "o. SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS 31-1N3AV 1,N030 t3 1/4- 1'5 cog- A teA 3A11:10 MBIA NOVO w -J 0 w —J SITE NAME: A,ORNEY COMMENTS 2 150TH STREET v h M„00,00.0S , Og cZ 9LM 1,0M io ..nmn 1 1, S.03, ap, , (/ 9674 3 00 \ f , -7—f4 g 413 m 5 I ggoz,g •,,,,uaturu,sui , DETAIL INDEX DETAIL DESCRIPTION BOLLARD DETAIL CABLE BRIDGE SECTION (SIM) TELCO ENTRY DETAIL 11. ONE -LINE ELECTRICAL RISER DIAGRAM (GC TO VERIFY) AN —s1 11 SITE PHOTO LOOKING NORTHW !it 5 3nN3AV JVO33 6 9 6 SITE PHOTO ,(°00 0 Q z 1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN -iv ----, - ggL' 1 h1 gi w § 6 8 13 2w --Pg 2 P, irc? 9>- 9 irT g41gwg- ii,z-66g2 ;4'c ikklg .2? K45 FAH iU .9 c 0 CEDAR GATE DETAIL 9 C4,1; LIJ co 0 0,9, cc.,7„ & (5 269 g k 0,§K.sg CP IglIcirg 4;1 CABLE BRIDGE PLAN —J 1 uJ 0 0 2 0 SCALE: 3/4" = 9 a a N i a gg ffi 3 8 RIGHT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION 11 SCALE: 3/16" = SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" HELICAL PIER FOUNDATION, SEE STRUCTURAL' V OSD EgoEy t4k2L. JO pn=�.Cz0 as FOUNDATION SECTION SCALE: NONE r,- CANOPY PLAN i 1 1 s � 1 / \\ �// ^ O i Eg P:'s Q I- 11 0 Z g 6 11 6 1 "EP I Li ti3 LI a r7 o 26z OW e O Et z F— O Q CL O W N Ch W/ (d) ah FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ao O 03 03 00 0 00 N 00 00 Standard Tank (VzW—PS# O CN 733 CN (f) cc) CO -0 CO E5 —Q3 _c o (/) Q N O0 (01) UCN C.D \ 0 00 00 1 c 0 -0 0 0 C/) .01 of W N 3009 930 .8/L L -,Z N CO 00 1 0 a▪ , O 0 W 390001003 00000 .91/01 01-,z .z x .0 ,0 GENERATOR PLAN 4 t1) Z o w Q� Z LL U I HELICAL PIER FOUNDATION, SEE STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION PLAN n w z W zgW O aw V o0 WWw = Z Z V) (o GENERATOR ELEVATIONS 0 NOT USED Q U (-9 STREET WEST 0.0n UGFO H 0 IF PULLBOX LOCATION PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1.-0" z (7) a r,„ L4.1 Oh N •.... HH H ▪ z z w F—60 p 0 a. o F.- x w z tilETa (il2.4A,)) 4 61 `11 0 0 ji (-)3, 1 nA,n • ,„„„a / I --I- 91 1101.11.11.111.1161.1.11.01.14411100111.111111011111.11111.11ffillHOWINNI.O.411.HOMONI.ONIMIO01•0111111INE.61001110116 >- - J o 0 Lk 1L - 0 ,h) 1 SITE UTILITY PLAN /i /� :;amu f tft 41. IA Carrier: Verizon tV O E- 124 1 • v b O "4 via O c a� o 0 a • (413 r 0 .14 • tIO .0 I Z 0 O a H •• • 0 4,ffi HA O M .2 Design 1 of Eden Prairie, LLC Simulation By: Carrier: Verizon f) Q) albA0 o ao z oCN , it. 74• 5, N 0 1 Z O O a .O 0 • 04 Hrfi 0 g4 O � M Carrier: Verizon Site: MINC Toffee d VD 6 • O 0 a °4 0 G O O 7J g cu CO erg • b''0 .0 I 0 O o V (fi v H OM *2� Carrier: Verizon Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Millwood 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 ndustries Towers and Poles si 26, $f.1 Mr„ Brian Design 1 el Eden Prattle 73 -lkeallei'y. 11::*-cw rioad Eden Prairia„, toiN 55144 Propos., d 80Sabre Mcr�poIe tor .ti Tofae, MN Da Mr :;crterier„ tilipod receipt ol ordain we propose to desicd arid imply- the above reterenced Sabre ntionapal_ ticir bias.ic Wind Speed dit :mot with nc, me and 50 mph 'with 3.14il" radial ice,. Structure Class Expostire Caleocry and: lopoprapinic Category 1 in accordance wan the Telecorntrumpallpins Industry Alisocialion Slaridard ANSAITIA-222--' -"Structural Standard tar Antenna parting Structurns "rid Antennas_ When design -ed scrcording to this standard. th- wind pressures:. and steel strength ',capacities. inctude several satiety factors, resulting in an overall minumtim safely lac -tor of Theratore.„. I is- highly Rtlikely that the imorippole- win tart strLiclurally in a wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded within the range the sari ry tactoirs, "ne wind spe_rci 'crease ibeyond The caper: ly crt the aufl-f7 saPety tactors. lc 'he pa nt cil 'allure al one or more eirpctura e ements„ ine most kkaly lopshon the latluF e d w the ppoei polpn pi the monopole shal, Assurninc 'Mat Pie wird pressure poi e F. dar Mal used tc despn 'the mardpo e. the hionopote blickle at 'he lecato- Ire -Ighem cordmed s'ress ralp within rine upper ciartion on the moiropc shatt 'This s to resui Ina partion o' rho -cope anove lading dyer' onto the ppirlon celow. esse"tally co AOS1111.1 Please note that this letter only applies to the above referenced monopole designed and nutactured by Sabre Towers & Poles. In tire eVeirt 'Val separator', Ms wc.„,id result n the ppirt on above cc:dos ha '44"m a rad us a' 1-,.420r, or. the rral'i:,re-i4 hi PROFESSIONAL ENGINEEA I has eby Cery OWL this Wan, s or r4worlW46 proparod1 o ulltigr -ciarefy. clued supervision atni LiM I urn a duly Licensed Profession& Engineer wader the LetrAl CA IVA Stmta ot MinnArirdn. Rabart E. Beacom, P....E., S,E, Senior Design Enoineei Piint isintne Ratir-E. corn SigruNittra it License 4l49156 sabre Towers and Poitis Sciuttihridgii City, .N1 1 44,90 Ei 7.12 279 August 15, 2016 Mr, Kathy Bodmpr City Pia er Apple Valley 7100 147th Street W Apple Valley, 55124 RE: Proposed Wireless Communications Facility Site Address: 14201 Cedar Ave S Apple Valle (VZW Ref. "MIN Toffee") Dear Ms, Bodmer: N 55124 Pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Apple Valley, 1 155385 B acknowledue the followina statement to be true: 4 Verizon Wireless and their successor(s) will 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. Sincerely, Katie Poser Verizon Wireless Great Plains Real Estate Manager Bloomington, MN 55438 612-968-6077 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://www.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 From: Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 8:30 PM To: Murphy, Joan Subject: Verizon/MtOlivet Cell Tower Hello Ms. Bodmer, ] am writing to you as a concerned citizen and tax paing 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 giventhenunnberofpeop|e|kvingintheanea? 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 Iandscaping 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 foliowing the installation of one of these towers is not surprising considering the overall negative impact. | 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 I 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 issueswhy 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://www.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.fr/enimedia-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208j.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- phones/cell-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. I 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 Cell Tower at Mount Olivet Hi. Many Apple Valley residents and 1 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: http ://www.thepetitionsite. com/937/168/729/say-no-to-cell-tower-in-residenti al -neighborhood/ 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 Glencove Trail Apple Valley, MN 55124 <><<><<>< Say No to cell tower in residential neighborhood! . — V) co L._ L._ co 4-, co 0 0 • co X 0) (7) 0 >:. cu co a) 0.) 0< = 0 c '4- SI ao, 00 r -i -0 co 4- 0 el ; C > 0< co (1) -0 L.. CU -C C13 0 C 0) 0 _C 0_ L3 C2.. 0) 0 CU 4-, -0 CU co -0 0 bO Q)> L. - Q.) 4-, 4- o. 0 cu E w E E -o 0 a) c 111" 0 $.. cu C) First Name Last Na 0 0 -Do >, —0)- 0 E 0 eta o L: o 0) 9- 0 0 aJ CU LE .5 cu4- a) 0 4-, _C 0.) CU United States Minnesota 0) 2 4- (1) co United States Minnesota >- NJ (15 ci United States Minnesota *a-) E t.) cci 0 United States Minnesota a) -a 4- 4- 0) CD United States Minnesota a) 0.. 0_ LL 4-, United States Minnesota co CU o_ L._ CU V)0 CC CU G.) L._ United States Minnesota Apple Valley 0 ro (r) It's a bummer to see all of this stuff reconsider our decision to make this our forever home. United States Minnesota >- cu ro a) 0 co 0 United States Minnesota >- a) co 0.. 0. Betancourt United States Minnesota a) a) 0. 7 0. cu ai o_4— > < -o = cu c a) L._ io_ co CU > CU tn C 0 0 ,... a) a) 4-, c NJ C2_ ...T.-, 0) C cl.) r-.• u s.... 0 u CU CO u -o •E 0 >- w 4-, = o c E -o CD 4-, 0 C cu E4- o. cu u ° E (.) tr) :....-: a CU -04., 0) o L._ 4..., v) 4— m 03 ao 0.0 Qj v) CU -aC .. ...- $... ., , a) (0 a.. v) _ = cl) 0 _C co United States Minnesota cll 04- -0 0 bO _0 0 -0 4- 4- 4-, E 0 community as a whole? United States United States co co 40. V) LA 0) CU C c = c 2 2 0 V) 0. 0 co co these cell towers that is harmful to mine and other children. United States Minnesota co a_ United States Minnesota 0 X 0) E 0 E 0 c 0 4-, c >- E 00 LE5 to :Ey) 1 a) -o 1E-0 c E a) co> ..0 If there are ANY c a) 4J0 0 co (r) 0 4-, a) 4- a) 0 are many open areas south of Lakeville and a) 4, cu -1::1 c -o 0)0 s_. 4-, S.-. 0) 00 co C o a) CC 4- 0 CU L- cr) co 0.) minimized. United States Minnesota co cr) LT] 0 00 4-, -C eln CU 4- 0 0 0) _c 4J 4J 0 (1) — (0 t)..o co E NJ • a) >- 0 -o a) V) 00 'CV 0 a) 4-, 4- United States -0 E a) 0 00 There are so many BETTER PLACES in our area to put up a cell tower! United States Minnesota co 0 0 00 0 4J 00 co (7.3 United States CD 1•0 a) 0 >- 0) (0 0 0 (1.) 4- E United States Minnesota cu a) 0 -5 00 United States Minnesota ro a 4-, a) United States Minnesota >- 0_ 0_ 0 0 CD United States Minnesota a a To 4-, 00 4-, a) co 0 V) United States Minnesota 0 0 Hammond 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 arent needed in Rice Apple Valley Minnesota United States residential areas. Lisa Annoni Apple Valley Minnesota United States Michelle Pawek Apple Valley Minnesota United States | 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 'Barb,Steve Devine Apple valley Minnesota United States impression. Dusek AppleV�Uey Minnesota United�tetes 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 1 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 Carl 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 kGary 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 1 don't think it should be Frances Jacobs INDIANAPOLIS Indiana United States done either Cathy Botha Job ur� South Africa Roger Garin -Michaud Kansas City Kansas United States Marta Szweda Kozakowice Poland Carol W. Lancashire hi 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 Tom Tree MUNFORD Tennessee United States Mirra Ao None United Kingdom Pam Barciszewski 0 FALLON Missou 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 JL 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 Mafalda Fonseca Vila Nova de Milfontes Portugal •0* •0 City of AppleVaIIey ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 5C&D January 4, 2017 Land Use/Action Item PROJECT NAME: 7525 147th Street West Retail Building/Qdoba Restaurant Conditional Use Permit PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for: 1. A conditional use permit to allow for a drive-through window in conjunction with a Class III restaurant. 2. A conditional use permit to allow for a Class II restaurant at 7525 147th Street West 3. A variance to allow a Class II restaurant to be located closer than 1,000 feet from an institutional or residential use. 4. Site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 4,567 -sq. ft. multi - tenant tenant building on a .9 -acre lot. 5. A variance of 4 feet from the required 50 -foot building setback from Cedar Avenue. 6. A variance of 14 feet from the required 40 -foot building setback from 147th Street West. 7. A variance of 12 feet from the required 15 -foot parking setback from a public street. STAFF CONTACT: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner APPLICANT: 7525 Cedar, LLC APPLICATION DATE: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department PROJECT NUMBER: PC 16-34-CBV 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: September 26, 2016 November 25, 2016 January 24, 2016 Proposed Action If the Planning Commission concurs, staff is recommending the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through window in conjunction with a coffee shop (Class III) on Lot 1, Block 1, Giselle's Corner. 2. Recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a Class II restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Giselle's Corner. 3. Recommend approval of a variance to allow a Class II restaurant to be located closer than 1,000 feet from an institutional or residential use. 4. Recommend approval of a site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a4,567 -sq. ft. building on Lot 1, Block 1, Giselle's Corner subject to the following conditions: a. A variance of 12 feet from the required 15 -foot parking setback from a public street. b. A variance of 4 feet from the required 50 -foot building setback from Cedar Avenue. c. A variance of 14 feet from the required 40 -foot building setback from 147th Street West. d. Approval and issuance of a building permit shall be subject to the recording of the Giselle's Corner final plat e. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated December 16, 2016. The existing driveways along 147th Street West shall be removed. The south driveway along Glenda Drive shall be relocated a minimum 60 feet f. g• north from 147th Street West. h. The developer shall blend all curb, sidewalk and streetscape amenities at the closed driveways along 147th Street West and Glenda Drive. i. The three most southerly parking spaces shall be removed. j. Construction shall occur in conformance with the landscape plan dated November 22, 2016; subject to submission of a detailed landscape planting price list for verification of the City's 2V2% landscaping requirement at the time of building permit, the addition of landscaping along the north and east side of the site and relocation of trees in the filtration areas to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Coordinator. k. Construction shall occur in conformance with the elevation plan dated November 22, 2016. 1. Site grading shall occur in conformance with a final grading plan to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Natural Resources Management Permit (NRMP). m. Utility construction shall occur in conformance with a final utility plan to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of NRMP. n. Construction shall be in conformance with the requirement that any site lighting shall consist of downcast, shoebox lighting fixtures or wallpacks with deflector shields, which confines the light to the property. o. A separate application and signage plan in conformance with the sign regulations must be submitted for review and approval to the City prior to the erection of any signs. p. The property owner shall execute a maintenance agreement or other suitable agreement to be filed with the deed that ensures the perpetual maintenance of the filtration basins. q. Decorative maintenance free fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of south outdoor seating area. r. The sidewalk along the north side of the building shall be extended west to the end of the parking lot island and a crosswalk be striped in the drive aisle directly to the west of the sidewalk. s. All applicable ordinances shall be strictly adhered to. Project Summary/Issues The applicant is requesting approval of a two conditional use permits, site plan/building permit authorization and several building and parking setback variances to allow for construction of a 4,567 - sq. ft. building that will have a Class II restaurant and a Class III restaurant/coffee shop with a drive- through window. The site is located at 7525 147th Street West, the current location of a vacant motor fuel station/convenience store operation. There are currently four access driveways from public streets to the site, two each off Glenda Avenue and 147th Street West. The original plans showed the removal of the most -easterly driveway along 147th Street West and the southern driveway off Glenda Avenue. The City retained a traffic consultant to review the proposed plans and they have recommended that the remaining 147th Street West access be closed and a south driveway along Glenda Avenue be relocated a minimum of 60 feet north of 147th Street West. The applicant will be required to blend the curb, sidewalk, and install applicable streetscape amenities at the closed driveways. The original plans indicated that the drive-through window lane would provide stacking for 12 vehicles, but did not show a bypass lane for vehicles that may want to exit the drive lane. The revised site plan shows a bypass at the midpoint of the drive-through window lane. The original plans showed a parking space in the southwest corner that was five feet from the property line, and the drive-through window lane 3 to 10 feet from the south and east property lines. Staff recommended the removal of the parking space, which the applicant has done. Relocating the drive-through window lane aisle in order to 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. Therefore, staff is recommending that a variance be granted to allow for the encroachment of the drive lane into the setback area. 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 filtration basins located in a drainage and utility easement and maintenance agreements shall be executed for all filtration 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 filtration basins. The applicant should work with staff on relocating trees that may be impacted by the basins. An outdoor seating area is shown on the south side of the building, directly adjacent to the proposed drive-through window lane. Decorative fencing that is maintenance free shall be installed around the perimeter of the south 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 sidewalk connections to sidewalks along the adjacent public streets. The width of the sidewalk that runs east/west between the north side of the drive-through lane and a row of parking has been widened from 4 feet wide to six feet. The location of the sidewalk along the east side of Glenda Avenue has been relocated from directly behind the street's curb to one -foot from the west property line. Budget Impact None Attachments Giselle's Comer Final Plat 12.16.16 Site Plan 11.22.16 Development Plans Architectural 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 Zoning: 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. LB N Q J M -5C -290 w N. 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 the approved building setback variances: 1. A building setback variance of 16 feet to 17 feet from the required building setback of 50 feet from Cedar Avenue; 2. A building setback variance of 16 feet to 45 feet from the required building setback of 50 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 setback of 40 feet from 147th Street West. 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 Corner. This replat was approved by the City Council on March 24, 2016, but has not been recorded at Dakota County. Qdoba Restaurant Conditional Use Permit Request: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a Class II restaurant. Approval of a Class II restaurant in the "RB" zoning district is subject to the requirement that it be located no closer than 1,000 feet from any residential or institutional use. The proposed restaurant will be located is located approximately 300 feet from the Glazier Avenue Townhomes, a 15 -unit townhome development located at 14641-59 Glazier Avenue; and 550 feet from the Christian Science Society church, located at 14515 Glazier Avenue. Therefore, a variance from the distance requirement will be needed. Approval of the proposed CUP shall be contingent upon the approval of a variance from the requirement that a Class II restaurant be located no closer than 1,000 feet from any residential or institutional use. As stated previously, the proposed restaurant site is located 300 feet from the Glazier Avenue Townhomes and 550 feet from the Christian Science Society church. Both uses are located on the opposite side of Cedar Avenue, a six -lane principal arterial roadway, with an annual average daily traffic of 45,500 trips. 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 not 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. During the past several years, the City has approved variances to allow for Class II restaurants to locate closer than 1,000 feet from a residential or institutional use when separated by a large right-of-way like CSAH 42 and Cedar Avenue. In 2013, the City granted a variance to allow for a Chick-fil-A restaurant, located at 7480 153rd Street West, to be located closer than 1,000 feet to a residential use due. The variance was granted due to the finding that Cedar Avenue and a sound wall would act as a barrier and mitigate impacts generated from the Class II restaurant on the residential uses located on the west side of Cedar Avenue. In 2010, Panda Express, a Class II restaurant located at 7735 150th Street West (CSAH 42) received a variance from the 1,000 -foot distance requirement. The variance was granted due to the finding that CSAH 42 was a principal arterial road with a 160 -foot right-of-way and a traffic volume of over 30,000 vehicle trips per day, which will act as a barrier and mitigate impacts generated from the Class II restaurant on the institutional and residential land uses south of CSAH 42. Variances from the 1,000 -foot distance requirement were also granted in 1993 for some other Class II restaurants along CSAH 42. They include Bruegger's Bagels, Taco Bell, and Dairy Queen. Conditions appear to be similar to the before -mentioned restaurants. The physical presence of Cedar Avenue and the traffic volume will act as a barrier and mitigate impacts that will be generated from the proposed Class II restaurant. Drive -Through Window 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 window lane provides stacking for 12 vehicles, but the original plan did not show a bypass lane for vehicles that may want to exit the drive lane. The applicant has revised their plans to show a bypass lane at the midpoint of the lane. 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 original plans showed the removal of the most -easterly driveway along 147th Street West and the southern driveway off Glenda Avenue. Staff is recommending that both driveways along 147th Street West be removed and the south driveway along Glenda Avenue be relocated north a minimum of 60 feet from the 147th Street West intersection. The applicant will be required to blend the curb, sidewalk, and install streetscape amenities at location where the driveways will be removed. A raised center median is located in 147t1i 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 original site plan indicated 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 are 18 spaces over the minimum required. The revised plans indicate 40 parking spaces, which are 10 spaces over the required minimum number of spaces. The revised site plan identifies three employee parking spaces in the southwest comer turnaround area that encroaches into the parking setback. Those spaces and the turnaround area should be eliminated. 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. The drive-through window lane is 3 to 10 feet from the south and east property lines. Relocating the drive lane to meet the minimum parking setback will have an impact on the site layout, which will 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 are 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. The site plan identifies a 36 -inch tall fence that will be installed around the perimeter of outdoor seating area. The fence shall be a decorative maintenance free material. 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 not 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 filtration 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 filtration 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 filtration areas to ensure their operation. In addition, license agreements will need to be obtained for any filtration basin located in a drainage and utility easement. Final grading and erosion control plans, and specifications shall be submitted to the City 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 of the trees in and around the proposed raingardens. The applicant should work with staff on relocating trees that may be impacted by the filtration basins. 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. Both driveways shall be removed. Glenda Avenue, a local street, borders the site on the west. Two driveways currently exist that provide access to and from the site. The most southerly driveway shall be relocated a minimum of 60 feet north of 147th Street West. The north driveway shall remain at its current location. Both driveways will provide full access to the site. 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 original site plan identifies connections from the development to these sidewalks. They show a crosswalk that traverses diagonally from the northeast corner of building to a sidewalk connection from the site to Cedar Avenue. Staff recommended that the crosswalk be removed, which the applicant has done. The width of the sidewalk that runs east/west between the north side of the drive-through lane and a row of parking was approximately 4 feet wide on the original plans. Staff indicated that the 1.5 - foot encroachment allowance beyond the parking lot curb of cars parking in the adjacent spaces would have an impact on the ability to use that sidewalk. The revised plans now show a 6 -foot wide sidewalk, which is acceptable. This sidewalk should be extended west to the end of the parking lot island and a crosswalk be striped in the drive aisle directly to the west of the sidewalk, A sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of Glenda Avenue, which was originally shown directly behind the street's curb. Staff stated that sidewalk should be located one -foot from the west property line, which the applicant has done. 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: The public hearing for the drive -window lane was held on November 7, 2016. No comments were received and the hearing was closed. The public hearing for the Class II restaurant was held on December 7, 2016. No comments were received and the hearing was closed. 51 , „ 't 401 444-4 - -„- „ ,f4 ij i. Vi Ogitig tZOCC VOI8Old '31AVO 09LZ 311 `Nva3o 9Z9/. tql99 NI A311VA 31ddV 'M IS HILVL SZSL 1S3M 1331:11S HILPI 9Z94i3rodd ttt t sss s p RUit PROJECT SPECIFIC SITE NOTES: SITE PLAN LEGEND: Id z 2 iP figi §e; — V4 ; 15. _ PARKA. !,5 0 h ra - „ gi • g g - , • id VIEMBEENTI • • 6 3S83 M., ini 0! lig 1 -Ns igt 8r= k 1g Th 47TH STREET WEST E MINNESOTA ISSUED FOR: PLANNING SUBMISSION VZOCC VC11801d '31AVO "2:10 A.1.1883AINI1 'N 09LZ 011 `tiva3o 9Z9L PUSS NIN 'AS11VA 31ddV 'M IS HILM SZSL 1.S3M 1331:11S HILt71, 9943_ PROJECT SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION NOTES: A,e SITE LOCATION MAP 0 0 0 0 z0 DEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER: t gg k 0 iA ; i A t ,Ip g g 5 1A2p AP !, EA g P 0 ArP.i ..83P, L, rEillIgRii ' P g!) ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: `6 t:S2 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: e, 2 ar)Nanv avaao ,, . f 0 I ,• *{.., • Tiu , a,,g£,R0,1)(INT RAW VONR10 ',MOM .151 Nteld IVIOtalriO3 Arrts. "r 401 .1 Peti, 11 bZOCC V1:11801d '3IAVO "210 AllS83A1W1 'N 09LZ 311 `mva33 SUL VZI.99 NI4 'A311VA 31ddtf 'M IS HUN. SSL J.S3M .1.331:11S HJ.L171 9923rod, CITY OF APPLE VALLEY REMOVAL NOTES: rsi .3 eg 9 REMOVAL NOTES: EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 50 E E c_13 § 50N 5 w et, I!, 41! 11 1 11 al Ego r ! Oig WI 6 R" 0 aid " L412/ 12 0 Hi 4v! rE Egb v. Ph tvei Igx ni) ql ?in R! 4i 44 WilE ig 4 !FA gi si 4 1;i PEi5 p 0. gp r24 Alcd cig 0I hql gr. 4 26 It_9 On "4P 1 '8 h 1, gt gg WIgg aga X% ffi ? P 8 g z < 0 n5555 6g, 60,6 Igegg, gs i !! d r° LcA z h.L2j 8888 8898 tx 88 VZOCC V01801d '31AVO "80 AllS83AINfl 1,109LZ 311 `211/033 9Z9L VZ199 NV 'A311VA 31ddV MIS Hilt', 9Z9L 1S3M 133111S HJIPI929433ro21d 8 gto c1:01 (t'g E qt) I tg § PROJECT SPECIFIC SITE NOTES: 15. MMNG .011- nwo SITE PLAN LEGEND: 6 88 88 og 6 2 g 2 55 t.g 8 It8 88858 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY SITE SPECIFIC NOTES: SITE LAYOUT NOTES: ce, 82 8 55 ij 11;1 28282 JJ 0 '1 Oi2 ( " 8 ta% g 'I g 1 '55:° P21 8 Ircli! Rieil igPh?PH 8115i! lii i 28 1111 ,t,ggtlittp ,8geb !, glf lip:44II 1,:9;11:111 tip -1-.11ir.; -111;q1 ll'i Pg 11E1 5hOgLb; II .21 L -i Iii i` gill lEIRI-44 ki -0 I.- gil! :PIct642 i7211Lliii il i5(I HI ill 589 5285 Hi! u u , c, rs,,- 44, 4.0 W � � Can i ; N N 5s f+ '{ 1,31 fO CttlU� i►ZO££ VOWOld '31AVO '210 AlISa3AINf1 'N 09LZ 011 `2IVO33 9 9L tZ I SS N W 'A311VA 3lddV 'M IS HILI L SZSL 1S3M 1332J1S H.LP I, 9Z943_, ioaroad ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY yO OVERALL SITE CURVE NUMBER (CN) = 83 O O z O U z O O LY W GRADING PLAN LEGEND ,r4 w = :1,9 r ��' i. g a '4tiwm OiS ,o 6 ¢9 :a0 ¢ d < � O � O � U ' IZ- ` W y U �FFj get Op F� It Q oGi � � �2CW< 7Z q Wm � w 1� w_W t"; _< < l 2 H LL h W O N K 4 P w 5 W W: !1i W = Wryn 5 f.7Uy L9, X2,1 i E g ; :,8 W W J � �w toigig ri 0 .1 g gi M oP ill h ! b Mr W J W 1y W W U 7 in to ti O � <7 t�i � q a in go Ui C J r O �W 2q- �o §1g4;S wERW i hiNg! 1Q� 4Pwwq-14:1 Z w Nm'6 gg04v!ggiw h611. �'�`(!5+R, g ,�jQg % mm �a1!1ftqlv xi 7,t�y� giom,140 1 vrz ggi cowlWr- m tOIC U1 H t l UggiV CITY OF APPLE VALLEY UTILITY NOTES: <+i chi h ~ {�� O tOLLK > dh � m m W O tU g Q ~� g ZQ a LL O O m 2 Jam- Q O W i� CJ W�jQ Q� 2' il•g s �O O �w !A < j 2j p^^WW maa tW1! W v K N QBS < m .c141 N*y8 m�g qJ1;11 1 h m2 O `_ � /1,11:1 a�� o W�4m� v�� c 4l j, O N v x t7 � :12 :d NUva t7 M M lh 17 bZ0££ VGI2iOld '3IAV0 ''210 AlIS213AIN11 'N 09LZ 011 `?JVG30 9 9L VZL9S NW '1.311VA 3lddV 'M 1S HILt4 9ZSL 1S3M 133211S Win 5251 lo3road SITE SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES ill fV GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY UTILITY LEGEND: w 0 Nit 2 2 i C ph 1 i w 11 25' ¢ i i lig 1 i ss IA Wei a ! g `-,7 w 2 i P laigPt r20 a m ¢ th W U W ; �LL � W 0 gii bmGS F N � i J � Q m . m m �q ¢Hi �lm � OQ� � O WzoiQ N= I i 1UQ 1 ul O t2Y r di � K R Jm W h i t . 4 h E Ei pg A 1 - F ¢ W w i ., n H L li ;1 M¢ irir Sa y S ¢ O "' ti U t firn Miiti idigi :i: �[m��W .11 F mW gW 5 O F .,g ir 1,1 } §1= u mil wi wi KV iiiibiWiilqiill i3q�j319W Tia 4z OQ K il>}C wp O:�-'��Y�g��m�3 � �=p2 Ww Vi � tTiF Z �- J � fWA = as ZmC O a 19 W W- Q.� !INr~V1=QiU)U1Q.�zJ ��1ii �n2�R�},cg� r (nQ �(pu77 wq_Zg ��++a� i�cFi �iW� xww uwi u� �coi `Q 228 a a 33 3_ia ~8W ��z r lV t+i `P � tt$ r N Qi r , m 5 m R O = h N oz N P 8 bKpOj �i N 2 2 H VZOCC VOlbOld 31A80 "b0 AllS83AINI1 'N 09LZ 311 'UW133 9Z9L PZ899 NV 'A311VA 31dclt, 'AA IS Hilt', 988L J.S3M 1331:11.S H.L.L171. 99233,_ ij LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITE 2 2 2 2 5 2 8 2 2 5 2 6 2 8 2 62 6 6 62 5 8 8 SHRUBS - CONIFEROUS &EVERGREEN 8 1 2 5 1 62 5 8 8 1 8 8 2 8 1 4 3 1 1 1 62 2 2 1 1 88 ffi g ; 4 dr, 1LT, ig! '21962862643 it! ;i8 he- 0 *62 03Vgg At !2 1E 84 81 84 88 44 4111 11 h 94 i oPPp, 224ii 11 li! 11 LANDSCAPE NOTES: w cs As g i g ill 1 11 w E§g 0 g g ; ' R 62 @ g qg t° , 8482 4 2 , .2-21E1 n ; : : : 1: : i WI rit Ili I id 1 t ! g ,lij ig 1 g L'j W icl g NI W 1 P b Iii 84 h94 110 62 11 i 1 PE Illq 11 11 iE : 11 g g 5 6 4i6 .6 ci= 8 Lcli 8 §1 E na n n > f-; 88 7.; !, i'.'li 11 i ' - , g 0 0 ._ w g 1 Lb' I 8 .6- . , I r 01 `i 1 i 4 p. g 4 '-' IL 6282 li p 'mc i E i g 2 H 1 id ik 1 1 dL° / II 1'. ! igl 5 h !,w c! la PP 4144 ii pe ll ri -g4g m i i ic!1 n, in h IC: 884'L 1 I 1 1 - El Hg T 111h M fii qg 62 it! 41aj VZOCC VOIE1Old '3IAVO "80 AllS213AIN11 'N 09LZ 311 `HVO30 SZSL VZ1,99 NW '1.311VA 31ddV 'MIS HILI4 SZSL 1S3M 133211S H1L171.992 [REVISION SUMMARY LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE - FILTRATION BASIN PLANTS ONLY 3 5 6 6 1$5 ei 5 5 5 5 5 5 r, 5 1 5 1 5 5 En 0 a_ F - 11J -J CC 0 z z 0 z z0 LL z + 5 2! d g 55 5 5 .SEE TYPICAL PLAN VIEW DETAIL ON SHEET SW1.2 op ow. eprio.U.:411.:110):10Vw w _ ING - BASINS 1 & ILTRATION BASIN P .9 PZ0££ VOI Old '31AV0 "aa AlISb3AINfl 'N 09LZ ` va3o SZSL bZLSS NW 'ASTIVA 31dd`d 'M IS KILN, SZSL 1S3M 133211S Win 9 92 i33road ISSUE.UBMITTAL SUMMARY 5 z rc mm 0(/) - O Z 0 z 0 W J VA N w8 r C7 ai z w W W W W W L(;'' O 2 Q m > Q Q YF- � U 2 to Z Z Z Z Z W W W W W a rn Li 0 tZ0££ V0INOld 3lAtfd `214 AlISH3AINfl 'N 09LZ X11 `2!va3o SZSL tZISS NW 'A311VA 3lddV 'M IS H LLbl SZSL 1S3M 13311S HllPI. 9 94 103f021d ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY 1) O z 0 /W V <44) OVA o w a g N N Q X X c) W W W Q � X J 2 Q m > Z Z Z Z Z WWWWW 0 1) 0 tZOCC VCII801d '3IAVCI "80 AllS83AINI1 N 09LZ 011 `11VC133 9Z9L t7Z1,99 NW 'Aa11VA aldc:IV 'M IS Witt. SZSL IS3M1.33N1S 1411171, 99233_, TYPICAL PLAN VIEW P. L--- i 1 I F: r J II 2 V . 1 . Ng 5g 6 F 5 5 Iffl >- z w 0 0 z z (I) z co 0 H cr LT 0 (I) z ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY *SEE SECTION VIEWS ON SHEET L1.1 0 5, g * c\I 'OM To111113112i1S ...P.P.21.90n13 1.8111,1 Q-• laaqs J9A00 ------c--%"----:--------,-_-_,-_--------- ._-,--,----c,--,--->,-----_--_-- --- ----'-'---- -------- -------'-'----->:-l-----i.------_-_,„------;-----------::-7-,---1<-_7----'':'4'7-b----------7--------:'-'''''::::.,,_'-;l::l: %---,--------,------,---,,,,-",---A-,--------, - - 2"--'_ - - - -- - -- -----'---_ - -, -- -, ___ -_,_-_ - - -•.-- ---', - _ _ _ _:_,,,,______ _ ----_ - --.---__ , _ ,_,,,-- <„,__. _, __- - - --,--_-----,-%--4 -_ _ - - :,------:11----------,-'17-------;___,7--------f,,:::::------::: -,_-----7----,----„,---------"T:,,,--------„___;-_„;-;----r---,-----'------------„_t,_--------------I-e- T_,____,---:--------__-7___,--------------_„_____--------------:-------:,___'::___------------------>--'____-„,,----' ,,,- -----_r---- -- --:=----,--- _ ,„--,----, _,___,-------- _.,•... .. _____ ,_i____i_----------- - ,,-------- __,:- - - - - - - -,_ •• ,,, -------_---------,„,-- ----:.7„,;:-Tri---,----L---:,,,----„---;___,--.-; 111111.7,-- ..A.Ody ±S8M •±S H±L1 99Z. DEFFERED SUBMITTALS 9988 SHEET INDEX -GENERAL SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURAL A 8 E § SHEET INDEX - CIVIL 8 8 1 cci 8 8 • g if;••; ••• • ;•••••••'•;:•.:'•.; • • . ; • • ; 8 8 LP: 8 g 95 JNI nioaimo&ct Th',7t11:1fitiEj 111.L011111$ HOL.I.LLNO3 tlAi.)-9 GS A9 P.X9a-10 dV ,A9 9Z60-91. 0 £SO -S1 .#109rom :OtBa ueld Joold NOLL,. ISNO3 3AA ±6 Hi NV4 'ANBA Qrsdv C?;91 .P.61 .0-1t - 6 \ \ 9 z Zl -.6 - .£ L z - 0 - - - - 9 1 TVLIII10021.11 L00.1.110.00 IN3113 "",::1=TirleirA= A'qt,<Z1 Parag :Aq 8/60-91. .1.0 0 ESO -S 10.foid - Ps:rd"Plti .1.0 suorlenal3 JopepG SD H 4 04 0 - SMOOTH FACE CAST STONE BASE - city of Apple Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 5E January 4, 2017 Land Use Action Item PROJECT NAME: Cobblestone Lake Medical Center PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for: 1. The subdivision of an existing 1.96 -acre lot into two lots. Lot 1 will be 1.45 acres and Lot 2 will be .51 acres. 2. Site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 10,236 -sq. ft. single -story office building on Lot 1. The submitted plans show a future 4,200 -sq. ft. building on Lot 2; however, no site plan/building permit authorization is being requested at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department APPLICANT: Stanley Lynn, LLC PROJECT NUMBER: PC 16 -42 -SB APPLICATION DATE: November 8, 2016 60 DAYS: January 6, 2017 120 DAYS: March 7, 2017 Proposed Action If the Planning Commission concurs, staff is recommending the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Cobblestone Lake Commercial 7t" Addition preliminary plat. 2. Recommend site plan/building permit authorization approval to allow for construction of a 10,236 -sq. ft. single -story office building and 68 surface parking spaces on Lot 1, Block 1, Cobblestone Lake Commercial 7th Addition; subject to the following conditions: a. Approval and issuance of a building permit shall be subject to the recording of the Cobblestone Lake Commercial 7t" Addition final plat. b. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated November 4, 2016; subject to the installation of a crosswalk and pedestrian ramps across Emperor Avenue, at the end of the proposed sidewalk along the west side of the street and an internal sidewalk connection from the two lots. c. The property owner shall execute a cross access and parking agreement. d. Construction shall occur in conformance with the landscape plan dated November 4, 2016; subject to submission of a detailed landscape planting price list for verification of the City's 21/2% landscaping requirement at the time of building permit application and the replacement of some of the sugar maples with different species to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Coordinator. e. Construction shall occur in conformance with the elevation plan dated December 7, 2016. f. Site grading shall occur in conformance with a final grading plan to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Natural Resources Management Permit (N P). g. Utility construction shall occur in conformance with a final utility plan to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of NRMP. h. The property owner shall execute a maintenance agreement or other suitable agreement to be filed with the deed that ensures the perpetual maintenance of the underground infiltration system. i. Construction shall be in conformance with the requirement that any site lighting shall consist of downcast, shoebox lighting fixtures or wallpacks with deflector shields, which confines the light to the property. j. A separate application and signage plan in conformance with the sign regulations must be submitted for review and approval to the City prior to the erection of any signs. k. A bike rack shall be installed in front of the building at a location that will not obstruct the use of any sidewalk. 1. All applicable ordinances shall be strictly adhered to. Project Summary/Issues The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing lot into two for the purpose of constructing a 10,236 -sq. ft. office building on the 1.45 -acre lot. Access to the two lots will be via Emperor Avenue, a private street located in easements, of which 35 feet of the easement area is located along the east property line of the two proposed lots. This easement provides direct access to 157th Street West and indirect access to Cobblestone Lake Parkway, two public streets. An underground storm water infiltration system will be located in the northeast corner of the site. A maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure its ongoing function. The plan shows 88 parking spaces, of which 68 will be constructed in the first phase. The remaining 20 spaces will be installed at the time of construction of the second building on Lot 2. The minimum parking requirement for the first building of this size is 68 spaces. The minimum required parking demand for the second building will be 28 spaces. Construction on both lots, as proposed, will create result in a shortage of eight parking spaces. The planned development does allow shared parking if certain conditions are met. Based upon those conditions, the development as presented will meet the minimum parking requirements. Bituminous curb as a temporary barrier along the south side of the parking lot is not recommended due to unknown timing of future development. Initially, Staff recommended that the applicant consider installation of permanent concrete B612 curb as shown on the site plan. Staff is now proposing that no curb be installed. A bike rack shall be placed in front of the building. No crosswalk from the sidewalk in front of the future building to the proposed building is shown on the plan. The applicant will work with staff on locating a crosswalk from that sidewalk to the front of the building. The sidewalk in front of the future building will not be installed with the first building. The applicant is proposing to lay additional bituminous at the south end of the parking lot that will be striped for pedestrians. The submitted landscape plan generally identifies a wide and diverse variety of plantings. However, maples represent 30% of the proposed planting schedule. The plan should be revised to include additional species in a different family. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading and utility plans and has several comments that are included in this report. Revisions to those plans per the Engineer's comments should be made prior to final approval. Budget Impact N/A Attachments Preliminary Plat Development Plans COBBLESTONE LAKE MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 15 875 Emperor Avenue Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, COBBLESTONE LAKE COMMERCIAL 5TH ADDITION Comprehensive Plan Designation "MIX" (Mixed Use) Zoning Classification "PD-703/zone 6" (Planned Development) Existing Platting Platted Current Land Use Vacant Size: 1.96 acres Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation Volunteer grasses Other Significant Natural Features None Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Prestige Academy Day Care Facility Comprehensive Plan "MIX" (Mixed Use) Zoning/Land Use"PD-703/zone � 6" Development) (Planned p ) SOUTH Vacant Comprehensive Plan "HD" (High Density Residential/12+ units per acre) Zoning/Land Use "PD-703/zone 8" (Planned Development) EAST Cobblestone Square Senior Apartments Comprehensive Plan "MIX" (Mixed Use) Zoning/Land Use "PD-703/zone 6" (Planned Development) WEST Minnesota Valley Transit Association - 157th Street Station Park and Ride Facility Comprehensive Plan "INS" (Institutional) Zoning/Land Use "P" (Institutional) Development Project Review Location Map Comprehensive Plan: The lot is currently guided "MIX" (Mixed Use). "MIX" areas contain a mix of retail and service business, office, institutional, medium and higher density residential, public uses and/or park and recreation uses. The uses may be mixed vertically (in a common structure) or horizontally (in a common site or area). Among the objectives for "MIX" areas are: • Organize land use in a compact and walkable environment. • Set standards for private development and public improvements that produce enduring quality and enhance the character and identity of Apple Valley. • Encourage parking strategies that support greater intensity of use. • Integrate green/open space and trails into "MIX" areas. Improve environmental conditions, such as water quality and energy use, through development incentives. • Connect "MIX" areas to public facilities, including transit systems, and to the broader community. "MIX" designations will be implemented through planned development zoning. The City will also use design standards and other land use controls to achieve the desired outcomes. At the present time, the Central Village, Apple Valley Transit Station, former Apple Valley Transit Station, and a small portion of Cobblestone Lake are designated "MIX". The proposed use will be consistent with the "MIX" designation by providing a use within Cobblestone Lake that will serve the neighborhood. Comprehensive Plan Map "MIX" (Mixed Use) Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Planned Development No. 703/zone 6, which allows for a wide variety of retail, restaurants, professional offices, educational tutoring services, convenience stores, apartments, and continuum of care facilities. The proposed medical office/office building on Lot 1 is permitted and should not have an adverse impact on existing or future uses within the Cobblestone Lake commercial area. The applicant has not indicated a proposed use for the building on Lot 2. Zoning Map "PD-703/zone 6" (Planned Development) Preliminary Plat: The applicant is proposing to replat an existing 1.96—acre lot into two lots. Lot 1 will have an area of 1.45 acres and Lot 2 will be .51 acres. Access to the two lots will be via one driveway off Emperor Avenue, a private street located in drainage and utility easements, of which 35 feet of the easement area is located along the east property line of the two proposed lots. This easement provides direct access to 157th Street West and indirect access to Cobblestone Lake Parkway, two public streets. Ten -foot wide drainage and utility easements exist along the north and south property lines of current lot of record, as well as a 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west and a portion of the south property line. A 35 -foot wide drainage and utility easement is located along the east property line. Finally, a 25 -foot wide buffer reserve area is located directly adjacent to the east of the west property line. The applicant is not requesting the vacation of the any of the existing drainage and utility easements with this replat. Site Plan: The site plan indicates the construction of a 10,236 -sq. ft. medical office/office building on Lot 1 and a 4,200 -sq. ft. building on Lot 2 that will be constructed later. Access to the site will be from Emperor Avenue, a private street located along the east side of the property. No direct vehicular access from Pilot Knob Road, which abuts the property to the west, is proposed. The west half of the private street is located on the subject property and cross access easements between the abutting property owners have been previously executed with the properties to the north and east. If necessary, this agreement should be amended to include the owners of the lots within the Cobblestone Lake Commercial 7th Addition prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shows 88 parking spaces, of which 68 will be constructed in the first phase. The remaining 20 spaces will be installed at the time of construction of the second building on Lot 2. Parking requirements for a medical clinic is three parking spaces for each doctor/dentist practicing on premises at any one time or one space for each 150 square feet of gross floor, whichever is greater. The applicant has not indicated how many doctors or dentists will be practicing at this location. Therefore, the parking requirement for a building of this size is 68 spaces. The minimum required parking for a 4,200 future building will be 28 spaces. Construction on both lots, as proposed, will be short eight parking spaces. The planned development ordinance does allow for parking to be calculated in aggregate if the following exists: • A convenient pedestrian access exists between lots; • The parking areas share a property line; and • A vehicular connection between lots exist. The proposed development meets the three conditions for calculating the required parking in aggregate. Therefore, minimum parking requirement for the two buildings would be 83 spaces. That is five spaces less than what is shown on the submitted plans. Also, a shared parking and access agreement shall be prepared to ensure unrestricted use by both lots. The site plan shows a temporary bituminous curb at the south edge of the parking area that will be removed at the time of construction of the second building and adjacent parking. Bituminous curb as a temporary barrier is not recommended due to unknown timing of future development. Initially, staff recommended the installation of permanent concrete B612 curb. After discussing this in recommendation in further detail with the applicant, the consensus was to not install any temporary curb along the edge of the parking adjacent to the parking area for the future building. The site plan indicates . an underground storm water infiltration system that will be located in the northwest corner of the site. A maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure its ongoing function. The planned development ordinance requires that parking lots with fifteen (15) or more parking spaces shall provide for parking for bicycles near the building entrance and shall not encroach into the pedestrian walkway. The applicant should show the location of a bike rack on their plans. The plans show a trash enclosure between the two buildings along the south side of the property. All trash enclosures shall be completely enclosed and constructed of the same exterior finish materials as the principal structure. The plans show the enclosure having the same exterior finish as the building. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk will be installed adjacent to Emperor along the east side of the property. It will intersect with a sidewalk that will run west in front of the future building and will extend southward along the west side of the building. No crosswalk from the sidewalk in front of the future building to the proposed building is shown on the plan. The applicant shall identify a crosswalk on future plans. Initially, staff recommended that the sidewalk along Emperor Avenue extend south to the North Creek Greenway path located south of the subject property. The applicant is proposing that a crosswalk be installed just north of the turnaround area, which will connect to the sidewalk along the east side of Emperor Avenue that already intersects with the North Creek Greenway. This will require the applicant to install pedestrian ramps on both sides of Emperor Avenue at the crosswalk. The site abuts Pilot Knob Road on the west and a pathway is located along the east side of the road. The City generally requires pedestrian connections from a site to pathways or sidewalks directly adjacent to street and roadways. The significant grade change along the west side of the property prevents such a connection. A 24 -ft. x 50 -ft. area of bituminous with permanent curb is currently located at the end of Emperor Avenue. This provides vehicles the ability to turnaround at the end of the private street. The applicant will be removing the turnaround area so that they can connect to an existing sanitary sewer line. The turnaround area should be reconstructed to its original condition with the addition of permanent curb installed at the west end. Grading Plan: The site has been graded as part of the sand and gravel mining reclamation of the site. Therefore, minimal grading to accommodate the proposed building and parking lot will be needed prior to construction. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and has the following comments: 1. Final grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 2. Final Stormwater Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 3. The rear drainage swale should be modeled under snowmelt condition due to a concern of localized flooding of drainage swale. Consider installing drain tile in the rear swale at the toe of the slope. 4. Include the overall site composite Curve Number (CN) for the development on the Grading Plan 5. Rock construction entrance is indicated on the proposed plan in the same location of the proposed infiltration area. This is not recommended due to excessive compaction that may affect long-term function of infiltration area. Construction access shall only occur at designated site access. Elevation Drawings: The elevation drawings indicate an exterior finish that will include a combination of brick, simulated stone and EIFS. Metal canopies will located on the east and west elevations. Tower features at the two ends of the east elevation will be covered with a standing seam metal roof. The exterior materials and design appear to be in conformance with the special performance standards set forth in the planned development ordinance. Landscape Plan: The submitted landscape plan generally identifies a wide and diverse variety of plantings. However, maples represent 30% of the proposed planting schedule. The plan should be revised to include additional species in a different family. 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. Availability of Municipal Utilities: The City Engineer has reviewed the utility plans and has the following comments: 1. Final locations and sizes of storm sewer shall be reviewed with the final construction plans and a final Stormwater Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 2. The 15" PE storm sewer from "STMH 101" shown connecting to an existing storm sewer manhole in the southeast corner of the site should be redirected directly east from "STMH 101" to the existing 18" RCP storm sewer. Installation of a new storm manhole for the connection will be required. 3. Final locations and sizes of sanitary sewer and water main shall be reviewed with the final construction plans and approved by City Engineer. 4. Proposed hydrant location should be extended north to the center of the parking island for concern of access to hydrant due to adjacent parking. 5. Valves as shown in the rear of the building should be moved to be in a more accessible area for use by Fire and Public Works. 6. The fire and domestic water shall be split outside the future building; each shall have their own shutoff. Indicate correct size of services on drawing. 7. Include reference to City of Apple Valley standard detail SER -6 for utility connection to building with sprinkler. Street Classifications/Accesses/Circulation: The subject property is located adjacent to Pilot Knob Road, an "A Minor Arterial" with a design capacity of up to 30,000 vehicle trips per day. It is south of 157th Street West, a collector street with a design capacity of 5,000-15,000 vehicle trips p per day; and west of Cobblestone Lake Parkway, a local street with a design capacity of 3,000- 5,000 vehicle trips per day. No direct access from a public street to the site is proposed. Two private streets, Emperor Avenue and 158th Street West, will provide direct access to the property. The private streets are generally centered on property lines of abutting lots. To ensure unfettered access to each other's section of the road, this configuration requires a cross access easement and maintenance agreement between all the affected property owners, which has been executed by the affected property owners along the two private streets. The petitioner will need to provide the City with documentation that they are a party to the existing "Agreement for Easements and Use Restrictions" prior to final plat approval. Pedestrian Access: The planned development ordinance calls for sidewalks into and throughout commercial areas, between buildings and across parking areas where appropriate. A 5 -foot wide sidewalk is currently located along the west side of Emperor Avenue, on the properties to the north, and a 10 -foot wide bituminous pathway has been constructed along the east side of Pilot Knob Road. The petitioner is proposing to extend the 5 -foot sidewalk across their property to a point 88 feet north of the south property line. Originally staff recommended that the sidewalk be extended south and connect with the section of North Creek Greenway path located south of the property. The applicant has recommended that a crosswalk be installed across Emperor Avenue, at the end of the proposed sidewalk. Staff has no objection to their proposal, subject to the applicant constructing pedestrian ramps at each end of the crosswalk and striping the crosswalk. No pedestrian connection is proposed to the Pilot Knob Road pathway. The grade change from the property to the pathway will prevent the connection. Signs: The building elevation plan identifies several 2 -ft. x 12 -ft. sign band areas and the site plan identifies the location of a pylon sign in the northeast corner of the site. Approval of any signage is not part of this request. All signage shall conform to the regulations set forth in the planned development ordinance and Chapter 154 of the city code. Dakota County Review: The Dakota County Plat Commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat at their December 12, 2016 meeting. They had no outstanding issues. Public Hearing Comments: The public hearing for this development request was held at the December 7, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. The hearing was opened; no one from the public attended to speak to this project. 6C6L-68t7-E9L. ,xed 006L-68t-E9t ,uoLld 6VOSS NN '.-0P143 '00T allnS 'BN .^Pa a6lp!Iiluese.14d 068t ONIA.3.11S • '1•11833N .1,1.311N0t11.3 Up303 UOSIJD 0 COBBLESTONE c'losailum `A.11, alddV NOLLICKW NIL 1VIDB3HHOD 3N1/1 3NO1S31890D SITE DATA 1.1f1d AJVNIWIIUd LEGAL DESCR tA §; 17bOSS 'NV4 al.+0 3-11 Aaiuels , 090,0- agi-I0,0, DM W3K-30/3,,0 nOS rt, , 4 tjTi5"'Z' 0 7,7 r .606ZZ L,OON 0 ,wo OVOd 90N>1 i011d 'ON 'H'V'S'O) 6c6Z-6817-£9t 006L-68t,E9, .uoqd 6t-VSS NN 'athele '00I elinS N Au61)121lueseaLici 068E 0,4,3Abins V412133NIDN3 "WIN BI1NO2,1.2 umpoyq f ubspoo 9) elOS.R1114 5kaileA aiddv NOLLICKIV H1L 1VIDII3WWOD 3N1f1 3NOIS3181303 swoinalloo DNI1SIX) tVOSS al.0 LtSLI Dil AatUe4S 2,031,4 6,3 M„,,S,CON '•••• ••• • • • •• .••• • '••-'•' • .•• • - •• .• • .. ..••• •..•-•••'- • • - • -•rr 11 6S6L-6817-E9L 006L-681,-E9Z NN 'auTle '001# 3N Qa6r)!Ijlueseagd 068E nNIA3AtirIS DNIt13.119Na • TVINaNNO.A1.43 elosauum AlIA.IddY NC:MUCK:IV H1L 1VID1i3WW03 3NV-1 3NO1S31880D VtrOSS NW iall!A.1Q1 LISLT 311 `NNA1 A31NV1S (ovod eoNx .ON *1 -VSO 6561-6E3t,-E91. :xe.1 006L -613t7 -£9t NW '.1.).19 .00t# 3N O.5PIV ILIP.agd 068E DN1A3AWS ,N18.,NIVN3 ,V.31,11,10HIAN3 UIDZPIN UOSP DO (fi eloseuuu ‘Aait'eA aiddv NOLLIGOV H1L 1VID113WHOD 3)11/1 3N0153-181303 Ntrid S1VACH43N SNOIIIONOD 9NLISIX3 MOSS NW .111^.1,1 UIJaAH LISLT 311 `NNA1 A1NV1S " • Lfl 3nN3AV 8083dV43 • (0V08 BOO 1011d) L2 'ON *1-4"V'S°0 6544-68P-£94 :xed 0061-68V-E9Z :auoqd NW 'au!qe 100i # 9N 'JO a5p!ii1LJSqj 068C VNIA3AbinS,. ^11,1,4364,302i1AN3 UIDO3IN UOSIJDO • w . elosauww`AaiimalddV womaav HIL 1VID113WWOD Din 3NOIS311390D NV1d NDIS 'R glIS 17POSS NN IVW1 aP.D1114.1.A2H LIST 'D11 iNNA.1 A31NVJS 6S6C.-68t—E9L :ed 006L-68V-C9Z NIA1 '001.# 9N Al bPlb lueseaqd 068F ,V.1,3INWJalAN3 UlD031A1 UbSIJDOW ciosauum (Aailen .iddv NOIIICKIV HIL 1VIDIAWW03 DWI 3NO1S3181303 NV1d 1011.1.NOD NOIS0113 39VNIVHCI bt,OSS NW *D11 ISINA1 AnNVIS 6S6L-62b-E9t 005L-682-E9L :audqd NW 'auteig '0012 3N ',Cl .EPO 3uesea0d 069E ONIA3A8f1S • ONI-1133N19. °,11,..NOUIAN3 WOO UMW elosauum 'A211aA addV NOMOCIV 14±L 111I3N3WW03 3)1V1 3N0.15318903 NV1d NOL1N3A3tId Noun -nod H31.VMIAIIMIS 22011 021 '2220101 .1.13 firipa2eH LTSLI 311 INNA1 A.31NVIS L i in t h w 1 pag 'al L ! LgE; lie "4 W hl p 1 ihVgrgi 0 p y .. ; p 0 Edig 4: 6 V t ri g71 2 p4 „, i gg 6 "i! qw0 44 08 04 ig el ill 48 2 itp22.i., i 21 1' 4 b 4 0 t Rt 0 eq x 1 ) 0 r (0V08 GONA 1.01id) tC 'ON 1-1*V"S'D 6S6L-68t—E9Z :xed 006L 68t °4d N'4 '.TIG 001# 9N ',CI 6P1,11,....ld 068E ONIA3A.rtS nNI2131•419N3 ,V.114.1.1081AN3 U1D001A1 UbSPDO (11) e4osauu!ki 'ANMIddv NOLLICRIV 14.11. 1VIDIlaWW03 3)Pifl 3NOIS3153800 NVld Amun VPOSS NW 1.11!,a121 ,31.011!,-liaAeH LILT .D11 iNNA1 A31NVIS • f!? 11,4 0 , , STORM SEWER SC1 STRUCTURE . . . BENCHMARKS (avo8 130N>4 101Id) LC 'ON *H`V'S*0 6S6L-69P-(9L ,xed 006L -686-£9L W UIP 'COI* 3N .6PW USV4d 068E DNIA3ANCIS • ONOMNION3 slYIN3WNOMAN3 UlD031A1 • • • (fi UOSIJDO elosauum aiddv NOLLICKIII H1L lif13113WW03 3MV1 3NOIS319903 NVid 3dVSONV1 ''OSS NW 'all!".)W1 alo-QII11J9A2H LISLI .D11 'NNAl A31NVLS 0 wa d) 1 ' 0, - ' i...............,,,,,,iii., P: Nit _, I ''';' -'' 1 • 311N3AV 8083d1413 , „ , , A t -777.:72,77,77579•. -,_-_,,, r , - .- ---. ,. , 1,, A ' '-' - '''' ''''''''' l'" -'''" /•-.4. > ; 11 , ,..:. , / l' i ' 1 / 7: .„.,r: - / /. 11 . BENCHMARKS 0 0 5 .!" 1 LOU, Kan.:41NC 5gap - „ (OYU BONA 101Id) IC 'ON 'HYS*0 F 7.? 1 _ ... ---, L 71 i r-T- 1- rrc 1 -I-4- -1-t ---, L \ I r t-