The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-09-27 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 27, 2011 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the August 23, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 2011-20: New Cingular Wireless, 894 Sibley Memorial Highway, conditional use permit for wireless antenna modification. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 2011-26: Frank Pilney, 1867 Warrior Drive, wetlands permit for a seasonal room. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. c. Case No. 2011-27: New Cingular Wireless, 750 Main Sheet, conditional use permit for wireless antenna modification. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. d. Case No. 2011-28: Robert and Katherine Thompson, 979 Caren Road, critical area permit for an accessory building. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. e. Case No. 2011-29: Dodge Nature Center, 656 Highway 110, wetlands permit to restore an existing pond and dam. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. New Business a. Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing b. Discussion of Wetlands Permit Processing c. Discussion of Aircraft Noise Attenuation 7. Verbal Review 8. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. Planning Commission Aliwutes August 23, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 23, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes (arrived at 7:47 p.m.), Noonan, Roston, and Viksmns. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Magnuson. Also present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, hlterim City Administrator/Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofAQenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 26, 2011, Minutes The July 26, 2011, meeting minutes will be considered at the next meeting. Chair Norton stated that in consideration of audience members, the agenda will be reordered as follows: Planning Case #11-23 and then #11-14. Hearings PLANNING CASE 411-23 Bob Sullwold 667 Second Avenue Variance to the front yard setback for a front porch and covered front entry Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Bob and Diane Sullwold for approval of a variance from the front yard setback requirement to penrut the construction of a covered open porch that would extend into the required 30 -foot front yard setback. He displayed a site plan and indicated the subject property is zoned single-family residential, guided for low density residential, and occupied by a single- family home. He then displayed a sketch plan of the proposed front porch and covered front entry. The proposed porch is 10 -feet by 14 -feet in size, covering a new deck that provides access to the front entrance. The front of the home is 35 feet from the right-of-way so it would encroach by about 5 feet into the setback. Mr. Grittman presented staff s analysis of the request and explained the ordinance accommodates an allowed encroachment of five feet (a setback of 25 feet) with a total area of 50 square feet by conditional use permit (CUP). The proposed project meets the required setback, but exceeds the allowable area by about 18 square feet. Thus, the applicant is seeking a variance rather than a CUP. Mr. Grittman explained the applicant's a single-family home meets the setback requirements and so there is nothing unique to compel consideration of a variance. In addition, the configuration of the porch, but for the area, would meet code requirements by CUP. As a result, staff does not believe the test for Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 variance has been met to accommodate the larger proposed structure. Mr. Grittman advised that planning staff believes the conditions supporting approval of a CUP for a porch encroachment of 50 feet would be present, and recommended the applicant consider amending the application to meet that standard and reapplying for a CUP_ Commissioner Roston stated his concern that the planning commission consider variance requests in a manner that is consistent to assure all are treated the same. Mr. Grittman noted the city is now applying the new statute standards for a variance. Prior to that statute, consideration for variances was more "cut and dried" because there had to be hardship and almost no other use. The new statute, however, inserts a significant level of subjectivity in whether the applicant is using the property in a reasonable manner. He indicated the current code does not give the planning commission much guidance so staff is looking for uniqueness of the property. Mr. Grittman explained staff recommended approval of the Visitation variance because it was the opinion that application of code was misapplied given the institutional nature of the use in a residential zone. Mr. Grittman explained that in this case, the city has made a specific code amendment to address this kind of application, allowing an encroachment into the 30 -foot setback to allow for this kind of improvement. The city has been rigorous in applying that standard since adoption. Mr. Grittman noted that in looking if there are unique conditions based on other approvals, in this case, staff did not find those conditions and could not recommend approval. Commissioner Noonan asked if the applicants would have to come back for a CUP if the planning commission were to recommend denial and the city council agreed. Mr. Grittman explained that would be the process since staff did not notice this meeting for consideration of a CUP. Commissioner Noonan stated staff had mentioned a 50 -foot permitted encroachment into the front yard but given the house is 35 feet back, the applicant could do a 10 -foot by 10 -foot covered porch as opposed to a 5 -foot by 10 -foot covered porch. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Viksnins asked how large of a covered porch staff would support for a variance. Mr. Grittman stated he has difficulty with the variance issue in this case because of the requirement for uniqueness. He stated if the porch was 5 -feet by 10 -feet instead of 5 -feet by 14 -feet it may be possible to consider a variance; however, the findings may not be clear and it would eliminate the applicant from going through another process. It was noted that a 5 -foot by 10 -foot covered porch would not necessitate a variance and a 10 -foot by 10 -foot covered porch would require a CUP, not a variance. Robert Sullwold, 667 Second Avenue, applicant, stated he was not aware of a CUP process or those parameters. He explained he had already built the deck, which was permitted up to two feet from the property line so he cannot scale it back. He stated he is asking for a variance of 4 feet 2 inches, less than five feet, and noted it is over 50 feet from the street with 15 feet being boulevard that will not be used for anything else. Mr. Sullwold noted this will be good improvement to the neighborhood and the house, making it more aesthetically pleasing than the current door cover. He asked if it would meet the requirements if a smaller roof is constructed. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 2 Planning Commission Minutes August23, 2011 AYES NAYS CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Noonan asked if it is the covered portion that necessitates the variance. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct and there is not the same limitation on the deck as the roof portion. Commissioner Noonan stated the circumstances in this case are somewhat similar to a matter considered previously where a resident wanted a variance to build a three -car garage sized out of desire. hl that case, the planning commission determined it had to be true to the variance law and as precise as possible. He stated lie supports the motion for denial as it is consistent with past actions. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its September 6, 2011, meeting. Mr. Sullwold asked if he has recourse should the city council deny his variance request. Chair Norton recommended he speak with staff regarding that matter. PLANNING CASE #11-14 White Pine Holdings 750 Highway 110 Amendment to conditional use permit for planned unit development Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated the information contained in the staff report had been vetted through several offices, including legal counsel and Mr. Grittman. He explained the request is for an amendment to the conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment. He referenced his July 15, 2011 memorandum that outlined ways in which this proposal is different than what was included in the concept plan of Planning Case 42008-11. Mr. Sedlacek explained that in addition to concerns outlined in the staff report, it was indicated during meetings held last week that the applicant intends to get feedback now so they can return to the commission's September meeting with an updated report and materials. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff discussed the extension to the 60 -day review period. He explained the 60 -day review period had already been extended by the city and will expire September 6, 2011. Staff had hoped to have the original extension letter in hand tonight; however, has only received a facsimile copy. Until the city has a letter of extension containing original signatures (wet document) in hand, legal counsel has advised the review period will end at the next city council meeting. Mr. Sedlacek indicated Staff is urging extreme caution in how to proceed and the city council has indicated if the city does not receive the original extension document, it may hold a special meeting next Tuesday to consider the planning commission's recommendation. Mr. Sedlacek presented the staff report, indicating in 2008 the original PUD included a mixed number of uses including a large residential building. He displayed a site plan of the south elevation that the city council had approved in the concept plan and was included in the developer agreement. Mr. Sedlacek Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 stated the developer agreement for Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment, contains approximately two acres, as described in Exhibit A, to construct a 100 -unit, four-story residential multi- family senior/assisted living facility. This is what was to be constructed and why staff recommended the new proposal is an amendment to the PUD. In addition to the original exterior elevations being different from the proposed plan, the applicant has also changed the orientation of the building. He presented a diagram of the original concept plan proposal depicting a 4 -story building on west side of Lot 6 with parking on the east. He then presented a diagram of the new proposal, noting it swaps parking and building locations. The new orientation has the building facing towards the development itself instead of towards Dodge Nature Center. Mr. Sedlacek presented the differences between the approved PUD and the proposed PUD as follows: • The original PUD concept plan had 129 parking stalls, less than required for a 100 -unit residential building. The proposed PUD has 60 some parking spaces with proof of parking for up to 83 spaces. • The original PUD concept plan had no signage indicated. The proposed PUD shows three signs on the building. • The original PUD showed balconies on the units. The proposed PUD shows no balconies. • Both the original PUD and proposed PUD will necessitate setback variances, which is part of the flexibility in a PUD consideration. • The original PUD concept plan required at least 25% masonry materials. The proposed PUD shows 24% masonry materials, which the applicant's representative (Paster Enterprises) is prepared to discuss tonight. • The original PUD building use was described as mixed use residential with some independent and some assisted living. The proposed PUD is for fully assisted living, which is allowed by code but would be a change in what as approved in the original PUD. It was noted staff recommends that the request be denied based on the following findings of fact: 1. Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the PUD Agreement, the city's consent to changes to the approved plans may be given or withheld in the city's sole discretion. 2. The Developer has failed to obtain the prior written consent of the city to transfer the property to White Pine as required by Section 62 of the PUD Agreement. 3. Pedestrian circulation inadequately integrates the residential building into the mixed use PUD as directed by the previous PUD approvals. 4. Parking under the PUD Agreement was determined based on the mixed use development as a whole and the proposed parking in the modified plan is inadequate. 5. Building materials do not meet the specified requirements of the approved plans. 6. The city council specifically approved balconies on the units and the balconies are no longer shown on the modified plans. 7. Utility plans do not show how the project will connect to the city's sanitary sewer system, among other utility issues, and do not show how the applicants will redesign the project or the sewer to avoid conflicts between the building and city's utility. 8. Signage for the project exceeds the zoning ordinance allowances for the property. 9. The applicant characterizes the proposal as a "health care business" which is inconsistent with the PUD Agreement requirements that the property be used for residential purposes. Commissioner Viksnins asked what communications there have been between staff and the applicant since the July 15, 2011, memorandum was prepared. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff met with the current owner of the property and applicant last week to discuss the issues, the way the staff memorandum was worded, and presentation to be made before the planning commission. 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2017 Commissioner Noonan asked Mr. Sedlacek to elaborate on the change in orientation and if there were specific concerns by staff with respect to the orientation. Mr. Sedlacek explained the original CUP approved a concept to group buildings in a cluster orientation. The proposed plan is to change the orientation of the buildings and parking. Mr. Sedlacek stated the applicant's representative is prepared to discuss why they think the new orientation is better. Staff has not opined if one orientation is better than the other. Commissioner Noonan stated the planning commission had requested additional infonnation on why reduced parking ratios are appropriate for the nature of the use as assisted living and memory care. He asked if more definitive details had been provided by the applicant. Mr. Sedlacek stated the planning commission was given what the applicant provided and the applicant's representative is prepared to discuss parking needs experienced at similarly -sized facilities. Ken Henk, Paster Enterprises, owners of Mendota Plaza, stated he would provide additional information tonight on behalf of White Pine Holdings because the applicant, Chuck Rothstein, is out of the country. He displayed a colored site plan of the original PUD that was approved as a mixed use PUD on Lot 6 as senior assisted living housing. He reviewed that on January 6, 2009, a joint meeting was held, after many previous meetings, with the planning commission and city council to look at finalizing a preliminary PUD. This joint meeting was attended by some planning commissioners along with city council members and discussions at the meeting pertained to this lot and use as senior housing. The application was wrapped up at the January 20, 2009, city council meeting in which they received unanimous preliminary PUD approval. Mr. Henk reviewed that earlier in 2008, the planning commission, by vote of 4-3, recommended approval of this PUD. The approved PUD consisted of eight lots containing a mix of retail, restaurant, child care, office, and residential. The lots along South Plaza Drive were for future phases and it was important to the city council that some detail be provided for the future phases to serve as a guide when one of the parcels was developed. For Lot 6, they had proposed a 4 -story 100 -unit, assisted living building that was rectangular in shape and oriented parallel to the west property line with the main entrance facing away from the retail area and parking on the east side. The applicant is now proposing a building of similar size and shape with the north portion in a similar location but the south portion pivoted to the east and parallel with the east property line instead of west property line. The applicant feels this is an improvement because the west facing units are farther away from the retail buildings so the second to fourth floor residents do not look down on retail roofs. Along with that, parking on the west side and the main entrance now faces the retail area. Mr. Henk stated they had talked about clustering the buildings but the proposed plan orients the entrance and parking to face the retail instead of the building turning its back to the retail. Mr. Henk addressed the nine findings of fact detailed in the July 15, 2011, memorandum and staff's recommendation for denial as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the PUD agreement, the city's consent to changes to the approved plans may be given or withheld in the city's sole discretion. Mr. Henk agreed the city is the sole approving authority but the applicant feels that the approval granted previously for future phases of the PUD, included this residential lot, which was for senior housing, 100 - units, and a four-story building with underground parking. He noted the building footprint in the proposed plan is of the same shape but smaller. In the developer agreement Article 1. 1, definition for Lot 6, describes this as senior housing, assisted living_ He referenced Section 5.4 relating to park dedication fees and that the city council had made it clear this was an assisted living facility and the park dedication fees were based on that use. However, if more market rate housing was created it would be reconsidered and additional park dedication fees required. Mr. Henk stated it was clear at that point what the use and 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 type of facility would be. At that point they assumed about 50% of the units would be independent living, 35% as assisted living, and 10-15% as memory care. The applicant is proposing now the first and second floors be memory care and the third and fourth floors be assisted living, so that is a little change in use. 2. The developer has failed to obtain the prior written consent of the city to transfer the property to White Pine as required by Section 6.2 of the PUD agreement. Mr. Henk indicated the city's consent for a land transfer is clear in the developer agreement and Paster Enterprises is working on that matter with the applicant. It will require separate city council action but Paster Enterprises feels the application needs to get further into the process to see if this development will be approved before that financial information is gathered and finalized. 3. Pedestrian circulation inadequately integrates the residential building into the mixed use PUD as directed by the previous PUD approvals. Mr. Henk displayed a site plan and described the locations depicted of buildings and sidewalks, common areas, and proposed sidewalk connections. He noted there are three different pedestrian access points, which they believe are adequate to tie this project to the rest of the development. 4. Parking under the PUD agreement was determined based on the mixed use development as a whole and the proposed parking in the modified plan is inadequate. Mr. Henk noted the proposed plan shows 26 surface stalls and 37 below grade parking stalls for a total of 63. The applicant plans to leave a large area as green space that could accommodate an additional 20 spaces, if needed, for a total of 83 parking spaces. The original PUD identified the same number of spaces, 83, with 47 surface stalls and 36 below grade stalls. Mr. Henk referenced a table on the side of the plan that showed 129 parking spaces are required so there would be a shortage of 46 stalls. Mr. Henk indicated the declarations and covenants allow joint parking of different parcels, noting adjacent Lot 7 has a requirement for 23 stalls yet 56 are provided, so there are more than 30 stalls available on the adjacent lot, if required. Mr. Henk stated he does not argue that 129 are shown on the approved plan but the applicant feels 83 parking spaces on Lot 6 plus the additional 30 on the adjacent parcel, which the covenants allow to be shared, is sufficient. 5. Building materials do not meet the specified requirements of the approved plans. Mr. Henk presented diagrams depicting exterior elevations of the original PUD and proposed plan. He described the approved plan has including first floor masonry, with masonry clad columns at the entrance way and balconies. The proposed plan shows the same area, up to the second floor windows, as being masonry in a stone and all columns at entry ways will be clad in same material. The second and third floors of the approved PUD showed a tan material proposed in EFIS or siding with the fourth floor being a grey band of similar material. The proposed plan shows the second and third floors to be Hardiboard planking set vertically in a darker color and the fourth floor in a contrasting lighter color with horizontal planking. Mr. Henk stated the applicant considers that as being similar to the original PUD. The Proposed plan also shows shakes to the fronts of all gables, entrances, and dormers. The roof in the original PUD showed an asphalt shingle roof at same elevation with five dormers and some decorative chimneys to hide mechanical piping. The proposed plan has a similar roof but incorporates five differing steps to break up the expanse. In addition the proposed plan has eight dormers instead of five. The original PUD had a canopied main entrance that extended over the sidewalk at the front. The proposed plan has a much larger area, extending farther to the south with a covered drop off/pick up area. Mr. Henk noted the larger expansive entrance treatment and gabled secondary entrance were not included the original PUD. On the back side of the building, the original plan included a covered first floor common area and no roof dormers. The proposed plan has the same covered area over a common space in addition to common area balconies on three floors above it and the same dormer treatment as on the front elevation. no Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 6. The city council specifically approved balconies on the units and the balconies are no longer shown on the modified plans. Mr. Henk agreed that individual balconies were shown for some units on the original plans. The proposed plan does not include those balconies but does have large balconies from the common areas proposed at the center of the building. He suggested that first and second floor balconies would not be appropriate as they are proposed to be memory care units. 7. Utility plans do not show how the project will connect to the city's sanitary sewer system, among other utility issues, and do not show how the applicants will redesign the project or the sewer to avoid conflicts between the building and city's utility. Mr. Henk displayed plans showing the sewer extending from the building going north to the trunk line, which is currently in dispute, so additional engineering will be required. 8. Signage for the project exceeds the zoning ordinance allowances for the property. Mr. Henk indicated the applicant is proposing wall signs on the buildings, which were not included in the submittal two years ago. The applicant proposes adding the "White Pine" name above the main entrance and on both end caps facing South Plaza Drive and Highway I10. Mr. Henk suggested the issues of signage and balconies be addressed at next meeting. He displayed a picture depicting a pylon sign and the monument sign proposed at the southwest confer, noting it is of the same size as the original proposal but constructed of materials to tie into the building. 9. The applicant characterizes the proposal as a "health care business" which is inconsistent with the PUD agreement requirements that the property be used for residential purposes. Mr. Henk stated this is a health care businesses but primarily set up as a residential use. He noted the approved PUD agreement defines it as a "multi -family assisted living facility." He suggested every apartment building could be looked at as a business but their proposed use is truly a residential use. Mr. Henk stated they feel the proposed project would be a great addition to Mendota Plaza, provides the use approved for the lot, and would be developed by a quality firm with a track record of successful buildings. He noted that Chuck Rothstein is from Mendota Heights and offices across the street from Mendota Plaza. Mr. Henk stated the proposed use will complement the adjacent CDA housing and provides needed services. Unlike CDA, this project will generate real estate tax revenue as well as employment opportunities. Mr. Henk encouraged commissioners to view White Pine Holdings' website or tour a nearby facility. He stated some details need to be finalizing such as color selections, balconies, and material selections, but in many ways it is the same project that was approved two years ago. Commissioner Noonan noted Mr. Hank had mentioned that the declarations and covenants associated with the PUD contemplated the notion of sharing parking across lots. He asked if that is also the case of mixed ownership, noting Paster Enterprises will be selling Lot 6 to White Pine Holdings. Commissioner Noonan asked if that issue is addressed in the PUD. Mr. Henk explained that shared parking "rides" in the ownership of the property and all owners are required to follow the declarations and covenants. Commissioner Hennes arrived at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Viksnins asked whether the applicant is willing to extend the review period. Mr. Henk answered in the affirmative and indicated the applicant is willing to extend it to November 15, 2011. He stated the extension letter was signed by Howard Paster, faxed to White Pine Holdings, signed by Chuck Rothstein, and faxed to the city. Mr. Henk stated he does not know where the original document is. He 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 assured the planning commission that the applicant has no issue with the extension and had used the date of November 15 at the recommendation of the city attorney. Commissioner Viksnins stated there is now a different occupancy proposed since the original PUD was for mixed use and the proposed plan is more focus with two floors of memory care and a frail elderly emphasis. Mr. Henk stated when they went through the original process, they had talked with a different assisted living provider and the proposal was for a building like the Southview units in St. Paul. The actual footprint shown on the original plan was from that facility. At that time, the facility had 55% independent and 45% assisted living and memory care. However, Paster Enterprises is no longer working with that proposed buyer and White Pine Holdings is proposing a different ratio. Commissioner Viksnins stated the 2008 discussion was for more of a mixed use facility. Mr. Henk stated the project has always been set up as an assisted living facility and the number of different companies they have worked with were all in that business. Mr. Henk stated he does not know if there are any buildings in existence that combine market rate and assisted living housing. However, there is some housing with limited services, such as meals, and is considered to be independent living. Commissioner Viksnins asked Mr. Henk for his recollection of the discussion in 2008 relating to building occupancy and if that change was the driving force for some of the proposed changes, such as fewer balconies. Mr. Henk recalled there had been no consideration between the use and exterior facade of the building. He explained that the applicant's buildings at other locations in the Twin Cities and Wisconsin do not have balconies. Mr. Henk stated he is not sure whether Mr. Rothstein would consider something but his thought is that there are other tradeoffs with the proposed plan including a more grandiose entrance and larger common area balconies. Commissioner Viksnins noted Mr. Henk had explained earlier that the balconies were removed for the reason that two floors would be committed to memory care patients. Mr. Henk stated that is true. Commissioner Hennes asked Mr. Heak if it is his sense that the market has changed in terms of demand than perhaps what people anticipated two years ago. Mr. Henk pointed out that this building can tie into the two CDA buildings that provide independent 55 and older housing. He noted the proposed facility would provide a "next step" for individual with part being independent with limited services so as a resident aged they could stay in the same location and move into assisted living or memory care. Commissioner Hennes asked if memory care could not transition into a nursing home facility but would be a step short of that. Mr. Henk stated it could not transition into a nursing home. He displayed and described floor plans for memory care units (floors one and two) and assisted living units (floors three and four). He noted the units on floors three and four are set up as a single -bedroom apartment but have a connecting door in case a spouse wants to rent the abutting unit to create a two bed -room apartment. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 M Planning ConnniisSiO)l Minutes August23, 2011 Commissioner Roston asked if the city has a signed review extension letter but it is not the original document. Mr. Sedlacek stated the city has an electronic version but has a practice of only accepting original signed documents for planning cases. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the statement from the applicant's representative that the applicant is willing to extend the review period to November 15, 2011, is sufficient. Chair Norton suggested that determination be left to the city attorney. CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT 1-9 AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, PAGE 10, AND AS DISCUSSED BY MR. SEDLACEK AND MR. HENK. Commissioner Field he is not comfortable supporting a recommendation of denial because such a motion has consequences since there is no way for the applicant to satisfy the wet signature requirement once it is taken. Commissioner Roston stated support for the motion, indicating if an extension is received and the city attorney confirms it is acceptable, the application can still go before the city council. At that point it may be acted on, postponed, or could be referred back to the planning commission. Chair Norton noted that would be similar to action taken with the original PUD three years ago, when the city council sent the application back to the planning commission on one occasion for further review. Given that, Chair Norton stated he agreed with Commissioner Roston that it is safer to consider a denial and the city council can return the application if an original letter of extension is received by the city. Chair Norton noted several items are problematic; this application has already been tabled once by the city's own action creating additional time but the applicant has submitted no additional material or corrected deficiencies even though they had been identified. In addition, the applicant is not in attendance, though a representative is present that owns the rights to the PUD. Commissioner Roston stated he has four main concerns: the parking issue, signage, lack of balconies, and the transfer provisions in the PUD agreement. He indicated the transfer provision has to be followed to the satisfaction of the city attorney. Commissioner Roston stated he is not as concerned about the difference in usage because this type of senior facility is important for this community, about the change in orientation because he agreed with the reorientation, or the building materials difference between 24% and 25% of masonry because he thinks that small amount can be bridged. Commissioner 'Roston indicated when these four issues are addressed, he would be supportive of the project. Commissioner Noonan stated he shares Commissioner Roston's view. With respect to parking, he has an open mind but would want more than anecdotal evidence based upon experiences of operator. Rather, he would like to see a professional opinion. On the balcony issue, it involves design consideration but he thinks there is way to bridge the concern for balconies with safety for memory care units while still doing something to enhance the west facade of the building. He noted that from the history shared about the discussion that supported the initial PUD, a lot of time and effort had been paid to design issues and the planning commission has to respect that. Commissioner Noonan stated signage is an important consideration and the commission has to remember this is residential and if characterized as business there would be additional concerns. Commissioner Noon stated he will support the motion with an open mind to have the application come back with those items addressed. 0' Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins noted the applicant's representative has stated, it is included in the staff report, and all agree the standard being followed is whether the city, in its sole discretion, wants to amend the PUD. This is a decision that is policy entrusted to the city council. He indicated he was not part of the city council discussions in 2008 but has a general recollection that the city council was looking for more of a mixed use facility. Commissioner Viksnins stated his concern may differ from his colleagues that are more focused on the "nuts and bolts" of the application. He indicated his more fundamental concern is that this is a slightly different concept which leads to issues with parking and balconies. Thus, his more fundamental concern is that what is being proposed is not the deal struck in 2008. Commissioner Viksnins stated he would support the recommendation for denial. Commissioner Field stated he is more than familiar with rules with respect to extensions and since the city's legal counsel requires a "wet signature" rather than a facsimile, he would support the motion and appreciates the city council may refer it back. Commissioner Field stated he will keep an open mind but he fmds the new proposal changes the model approved in 2009 and while appearance is cosmetic, the city council may feel otherwise. Commissioner Field stated the new proposal is a different package than considered with a 5-2 vote. He indicated he may or may not support the new application but feels the best action now is to proceed to vote for denial in the absence of the original letter requesting an extension. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its August 30, 2011, special meeting, time to be determined. Presentation Discussion of Property Maintenance Code for Commercially Zoned Properties Mr. Grittman explained the city council bad authorized staff to pursue development of a property maintenance code for commercially zoned properties that would essentially mirror the city adopted residential maintenance code. He explained the issues that led to this discussion arose from commercial properties the city council felt were u1 need of attention and existing codes, perhaps, did not address recourse by the city to improve the condition. Mr. Grittman stated the city council directed staff to develop language that is more focused to address areas the city thinks are potential issues to the community. Staff has undertaken the task of looking through existing codes and maintenance related codes in the zoning ordinance related to improvements that are required to be maintained by commercial uses. The next step will be to gather input on other potential issues and present an outline of a draft ordinance to the planning commission at its September meeting. Commissioner Noonan asked if, generally speaking, commercial/industrial properties in Mendota Heights are being maintained to the appropriate standard and but for those few properties it would not have arisen as an issue. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello reported that the city council only addressed two specific properties with staff and in driving around the city as the supervisor of code enforcement, he can say with safe assurance that it is a small group of properties that is the focus of this effort. However, if adopted the new ordinance would be applied city wide. Commissioner Noonan stated it would be helpful to get background information on current issues the ordinance would seek to address or point commissioners to areas they should tour. He questioned the kind of outreach that will be specifically taken to solicit feedback from the business community. Mr. 10 Plamling Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 Grittinan stated once the document is prepared, staff will hold a meeting for the business community to get their input. Commissioner Viksmns stated some cities have a similar ordinance so staff dos not need to "reinvent the wheel." Mr. Grittman indicated staff will look at those ordinances. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE 411-14 White Pine Holdings Amendment to Conditional Use Permit • This item was removed from the planning commission agenda at the request of the applicant. PLANNING CASE #11-22 Phillip Cattanach Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. Mr. Sedlacek advised that the city council has asked staff to address accessory buildings on large sized sites. Mr. Sedlacek reported that Planning Case #11-24, an addition to a deck as part of a remodel within the critical area and forwarded directly to the city council which deemed the code did allow for that and approved the critical area permit. Mr. Sedlacek noted more than one planning commissioners had mentioned that rudimentary planning cases could go directly to the city council instead of planning commission and that process is addressed in the critical area ordinance. Mr. Sedlacek indicated that the next meeting agenda will include code amendments with specific language on minor developments, the property maintenance code for commercially zoned properties, and noise attenuation in aircraft noise zones. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:20 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 11 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763-231.2555 Facsimile: 763.23 1 .2561 lLiar)ners@r acplarlriirag.00ni. TO- Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman DATE- September 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Antenna Modification CASE NO- Planning Case No. 11-20; NAC Case 254.04 - 11.25 APPLICANT(S).- New Cingular Wireless, LLC LOCATION: 894 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING- B-1, Limited Business GUIDE PLAN: Limited Business Background and Description of Request: New Cingular Wireless, LLC is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow modification to their existing wireless communication tower located south of Sibley Memorial Highway and east of 1-35E (894 Sibley Memorial Highway). The applicants wish to upgrade the communication equipment located on the tower to ensure successful, secure and ongoing operation of their communication facilities. The primary equipment changes involve the following: Replacement of six existing antennas (affixed to the tower) with a three -sided, nine antenna array. The addition of six tower -mounted amplifiers (to be attached to the antennas). a The addition of a tower -mounted surge protector. ® Replacement of the existing antenna t -arm with a low profile antenna platform_ The addition of the antenna platform will be the primary visual change to the facility. The existing tower measures 78 feet in height. No changes to the tower height are proposed. The Zoning Ordinance allows for wireless communication towers and antennas in all zoning districts upon approval of a conditional use permit. Analysis: As noted, the applicants wish to upgrade their communication equipment to ensure successful, secure and ongoing operation of their communication facilities. Specific modifications to the communication tower include the following: • Replacement of six existing antennas (affixed to the tower) with a three -sided, nine antenna array. ® The addition of six tower -mounted amplifiers (to be attached to the antennas). ® The addition of a tower -mounted surge protector. ® Replacement of the existing antenna t -arm with a low profile antenna platform. As noted, no changes to the tower height are proposed. The new antenna array is to be three -sided with each side measuring 12' - 6" (horizontal dimension). The horizontal distance of the new antenna array will be slightly greater than that of the existing antennas to be removed which have a horizontal dimension of 10'- 0". The proposed communication equipment upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the tower. The visual change will relate primarily to the addition of the platform noted above. Because the tower is surrounded by commercial ("Limited Business") land uses, these impacts are considered to be consistent with other mechanical equipment elements in the area. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: A. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with conditions, based upon a finding that the proposed antenna and accessory equipment modifications meet all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and are consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit criteria allowing such features. Conditions may include: A building permit shall be obtained prior to new antenna and related equipment installation - 2 2. The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all FCC reaulations. 3. The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all applicable electrical codes. B. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the proposed antenna and accessory equipment modifications are inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and/or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation: The proposed antenna and related equipment modifications to the communication tower are expected to have no physical impact upon neighboring properties. The addition of the three new antennas and the support platform will have some visual impact, but is not considered to be out of character with the commercial ("Limited Business") area in which the tower is located. With this in mind, our office recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the preceding conditions. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application Materials 3 Site Location Map f_ City Limits Z\f Cite Roads 'vaterPvVetlands varcels fes/ Major Roads .. 11 unicipalBoundaries GJ�Ij " T s is -� - 3 �1 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, 651 452 1850 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST �. Case No.�.�:�\ . LL,., Date of Application tS$ (A -T T� Paid Applicant Name: .`� ��t1 !/� ��v PH: S"L 7 — 216 (Last) (First) E -Mail Address: Y" Lv,1�{ /��/ (�y�w:lG� G"mss t• C c� J Address (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) t,U; Statement of Intent New Cingul.ar Wireless, LLC, (aka AT&T Mobility) is proposing modification work at aexisting m Wireless communication facility located at: 894 Sibley Memorial Highwa n y,. As a result of technological improvements, Cingular/AT&T will be upgrading its communication equipment to ensure the successful, secure and ongoing operation of its communication facilities. The specific upgrade activity will involve maintenance and upgrading of antennas at the telecommunication site by replacing the existing six (6) antennas with nine (9) n.ew antennas, adding six (6) Tower Mounted Amplifiers (TMAs) which attach to the antennas, adding a tower mounted surge protector, three (3) RRH one per sector (mounts with anternina ), adding one (1) DC cable, (1) fiber optic cable, (1) 3/8" RET cable. AT&T will also be replacing the existing antemia t -arms with a low profile antenna platform with safety hand rails. EXHIBIT I Legal Descripiiva Being a portioa of the real property located in the county of Dakota, state of Minnesota, more commonly known as 894 Sibley Memorial Highway, Lilydale, Dakota County, Minnesota, and being further described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Riverwood. Place 2nd Addition, subject to easements for drainage and utilities as shown on the plat of the subdivision and subje to a permanent easement for utility purposes within the strip of land which lies West of a line which is parallel to and 30 feet East of the West line, and its Southerly extension, of said Lot 1, such last men- tioned utility easement being for the benefit of, and an appurtenance to, Lot 2 In said Block 17 and together with Raesdvay t rec-rded as Dccumnt hO. 1103721. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Mathew Kundert on behalf of ACC MCCAW CELLULAR OF MPLS to replace cellular antenna and mounting platform at 894 Sibley Memorial Highway. The legal description for this property is as follows: Lot 1 Block 1, Riverwood Place 2nd Addition (PID #27-64251-01-010). The Planning Case for this matter is 2011- 20. This request for a conditional use permit to replace the wireless antennas and replace the existing mounting brackets with a platform. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk f rn States Power Co Acc Mccaw Cellular Of Mpis Thompson Lightning Protection )p y Tax Department % At&T Mobility 901 Sibley Hwy 414 Nicol Mail Po Box 97061 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1792 Minneapolis Mnn 55401 Redmond Wa 98073-9761 Northern States Power Co Northe? States Power Co Cdi St Paul General Inc % Property Tax Department % Prope Tax Department 5775 Wayzata Blvd Ste 190 414 Nicollet Mall 414 Nicoilet II Minneapolis Mn 55416-1236 Minneapolis Mn 55401 Minneapolis M 5401 Cdi aul General Inc Robert D Mcnamara Family Ltd P Riehm Harold H & Margaret 5775 to Blvd Ste 190 880 Sibley Memorial Hwy 2214 High Pointe Ct Minneapolis 55416-1236 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1736 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1914 Health Special Risk Inc Gabriel Law Building LLC Ayers David L % Cheryl Mahaffey 880 Sibley Memorial Hwy Ste 114 2121 Theresa St 4100 Medical Pkwy Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1309 Carrollton Tx 75007 Gabriel Law Bldg LLC Health Special Risk Inc cnamara Family Ltd Ptn % Richard Gabriel % Cheryl Mahaffey b Sibley morial Hwy Unit 113 670 Apache Ln 4100 Medical Pkwy Saint Paul Mn k118-1721 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1648 Carrollton Tx 75007 Schaefer/Magill LLC 857 Sibley Memorial Hwy Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Yirnt 'review Page 1 of 1 Dakota County, MN `. t ," 4p 2F� -mom 2F� - t �K -e s 4. 77, 0— u I R Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is notMap_Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 219 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. STRUCTURAL REVIEW NOTE " REFER TO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS BY: BLACK & VEATCH CORP. REPORT #: (#169619), DATED: 04/21/11 CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW STRUCTURAL REPORT IN ITS ENTIRETY. ANY DISCREPANCIES OR DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE REPORT AND THESE PLANS SHOULD BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CODES &. REQUIREMENTS: 2007 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE (2006 IBC) 2008 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE TIA/EIA-222-F GENERAL NOTES - THIS FACILITY 6 UNMANNED AND NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN HABITATION. ATECHNICIAN WILL VISIT THE SITE AS REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE: NO SANITARY SEWER SERVICE POTABLE WATER. OR TRASH DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED AND NO COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE IS PROPOSED. PROJECT DIRECTORY: ENGINEERING COMPANY: EDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 624 WATER STREET PRAIRIE DU SAC, WI 53578 CONTACT: BRUCE KIESUNG PHONE: 608.644.1449 FAX 608.644.1549 CLIENT: AT&T MOBILITY 4300 MARKET POINTE DRIVE, SU',TE 350 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 CONTACT: JOHN O'BRIEN PHONE: 952.842.4791 SITE ACQUISITION COMPANY: 7760 FRANCE AVE. S. STE, 920 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 PM CONTACT: DAVID AUSTIN PHONE: 612.804.8027 UTILITY INFORMATION ELECTRICSERVICE XCEL'cNERGY PROVIDER: PHONE: 800895.4999 TELEPHONE SERVICE QWEST PROVIDER: PHONE: 1.800.777.9594 i TO aBiNNtIXIITCN O: PARIKaPANISU UETe GROUNC j ACMIFS dE:G�E YCU GG.N M NNewrA e+LL GaPHel rrtE cNE rlu ILCA.'S2-OR FAX AIOUTEI- MN STAIUIE rSWrtEFS MiN.OF �e H NOi10E BEFOREYW IXUVA7E ENGINEER SEAL SITE INFORMATION. SITE LOCATION: 594 SIBLEY MEM. HWY LILYDALE, MN 55118 SITE NAME: LILYDALE SITE #: MNL03054 FA #: 10081765 TOWER OWNER AT&T TOWERS CONTACT: KATHY MARVEL PHONE: 678.867.4228 LAT: 44.9041670 LONG: -93.1313890 NO FCC# RAD. CENTER: 74' ZONING JURISDICTION: CITY OF LILYDALE, DAKOTA COUNTY 4 ipb &td FTPtt ...... fid A' v �' LiC�ttS _ CfESSIONAL ` �is;C'iINEtL� •q'TIIs .�=7S4� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SET WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION OTHER THAN THE IXCEPTIONS NOTED IN THE SHEET INDEX AND THAT i AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. -•.' fir_ im DRIVING - a Slafof4300 MARKET POINTE DR STE 350: M: NNEAPOUSp n9T—d JOHNSON AVES TumLa on JOHKSON AVES Tum RI91-4 an MINNESOTA DR - 90 02 ml Tum Right an FRANCE AVE S(CR-17 S) -90 02 rN Toka1 ponto1 Wd E-909.8 ml Tcke.0 070/ST PAUVAUBERT tEl onto IJSE N ta...vrd 9 PAUL go 35 ml Take ed D102/M9L13--90 D.3 ml Tum Rfuht on SIBLEY MEMORIAL H WY(MN-73) - U. 02 mi A"fr at694 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY. MENDOTA HEIC TS, on the R!9M TRIP DISTANCE: 1341 "I- IT—: 18 mita &X okPPROXfALS AT&T RF: ATE:-– _ ... __ DATE:--- AT&T AT&T OPERATIONS: _._-- DATE: AT&T SITE AQ DATE: ._. OCL _..........._.... DATE.: _ PROPERTY OWNER: .......... DATE: MUNICIPAL: ____, DATE:._.. .. _..__ SHEET INDEX; NO.; PAGE TITLE- REV. T-1 TITLE SHEET 2 C-1 SITE PLAN 2 C -IA EQUIPMENT LAYOUT 0 C-2 SITE ELEVATION 2 C-3 ANTENNA LAYOUT AND SCHEDULES 2 C-4 RF DATA SHEET 0 C-5 RF DATA SHEET 0 C-6 ANTENNA CONFIGURATIONS 0 C-7 EQUIPMENT DETAILS 0 C-8 EQUIPMENT DETAILS 2 C-9 EQUIPMENT DETAILS 0 E-1 ELECTRICAL PLAN 0 Gl GROUNDING PLAN 0 G-2 GROUNDING. DETAILS 0 G-3 GROUNDING DETAILS 2 GN -1 GENERAL NOTES 0 GN -2 GENERAL NOTES 0 I REVI810n1 RESCRtPTION9 n I PUELrnWArYcasrm�c3la+OPAWINGs I 0 FNVt STAMF42r DRAW,NGS-CHMIGEO OF(.UFIDWG PASE G3 I HNx sr,N.rcEO oawwlNcs-nccEO RFSEc�9 nEAmvIUE ANmINAs rior 9nrE wx�oll PNa1EGi NUMeElt. 5611 FYE NAME ra_ nP(1EIIMWARY Ca; n LrE oanwrlGs-mrnlll a Lh oanwwGs-oxac/It SIAMPE➢ BNALS: 0 PWAL CtYS-N/o7/11 i fTIAL GaS-ayyJ.r/11 Z FHAI. CD'S-06Nx1i sHFtT wMaETr. 7-1 0E CONSULr:NG ENGINET roles: - ,HE F L O TNG MI EXACT DES) NNE MOUNTING FI?nM= APPLICniION i0 MEET ,HE FOLLOWING MINIMUM DESIGN RECUIREMENTS: M AINT URAL CIVALE IlY TO S.PPORT ANI NAA F'P.NEL CONFIGUit4il0N MhINTAIN E9UIVALNA FRA E OF PANEL SEPARATION MAN -RATED ANTENNA FRAME OF 25. LES (MIN) JJ -SECURE ALL COAX &JUMPERS l^/LTH CLAMPS (NO 21P TIES ALLOWED) � COAX X ROUTING:VOTES: � k� l.y I. ALL ECIAID BROWNIE EXISTING. UNLESS SP..CIfIEG OTHERWISE. 2. WEATHERPROOFING 0 -Al L COAX CABLES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER MANUFACTURER - RECOMMENDATIONS. NORTH �R o m _ _ 10 1 .!J 1/2" DIA. ll-BOI i [f ,tibti k ` 1/2' D!.4 U -BOLT /�' 2-318' DIA., U-T'IPE % 1 � LONG SWEEPING 3. FIBER , 1 BE ROUTED SWITHARE BENDS, NO SP' 9EIVD5 ARE ALLOWED. (2) EXIST NO 1/2" DIA, COAX --' - EXISTING 75' M'JN01OLC _ slr:ucTuenL nNP(vsls NnrE. , o J o ' 11��JJjIII N d L u \ L JNCER PIPE IF BILLETED 1.9`DIAx12'0"PIPE T-1, FIRE MAYBELETEDFOR WITHA ANTENNA MOUNTING /( ' y CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW SIRUCIURAL ANALYSISO (12) EXISTING Ai«111/4'DIA. CONRUCHON P Q O COAX RUMS FCR COMPATAL'ILPY WRH Si DRAWINGS . -� C0.4X L ---GENU' BLAH E AND HANDRAL SUPPORT EXISTING AT&T 1 1/4' COAX _ C) O E%I ITC 3/E RET CABLE ..�(Y (2) EXISTING 1/2" COAX a` 7'--- \ _ N All) ENNA MCJVSING PIPES r, < 1 \' 1' 1 REA OF PROPITE, ANTENNA PD\-rFORM PtROIM AI ELY 2 CL M! -0N 10\V PROFILE I' LATI OP. `;IT 93SQ. FT. M ,; .U' 10 TNOPC;LE DI (VEPPY) ANNRFJ PARI 4,CPAI2l A6 SHOWN W/ T IPPER SUPPORT RAL Cl r PROPOSED DC E-AWC BUNDLES AND (1) FIBER BUNDLE - (I) PROPOSED DC 8 -AWG BUND) f5 EXISTING 3j B" DIA. Q AND (1) FIBER BUNDLELE(LTE) RET.CONTROL `k'} Q )NCI UDFS (3) 2 3/8', 96' PIPE MOUNTS MONOPOLE ANTENNA PLATFORM a'o°APPRO'"ATE C-2 SCALE: NTS C TOWER COAX ROUTING C'2 $CAI F: NT$ {] {0� kL i�9 6.4 J W �,d� ® 6 (6`ij y /7+ rowu>NOLEs: suTucluRALANALrISNOTC: 1. CCNIRACIOP TO RCVILWSIRUCIURAL ANALYSIS FOR .SII?UCTUPI,LAfNALISISCOMPLEI(DBYBUVONJ/"I `II ('LLI'ROJECI=1696IRj C'OMPAinPILII`/ NIH CONSTRUCTION DRA'W!NGS. CONERACTOR TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW THE TOWER, CTVRnL ANALYSIS FOR INcC HTA 1D CPAXROLNC T, TONER UI RAKES 1BFTWEEN IEDRAIINGS,n 2. Cf:NIiRACiOR'O VERIFY HEIGHT AND DIRECTION OF HEI/GhU AND COAX ROUTING, ANY DN{T PANICLES BFTW EN THE CF2AWINGS. ANI ENNA WITH PPCJECT MAVPC-ER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND TCWFR FLAN: SHOULD BE BPOIJC.T TO THE P.TTENIION 3. ALL ANTENNA PZIlJJ HS i0 B' FROIN TRUE NORTH. OF THE PROJECT MANAGER PRIOR TO BID[-IING ALDJECTALLF. ICN 4. VERIFYPROPOSED COAX ROUTING WITH STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS' EXISTIN^ANT=ANA 71F +=' _ F.PPROXIIJIATEL/ r7'-2" CY.ISTING MOIJNr NOT SETFOR CLARITY' CL OF XBTING ;b)AiuT PANEL ANTENNAS - 7aTZ,,, EXIx ZING ANI TUNA PANELS iG BE'�.EP'J+CEU WITH(6)Y II'REIN(Al PHA CANIIMA) ANTEMTA, '' I.D(3)POVJERWAVFAna NNAS(P.FTA)✓✓/T\I: S i OBF.REFLA;.ED WJ (fXIBTINO T-ARMMTFO-W/ HAND NEW AN tNNA PLATFO'!M f.F.IL) uII L - � -v^-..,� -� � � 2 djs -1 - 5^ ` ,F 7};_�` ^ NTE Tm'1 •-.,. { - ' G, , -t�}a ffi `' 3- --+'°y$ - y' �..}� 9J y { 1 ��^ '` `�'�` n �. ` f - ( V, N- 1 #.. -4 2 i „ 4DF .. - - GENL'I?ALNOILS 1• ALLC.ABLFSSHAL BE GROUNDED VIIF' CABLE GROUNDING KITS. FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, A. GROUNDPJGATTHEANTNV L'V1. B GROUNDING AT f/ID LEVEL WHEN TOWERS WHICH ARE OVER 2110 ADDITIONAL CABLE GROUNDING REQUIRED. C GROUNDING AT BASE OF TOWER PRIORTO TURNING FORMCNTAL. D. GROUNDING OUTSIDE THE EQDI NENTSHELTERFi EN TYPORT E G"YVUNDING INSII>E THE EQUIPMCNTSHELILR AT I'PE ENTR`/FORT, _..ALLP120POSEDCROUNDINGBA.2DOWNLEADSA.E TORE'IEI?MINAIEDIO,HEEXI511IVGADJACENTGROUNDINGBAl,DJWNLEr,D'_A.V11NI(✓UMGIST.ANCEOf4'D'BELOW ' CRGJG NCINBAR. TERMINATIONS MA`/BE EY.O'4=RMIC OR COPA>rtES510N. 3. V -P I18CCIFFIRACTORS SHALL BT RESPONSIBLE cOR VERIFYING THE ANTENNA AILD THE CABLE CONFlCURATIpN, MAKE AND M.ODFLS. PRIOR i0 INSiALLA710N. 4. ANTENNA CONTRACTOR SHALL PURCf LASE A ITT IOW PROFILE PLATFORM MGUNT WITH HANDRAIL TO FENS AILED BY SUB'`ONTRACTOR (CCNTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY). DESERVED Cl FAA' IRE ANTENNA4 8 DISHES C) AS, AC; - { 5, ALL CONNECTICNS FOR HANGERS SUPPORTS, BRACING, EC. SHALL BE IN'STALiED PER TOWER MANUEACTU REP, 5 SPECIFICATION & RECOMMENDATIONS. 1 Q �__E%ISTINC T LI M i 6. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL REFERFNCF THE, TOWER STRUCTURAL. ANALYSIS/DESIGN D2AV/INGS FOR DIRFCTIC'NS CN CABIF DISITHRUTIGNTROUTING. DISH C oU AGL COAXIAL. ANTENNA CABLE NOTES d 4 .0. C a 4 p < I. TY'NS ANDTRU SUES OF THET AND NA CABLE ARE BASED ON EGIMATCO -[NGTH5- PRIOR TO ORDERING CABLE SUBCONIRACiO? SI -TALL VCDIFI' ACTUAL LCNC-TI BASCU C)rl CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND NOTIFY THE PROJECT MANAGER If ACTUAL LENGTHS EXCEED ESTIMATED LEINGIHS. 2. S13CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE DOWFFTID OF EACH ANTENNA WITH A DIGITAL LEVEL. 3. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM COAX COL OR CODING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO •-ANTENNA SYSTEM LABELING STANDARD' ND00,327 SPEER i0 IT LA7E37 VERSION. '- G DRAWN BY: JAH 6 c 77 EXISTING ELin L' E MONOPOLE ¢ n (- _ 4. ALL JUMPERS TO Till ANTENNAS THOM TFIE MAIN TRANSMISSION LINE WILL BE 1/2' DIA LDf AND Sr14LL NOT EXCEED S'1J'. 5. ALL COAXIAL CABLE WILL SE SECURED IO THE DESIGNED SUPPORTIV SIRUCIURE. IN AAPPROVED MANNER, AT DISIANC_S NOT 10 EXCEFD 4 - OC. EY BDK Q O 43CIIECKCD O Z a 0 3 s a Q Z 1,3 i . 6. CONTRACTOR MUST FOLLOW AI.I MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS RFGAJUDING BOTH THE INSTALLATION AND GROUNDING OF ALL COAXIAI. CABLES, CONNECTORS. ANTENNAS, AND AI.L OTHER EQUILMFN'T, 7, WEA THERPROOF ALL ANIENNA CONNECTORS WITH SELF AMALGAMAT IN G TAPE. WEATPRPRCCHNG SHALL PECOM>LE;EDINSTRICT ACCORDANCE WIIHA(&T STANDARDS AIJTFNNA MOUNTING NOTES 1. DESIGN AND CONSTRJCPCN OF ANTENNA SI1PP` +RTS SHALL CONFORM TO CUP ,'PA7 ANSI/TI.A-222 STANDARDS CR.APPUCABI.I LOCAL CODES. 2. ALL STEL MATERIALS SHALL BE GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICAION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A123 "ZINC(HOT-DIP GALVANIZED) COATINGS ON IRON AND STEEL PRCCUCT UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED, PLCIT -E: 1/3/2011 1M]IECTHI)M- PRETIMINAll-S: 'OG EXISTING AT&T_ Z rt 1 /-EQUIPM NT SHELTER S; LX STING FENCED / w O EQUIPMENT) (i c �. , ^� .. 3. ALLBOLTSANCHORSANDMISC=LHAHARDWARELANEGUS HARDWARE SHALL BE GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM AI 53'ZINCCOSTING(HOEFNP) ON IRON AVD STEEL HARDWARE", UNLESS OIHN2YVISE N'OIED. Z. DAMAGED GALVANIZED SURFACES SHAII. BF RFPAIRFD BY COLD GAI VAN1.11NG IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A7E0 5. ALL ANTENNA MOUNTS SHALL BE IVSTALLFD'NITH LOGY, NUTS, DOUBLE NU AND SHALL BETORQUED i0 M.ANUcA(:TURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. S � LTE DRnNN':5 n'.r'%0/11 B LTE D'?.NING� L13/i>/11 r: D i ( b. ANTENNA SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE ALL AWE NA MOUNTING PIPES ARE PLUMB AND LEVEL E M>ED 1 Aux „ i'rROM GRADE �ElUKH1IG `EXISTING BALARDS (TTP) TO TOP OF FOJNI]A BON Jill BY r.. J;;s. - 7. MULTI PORT ANTENNAS: TERMINATE UNUSED ANTENNA PORTS WITH CONNECTOR CAP &),'JvMHERPROOF THOROUGHLY. JUNIPERS FROM THE MASSA JSI TERMINATE TO OPPOSITE POI AR17ATION'51N EA0I SECTOR. ,.. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD THE SERIAL V, SECTOR AI ID LOEB ON Of EACH ACTUATOR INSTALLED AT THE ANTENNAS AND PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION TO AT&T -. 9. LIMES I & 2 r0 HAVE TMA MOUNTED ON PIPE BELOW ANIENLIAS AS CLOSE TO ANTENNA AS FEASIBLE PREFERABLY In A VERTICAL POSIT 1 I I FI 5 5/2.1.11) - � Y 10. .TUB CCA RACTCR JHALL IN:;TALL ANTEI INA PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR INSfALLA T!C)N AND GRO JIJDINI, e-� L I TOWER PROFiLE (EAST ELEVATION] TOWER ELEVATION 11. ANTENNAB TO BE P11-11111 1110111 INISTALLINGON TOWER, trN 3e<, C_2 SCALE: 11"X 17'-I ^-20' 22"X34"-1"-10' (SOUTHEAST ELEVATION] 12. ACTUATORS TO BE PRESET PRIOR TO INSTALLING ON TOA ER. 13. BOOM AZIMUIH IO BE FIELD ADJUSTED BY CONIRACIOR ACCORDING IO CL'INRENT RIDS. C-2 WIP.. Cl] S"i SING ENS TNI E., TNG I L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - I _ _ - _ - __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _- - _ - - _ _ _ ._ - - - _ - _ -- _ - - - - _ __ _ - - _ - _ - - - - - -_._ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _- _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - T I � =.�cr Corp "Inc F.v�werP;, me I -_ -- _- __- - - - - -- REMOTE RADIO HEADS [RRH'S) ANTENNA ANO TRANSMISSION CABLE REQUIREMENTS PART NL'LnEER QTY [TRH LOCA) ION MINIIv1UM CLEARANCES DC CAVE [VERIFY WITH CURRENT RFOS] SECTOR RRH :Y'E (MA%. DISIANCE H201Ji AFOVE SECTOR EXISTING Q AW'G PROPOSED ANTENNA MODEL AZIIAUIH CEN F12 ANIENNAMODEL CIMUI CENIDE,, FJ8DP TRUflK FINEPJLIMPER Al 7772 -POI UWAVE 710° 74' 80010766-KATHREIN I1D' 74' Y, X iC ti A" 0" 80,110766-KA7HREIN 901 74' f&L98Z (X12-50.100 FnQb8 ( 5000 G .. %772-POWERWAVE ?ID' 74' 50110706-KAfHRE1N 110" 74' % % _) Bl 7752-POWERW.4VE 210" 7J' P65-17-XLH�P-PD'NERWAVE 210" 74' X X x0 oy E2 SLUED/BLKc2 C.) Pall 7-XLHJ2R-POWERWAVE 795' 74' I&L98B-D02-S0000 IN{98BLLl'rti000 Z:1 77.5_'-POWERWAVE 210` 74' Posh-XLH{tR-POWERWA'/E 210" 74' X X �` CI 7752-POWEP,.AVE 330" 7e H0010766-KATHREI11 3.t0" 74' X X 'j� 6'Q 1 80070706-I(ATIC-IN 330" 74' FL+LP98{%?2-.ED ll{9 10-11 1 C-:3 7752-�(1W Ef:'A/AVE .�30" 74' 80010766-KA?Hf<EIN ,T.10" 74' X I � =.�cr Corp "Inc F.v�werP;, me I -_ -- _- __- - - - - -- REMOTE RADIO HEADS [RRH'S) MANUFACTURER PART NL'LnEER QTY [TRH LOCA) ION MINIIv1UM CLEARANCES DC CAVE 1 SECTOR RRH :Y'E (MA%. DISIANCE H201Ji AFOVE 2ELOW SIDES Q AW'G CCLORCODE ANIENNA) G ALGAIEL- I UCEI 11 11E 1-11 Ian' I6' A" 0" 2 8 REfi SLK GED (RACER c� E,jO V Hi ALCAfll-I UCF11111 0fn-;) 110 16' S" 7 2 8 RED/B'.K WHIfE TRACEP. ALCATE,I.-I UCFNT(700 NI-) 16.4' ''6' 6" v 2 fl SLUED/BLKc2 C.) I � =.�cr Corp "Inc F.v�werP;, me I -_ -- _- __- - - - - -- SURGE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM MANUFACTURER PART NL'LnEER QTY LOCATION RAYCAP DCbd5S:N:M 1 :MCUNTED INSIDE PROPOSED LTE EQUIPMENT CABINET R YCAP DCb _'-N_ 189F I MOUNTED ON EMTING TOWER I � =.�cr Corp "Inc F.v�werP;, me I -_ -- _- __- - - - - -- ————————————————————————————————————————————————--——————--————--——————————--——————————————————— I I I�. I I I� I� I: I' I I I I• I' I� 1: I CII I I; I : i, 1 jlifll Ily I a I: is I : F,RErz I: I; I: I; 1^ I: I: I: I: I: I: I: I' 1° I� I• I' I: I: I: I: I: CABLE nxn' �I 10 O� �O I ©e,ce wN.minne euc_wyela.wc I I I --- — — — — — — — — — — ——————— —— ——— —— — — — — —— N.O:RTHWEST ASSOCIATEDCONSULTANTS, 4300 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.23.1.2561 planners@i-iacplannirig.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: September 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit for Seasonal Room CASE NO: Case No. 11-26; NAC Case 254.04 — 11.31 APPLICANT(S): Frank Pilney LOCATION: 1867 Warrior Drive ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Frank Pilney is seeking a wetlands permit to construct a seasonal room over a portion of an existing deck at 1867 Warrior Drive. The project would cover about half of the deck, and extend two feet beyond the edge of the deck toward the wetland. The new addition would result in a setback from the wetland of approximately 80 feet. The property is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. Analysis: The subject property includes the existing deck off of the rear of the home, as noted, along with a finished lawn area about 40 feet deep. The lawn is separated from the wetland by a retaining wall, and more than 40 feet of natural vegetation at the wetland itself. The proposed seasonal room would extend two feet closer to the wetland than the existing deck, including new posts and footings. The room appears to be approximately 15 feet in width, resulting in an additional 30 square feet of impervious surface. Otherwise, there is expected to be no impact on the property or on the wetland. Due to the distance and the extensive natural vegetation buffer, the proposed project should not impact the wetland itself. Wetlands Permit. The Wetlands Ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of any designated wetland requires approval of a Wetlands Permit. The purpose of the Wetlands Ordinance is to ensure that alterations within the buffer area adjacent to wetlands do not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland area. Engineer Review. The City's engineering staff should review the permit application to verify that all construction activities will follow the City's Land Disturbance Guidance document. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Approval of the wetlands permit to construct an enclosed seasonal room over an existing deck, based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to a requirement that all construction activities follow the Land Disturbance Guidance document. 1) Denial of the wetlands permit, based on a finding that the projected work will have negative impacts on the existing wetland and is inconsistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands. The proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, especially with the native vegetation plantings which serve to filter the runoff into the wetland. The project appears to meet the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application Materials Dated June 3, 2010 2. Site Location Map 2 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 1867 Warrior Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit: The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project results in only nominal increases in impervious surface with an extensive existing vegetative buffer adjacent to the wetland edge. 3. The wetland itself will be untouched. 4. No other soil or vegetation will be disturbed as a result of this work. Site Location Map City Limits City Roads WaterNVetlands parcels Major Roads MunicipalBoundaries September 9, 2011 Dr_ Frank Pilney 1867 Warrior Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Dr. Pilney: alf- f4endota Ifeights Thank you for completing your planning application (2011-26). The application was reviewed and determined complete on August 29, starting the official review period, which will expire October 29, 2011. The Mendota Heights Planning Commission will discuss this application at their regular meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 2011. Please plan to attend this meeting which begins at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Assistant to the City Administrator cc: Planning Case File #2011-26 b FA)-, (651) 452-8940 -4 Ifirtorg�t Curve m Mendota Hegghts' MN 55118 - (651) 452-1850 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Date of Application Fee Paid PH. Applicant Name: (Last) (First) E -Mail Address: Address: (Number & Street) , '1' (City) (State) (zip) Owner Name: (First) (Last) Address, (City) (State) (zip) (Number & Street) /Al Street Location of Property in Question. Legal Description & PIN of Property, (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) f"J_5 (4- me-old'olte'-tri 117 Type of Request Rezoning -Conditional Use Permit -Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. -Preliminary/Final Plat Approval -Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property PresentUse Proposed Zoning of Property 'z_; . — Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval - Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I herebv declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. daylight I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during ylight hours. (Signature of.Applicant) Date Received (Signature of Owner) � ----------------- 110 659 QL) ----------------- ;Y7 777� r r 17 5, Mao J tot 0, ut 706 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Frank Pilney to construct a seasonal room attached to the rear of the home at 1867 Warrior Drive. The legal description for this property is as follows: Lot 3 Block 1, Ponds of Mendota Heights (PID #27-75900-030-01). The planning case for this matter is 2011-26. This request for a wetlands permit to construct a seasonal room within 100 feet of a wetland. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk Print Preview Dakota County, MN Page 1 of I Disclaimer Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 281 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Girouard Lynn M & Kenneth P Beckmann Paul J & Cynthi Stueve Kent M Tste 1902 South Ln 1882 South Ln 642 Callahan PI Saint Paul Mn 55118-4328 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4336 Saint Paul Mn 5511$-432$ Mazzoni James N & Margaret 640 Callahan PI Saint Paul Mn 55118-4336 Huntley Nathan & Shannon 612 High Ridge Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4351 Joyce Justin M & Elizabeth 1862 South Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Pirkl James R & Angela R 1825 Warrior Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-4355 Wildenauer Jerrold & Gail M 1859 Warrior Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-4355 Canniff Mackenzie Jr & K A 1883 Warrior Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-4355 Dill Dewayne E & Larae A 1910 Knob Rd Saint Paul Mn 55118-4325 Lapean Dorothy J 620 Callahan PI Saint Paul Mn 55118-4336 Dobie Terrence R Tste 1892 South Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4328 Wagner Eric J 624 Callahan PI Saint Paul Mn 55118-4336 Bruber Laureen Marie 1852 South Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4328 Chlebeck Lawrence S & Jo E 613 High Ridge Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4351 Peterson Paula M 1875 Warrior Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Kulhanek Matthew C & Colleen 610 Callahan PI Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4336 Schueppert Janice A 1901 Warrior Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-4355 Butchert Michael J & Carol 608 High Ridge Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-4351 Rust Terry H & Cynthia A 1872 South Ln Saint Paul Mn 55118-4328 Pilney Frank & Joan P Tsta 1867 Warrior Dr Mendota Heights Mn 5511 Fox William S & Jane E G 1851 Warrior Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-4355 Independent School Dist 1 1897 Delaware Ave Mendota Heights Mn 5511 Esslinger Karl & Teresa 632 Callahan PI Saint Paul Mn 55118-4336 48070 Olson Mernoriat Highway, Suite 202, Golden 'Valley, IVIN: 55422 telephone: 763.231.2555 r-acsirn.ile: 763.23 11,2561 plan ners@nacplanning.corn if I_ V1 roli� TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman DATE: September 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Antenna Modification CASE NO: Planning Case No. 11-27, NAC Case 254.04 - 11.26 APPLICANT(S): New Cingular Wireless, LLC LOCATION: 750 Main Street ZONING: MU PUD, Mixed Use GUIDE PLAN: Mixed Use Background and Description of Request: New Cingular Wireless, LLC is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an upgrade to their existing wireless communication antennas located upon the clock tower of "The Village of Mendota Heights" development. "The Village of Mendota Heights" project is located north of Highway 110 and east of Dodd Road (750 Main Street). The applicants wish to upgrade the antennas affixed to the clock tower to ensure successful, secure and ongoing operation of their communication facilities. The primary equipment changes involve the following: • Replacement of six existing antennas with six new antennas. • The addition of six tower -mounted amplifiers (to be attached to the antennas). • The addition of a tower -mounted surge protector. No significant visual changes to the clock tower are expected as part of the antenna replacement. The Zoning Ordinance allows for wireless communication towers and antennas in all zoning districts upon approval of a conditional use permit. Analysis: As noted, the applicants wish to upgrade to their existing wireless communication antennas located upon the clock tower of "The Village of Mendota Heights" development. The proposed antenna replacement is intended to ensure successful, secure and ongoing operation of their communication facilities. The existing antennas (to be replaced) are integral to the clock tower design. As shown on the submitted building elevation, the antennas flank the clock face and are elevated approximately 49 feet above the adjacent ground elevation. Specific modifications to the existing equipment include the following • Replacement of six existing antennas with six new antennas. • The addition of six tower -mounted amplifiers (to be attached to the antennas). • The addition of a tower -mounted surge protector. As noted, no change to the existing antenna height (49 feet) is proposed. The antenna upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the clock tower. Because the antennas are integral to the tower design and the tower is surrounded by commercial land uses ("The Village on Mendota heights"), impacts are considered expected to be consistent with other mechanical equipment elements in the area. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: A. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with conditions, based upon a finding that the proposed antenna and accessory equipment modifications meet all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and are consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit criteria allowing such features. Conditions may include: A building permit shall be obtained prior to new antenna and related equipment installation. 2. The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all FCC regulations. 3. The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all applicable electrical codes. 2 B. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the proposed antenna and accessory equipment modifications are inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and/or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation: The proposed antenna replacement will be nearly undetectable from a visual standpoint and have no physical impact upon neighboring properties. With this in mind, our office recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the preceding conditions. Supplementary Materials: Application Materials dated July 27, 2011 3 750 Main. Street r_ N\, Ox:.. Site Location Map - City Limits City Roads Water/Wetlands parcels �� Major Roads > _.,__ Municipal Boundaries �r � LA, t 0t rd doo._ 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, 651 452 1;35U www.mendota-heights.cor i, APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. t-0 t(-1-1 Date of Application Fee Paid r)�w C, - Applicant Applicant Name: $�� %�'`$� IIJ PH: (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: rvt �C�.� ✓ "�� ,� r <_� c �� i�r1 ��`� Address: d(-2,S_%i`�� r /!'tfv,�r✓ (Number & Street) (City) Owner Name: jv)c�_�+ l�✓'�%�s��r �d�i (Last')(First) Address: c2l2�_ v'Vi"r,`1�7.- (Number & Street) Street Location of Property in Question: _ (State) (Zip) (M) (City) (State) (Zip) Legal Description & PIN of Property:: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) L_ A- C� 33 Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U_D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit _Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. 1 further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Signature of Ap'cant) Date Received 271 r (Sigofiature of Owner) Conditional Use Permit Checklist Wireless (modified 212011) Page I of 3 Statement of Intent New Cingular Wireless, LLC, (akaAT &,"' N -I jo silit-y) is proposing n-todif caition.-Nojrk at an ex sting QiI'eless cCstiii�?L>F31cat to Vin`-?iit ii3F afe:C at: ?i� �,`�ail1tree. t'ti3 r7 result di techndlduical III7provements, Cingusai/r�;T&T r:'ill be ,pc, GI _R its di�irilLntt atldn equipment to ensure the suecessful, secure and ongoing die atidn of its comm ui ic.aticn facilities. c t "� i 4 T j i 3 i�maintenancet CI Li a t T ie sf euific u grade actin il.� a..ill ii_vd�:e . and uljLrading df antenn, at the telecommuni.catidn site by replacing the existing six -6) antennas with six (6) nenewantennas, ad -ding six 1'61 Tower �5'tourted :knipliiiers MMAs) i.vhich at.tich to the '1 �E '3 antennas, adding surge protectors, three 13,� H one per sector (nioupts with antennas), adding DC cable, fiber o -otic cable-, and. 3118" RET cable. MArker hOWA—!QthaMPexins s'wN;v=b : hff l'-"31-2 Cell Site Nano: gg= d Fixed Asset NumbOr 10122626 STRUCTURE LEASE AGREEMENT TMS LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated as of the latter of the signature dates below (the "Effective Date"), is entered into by Mendota Heights Town Center LLC, a Minnesota corporation, having a mailing address of 1221 West Lake Street, Suite 209, Minneapolisy Minnesota 55408 (hereinafter referred to as "Landlord") and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, having a mailing address of 12555 Cingular Way, Suite 1300, Alpharetta, GA 30004 (hereinafter referred to as "Tenant"). BACKGROUND Landlord owns or controls that certain real estate, together with. all rights and privileges arising in connection therewith, located at 250 Main Street, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55108, in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota (collectively, the 'Property"). Tenant desires to use a portion of the Property in connection with its federally licensed communications business. Landlord desires to grant to Tenant the right to use a portion of the Property in accordance with this Agreement. The parties agree as follows: 1. E Qf J!RyAjgffS. Landlord leases to Tenant a certain portion of the Property consisting of limited rooftop space and parking garage space consisting of approximately 216 sq. ft. (12" x 18') for the antennas and initial installation as described on attacbed Exhibit 1 (collectively, the "Premises"). 2. URAM TEU U4g. The Premises may be used for the transmission and reception of communications signals and at the Tenants sole costs, the installation, construction. and routine maintenance and repair of communications fixtures and related equipment, cables, accessories and improvements, including, associated antennas, equipment shelters or cabinets and fencing and any other items necessary to the successful and secure use of the Premises (collectively, the "Communication Facility") as defined in Exhibit i and subject to Landlord's Construction Procedures as described in Exhibit 2. Tenant further has the right to, replace and repair any portion of the Communication Facility so long as such repairs and replacements are consistent with Exhibit 1, and subject to Construction ,Procedures described in Exhibit 2. Tenant shall at _ all time have access to the Communication Facility, as dtscrtW in article 12,- for the purpose of routine maintenance and repairs without notice to Landlord providing other tenants are not unreasonably disturbed_ All of the foregoing uses shall hereinafter collectively be referred to and defined as the -Permit" Use.- Landlord and Tenant agree dist any portion of the Communication Facility that may be conceptually described on Exhibit 1 shall be deemed to limit Tenant's Permitted Use. If Exhibit 1 includes drawings of the initial installation of the Communication Facility, Landlord's execution of this Agreement will signify Landlord's approval of Exhibit 1 subject to compliance with Landlord's Construction Procedures as described in Exhibit 2. For a period of ninety (90) days following the start of construction and any future alterations, Landlord grants Tenant, its subtenants, licensees and sublicensees, the right to use such portions of Landlord's contiguous, adjoining or surrounding property as may reasonably be required during construction and installation of the Communications Facility (the "Surrounding Property', subject to eompiiance with Landlord's Construction Procedures as described in Exhibit 2. Tenant has the right to install and operate transmission cables from the equipment shelter or cabinet to the antennas, electric lines from the building electrical room to the equipment shelter or cabinet and communication lines from the building electrical room to the equipment shelter or cabinet, and to make Property improvements, alterations, upgrades or additions appropriate for Tenant's use ("Tenant Changes") as defined in Exhibit 1 and consistent with Landlords sUDUM Lftw soar IN VVrrNFSS VnWREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be effective as of the last date written below. I� Mendota Heights Town Center LLC, a Minnesota Corporation. C By: Print Name: Its: � L c Date: b —PC— WA "TENANT" ;few Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: AT&f Mobil' Corporation, its Manager By: Print Name: Andrew Saclreiter Its: Real Estate & ConsU etiOII Manauer Date: [ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON TDE NEXT' SAGE) 10 suv�L— CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Mathew Kundert on behalf of Mendota Heights Town Center LLC to replace cellular antenna and mounting platform at 750 Main Street. The legal description for this property is as follows: Lot 1 Block 6, Mendota Heights Town Center (PID #27-48335-06-010). The Planning Case for this matter is 2011-27. This request for a conditional use permit to replace the wireless antennas mounted on the clock tower_ This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk Covenant Properties LLCCit f Mendota Heights Cochrane Harold Jr & Joan Ernest &Shirley Hinson 1101 toric Cury 1937 Dodd Rd 3211 Black Oak Dr Saint Pau M\ 551 1 8-41 67 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4307 Eagan Mn 55121-2334 city�� endota Heights Mendota Heights Town Center LL City f Mendota Heightsv . 1221 Lake St W Ste 209 1101 Vi ria Curr 1101 Victo Cury Saint Paul 55118-4167 Saint Paul Mn 118-4167 Minneapolis Mn 55408 Sko heim Jill M Villa At Mendota Heights LLC Dakota County Cda g 1221 L e St W Ste 209 1228 Town Centre Dr 1963 Oak St Eagan Mn 55123 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Minneapo Mn 55408 Villa i3 At Mendota Heights LLC Risimini James D Bank Of America Na g 714 Linden St 400 Countrywide Way 1221 La k t W Ste 209 08 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Simi Valley Ca 93065 Minneapolis 554 Glynn Stephen C Miller Joan F & Robert Villag t Mendota Heights LLC 1943 Oak St 1941 Oak St Unit 103 1221 Lak St W Ste 209 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Minneapolis n 55408 Byrne Linda Marie Bauer Rebecca L Geiger Norman & Corrine 1955 Oak St 1953 Oak St 1947 Oak St Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 g Helland Paul A & Judy K Jacobson Robert G & Mary E Haggerty Paul D 1961 Oak St 706 Linden St 704 Linden St Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Cragg Julie A Cr Of Mendota Heights Minea Marjorie R Tste 1101 oria Cury 772 Ridge PI 712 Lindgren St Saint Paul Mn 55118-4339 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Saint Paul 55118-4167 Gbre LLC Cit endota Heights Me ota Heights Town Center LL Y %Charlton West Llc-Martin Schreier 122 St W Ste 209 1101 Vic 'a Cury 420 Summit Ave 3Rd Floor Minneapolis n 55408 Saint Paul 5118-4167 Saint Paul Mn 55102 Minea ar orie R Tste City endota Heights Men�}ata Heights Town Center LL 1101 Vi a Cury 1221 Lak t W Ste 209 772 Ridg I Minneapolis 5408 Saint Paul 8 4339 Saint Paul 5118-4167 C "endota Heights City Mendota Heights Vict a Cury 1101 Vict is Cury Sant Paul 55118-4167 Saint Paul 5118-4167 Kuller Douglas H City Of Heights 708 Linden St 1101 Vict�ndota Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Saint Pau4167 Pennington Judith A Brandis Henry J Tste 1937 Oak St 710 Linden St Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Berg David Mend to Heights Town Center LL PO Box 75982 1221 St W Ste 209 Saint Paul Mn 55175 Minneapoli n 55408 Platten James C & Barbara A 1951 Oak St Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Beniek Barry J & Lea G 765 Ridge PI Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4327 Mckasy Mark J 1939 Oak St Mendota Heights Mn 55118 rint Preview Dakota County, MN Page 1 of 1 Disclaimer.- Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Ma Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, —23-9–feet - 9 9 1 inch = appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. ENGINEERING 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2008 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE TIA/EIA-222—F OR LATEST EDITION GENERAL NOTES u THE FACILIIY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VISIT THE SITE AS REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE; NO SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, POTABLE WATER, OR TRASH DISPOSALS REQUIRED AND NO COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE IS PROPOSED. SITE INFORMATION POPERTY OWNER: MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER, LLC 1221 WEST LAKE STREET, SUITE 209 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 BUILDING OWNER: MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER, LLC SITE NAME: ROGERS LAKE SITE NUMBER: MNLO3562 SITE CONTACT: NOT AVAILABLE SITE ADDRESS: 750 MAIN STREET CLOCK TOWER MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 COUNTY: DAKOTA LATITUDE (NAD 83): 44' 53' 5.1e N AARON EVANS 44.68477 LONGITUDE (NAD 83): 9S 7' 18.2" W RAGHAVENDRA PARIGI —93.12178 GROUND ELEVATION: 868' AMSL - RAD CENTER: 49' AGL ZONING JURISDICTION: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS POWER COMPANY: XCEL 1-800-481-4700 TELEPHONE COMPANY: OWEST 1-800-244-1111 IF USING 11 "x17" PLOT, DRAWINGS WILL BE HALF SCALE z , U [I 111WIt I - [All m_ A I DRIVING DIRECTIONS I DIRECTIONS FROM 4300 MARKET POINTE DRIVE: TAKE 1-494 EAST TO DODD ROAD (EXIT 69). GO NORTH ON DODD ROAD (HWY 149) 2.0 MILES. AFTER CROSSING MENDOTA RD (HWY 110), TAKE THE FIRST RIGHT ONTO MARKET STREET. TURN LEFT ON MAIN STREET TO SITE ON THE LEFT AS DEPICTED BELOW. APPROVALS v~� THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE SUBCONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND MAY IMPOSE CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS. AT&T RF: DATE: AT&T OPERATIONS: DATE: AT&T SITE AQ: DATE: OCI: DATE: PROPERTY OWNER: DATE: MUNICIPAL: DATE: SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS CLOCK TOWER SHEET NO: NAME COMPANY NUMBER A/E AARON EVANS ULTEIG ENGINEERS 763-571-2500 RF RAGHAVENDRA PARIGI AT&T MOBILITY 952-824-4835 CM JUSTIN KESSLER OVERLAND CONTRACTING 651-233-3557 BV PM JERRY SLOBODNIK BLACK & VEATCH 612-638-8126 z , U [I 111WIt I - [All m_ A I DRIVING DIRECTIONS I DIRECTIONS FROM 4300 MARKET POINTE DRIVE: TAKE 1-494 EAST TO DODD ROAD (EXIT 69). GO NORTH ON DODD ROAD (HWY 149) 2.0 MILES. AFTER CROSSING MENDOTA RD (HWY 110), TAKE THE FIRST RIGHT ONTO MARKET STREET. TURN LEFT ON MAIN STREET TO SITE ON THE LEFT AS DEPICTED BELOW. APPROVALS v~� THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE SUBCONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND MAY IMPOSE CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS. AT&T RF: DATE: AT&T OPERATIONS: DATE: AT&T SITE AQ: DATE: OCI: DATE: PROPERTY OWNER: DATE: MUNICIPAL: DATE: 4300 MARKET POINTE DR. BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 5201 E.. RI Road SWb 300 Mlnne N. Minneootr 66421 PO. a: 75!571.2600 Fez: 763.671.1129 By amk.CMV Rp'd>-Oomx, 4ibol lekne,Fvpo,Vlmxls.6.+w FHs Web: wwW.uHelp.00m UEI PROJECT NO: R11DO229 DRAWN By: _- — T CJP CHECKED BY: RAE 0 8-22-11ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION 8 5-76-11 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 1 REv I !_* , DESCRIPTION _ 1 THE SIGNED DRAWING IS THE CORRECTRECOftO DOCUMENT, NOT THE Au.CAO DISKETTE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PUN. SPEUFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY HE OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMSION AND THAT 1 AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE UWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE 6-21-11 REG, Ne.47985 ISSAC J. ODLAND __71 MNLO3562_99951 ROGERS LAKE 750 MAIN STREET MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55118 DRAWING INDEX CLOCK TOWER SHEET NO: SHEET TITLE REV: T-1 TITLE SHEET 0 C-1 SITE PLAN & EQUIPMENT LAYOUT 0 C-2 SITE ELEVATION 0 C-3 ANTENNA LAYOUT & DETAILS 0 C-4 RF DATA SHEET 0 _C-5, C–SA RF DATA SHEET 0 C-6 ANTENNA CONFIGURATIONS (ALL SECTORS) 0 C-7 EQUIPMENT DETAILS 0 C-8 EQUIPMENT DETALLS 0 C-9 NOT USED 0 _ E-1 ELECTRICAL PLAN - 0 _ 0-1 GROUNDING PLAN 0 0-2 - GROUNDING DETAILS 0 C-3 GROUNDING DETAILS IT - GN -1 GENERAL NOTES 0 GN -2 GENERAL NOTES 0 4300 MARKET POINTE DR. BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 5201 E.. RI Road SWb 300 Mlnne N. Minneootr 66421 PO. a: 75!571.2600 Fez: 763.671.1129 By amk.CMV Rp'd>-Oomx, 4ibol lekne,Fvpo,Vlmxls.6.+w FHs Web: wwW.uHelp.00m UEI PROJECT NO: R11DO229 DRAWN By: _- — T CJP CHECKED BY: RAE 0 8-22-11ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION 8 5-76-11 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 1 REv I !_* , DESCRIPTION _ 1 THE SIGNED DRAWING IS THE CORRECTRECOftO DOCUMENT, NOT THE Au.CAO DISKETTE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PUN. SPEUFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY HE OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMSION AND THAT 1 AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE UWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE 6-21-11 REG, Ne.47985 ISSAC J. ODLAND __71 MNLO3562_99951 ROGERS LAKE 750 MAIN STREET MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55118 CLOCK TOWER DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS - SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS & EXISTING DIMENSIONS & CONDITIONS ON SHEET TITLE THE JOBS BEFORE SHALL NOTIFY THE F ANY �P�CI� NEER IN WRITING FOR TITLE SHEET PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK ORIMMEDIATELY BE RESPONSIBLE SAME TO OBTAIN LOCATION OF PARTICIPANTS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES BEFORE YOU DIG IN MINNESOTA, CALL GOPHER STATE ONECALL SHEET NUMBER TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 OR FAX A LOCATE: 1-800-236496767 MN STATUTE REQUIRES MIN OF 16 HOURS NOMOE BEFORE YOU EXCAVATE T..1 EXISTING ANTENNA'S & PIPE MOUNTS TO REMOVED AND REPU (6) TYP. PROPOSED PIPE MOUNT (TYP. 6 PLACES) EXISTING CLOCK TOWER N EXISTING ANTENNA LAYOUT NOT TO SCALE NOTES 1. ALL EXISTING AT&T ANTENNAS WILL BE REMOVED & REPLACED. 2. ALL CONNECTIONS FOR HANGERS, SUPPORTS, BRACING, ETC. SHALL BE INSALLED PER TOWER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD DETAILS. 3. REMOVE TOWER MOUNTED DIPLEXERS. 4. SEE ANTENNA & TRANSMISSION CABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTENNA POSITION. (SHEET C-3) 5. RRH'S TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN 16.4' (5.0 METERS) OF THE SURGE SUPPRESSOR- (SUBCONTRACTOR UPPRESSOR(SUBCONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY) PROPOSED ANTENNA LAYOUT PROPOSED GSM/LTE ANTENNA & PIPE MOUNT (1) PER SECTOR SEE DETAIL C SHEET C-7 & DETAIL 8 SHEET C-8 (TYP. ALL SECTORS) rmvrvocv umiJ HI&T ANTENNA (1) PER SECTOR & PIPE MOUNT SEE DETAIL C SHEET C-7 & N DETAIL B SHEET C-8 (TYP. ALL SECTORS) PROPOSED TMA'S (6) TYP. LOCATED AT GSM & UMTS SEE DETAIL A SHEET C-8 NOT TO SCALE SECTOR Al A2 A3 81 82 B3 Cl 02 G3 NOTES TO CONTRACTOR 1. CONTRACTOR IS TO REFER TO AT&T'S MOST CURRENT RADIO FREQUENCY, CAT, SHEET (l -FDS) PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. CABLE LENGTHS WERE DETERMINED BASED ON A VISUAL INSPECTION DURING SITE WALK. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ACTUAL LENGTH DURING PRE -CONSTRUCTION WALK. 3. CONTRACTOR TO USE ROSENBERGER FIBER LINE RANGER COMPONENTS (OR ENGINEER APPROVED EQUAL). ANTENNA AND TRANSMISSION CABLE REQUIREMENTS (VERIFY WITH CURRENT RFDS) REMOTE RADIO HEADS (RRH'S) EXISTING RAYCAP DCS -48 -60 -RM 1 MOUNTED INSIDE OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINET RRH LOCATION DC2-48-60-0-9E 3 MOUNTED ON EXISTING H -FRAME PROPOSED ANTQdNA MODEL AZIMUTH CENTERMANTENNAMODELODEL (MAX. DISTANCE FROM ANTENNA) AZIMUTH ETILT DOWN7IL CENTER FIBER TRUNKFIBER JUMBER EMS M848RRSO 135' 49'-10764 135' 6/2 49' FB -1988-002-75000 FB -1-988-005-5000 EMS MR48RRBO 135' 49'-10764 6-22-11 135" 1/1 r 49' X X A 5 -11 -ii ISSUED FOR REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION EMS MB48RRBD 236 49'10764 235' 2/2 49' FB-L98B-002-75000 FB-L9BB-OD5-5000 EMS MB48RRBO 235' 49'10784 235' 1/1 ,. 49' X X _ la i tll ■ Ot L 4300 MARKETPOINTE DR. BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 5201 Eaat RMar Road Sulfa 306 Mlhh.eP lo. Minneea® 56421 Phone: 7-71.25G0 Fez: 763.371.1166 Blmrtk, Cedvflgld,_DwnK,Oweh4lo�, FaW.Vlmc4^"'.6nd fab wen: www.unnlo.wm EMS MB48RRBD 325 49' KATHREIN 80D-10764 325' 6/2 ._, 49' FB-L988-DD2-75000 FS -1-988-005-5000 UEI PRDJECT ND: Ril.D0229 EMS MB48RRSO 325 49' KATHREIN 800-10764 325' 1/1 =. 49' X X DRAWN BY: - GJP CHECKED BY: RAE SURGE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM REMOTE RADIO HEADS (RRH'S) PART NUMBER QTY LOCATION RAYCAP DCS -48 -60 -RM 1 MOUNTED INSIDE OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINET RRH LOCATION DC2-48-60-0-9E 3 MOUNTED ON EXISTING H -FRAME SECTOR RRH TYPE (MAX. DISTANCE FROM ANTENNA) COLOR CODEAl ALCATEL - LUCENT (700 MHz) 16.4' TCLEARAINCESffl:LE 6-22-11 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION RED/BU( 6-1B-11 ISSUED FOR REVIEW A 5 -11 -ii ISSUED FOR REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION RED TRACER ALCATEL - LUCENT (700 MHz) 16.4' 16" 8" 0"8 RED/BLK F�F WHITE TRACER w G1 ALCATEL - LUCENT (700 MHz) 16.4' 18" 8° D. 1 8 c� N BLUED/SLK TRACER SURGE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM MANUFACTURER PART NUMBER QTY LOCATION RAYCAP DCS -48 -60 -RM 1 MOUNTED INSIDE OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINET RAYCAP DC2-48-60-0-9E 3 MOUNTED ON EXISTING H -FRAME EQUIPMENT SCHEDULES NOT TO SCALE THE SIGNED DRAWING IS THE CORRECT RECORD DOCUMENT, NOT THE AutoCAD DISKETTE. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLR, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY NE OR UNDER NY DIRECT SUPERMSION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS Of THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE 6-21-11 REG. Nn, 47985 ISSAC J. ODLAND MNL03562_99951 ROGERS LAKE 750 MAIN STREET MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 CLOCK TOWER SHEET TITLE ANTENNA LAYOUT & SCHEDULE SHEET NUMBER C-3 6-22-11 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION B FD 6-1B-11 ISSUED FOR REVIEW A 5 -11 -ii ISSUED FOR REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION THE SIGNED DRAWING IS THE CORRECT RECORD DOCUMENT, NOT THE AutoCAD DISKETTE. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLR, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY NE OR UNDER NY DIRECT SUPERMSION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS Of THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE 6-21-11 REG. Nn, 47985 ISSAC J. ODLAND MNL03562_99951 ROGERS LAKE 750 MAIN STREET MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 CLOCK TOWER SHEET TITLE ANTENNA LAYOUT & SCHEDULE SHEET NUMBER C-3 PROPOSED GSM/LTE ANTENNA, MOUNTING PIPE & MOUNTING HARDWARE (1) PER SECTOR. SEE DETAIL D SHEET C-7 (TYP,) — //,,- EXISTING CLOCK / TOWER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS I CST 01l'T ERS EXISTING AT&T POWERWAVE ANTENNAS TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW ANTENNAS. REPLACE POWERWAVE TWIN DUAL BAND TMA'S WEST ELEVATION EXISTING COAX ROUTE EXISTING AT&T EOUIPM ENT EXISTING FENCE SCALE: EXISTING AT&T 1%" COAX. N NOTES 1. WEATHERPROOFING OF ALL COAX CABLE SHALL BE PERFORMED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 2. FIBER TO BE ROUTED WITH LONG SWEEPING BENDS. NO 90' BENDS ARE ALLOWED COAX ROUTING DETAIL I A GENERAL NOTES L ALL CABLES SHALL BE GROUNDED WITH CABLE GROUNDING KITS. FOLLOW MANUFACTURIER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. A GROUNDING AT THE ANTENNA LEVEL �. GROUNDING AT MID LEVEL. WHEN TOWERS WHACK ARE OVER 2DO, ADDITIONAL CASLE GROUNDING REQUIRED, C. GROUNDING AT BASE OF TOWER PRIOR TO TURNING HORIZONTAL D. GROUNDING OUTSIDE THE EQUIPMENT SHELTER AT ENTRY PORT. E. GROUNDING INSIDE THE EQUIPMENT SHELTER AT THE ENTRY PORT. 2. ALL PROPOSED GROUNDING BAR DOWNLEADS ARE TO BE TERMINATED TO THE DUSTING ADJACENT GROUNDING BAR DOWNLEADS A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF V-0" BELOW GROUNDING BAR. TERMINATIONS MAY BE EXOTHERMIC OR COMPRESSION. 3. THE SUB CONTRACTORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE ANTENNA AND THE CABLE CONFIGURATION, MAKE AND MODELS, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, 4. ALL CONNECTIONS FOR HANGERS, SUPPORTS, BRACING, ETC. SHALL BE INSTALLED PER TOWER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION & RECOMMENDATIONS, 9. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE THE TOWER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS/DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR DIRECTIONS ON CABLE DISTRIBUTION/ROUTING. COAXIAL ANTENNA CABLE NOTES 1. TYPES AND SIZES OF THE ANTENNA CABLE ARE BASED ON ESTIMATED LENGTHS. PRIOR TO ORDERING CABLE, SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ACTUAL LENGTH BASED ON CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND NOTIFY THE PROJECT MANAGER IF ACTUAL LENGTHS EXCEED ESTIMATED LENGTHS, 2, SUB CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE DOWN—TILT OF EACH ANTENNA WITH A DIGITAL LEVEL 3, CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM COAX COLOR CODING PRIOR TO GONSTRUCTJON. REFER TO "ANTENNA SYSTEM LABELING STANDARD' ND—OD027 REFER TO THE LATEST VERSION. - 4, ALL JUMPERS TO THE ANTENNAS FROM THE MAIN TRANSMISSION UNE WILL BE 1/2" DIA LDF AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 6'-0". S. ALL COAXIAL CABLE WILL BE SECURED TO THE DESIGNED SUPPORT STRUCTURE, IN AN APPROVED MANNER, AT DISTANCES NOT TO EXCEED 4'-0" OC. 8. CONTRACTOR MUST FOLLOW ALL MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BOTH THE INSTALLATION AND GROUNDING OF ALL COAXIAL CABLES, CONNECTORS, ANTENNAS, AND ALL OTHER EQUIPMENT. 7. WEATHERPROOF ALL ANTENNA CONNECTORS WITH SELF AMALGAMATING TAPE. WEATHERPROOFING SHALL BE COMPLETED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH AT&T STANDARDS, ANTENNA MOUNTING NOTES L DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ANTENNA SUPPORTS SHALL CONFORM TD CURRENT ANSI/TLA-222 STANDARDS OR APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES. 2, ALL STEEL MATERIALS SHALL BE GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A123 "ZINC (HOT—DIP GALVANIZED) COATINGS ON IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS", UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3, ALL BOLTS, ANCHORS AND MISCELLANEOUS HARDWARE SHALL BE GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A103 "ZINC—COAnNO (HOT—DIP) ON IRON AND STEEL HARDWARE'. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4, DAMAGED GALVANIZED SURFACES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY COLO GALVANIZING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A780. 5. ALL ANTENNA MOUNTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH LOCK NUTS, DOUBLE NUTS AND SHALL BE TORQUED TO MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.. 6. ANTENNA SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE ALL ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPES ARE PLUMB AND LEVEL 7. MULTI PORT ANTENNAS: TERMINATE UNUSED ANTENNA PORTS WITH CONNECTOR CAP & WEATHERPROOF THOROUGHLY. JUMPERS FROM THE TMA'S MUST TERMINATE TO OPPOSITE POLARIZATION'S IN EACH SECTOR. B, SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD THE SERIAL #. SECTOR, AND POSITION OF EACH ACTUATOR INSTALLED AT THE ANTENNAS AND PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION TO AT&T. 9, LINES 1 & 2 TO HAVE TMA'S MOUNTED ON PIPE BELOW ANTENNAS AS CLOSE TO ANTENNA AS FEASIBLE PREFERABLY IN A VERTICAL POSITION, 10. SUB CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ANTENNA PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR INSTALLATION AND GROUNDING, 11. ANTENNAS TO BE PRE—SWEPT PRIOR TO INSTALLING ON TOWER. 12. ACTUATORS TO BE PRESET PRIOR TO INSTALUNG ON TOWER. 13. BOOM AZIMUTH TO BE FIELD ADJUSTED BY CONTRACTOR ACCORDING TO CURRENT REDS. NOTE: NEW ANTENNAS, TMA'S AND DIPLEXERS ARE REQUIRED. (0) NEW COAX, IS REQUIRED. - SEE RFDS FOR MORE INFORMATION, 4300 MARKET POINTE DR. BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 6401 East RHor Road SUI. 300 Pho 1: 7l 6711 n500 661.7.1 Rhona: ]F3.9712900 Pax: 786.671.if 60 BmAi _ tdr R pN,, L+p ma, tatlol, lakes . Frpo, lyma'pQe , 6brc Cab ww: wNw.,n,10.,,m UM PROJECT NO: � DRAWN BY: ]A- A CHECKED BY: 5-11-11 ISSUED FOR REVIEW REV DATE DESCRIPTION THE SIGNED DRAWING IS THE CORRECT RECORD DOCUMENT, NOT THE AUInCAO DISKETTE. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPEORCAnON OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY NE OR UNDER NY OIRECi SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER ME LAMS OF ME STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE 6-21-11 REG, N,.47985 ISSAC J. ODLAND MNL03562_99951 ROGERS LAKE 750 MAIN STREET MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 CLOCK TOWER SHEET TITLE SITE ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER C-2 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INCI 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 `telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners@nacplanning_com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: September 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: Critical Area Permit for Accessory Shed CASE NO: Case No. 11-28; NAC Case 254.04 — 11.30 APPLICANT(S): Bob and Kathy Thompson LOCATION: 979 Caren Road ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR, Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicants are seeking a Critical Area Permit to allow the construction of an accessory shed within the rear yard of their property located at 979 Caren Road. The proposed building is to be 12 feet by 12 feet (144 square feet), and located in the northwest corner of the property. The building will be 10 feet tall, constructed of wood, and will be used for the storage of accessory garden tools and equipment. The subject site is zoned R-1, One Family Residential, and is located within the Mississippi River corridor. According to Section 12-3-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, any work conducted within the Mississippi River Corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. Analysis: The applicant received a Critical Area Permit last fall for the construction of a fence in the rear yard. The property slopes gently toward the north property line, but grades are less than 18 percent. Critical Area Permit. This property is located within the Mississippi River corridor. Any work conducted within this corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. As a part of this project, no landscaping or paving is being considered, no change in grade is planned, no soil loss is anticipated during construction, and no slopes are being affected. As a result, the project should not have a negative impact on the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi critical area. The Critical Area Ordinance recommends the use of natural materials in building and site construction. As noted, the applicant proposes to construct the building of wood, painted and roofed to match the principal home on the property. The structure will be placed between two existing trees, and will meet the required 10 foot setback from rear and side property lines, in accordance with zoning regulations for such structures. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the Critical Area Permit to construct an accessory shed, subject to the following conditions: a) The applicant shall receive a building permit prior to installation of the structure, per the representations in the application; and b) No grading or other land disturbance occurs as a result of the project. 2. Denial of the Critical Area Permit, based on the finding that the project will negatively impacts the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. Staff Recommendation: Considering that no landscaping, paving, soil loss, grade or slope alteration is planned, the proposed fence installation should not have a negative impact upon the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi critical area. As a result, Planning Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit to construct the proposed rear yard fence. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application materials dated 9/2/11 3. Draft Findings of Fact for Approval I Draft Findings for Approval Accessory Building Construction in the Critical Area 979 Caren Road 1. The proposed accessory building will have little or no visual impact on the river. 2. The property has no steep slopes that would be affected by the structure. 3. The property is not in proximity any bluffline. 4. The structure will create no issues for grading or erosion. 5. The building is proposed to have minimal impact on the land as it does not involve landscaping, paving, grade changes, soil loss, or altering of slopes. 3 1015 1028 1020 1032 1040 1646 I 1034 1650 1 1030 1666 1 1037 1670 1041 991 132 130 i 128 126 L124 122 12`0 971 / ,+ 981 965 974 966 949 978 801/ �� i 5 8 �� II 1588 982 154, 975969- 1633 / \ 995 991 11 985 996 ` �t992� _ I 1010 1631 ` l/ 1639 / 1636 1645 �r� ' 1640 1651 (D % 1648` 71657 1015 `1011 r �\ 52� 1665 f 1660` 1016 �� t � 1 76 0 � / ~� �� ' / 1675 1012 %` 1008 1 ! 1678 y- 979 Caren Road I I ) 960 1636/ 1643 \ (> f 1642 649 1645 �4 y 650 155 / �' 1653 -� 3 ! 1 `16158 � 1663 Jj' l 1666 1671 1672 1681 Site Location Map } Water/Wetlands City Roads Major Roads parcels ��,_�? MunicipalBoundaries 1590 1598 11600 1606 rl; .- . r3A j 1614 1591 11595j1599� 160` \2 / /� 919 1632 923aQf 1638 - 71644 ^ 924 1637 1645 1650 ` 920 _ 5 1655 1656 919 , 915 1663 L f � `�``�-/ft-..✓ 1664 f�- -f 920 1669 �' 1670 j 1612 1679 ( 1680 ' i s September 9, 2011 Bob and Kathy Thompson 979 Caren Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson: o f Mendota Heights Thank you for completing your planning application (2011-28). The application was reviewed and determined complete on September 2, 2011, starting the official review period, which will expire November 1, 2011_ The planning commission will discuss this application at their regular meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 201.1. Please plan to attend this meeting which begins at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Assistant to the City Administrator cc: Planning Case File #2011-28 ILT 01 VACoea Curve ° Mendota_ e5ghts, MN 55118 gAx Q65flj 452-8940 � city Of Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Z Date of Application Fee Paid Applicant Name: /I �-)aq &)b 9 PH: pp (Last) (First) (M) Address f 1 ®4(Ii i) 'I / 7 Liu -p rL R (Number &.Street) Owner Name: (Last) 1--2-S E-mail Address. [j (City) i7 (City) (State) (zip) (First (M) Address- - (Number &Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) l Type.of Request __ Rezoning Conditional Use Permit _ Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Present Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit _Critical Area Permit . Other (attach explanation) Section Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Signature of i pplicant) - Date Receivedr "� ~ (Signature of ner) ti i ni Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MAY 55118 - (651) 452-1850 FAX (651) 452-8940 Morgan Stan[ey 4 111 �a CT 1 r7 f4z -ld 0 co V\i J�7 k tk,- 17 D vv v 0 I't Cr e Yr L) J k2 -,N 157 rc 5 CA , rf) Ll 03 7� 979 Caren Rd September 30, 2010 982 Ir w'N. Xc Lj V t ja 991 is co C\) AY City of (� Au M -ndnta Art & - 6-all k i NOW Heights SCALE IN FEET -1119, W�, , 980 7i col 975 o m Y K J T- U woO J > v O O OJ 0x�: Jw xWW x0�)zO WpW J N p D rL rn u> W o- W Z N ?i W z o u W r W \ J�pOQOvm[V, U2amtjBaOoD:qdJI LU zz_ w DoC)D �gc� o o w wwp O Us pwr OpZ W 0Z wO W-JwaW 0, U) 0UOo��w U p�1.,� m�Dao m wJ�Quroao%o,Waoa owa o w 1 O W nW` = p Udw Sy w az w UQ JpUW F- S U) U S Omr p W w0 W Kax W GOm d'O fn0�+- r 3 O Q W O O a p 7 W W a= O U N F O p W U "U m O W mm2' Utnw JmU�S�UU' dF- OJ J J a� 0 z a v z Y 0 w p O w w J U w_ p z 0 0 W 3 W U a O D Lu D z o rON OO? JO nQ.a W @� >v) V rL30 waQtropN� Ywo m0�O[��0 D3r n d� o tea❑ � w rwN JN J JO J r'Op -`0°`O°a`"a ZW �O�w� 3�'0-000 �� aF-p0p oil I< OQ OW p cnU pxwrn O zm o w jO W w4U'� xm�cn cLU0Otn cwn»OD m QZCS �z Ja <<C) � 0W Z m �r� cnNNN�mOua.�Zp�LLOO QUQUmtnmm F��-it C7O0� WN J O WU W d � O h N ri 7 N W y - tn m w S rn > O cv m O� _ z o www r - go f o LU @J NrN-� x - > W Z p Z F- I- w w 'r 2, D F Z If < � W W U p N O Z 0 Q K I>S- Q rv�� m W U) R N O > S Z r Z uj EL J W o W O p 0 L S Z O O> T r p Z Z � F J N r oD 2 x Fez- a O QZ w-pw O ~'Z wa ' p w J w W N W Wmoz N J =J U) W oQ c- U N -U O p Vi F -Z J O m ?�oaU Owp O W p 3pJ N m WCD tr tLLL wNOCL p� a pw FwZ O D <0 <0 {-" (n Dma =Dvri Jwz 2�Z to ;mow rra N wo- p N o O r z °- Q Fw. a 0 4 pONrst a- X c' p V O DU U U O U p N(�t'-l�S LLJO. 0 0- w p W z z O O (Y p p UJ O S W O Z N N O in .- W Q wZ xZX W e Oww¢ :WV U`U E�lU�U =zcwa oa-a- LWC7 a>w ww W Z =cnm =rn rn =wC7 U =0`�-'O-- _ LL m �N LL0 N�N> QQQ Q QQ QO(rn Y .,w D �� 00 �O�OZ - I-zZ F -ZZ �m_ sKw �o LL F p3�o OLL trQUZLL Q�io JQ amino ac �C) 4ay usio J p Q W Q-, o D Z = z� ro�mr�mz 3wi<omKzw z pG50 ZO } O Z iii -=fir 0 r K F- r rn w�F+�mpm O t/7 Q W W =w LL��ZZO Zw F S a m i Z Uaw O O OO U¢a w to N JJ O J W m w m�- Qw w U U -�> Z W z r O�U oOOW J¢wN F N 6 c c�i Q 4 0 uj D N C� p O Z F- U` to p w zoo UQ oJaoz a p w r r c� O`n WZ w w �. a0 ,� Q C7 pW K rY S U O O t'-" Kjuca' Y o S m o m Z p r r U = J O 0 a w cn �cnLLtnw p w U �g �o m =w =D}zoo m a a Cz N w p �� om a p` o Li o 0 �Z _wi U q -o -r w mKm at --t'- UO �v d wz XZx L a o-u� Q O X W pWNWN C7 Z W O m W< ,$ W a r 3 N m p lr Qd^d•� Z N O W Q i = W W 0 D W O EO E, Y tr Q U tr = O r N a p % S r m Z W cl� d- 00 cl m dw0LLOZ Oa w� O W Y J O O OW J F- < LL a N Q w � ¢ uJ w r F W W U) N U a CL w z' Z o U) E c d J N Z W O - o - J o Q .o J Q = O w J d _ a W �2N O Jz W UQ D J J GQ = U fll m v J o lw- H p U m 3 p �7a 3 Y N w 0 (D MU ¢ v¢> w O 0 0 wrnLL O U w C� - Z r Z � 0 w wzX - 0, a wW W< ow J W❑ Q.a C7 O > W m m a OWN L O W a W W CO N to 7 N W O `� Q 0 f' :1 rn (n z 3 =O EJ .1 CID O 0 to Q -1ti. LL ?W OO .D� O Z 7 0 Z � J Z= Y O O Q>> lldMZa 1HJI3H OS > LL h � O a> a -ZIL t -.L 0 0 D XM Sep 02 2011 4:5GPM HP LASERJET FAX p.2 10- -a*l A CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Bob and Kathy Thompson to construct an 144 square foot accessory structure at 979 Caren Road. The legal description for this property is as follows: all of Lot 35 Blk 3 & pt of Lot 36 Blk 3 com sw cor n 75 ft e 5 ft s to beg, Tilsens Highland Heights Plat 3 (PID #27-75900-030-01). The planning case for this matter is 2011-28. This request for a wetlands permit to construct and an 144 square foot accessory structure. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk Conlan Teresa M Todd Alton C & Sandra M Langness Gary L & Carol J 1555 Victoria Rd S 991 Caren Ct 1535 Victoria Rd S Saint Paul Mn 55118-3603 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3658 Lilydale Mn 55118-3659 Ettinger Ronald D & Phyllis P 1565 Victoria Rd S Saint Paul Mn 55118-3659 Welsch Matthew & Marc 1661 Watson Ave Saint Paul Mn 55116 Thompson Robert W 979 Caren Rd Saint Paul Mn 55118-3623 Kalal Joseph W 980 Highway 13 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3602 Quinn John J 978 Sibley Mem Hwy Mendota Heights Mn 55118-3602 Brassard Marjorie Tste 1515 S Victoria Rd Lillydale Mn 55118 Voss Holdings LLC 974 Highway 13 Lilydale Mn 55118-3602 GiiSr f Mendota Heights 1101 Vii ria Cury Saint Paul X5167 Ci Of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Cury Saint Paut-Mn 55118-4167 Spurr Barney W & Sherry E 1636 James Rd Mendota Heights Mn 55118-3641 ��Qa ndota Heights Cury Saint Paul Mrr.55, 118-4167 Brassard Marjorie J Tste 1515 Victoria Rd S Lilydale Mn 55118 Herrmann Kenneth & Camilla 995 Caren Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-3603 Frisch Gail K 960 Caren Rd Mendota Heights Mn 55118-3681 Devereaux Dennis M & Susan K 1633 Victoria Rd S Saint Paul Mn 55118-3659 Todd Alton C & Sandra M 991 Caren Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-3603 Skadron Nancy M Tste 992 Caren Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118-3603 City`&tMendota Heights 1101 Vitoria Cury Saint Paull MD 55118-4167 Frisch Gail K Rev Tst 960 Caren Rd Saint Paul Mn 55118-3681 Husak Leesa M 980 112 Sibley Mem Hwy Mendota Heights Mn 55118-3602 Frisch Gerald E Tste 2350 7Th St W Saint Paul Mn 55116-2825 Herrmann Kenneth A & Camilla 995 Caren Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-3603 City iO endota Heights 1101 Victdr Cure Saint Paul Mn X551118-4167 Boley Steven M PO Box 64523 Saint Paul Mn 55164 Garner Anne C Bergh George Jr & Maxine Kirkland James C 996 Caren Ct 985 Caren Rd Saint James Rd Saint Paul Mn 55118-3642 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3603 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-3623 a 1 Tste Burch William E & Nola K Specktor Harold & Anna >tc n Anita ;tc waren it 1545 Victoria Rd S 1643 Lilac Ln Mendota Heiahts Mn 55118 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3659 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3647 rint Preview Dakota County, MN Page 1 of 1 Disclaimer.- Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map__Scal_e guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 136 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 4800 Olson Mernoriai Highway, Sure: 202, Golden Valley, M'f`g 55422'. Telephone: 763._231 .2555 Fa.csimfle: i 63.231 .2561 planners@nacpfann%ng.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis/Stephen Grittman DATE: September 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit for Wetland Restoration CASE NO: Case No. 11-29; NAC Case 254.04 - 11.24 APPLICANT(S): Dodge Nature Center LOCATION: 656 Highway 110 ZONING: R -1A, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Rural Residential Background and Description of Request: The Dodge Nature Center is seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow the restoration of a pond within the nature center property located south of Highway 110 and west of Delaware Avenue. More specifically, the applicants wish to restore the "Lilly Property Pond" by constructing a new water control structure (dam). According to the applicants, the "Lilly Property Pond" has been leaking below the pond's bottom since 2009. As a result, the pond will not hold water and has little aquatic value. It has been found that leakage is a result of the pond's existing water control structure (dam) being deteriorated beyond repair. The existing water control structure was installed in 1963. Funding for the proposed wetland restoration has already been secured and the applicants hope to begin work in early October. Analysis: The purpose of the Wetland Ordinance is to protect the City's water resources from projects that will have a negative impact on the quality of the wetland. In this regard, a determination should be made that the proposed restoration actions will enhance rather than damage the wetland. Included in the application materials is a "dam rehabilitation design report" prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The report documents existing pond and dam conditions, identifies applicable NRCS design criteria and provides a plan for dam replacement. According to the NRCS report, the existing inlet structure (culvert) is a half round, corrugated metal pipe (CMP) that has rusted and broken off. The report also notes that the pond's embankment and spillway are very overgrown with woody vegetation. To restore the pond, the report recommends the following primary actions: • Removal of the existing inlet structure and replacement with a "drop pipe structure". • Construction of a berm around the water control structure and riser structure for protection. • Clearing of trees from the pond's embankment. • Raising of the pond's embankment elevation by two feet (to a 857.0 elevation). While it appears the preceding actions will enhance the wetland in question, the submitted restoration plan should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, Action Requested: The Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations: (1) Approval the Wetlands Permit with conditions, based on a finding that the proposal generally meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance, but requires certain conditions to ensure consistency. Conditions may include: a. The wetland restoration plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. b. The project is found to be consistent with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. (2) Denial of the Wetlands Permit, based on a finding that encroachment into the Wetland buffer zone will have a negative impact on the water resource. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit, with condition that the restoration plan be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer as stated above. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application Materials dated September 15, 2011 3 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 656 Highway 110 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit: 1. The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, subject to the above-mentioned conditions. 3. The project will meet the requirements of the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. The project work will correct a condition resulting from deterioration of an existing control structure. 5. The project will result in enhanced wetland quality and improved stormwater control on the site and in the surrounding area. M Site Location Map City Limits City Roads V1�ater/t�iletlaads ---' parceis Major Roads Municipal Boundaries ........... _...... September 9, 2011 David Napier Dodge Nature Center 365 Marie Avenue West West St. Paul, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Napier.- Thank apier: it in Me�dL Hg Thank you for completing your planning application (2011-29). The application was reviewed and determined complete on September 6, 2011, starting the official review period, which will expire November 5, 2011. The planningcommission will discuss this application at their regular meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 2011. Please plan to attend this meeting which begins at 7 p.m._ in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Assistant to the City Administrator cc: Planning Case File 42011-29 11101 vactrou-aa Curve ® Mendota a Hehg ts, MN 5511-8 ° (651) 452-jg�� ® FAX (65iL) 452-�� THOMAS IRVINE DODGE NATURE CENTER 365 Marie Avenue West, West Saint Paul, MN 55118 P 651.455.4531 F 651.455.2575 w vw.dodgenaturecenter.org September 6, 2011 Mr. Ryan Ruzek Assistant City Engineer City of Mendota Heights 1 101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights; MN 55118 Dear Mr. Ruzek, The Dodge Nature Center's Lilly Property Pond has been leaking below the ponds bottom since 2009. The current water control structure which was installed in 1963 is deteriorated beyond repair (I have enclosed pictures). As a result; the pond will not hold water and therefore has very little aquatics program value. Based on recommendations and support from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) and the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) we have developed a plan for replacing the water control structure and restoring the wetland. The partnerships and support from each of them are as follows; The Dodge Nature. Center entered into an agreement with USDA under a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program contract for S7,482 towards the construction of a water level control structure. The Dodge f iii -kind engineering sen ices from the. USDA for design, Nature Center will also be receiving $4;000 o construction oersight, and development of maintenance plans. The S NCD - is providing. $3 v 000 of technical assistance and grant administration. The total cost of the project is expected to be, close to 530,000. Funding has been secured and A,e are ready to begin construction in September or early October. I have enclosed a City of Mendota Heights application and payment for a wetland permit. I have also enclosed a packet that has all the required support documents. Please let me Imow if you need any further information to process our request. Sincerer �_ s David Napier Buildings & Grounds Director INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO THE THOUGHTFUL CARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF DIP,ECIORS Litton E.S. Field Jr Phyllis Karasov Ann Jason Sanders Kim Austrian Sara Beckstrand Peter Garretson Allan Klein VSchSeymour S ymourrg McNeil V. Seymour McNeil FOUNDER Mary. Bowman Thomas Hobert William C. Kuhlmann Nicole Winter Tietel Olivia Irvine Dodge g C Jon Cieslak C Bonnie K. Holub Elizabeth Lee Esther Tsai 1918-2009 Chad Dayton Horace H. Irvine, III Scott Mortensen Ann Winsor, D.V.M. -- 1-16— Krictan Nirklawske ty of Mr� nota � G� C g A _ '�_�.�. - - APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING' REQUEST Case No. Date of Application Fee Paid t� �t E /J v"d 41 PH: 1 _7 11-5 f t Applicant Name: 6 ,.z J�,&��T' (Last) (First) ( ) dac i e y ley E -Mail Address: Lq,, f, , . Address: t+iC f�a (Number & Stre t) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: o °e ' (La ) (First) Address: � �� (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 741' Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type of Request: Variance Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. _�_ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the abov. . operty during daylight hours. r r I �...(S' ignature of %plicant) Date Received (Signature of Owner) q.-orrgi virtoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN 551-1-8 - (65I) 452-7850 ° FAX (651-) 452-8940 T11 Report Dam RehabilitatI031 For -�p Dodge __ 1�e��__mrd.0e C -enter General: The site is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 25, T. 28 N., R. 23 W. (Mendota Heights Township), Dakota County, Minnesota. Objectives: The landowner has a WHIP contract and NRCS technical assistance was requested to design a pipe drop structure. Background Information*: The land is owned by the Dodge Nature Center (DNC), a non-profit organization that preserves open space for natural enjoyment. The DNC realizes the need to replace the rusting inlet structure in their lake. The current structure was designed by the NRCS, Howard Midje and built in 1963 with construction oversight by Joe Goplen. The site survey was completed by Don Haack in 1963. The inlet structure is a half -round 48" CMP with stop logs that has rusted. See Photo 1. Photo 1. Existing inlet structure at Dodge Nature Center The outlet structure is an 18" CMP which flows into a self - formed scour pool that appears to be about 10' wide, 15' long, and roughly 18-24" deep. A section of the CMP has broken off and is in the scour pool. See Photos 2 and 3. Photo 2. Outlet conduit 18" CMP flows into scour pool. Design Report -I Photo 3. A section of the conduit CMP has broken off and is in the scour pool. The embankment and emergency spillway are very overgrown with woody vegetation. Resign Criteria: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) practice standards in the Field Office Technical Guide were used for design standards. The following reference material was used in the design: 1. Minnesota NRCS Practice Standard 378 "Pond" 2. MRCS National Engineering Manual 3. NRCS Engineering Field Handbook 4. EFH-2 software 5. Water Resources Site Analysis Program (SITES) 6. USDA-NRCS Hydraulics Formula 7. Design Note No. 6 (Second Edition) 8. Win TR -20 Software 9. Win TR -55 Software 10. WinSlamm Software 11. Dakota County Lidar The topographical survey for this project was completed by the NRCS. Additional elevations were taken from the Dakota County Lidar. The minimum design storm used for the pipe drop structure is the 25 -year, 24-hour duration storm and for the emergency spillway a 50 -year, 24- hour duration storm, for Dakota County, MN. The storage of the dam is less than 50 acre-feet of storage, therefore a safety/DNR permit is not required. The effective height times the storage is less than 3000. The watershed was evaluated using Win TR20. The results from a 25 yr, 24hr storm were 318.5cfs. Winslamm was used to estimate the sediment yield from the watershed. This information was then used in SITES to determine the elevations of the emergency spillway and top of embankment. The effective height is 10.6 feet; the principle storage is 42.2 acre-feet and the crest of the principle spillway is 17.5 acre-feet. The embankment and emergency spillway will be raised two feet to elevation 857.0 and elevation 855.0 to meet current NRCS standards. NRCS-Minnesota 9/15/2010 Design Report -2 Hydrolog-y' : The watershed can be divided into 6 subareas based on the in-place drainage network that has resulted due to urbanizing in the 47 years since the existing structure was installed. In 1963, the majority of the watershed was in pasture but now is in low density residential areas and open space, including wetlands, woods, and recreational areas. Photo 4. Two 42" RCP that empty,into lowest subarea of watershed. Runoff from four of the upstream subareas enter the downstream -most subarea at a single point, much of the water arriving in the two 42" RCP conduits shown in Photo 4. The headwall structure is in poor condition, having cracks and pulling away from the conduits. It has an outlet apron that is almost entirely g one with only the mat of reinforcing steel still in evidence. Adjacent to the two 42" RCP are two smaller CMP conduits that bring water from the subarea immediately north of the downstream -most Photo 5. 8" CMP and 18" CMP that outlet adjacent to the two 42" RCP at the top of the downstrearn- most subarea. Throughout the watershed, NRCS-Minnesota. 9/15/2010 Design Report -3 the downstream end of this arch culvert where it is joined by a 1 S" RCP to travel southward down an open ditch, until it turns west. Photo 6. RCP arch culvert on Mendota Road; 12" — 1 x" be etween iop or cuivn dllu i mead surface Photo 7. Downstream end of arch culvert in Photo 6; note additional 18" RCP spigot outlet After the scour pool, the channel narrows and is the typical size seen throughout the watershed: 4' bottom width, 1:1 to 2:1 side slopes, 3 to 4 feet deep. See Photo 8. MRCS -Minnesota 9/15/2010 Design Report -4 Photo 8. Scour pool from conduits in photo 7 narrows to typical channel width. Photo 9. 27' RCP with flared end is the conduit bringing the water from the subarea immediately east of the downstream -most subarea. It has rock to dissipate the energy as seen at left in this photo. Then the water can spread over a floodplain 20-30 feet wide, bordered by tree -covered slopes on both sides. The vegetation and topography encourage infiltration and evapotranspiration. No defined channel was found. The rain event the. previous day had apparently flowed over a 8-10" wide bare strip but it had no depth. MRCS -Minnesota 9,115/2010 Besigyn Report -5 Job Description: The existing structure will be removed and replaced with a drop pipe structure with a 36" diameter riser and 24" diameter conduit. The principle spillway will be set at elevation 850.0. An agridrain inline water control structure. will be placed approximately 20' from the riser to control the water level. The riser structure and inline water control structure will be protected by a berm. The embankment will be cleared of all trees and will be raised two feet to elevation 857.0. The emergency spillway is designed with a 25' bottom, 4:1 side slopes and an elevation of 855.0. Desi Report- 7 MRCS -Minnesota 9/15/2010 U) W H p H ;1, m U (n U C7 q .7 N a a W Ln O W Ri Pi SHul EA d w }i P m W � � W E W m EdH W Z u H w ECx,w H d - W x 3 H Y� ri U LO H H Uppp]] H X F Pi P W u] uP1 q ti. w Nv WW4 a w m m a a £z N Pi 1- Y4 w CU W r'1 U a u P4 ID 0 114 a U N W OH z z o O E O Fj W ( H( Hqq W - a ,a7 Ha�7 H F q w N .W7 w W U Zi P x W W£ 1z 1z p4 a 0 I I Ei E1 F x a W a U ca H k v Z Z q P1 U O W w 0 Z P; z W W P4 O O U W E+ Uz z 'a7, POi OU 7gy1 H m fG U FG U U U ?G.a, [ 7 W F AW', U W Pel W CW'J FG � W U H U H Cx7 CD FS a E+ E W£ O a W W H w H u w a w H H n w c� z o u w 7� a W z� u a ci P p W w W z H z o H >i U W W W 3 U H H $ H U H w z a H a F H H a z U z�y UW W W HFCdY OW wP z O A, W z p uU H x q x g z 3 H wW U O q A' O W U U O a W W W W U H W z P� z U U z U H r1 W H U F -I P+ ?. 0 z z H z H H w a P d HH O w z H H W Zi O H U H p,' H W H Z H Z W H H 'J P, H W W w H H FC H xx q g H q H q q H W q m C) U > U) F W x x H0 W H w O W a H U [� P� _ qqq _ H= = W H o W U �y a W W a FG SC >C FS HW m I� M 11 H m m w z O d' C9 O H (a w u u1 w w P w r7 H H '$ H H m d, *k a 0 W u 0] U) w Q Q x x x x x Q x Q Q ,4 U'. G! w q U u lz� q P Of - 909 -1 Uua a a W wwua u W a m rn � fel Lll d� O O O o rl o rl H l� u1 rl H 1O f1 M rl H rl H d� H H 10 H H cn 0 Z iY 0 LL W O i l F— x w 0 Z F- LLJ N 10 d- LI) N ti U Q 2 Z OH Q 5 3 ZrQW lullQ� QF- LJ U KO _ Lo �ZWp CLU m vim,. O UC�Y LLSJ O JI -g �Wao �zo�p¢ = r Q W N b r W Z U < O.F-ZI-W~FW< ZddZN 4; N)U}�C NNW ~UWNF-J WF-1m�a W ZO ZwxI Woo ZpMa-<E W �Z �QFw�a KGF• }tea ZWF-a- )mUU JWF-m0 F=- ,U`l ¢Ivi O p Qw,Od W - JOmUZ oQ�QFao��o zoo 3z z �L�3��Z_i5 o oho >W O J U m J W W O d O J 'LW'¢Z¢W Q ¢¢ mw¢0w>m l�pO- -,gzJQ m W ZU W >UOUJB OvjHl/IOA�U.. = W U wa-wzU3m Z(n'p,�� B ••"`�,o U cc �p� d U d rL W Z U O W S _Inam<of<< mu�F- - v� (9 d. Fypicc Compoclo Typical / Fre Excovc Drain i Mc Ele v. 850.0 15"" Corrugated Metol Pipe 14.0' Anti—Vortex Wall See Sheet 4 _2eehive Sty/e Trash Pock Stub /. E. 843.5 Sto. 0153 B SECTION A -A Concrete Bose See Sheet 3 -0i Top of Constructed Fill" Allow 5% for Settlement Top of Settled F111 E/ev. 8570 \ Emergency Spillway Crest Elev. 855.0 NOT Cut hole in geotexti/e sliaht/y smaller than conduit. c le v. 841.02 Geo textile �F Embankment Sta. 0178 CMP Outlet Support Stc 1110 See Sheet 5 A PROFILE ALONG � OF CONDUIT 2.0" P� o S XWOl Conduit � Conduit SECTION B -B CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. Placement of the drain filter material shall be by one of the following methods: The drain filter material shall be placed in 12 inch lifts_ Each lift shall be saturated uniformly with approximately 1.2 gallons of water per cubic foot of loose drain material. Drain filter material shall be moist sand and sholl be compacted using 6—inch lifts with at least 2 posses over the entire surface with a portable plate vibrator exerting o vertical vibrating force of not less than 700 pounds per soucre foot at least 4,000 times per minute. 2. When the drain outlet moterio/ is placed on bedrock, additional geotexti/e may be placed under the drain outlet to prevent migration of the droin outlet material into fractures in the bedrock. J. Rock riprap shall be placed without damaging underlying geotextile. 4. Rock riprap shall be MNDOT Class IV. 5 Remove all trees, and roots from the embankment prior to construction. 5. Strip minimum of 6"" on embankment DRAIN FILTER GRADATION SIEVE PERCENT SIZE PASSING 54 LF of 24 "" Dia. CMP 100 4 95-700 2 15 Gage, Helical Lock—Seam 50 Droin 100 1 Diaphragm Sto. 0-x80 023 ft/ft' Slope E/ev. 850.45 Sto. 0 X82 �Elev. 843.65 Rip—Rop Covet Top of Pipe c le v. 841.02 Geo textile �F Embankment Sta. 0178 CMP Outlet Support Stc 1110 See Sheet 5 A PROFILE ALONG � OF CONDUIT 2.0" P� o S XWOl Conduit � Conduit SECTION B -B CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. Placement of the drain filter material shall be by one of the following methods: The drain filter material shall be placed in 12 inch lifts_ Each lift shall be saturated uniformly with approximately 1.2 gallons of water per cubic foot of loose drain material. Drain filter material shall be moist sand and sholl be compacted using 6—inch lifts with at least 2 posses over the entire surface with a portable plate vibrator exerting o vertical vibrating force of not less than 700 pounds per soucre foot at least 4,000 times per minute. 2. When the drain outlet moterio/ is placed on bedrock, additional geotexti/e may be placed under the drain outlet to prevent migration of the droin outlet material into fractures in the bedrock. J. Rock riprap shall be placed without damaging underlying geotextile. 4. Rock riprap shall be MNDOT Class IV. 5 Remove all trees, and roots from the embankment prior to construction. 5. Strip minimum of 6"" on embankment DRAIN FILTER GRADATION SIEVE PERCENT SIZE PASSING 3/8 100 4 95-700 76 50-85 50 5-30 100 0-70 ASTM, C-33 fine Ogg MNDOT 3726 fine oag Reinnr v '�c-n— t PARTIAL ISOMETRIC Showing conduit, droin diaphragm, & drain outlet material Spillway Condu Piprq Toe of Embonkment CJ 14' Pipe Outlet Sto. 7117 Elev. 842.0 Plunge Poo/ See Sheet 5 SECTION C -C Riprop 2 15 Geotexti/e SECTION OF RIPRAP MATERIAL NOTE The geotexhle shall conform to the Class 1 requirements in Table 1 (woven) or Table 2 (nonwoven) material specification 592, except the percent open area ofp �e $� ✓Ibrs //4�oe greater than 6% and the porosity of the nonw0ve,-7 shall be greaser 117PV��J,9%7I;DOT Class IV >p of ;prop Cover >p of Pipe a rue ivo. DNC3dwg.dwa yawing o. 9/15/10 11.02 A ct,,.„. 2 „r r, 870 860 850 840 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 PROFILE ALONG CENTERLINE OF EMBANKMENT 8" TW Embankment PLAN VIEW PROTECTIVE BERM ,,NOT TO SCALE) CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. Remove a// trees, and roots from the embankment prior to construction 2. Strip minimum of 5- on embankment 3. Add 59 to fill height for settlement 4. The shope and dimensions of the protective berm can be adjusted depending on the /oyout of the inline water control structure 5. A 22 3 " or 45 ' Elbow is optional depending on how the inlet pipe is orientated into the pool area. The layout con be discussed prior to construction. 870 860 850 840 2+50 3+00 3+50 7'-3" of 36" Dia. Corrugated Metal Riser 14 Goge, Annular Lock -Seam Sto. 0-,�50 Dev. 850.0 /mine Water Level Control Structure 1 Height = 8" Pipe Size = 75" Sta. Flow Line Elev. 8437 AgriDrain INUIVEO8X7511 or Similior as approved by MRCS engineer E/ev. 850.0 3 lope 1 Trash Rock Pipe l.E. 843.9 16" Section 78" Section Elbow Optional See Note 5 34 LF_ of 15"" Corrugated An Pipe 15 Goge Helical Lock -Seam 3 7 Connecting Bond PROFILE VIEW PROTECTIVE BERM (NOT TO SCALE) DNC3dwg.dwg rawing 9/15/10 1.26 PY NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED 4800 Olson Memorial High;vay, Suite 202, Golden galley. NAN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231,2561 plan ners@nacplanning_com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: September 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Critical Area Minor Project Permit Processing CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 — 11.28 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The Critical Area Ordinance regulates any construction or land alteration activity in the designated Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. This area is designated pursuant to federal regulation, and includes most of the land adjacent to the bluffs overlooking the river, as well as some property beyond the bluff areas. Regardless of location, all projects require a Critical Area Permit. For the past several years, the City has required that all such permits follow the full review process of public hearing before the Planning Commission, and City Council approval. The current ordinance does have a clause which permits an expedited review to the City Council for "minor" projects. However, concerns related to public notice for certain projects had resulted in a policy decision to require full review with the public hearing. That clause reads as follows: D. Modifications: h1 the case of a minor development and/or change involving a single-family dwelling, and if the site plans conform to the standards of the critical area overlay district, the city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the city council at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for critical area ordinance consideration. The city council shall review such request and may, if it so determines, exempt the applicant from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this chapter. Analysis: Because there are a number of properties within the Critical Area that have neither steep slopes nor river exposure, the full review can be onerous, particularly when the project is of minimal impact. Many property owners have been surprised to discover that they are in the Critical Area when they have no views, and have had minor building permits held up for several weeks awaiting the Critical Area Permit process to unfold. Unfortunately, one possible solution to this issue — that of removing such properties from the Critical Area —would literally require an act of Congress. Thus, staff is suggesting the expedited review process be re -started, but with a few parameters added to the ordinance to ensure that no projects with potential impacts for the Critical Area escape public notice and comment. The proposed amendment to Section D., above, would add the following limitations: Properties eligible for the exemptions of this paragraph must comply with the following conditions: 1. No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen (18) percent. 2. No part of the subject property shall be within forty (40) feet whether on the same parcel or on abutting parcels of any area defined as a bluff by this chapter, or any area with slopes greater than forty (40) percent. 3. The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than 144 square feet. 4. The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. 5. The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations. 6. The proposed project shall not result in changes to the existing finished grade. 7. Projects included within this exemption provided they meet the preceding requirements include minor building additions, decks, fences accessory storage sheds landscaping and similar structures. 2 Action Requested: The Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Direct staff to file a formal application to consider this amendment at a public hearing before the Planning Commission at its regular meeting in October; or 2) Table action on the item to allow for additional discussion prior to formal consideration of the amendment. Staff Recommendation: This amendment has been forwarded for discussion, based on several recent applications for construction where there were nominal impacts on Critical Area issues. Staff requests that the Planning Commission directs a formal application, which would trigger consideration of the issue at a public hearing next month. This amendment arises from a concern that for properties not directly affecting the bluff or steep slope areas, minor projects should be able to proceed directly to the City Council without the need for a public hearing. The expedited process still ensures staff review and an open meeting approval, without endangering the objectives that the Critical Area Ordinance is designed to protect. Supplementary Materials: UAJ 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden. Valley, (VIP!' 55422 Telephone: 763.23.1.2.555 Facsimile: 768.231.2561 plan ners@nacplanning_com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: September 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Wetland Ordinance Administrative Approval CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 — 11.27 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The current zoning ordinance currently provides two basic methods of approval for Wetlands Permit requests. These are ® A full public hearing before the Planning Commission, with a subsequent final consideration by the City Council, and • An "expedited" process which goes directly to the Planning Commission without a formal hearing, although this still requires final approval by the City Council. The first of these processes consumes about 45 days from application to Council consideration. The second may be slightly shorter, although few permits follow this process since the application deadlines do not accommodate significant differences, whether a hearing is required or not. It has not been uncommon for Wetlands Permits to be requested in which applicants are replacing existing structures (such as decks or porches), but other than during construction, create no additional impacts on the Wetland areas, whether though stormwater, impervious surfaces, or alteration of any existing soil or vegetation. The draft amendment language below would create a particular exemption to the processing of certain low -impact permit applications, allowing the City Administrator, or designee, to approve such permits at staff level, rather than require the full public review process. The current zoning language for this section reads as follows: 12-2-6 C. Administrative Procedures And Exemptions: 1. All proposals to adjust a W district boundary line shall follow the same administrative procedures as outlined in section 12-1 L-7 of this title. 2. Permit application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the processing of a conditional use permit under the city zoning ordinance. In the case of a minor development or change and/or development involving a single-family or two-family residence, the city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the planning commission at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for permit, whereupon, they shall review such request and may, if they so determine, exempt the subdivider from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this chapter. Analysis: The draft amendment would add subparagraph 4. to the cited section, to read as follows: 4. In the case of a permit request which complies with all other zoning standards and where the scope of the project results in none of the following conditions the City Administrator may, at his or her discretion, direct the appropriate staff member to review the permit request for administrative approval_ a. Change from existing grades. b. Increase in building or structure square footage. c. Porch enclosure of an existing deck larger than 200 square feet. d. Increase in impervious surface coverage. e. Reduction in natural vegetation cover. The City Administrator may issue an administrative approval- Such approval may include conditions if those conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with. the intent and/or specific regulations of the Wetlands Ordinance or other applicable regulations. If issues are found in the application the City Administrator may refer the application to the Planning Commission for review under 1.2-2-6 C.2. 2 With this amendment, projects that are otherwise consistent with City requirements and likely to have little or impact on the Wetland area, or adjoining properties, may proceed on a quicker timeline. The draft ordinance language has been designed to provide three options to City staff: 1) Approve as submitted; 2) Approve with conditions; or 3) Refer to Planning Commission for the regular process. The first option (approval as submitted) would be expected for most applications eligible for administrative consideration. The second option (approval with conditions) is suggested where an administrative approval is appropriate, but some minor discrepancy is discovered that can be corrected with a simple condition. This latter option is intended to avoid an administrative "denial", for which the applicant would then need to file a separate appeal. As noted in the text, an administrative approval is only to be considered for applications that appear to meet all other zoning requirements. In this case, then, the applicant would be subject to the regular process, on the assumption that there is some aspect of the application that requires further policy examination, rather than a straightforward application of the code. Action Requested: The Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Direct staff to file a formal application to consider this amendment at a public hearing before the Planning Commission at its regular meeting in October; or 2) Table action on the item to allow for additional discussion prior to formal consideration of the amendment. Staff Recommendation: This amendment has been forwarded for discussion, based on several recent minor requests. Staff requests that the Planning Commission directs a formal application, which would trigger consideration of the issue at a public hearing next month. As discussed, those applications meeting the conditions identified in the draft ordinance language are routinely approved, usually without significant comment, and at no threat to the wetland resource. In the event that an application is found to raise issues that exceed the Administrative authority, it can be cycled into the regular process for more extensive review and public notice. Supplementary Materials: ZUA TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Update to Aircraft Noise Attenuation Code Discussion The City of Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission (ARC) has asked that the planning commission and city council consider enhancing noise abatement requirements for properties located in close proximity to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International. Airport. Mendota Heights City Code Title 12, Chapter 4 outlines requirements to use noise -attenuating materials in the construction of homes within pre -determined noise zones. The ARC has reviewed this section of code and is recommending two updates. Current code language adopts aircraft noise zones; staff has been unable to identify exactly how these zones were established. The ARC recognizes that noise contours have changed since these zones were established with the construction of the north -south runway, changes in airport demand and the mix of airplanes utilized by carriers. The ARC is recommending adoption of the 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour — a document created by the Metropolitan Airport Commission as a result of litigation between the commission and several neighboring communities. The ARC is also recommending a change in the minimum threshold for noise attenuation. The common measurement for aircraft noise is the day -night level (DNL) the equivalent continuous sound level from midnight to midnight. The Aircraft Noise Attenuation Code currently is limited to areas recognized as 65 DNL and above. The ARC is recommending that noise attenuation standards be required out to the 60 DNL, which is in keeping with other communities in close proximity to the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport. A draft copy of the Aircraft Noise Attenuation Code in strikethrough fonnat has been included. Recommendation The Airport Relations Commission has recommended that the planning commission and city council consider the following changes to Title 12, Chapter 4 of the City Code. Action Required If the planning commission wishes to move forward with the proposed amendment, pass a motion authorizing staff to make formal application to amend City Code Title 12, Chapter 4, making revisions the commission deems necessary. Draft Amendment — Strikethrough Version Chapter 4 AIRCRAFT NOISE ATTENUATION 12-4-1: AUTHORITY AND FINDINGS: 12-4-2: PURPOSE - 12 -4-3- DEFINITIONS - 12 -4-4- SCOPE AND EFFECT.- 12-4-5: FFECT:12-4-5: PREREQUISITES TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR OCCUPANCY PERMIT.- 12-4-6: ERMIT:12-4-6: AIRCRAFT INInlcR ZONES ESTABI«GI_SHED MSP 2007 FORECAST MITIGATED NOISE CONTOUR ADOPTED 12-4-7: NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLES: 12-4-8: ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS: 12-4-1: AUTHORITY AND FINDINGS: A. Statutory Authority: This chapter is adopted pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 473.192. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987; amd. 2003 Code) B. Findings Of Fact: The city finds that development within certain areas of the city is impacted by aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the regulatory authority of the city to control; that certain uses of land are inappropriate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not adequately attenuate aircraft noise resulting in negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents or inhabitants of the structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to attenuate aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative impacts; and that the requirements of this chapter are necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mendota Heights. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-2: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to require that new or redeveloped portions of buildings within the city be constructed with materials and in such a manner that aircraft noise is attenuated by the structure to an interior level which has no adverse impact on the health, safety and general welfare of the residents, all in accordance with the metropolitan council's guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. This chapter shall not apply to remodeling or rehabilitating an existing residential building, nor to the construction of an appurtenance to an existing residential building. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-3: DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this chapter, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them in this section. AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONE: Any one of the four (4) zones identified on the map attached to ordinance 232 and incorporated herein by reference. CONSISTENT: Land uses that are acceptable. dBA: A unit of sound pressure level weighted by use of the A metering characteristics and weighting as specified in the American national standards institute specification for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4- 1983), which is hereby incorporated by reference. "dBA" is also referred to as an A -weighted decibel. INCONSISTENT: Land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustical treatment was incorporated in the structure. INFILL DEVELOPMENT: Pertains to an undeveloped parcel or parcels of land proposed for development similar to or less noise sensitive than the developed parcels surrounding the undeveloped parcel (for example, a new house on a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood, or a new industry on a vacant parcel in an established industrial area). Ldn DNL: The day -night average level, or the twenty four (24) hour equivalent continuous sound level (time averaged A -weighted sound level) from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of ten (10) dBA to sound levels measured from ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. to seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. Leq: The equivalent continuous sound level which, over the period of one hour, has the same A -weighted sound energy as the time varying sound. MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT: A relatively large parcel of land with all structures proposed for extensive rehabilitation or demolition, and different uses (for example, demolition of a square block of old office and hotel buildings for new housing, office, commercial uses; conversion of warehouse to office and commercial uses). NEW DEVELOPMENT: A relatively large, undeveloped tract of land proposed for development (for example, a residential subdivision, industrial park or shopping center). NOISE REDUCTION LEVEL: The difference between the exterior and interior sound level, expressed in dBA, which is achieved by the intervening structure. RECOGNIZED ACOUSTICAL SPECIALIST: A person qualified by education and experience to conduct sound analyses of buildings and approved for such purpose by the city. The approved individual shall have at least three (3) years of experience in the field of sound control and a degree from a recognized institute of higher learning in the process of sound analysis of buildings. RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES: Pertains to replacing a structure destroyed by fire, age, etc., to accommodate the same use that existed before destruction, or expanding a structure to accommodate increased demand for an existing use, but does not pertain to remodeling or rehabilitating existing residential buildings nor to the construction of an appurtenance to an existing residential building. SOUND: Energy that is transmitted by pressure waves in the air or in other materials and is the objective cause of the sensation of hearing. It is commonly called "noise" if it is unwanted. SOUND ATTENUATION: The reduction in sound level which occurs between the source and receiver. SOUND LEAK: An opening in a structure through which sound can pass. "Sound leaks" are often extremely small holes or cracks. In general, an air leak is a "sound leak". SOUND LEVEL: The level of sound pressure measured with a sound level meter and one of its weighting (frequency) networks. When A -weighting is used, the "sound level" is expressed as dBA. SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC): A single number rating for describing the degree of sound transmission loss specified for a wall, window, partition or other building element. The higher the STC, the more attenuation the building element will afford. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-4: SCOPE AND EFFECT: A. Scope: The+ hr herd by +hic Ghon+ Gr f+ ��a nnn� 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour+ e shall overlay the zoning districts established by chapter 1 of this title, so that any parcel of land lying in an overlay zone shall also lie on one or more of the established zoning districts. Territory within a given overlay zone shall be subject to the requirements established by the other applicable ordinances and regulations of the city. B. Zoning District Uses: Within each adopted overlay zone, all uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations for the underlying zoning districts; provided, however, that the appropriate building permit is first obtained; and provided further, that no use designated as inconsistent on the noise compatibility tables in section 12-4-7 of this chapter shall be permitted. C. Application Of Provisions: This chapter applies to all construction and any reconstructed portion of a building requiring a building permit after the effective date hereof, except remodeling or rehabilitation of an existing residential building or the construction of an appurtenance to an existing residential building. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-5: PREREQUISITES TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR OCCUPANCY PERMIT: Any application for a city building or occupancy permit pertaining to land located in an aircraft noise zone must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter prior to the issuance of such permit. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-6' 14.1RGRAFTAIfIICl= 7llP�IES ESTARI ISHE A ;ZApo Gc+ b4Shnrl�The�f-$f this +i+In- Air�CCe nen I A�r�Uf+ nn, n �nnn I Ai r f+ nv �nnn I1� MSP 2007 FORECAST MITIGATED NOISE CONTOUR ADOPTED A The 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour developed by the Metropolitan Airport Commission shall be used to determine the DNL for application of noise attenuation standards. The Noise Contour Is Maintained by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. 12-4-7: NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLES: All construction or reconstruction requiring a building permit and located within an aircraft , •^'s -e Z9Re a designated DNL contour shall be constructed in such a way that the applicable noise level reduction requirements contained in the following noise compatibility tables are met or exceeded. Where a particular structure contains different land uses, the more stringent requirements of the applicable table shall apply, except where it is architecturally possible to achieve the appropriate noise reduction level for each different use, and the uses are acoustically separated by a wall or partition with a minimum STC of twenty five (25). (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 1 Noise Reduction Level In dBA Required To Meet Standards For Use In New Development And Major Redevelopment (The noise reduction level numbers specify for each type of land use the amount of interior sound level reduction necessary for the use to be compatible in the applicable =se zene mitigated noise contour.) _._._..__..___ Land Use Type A ir ,T„�'�ft Noise Zone Mitigated Noise Contour _. Leq(80+) (75-80) I (70-75) (P&560- 70) entrance' Mobile home Educational and medical: INCO INCO ' INCO 25 Schools, churches, hospitals, INCO INCO INCO 25 nursing homes ... __._ .._ _ .._. __. _ ............ ..... e_ ........ ---- ------------ .__ . _....__ Cultural, entertainment, recreational 35 30 25 20 Office commercial retail 35 30 25 CNST Services: p. ......... P g _._ Trans ortation/ assen er facilities 35 30 25 CNST Transient lodging I INCO 30 25 20 Other medical, health and 35 30 25 CNST educational services _. _..... _ .. ___.. _ ------ Other services 35 30 25 CNST ....... ... .__ _ Industrial, communication, utility 25 CNST CNST CNST Agricultural land, water area, resource CNST ' CNST CNST CNST extraction ,a N ote: 1.These uses do not permit "in the wall” air conditioning units in =o„^�,,� in mitigated noise contours 70 or above. NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 2 Noise Reduction Level In dBA To Meet Standard For Use In Infill Development And Reconstruction Or Additions To Existing Structures (The noise reduction level numbers specify for each type of land use the amount of interior sound level reduction necessary for the use to be compatible in the applicable .r ,e e mitigated noise contour.) Land Use Type Mitigated Noise Contour _"_ . ___ ._ , eq(0o+) (75-$0) (70-75) (6560- 70) __. Residential': .. . 25 Single/multiplex with individual 40 35 30 entrance2 30 25 C .... _.. ... _ . Multiplex/apartment with shared 40 =; 35 30 entrance2 CNST 'I CNST C Mobile home2 40 35 30 Educational and medical: Schools, churches, hospitals, ._....... 40 35 30 nursing homes _..... Cultural, entertainment, recreational 35 1 30 25 25 25 25 25 20 Office, commercial retail 35 30 25 CNST Services: Transportation/passenger facilities 35 30 25 CNST 35 30 25 35 30 J 25 C _..- 35 30 25 C 25 CNST ;CNST C CNST CNST 'I CNST C 20 NST NST NST NST Notes: 1. Does not apply to remodeling or rehabilitation of existing residential structures, or to construction of appurtenances to existing residential structures. 2. These uses do not permit "in the wall' air conditioning units in -4,_1z.,as-1,� a d n' in mitigated noise contours 70 or above. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987; amd. 2003 Code) 12-4-8: ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS: The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced pursuant to this section. A. Plans And Specifications: 1. Required Plans And Specifications: a. All applicants for a building or occupancy permit shall include with the application all plans, specifications or other information required by this chapter. The plans and specifications shall describe in sufficient detail all pertinent features of the building, building materials, heating and ventilation systems, including, but not limited to, the STC ratings of exterior roof/ceilings, walls, windows, and doors; and other pertinent data as may be requested by the city to indicate conformance with the applicable noise reduction level requirements as specified in the noise compatibility tables. To assure the elimination of sound leaks, the plans and specifications shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: (1) A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements as provided in the state and uniform building code for the proposed occupancy without the need to open any exterior doors or windows. (2) The perimeter of all exterior windows and doorframes shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction. (3) Fireplaces shall be equipped with well fitted chimney closing devices. (4) All ventilation ducts, except range hoods, connecting interior space to outdoors shall be provided with a bend such that no direct line of sight exists from exterior to interior through the vent duct. (5) Doors and windows shall be constructed so that they are close fitting. Weather stripping seals shall be incorporated to eliminate all edge gaps. (6) All penetrations through exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits and the like shall be caulked airtight to the exterior construction. b. The city shall require that plans and specifications be certified by a recognized acoustical specialist for compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 420, 1-20-2009) 2. Approval Or Rejection Of Plans: a. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of appropriate plans and specifications, the city shall approve or reject the plans based upon the ability of the proposed materials and construction techniques to adequately attenuate noise. The city shall approve the plans and specifications if, in the opinion of the code enforcement officer, the plans and specifications demonstrate a good faith effort to attenuate noise by meeting the intent of this chapter to the maximum extent possible. In the event that the drawings are rejected, the reasons for such rejection shall be submitted to the applicant in writing. (Ord. 243, 10-20- 1987; amd. 2003 Code) b. No construction shall occur prior to the approval of the appropriate plans and specifications. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications as determined by the city and shall be deemed to meet the noise attenuation requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 243, 10- 20-1987) B. Inspections: 1. All construction or work for which a building permit is required shall be subject to inspections by the city. Inspections of noise attenuation work shall be performed during the required building construction inspections specified by this code. 2. When inspection indicates that the construction is not in accordance with the approved plans, the city may order such corrective action as may be necessary to meet the noise attenuation requirements of this chapter. In lieu of performing such corrective action, a building owner may submit a test report based upon field tests showing compliance with the noise reduction level requirements contained in the applicable noise compatibility table. The field test shall be performed in accordance with the "American Society for Testing Materials standard E 336-84, part A1.2.2. outside to inside (level reduction)". (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) `ry PSG"Fa � 3r'1'r ?cl'C ".'.b 13L fl fy' Y l30 Ar F1% TVVZ"_� II4 E a o C fall -_V;' J �o 4 (I J� w o - t i W ll� - LU L -- = S -EXiNGTO`ti .4vE S c 15 s d Cl O CUR CD /O N Gl th mo lvoly W T ? 1 ) VY� �1210d CINV 11N0d e s - — - N Ql + x 1-1311-IODIN S 3;',b 13110JIN 591 )WV v m c < b Ur- cn Z--- L._ ° -- y _ b b > > ° o o J T N O p L m U v n 3 La U ' ° X a C m m C to J C N m> = m p 2-2 ` E O N '� 'O N O N 6 t0 Z O 'N e0 m>, J .J aEm € Z Z o o =— m.°. 2 L m )n a J J m 'm0 10 w L d m m > V d ^ r' �' h) N H 'U `) N° Cn m L G .: Q C p o 7 O � 7 .° m m m m >N+ m L N = 4y :N r:.2 O o0 m d M N O to NU mE M V d H J iJm O m W Q �E� Em 0 m to mm a2 —A n N °f m �� 11 m� Q � nwm -0 m` o N o N �E) Eo 0 N 0 N 0 0. ° __ � ° >, to E� 41 V y N N O O 22— O V OI C c d m Y m 2 ci d C v N m 3 ° N 'p o;i �' p C) O .o v �. d U ® G° t J !n co m m E J U d S. m. m m !m E