Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
090412 Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING • 4.1 PC12 -08, Request for text amendment to Section 4- 3(1)(3)h "personal wireless service antenna towers" pertaining to tower separation distance, conditional use permit for the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower, and site plan review, 3980 Quebec Avenue North, Verizon Wireless, petitioner. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Design and Review Committee - next meeting September 13, 7:30 a.m. (if needed) 5.2 Codes and Standards Committee 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 PC 12 -03, Discussion of City Center Zoning revisions 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Approve August 8, 2012, Planning Commission Minutes 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT • Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting Rpr Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first -hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staffs recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The chair may set a time limit for individual questions /comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions /comments. 5. When recognized by the chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions /comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions /comments to the chair. The chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. PLANNING CASE REPORT CITY OF NEW HOPE Planning Case: 12.08 Meeting Date: September 4, 2012 Report Date: August 29, 2012 Petitioner: Verizon Wireless/Buell Consulting Address: 3980 Quebec Ave. N. Project Name: Verizon Wireless Monopole Project Description: Construction of a 120 foot wireless antenna tower Planning Request: Text Amendment to Section 4- 3(1)(3)h "Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers," pertaining to tower separation distance Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower I. Type of Planning Request II. Zoning Code References Section(s) III. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Lease Area: Building Area: Lot Area Ratios: Planning District: Section 4 -3L. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers I, Industrial East side of Quebec Ave. N, south of 42 Ave. N. Industrial land uses to the north, west, and south. Residential land uses to the east across the C.P. Rail ROW 137,713 square feet or 3.16 acres 2,500 square feet or .06 acres 360 square feet floor area for Verizon monopole equipment shelter Not applicable. Planning District 9S: Comprehensive plan guides this site for industrial or park/recreation land uses PC12 -08 Verizon 1 September 4, 2012 IV. Background Verizon Wireless is requesting a conditional use permit to install a 120 foot personal wireless service antenna tower at 3980 Quebec Avenue N. The proposed monopole, in addition to a 12 foot by 30 foot equipment shelter, will be located on a 50 foot by 50 foot lease area within the subject property. . V. Text Amendment The design of the monopole site will be able to meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements for antenna towers, with the exception of the requirement for a 1000 foot separation distance between towers. As a result, the applicant has requested that a text amendment be made to Zoning Ordinance Sec. 4- 3(1)(3)h, pertaining to the separation distance between antenna towers, so that the project may proceed at a separation distance of only 350 feet. Verizon Wireless has submitted materials which discuss the prohibitive nature of the 1000 foot tower separation requirement. A significant increase in demand for wireless service coverage, and unique siting and antenna height requirements are among several key factors influencing wireless server providers ability to meet the requirement. The attached Text Amendment is an effort to provide an exception to the tower separation requirement when specific conditions are met, and is offered for Planning Commission review and discussion. VI. Conditional Use Permit Analysis A. Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers. 1. Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria According to Zoning Ordinance Sec. 4 -3 (1)(3) personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within industrial zoning districts, provided they comply with the following standards: (a) Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same oNvnership, written authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. Findings: A land lease agreement between the Lessor, Winnetka Properties, and the Lessee, Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, has been provided by the applicant. (b) All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within 12 months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the city manager or designate. The removal shall be the joint and several responsibility of the antenna tower owner and land owner. Findings: Not applicable. (c) All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. PC12 -08 Verizon 2 September 4, 2012 Findings: The attached document from Senior Design Engineer Amy Herbst, with Sabre Industries, indicates that the proposed antenna tower is in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA- 222 -G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas." And the applicant submitted T -1 project sheet indicates that the work delineated in the project drawings and described in the specifications shall conform to codes, standards, and regulations that have jurisdiction in the state of Minnesota, and the City of New Hope. In addition, the attached document "Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park" describes that the proposed Verizon Wireless 1M C Memory Park" site complies with all Federal Communications Commission (FCC ) and FAA regulations pertaining to the technical aspects of Verizon Wireless operations and network. The antenna tower is also subject to city building permit review and approval. (d) Structural design and construction plans of the antenna towers shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. Findings: Amy Herbst, Senior Design Engineer with Sabre Industries, provided a statement describing the design of the proposed monopole in relation to wind speed and safety factors. The proposed 120' monopole would be designed by Sabre Industries for a Basic Wind Speed of 90 mph with no ice and 50 mph with %" radial ice, Structure Class II, Exposure Category C, and Topographic Category 1. Additionally, the T -1 project sheet (Exhibit A) lists departmental approvals for the project, including approval by Construction Engineer John Haugen. The antenna tower is also subject to city building permit review and approval. (e) When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any required federal state, or local agency licenses. Findings: The applicant has not provided copies of the necessary licenses, but has indicated that Verizon Wireless has attained a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) license from the FCC which authorizes it to provide CMRS and operate a CMRS network in geographic areas throughout the nation. Further, in the attached "Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park" document the applicant explains that licensees of the FCC, as part of the issuance of a license and in compliance with FCC rules and regulations, are not allowed to interfere with other licensees whose frequencies are under the jurisdiction of the FCC, including any public safety communications. (f) The city may authorize the use of city property for an antenna tower in appropriately zoned districts in accordance with the procedures of the City Code. The city shall have no obligation whatsoever to use city property for such purposes. Findings: Not applicable. (g) Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest property line of 75 percent of tower height and a minimum setback from a building in the same lot of 50 percent of tower height. The setback requirements may be reduced if the applicant PC12 -08 Verizon 3 September 4, 2012 provides documentation by a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The setback requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback requirements of the base zoning district, whichever is greater. Findings: The proposed antenna tower is 120 feet tall, so the required setback from property lines would be 90 feet at 75% of tower height. The applicants provided documentation from Amy Herbst, the Senior Design Engineer with Sabre Industries, stating that the monopole will have a collapse point within a radius of 50% of the monopole height, or 60 feet. Therefore the minimum tower setback can be reduced to 60 feet. The applicants provided a Site Plan, Sheet A -1 which illustrates a 60'- 2" setback from the middle of the base of the proposed tower to the adjacent rear property lines, which appears to meet the reduced setback requirement. How-ever, the setback should be measured from the outer face of the tower base, not the center of the tower base (as is currently illustrated on Sheet A -1), which would reduce the setback by approximately 3 feet in either direction. Given this change in setback measurement, the proposed tower would no longer meet the 60 foot setback requirement. The applicants will need to demonstrate a minimum 60 foot setback from the outside perimeter of the tower to all adjacent property lines. The antenna tower maintains a 60 foot or greater setback from the existing principal building at 3980 Quebec Ave. N. A municipal water main is located along the south edge of the parking lot of 3980 Quebec Avenue N. The city will require a 30 foot building setback between the proposed tower and the water main. Sheet A -2, Enlarged Site Plan indicates a 30 foot setback between tower and water main, however the setback is currently measured from the center of the tower to the water main, and should be measured from the outer edge of the tower. The location of the proposed tower will need to be adjusted to rectify this water main setback requirement as well. (h) All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of 1,000 feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. Findings: The proposed monopole location is approximately 350' from an existing 75' Crown Castle monopole at 3940 Quebec Ave. N (Paddock Laboratories), which does not meet the separation requirement. A text amendment has been requested for Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(1)(3)h) which creates an exception to the 1000 foot separation requirement, given that certain conditions have been met. Once the conditions are met antenna towers may be constructed within 1000 feet of one another. The city will need to approve this text amendment so that the proposed Verizon Wireless monopole project may proceed, given that they have met all other wireless antenna tower requirements described in Section 4- 3(1)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. (i) Maximum height of a two antenna array tower shall be 145 feet. A tower providing for three or more antenna arrays may have a maximum height of 165 feet. Findings: The proposed monopole will be 120', and will accommodate at least two other wireless users at varying heights, meeting the tower height requirement. PC12 -08 Verizon 4 September 4, 2012 (j) Antenna towers shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. Findings: The applicant has not provided a lighting plan, however Sheet A -6 Outline Specifications states that the contractor will provide for the operation of FAA required lighting per the RFQ. Additionally, Sheet A -3 Tower Elevation indicates a proposed lighting rod atop the tower, as well as noting that the project contractor will ensure that the tips of antennas are below the bottoms of obstruction lights per FAA/FCC standards. If any other artificial lighting is required by law or by the FAA, the applicant will need to adapt the design of the tower to include the required lighting. (k) No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. The owner /operator of the tower shall place a sign, not to exceed two square feet, on the fence surrounding the associated ground equipment. This sign shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. Findings: A sign identifying the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information shall be placed on the fence surrounding the ground equipment in accordance with this requirement, and as a condition of approval. (1) Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. Findings: The tower shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish in accordance with this requirement, and as a condition of approval. (m) Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse visual effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. Findings: In the attached document " Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park" the applicant has indicated that the establishment of the proposed telecommunication facility will not be materially injurious to the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. However, the applicant will also need to specify the color or make of the proposed tower as a condition of approval. (n) A security fence eight feet in height shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. A locked anticlimb device shall be installed on all towers extending 12 feet above the ground. Findings: In Sheet A -6 Outline Specifications, the applicant has indicated that a six foot galvanized steel fence will be built around the tower, with a fence top of three strands of barbed wire to 7' above grade. The fence height will need to be increased two feet to meet the fencing requirement for antenna towers. The applicants have not indicated that a 12 foot locked anticlimb device shall be installed on the tower. The design for the MINC Memory Park tower will need to be adapted to provide an anticlimb device. (o) Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, whether self - contained or located in a freestanding equipment building, shall be located at the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened from view from residential uses and public rights -of -way. PC12 -08 Verizon 5 September 4, 2012 Findings: An enclosed 12 foot by 30 foot combined equipment shelter and generator room will sit at the base of the antenna tower. In addition, Sheet A -6 Outline Specifications indicates that existing landscaping elements will be protected during construction of the tower, and new trees and shrubs will be furnished on the monopole site by the contractor, which will help to screen the lower portion of the tower and equipment shelter from nearby land uses. Though the applicant has not provided a landscape plan which illustrates the exact location of new trees and shrubs, in meeting to review the application, the Design and Review Committee determined that the proposed tower is far enough away from Quebec Avenue N. as to not necessitate the application of significant additional landscaping. (p) If a new antenna tower is to be constructed it shall be designed to accommodate at least two antenna arrays including, but not limited to, other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire, and ambulance companies. Findings: The proposed 120' antenna tower will be constructed to accommodate up to two additional wireless users at different heights. (q) The conditional use permit provisions of section 4 -33 of this Code must also be satisfied. Findings: The conditional use provisions of Section 4 -33 of City Code have been met. See planning report for further detail. B. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met to review the plans on August 16, 2012. The Committee expressed their concerns, which have been incorporated in the conditions of the planning report, and the language of the proposed text amendment, as necessary. C. Approval 1. Type of Approval Conditional Use Permit: • Construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower Text Amendment: • Amend text of Section 4- 3(1)(3)h, pertaining to the separation distance between antenna towers, to allow exceptions to the 1000 foot separation requirement should specific conditions be met. 2. Timeline a. Date Application Received: August 10, 2012 b. Date Revised Application Resubmitted: August 24, 2012 c. End of 60 -Day Decision period: October 9, 2012 d. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: December 8, 2012 VII. Petitioner's Comments PC12 -08 Verizon 6 September 4, 2012 Petitioner's Comments are included in the attachments. VIII. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff has not received any comments. IX. Summary The applicant has proposed constructing a personal wireless service antenna tower, which requires a conditional use permit. The applicant has also requested a text amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(1)(3)h, pertaining to the separation distance between antenna towers, to be able to build the proposed monopole within the required 1000 foot separation distance. X. Recommendation Text Amendment: A Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(1)(3)h (Exhibit H) has been provided for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. Any change in Ordinance is a policy decision for the New Hope City Council and Planning Commission, who should provide additional requirements or recommendations for an amendment as they see fit. The language in the proposed Text Amendment currently provides an exception to the 1000 foot tower separation requirement given certain conditions. Conditional Use Permit: Personal Wireless Service Antenna Tower. Should the proposed Text Amendment gain approval from the city, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower, subject to the following conditions. 1. The text amendment is made to Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(1)(3)h), creating an exception to the 1000 foot separation requirement given certain conditions. 2. The applicants demonstrate that a minimum 60 foot setback from the outside perimeter of the monopole to all adjacent property lines has been attained in the design of the monopole site. 3. The applicants demonstrate that a minimum 30 foot setback from water mains has been attained in the design of the monopole site. 4. The applicants provide a sign on the fence surrounding the monopole site which identifies the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. 5. The applicants provide information explaining the color and make of the proposed tower. 6. The applicants provide evidence that the height of the fence surrounding the monopole site will be increased two feet to meet the fencing requirement for antenna towers; and that a 12 foot locked anti -climb device will be installed on the tower. 7. The proposed project undergoes a building permit review. PC12 -08 Verizon 7 September 4, 2012 A Conditional Use Agreement prepared by the city attorney is entered into that insures compliance with the CUP and site restoration requirements. Attachments: Revised Plans (Dated: 08/24/12) Verizon Wireless Coverage Maps Application (Dated: 08/10/12) Letter from Buell Consulting Inc. Letter from Sabre Industries " Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park" Letter FloodPak Series FPM Land Lease Agreement Text Amendment Planning Consultant Report (Dated: 8/29/12) Application Log PC12 -08 Verizon 8 September 4, 2012 a All a tipi 1 LLI OR I E 1 2 MA u gill � J _j a J i l l 3p0 0. � ffi N d w 0 R Z f i t , s W oi MI 1 l l ti� 3 II 9 LLJ HI I ay e y U) LLJ $g� fil s 5 s #RI N Y3M ay e y U) LLJ $g� fil s 5 s #RI Jill lilg ----------- - - - - -- - - - -- --------------------------- --- - - - - -- - - -- _-------- - - - - -� I � - -L— — — - - - - -- -- - - - - -- �'- — I - - - -- ------ - - -a-- - vp W �. OD i I —mi ld CL m ol pig lo W LL s IT .......... W I O N - - Iull��rfy!►rwr��lC 61 - N MI* ;fig# # Q sift a Nv # fit H il l �` a LL z 1OO� O 0 � a — _J }0 r*@ 1Op p Q w C W y� O n W1 g o E Q �1 O po C O O N y.D iF 3 1$ 1 I I� _I I DIY � I I I I � I$ _I I , I� I ; I V ; I V ' 'loll to I N �.� 111 I I I I 1 1 1. 1 1 1 III III III IIl 1 1 1 ill III f il l , I III lI 0 ! r� a �j' Iyy (yFZQJ �$i�yJ F bll 111 FII 1 b , l bll 111 FII FII b11 III bll loll !!r S -- C . �F bl1 III bll bll bil III bll b11 blI III bll bll 1 ko n b W I e l I b11 121 bl m_I *_I L-1. } � , II !?I, W I �_lI F RI1 III _1 1 � - I 1 111 b I >al l ql1 111 � I I i -�� Q 1 1 III III X11 kll III III �II � III is 121 RP I I `YIDII IIII IIII z x 1 11 1 1 1 1 491 I I w,lgIII glw� "+ ,I RAI I� Ig -I� I� I� z w IM I I I I I I I I I�I �w '1 11"011611 Ell Ell III IIIII11 III ill11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I . $_ y o 0 low lot 'i Irl 11 a lilt P N! I I f I Q RE kill 141 Rlm Will 91Q eIs VIVViV Al � 1 1 11 111 so , 2w a o LU `u fe 7 ® v m C9 Zq O O n i Y Z Q Np m wk s r� .d LL IL g w $'� Q ILI a o LU `u fe 7 ® v m C9 Zq O O n i Y Z Q Np m wk s r� .d w 4 5 D ��AKIJM di W ��. ggil b I I g � a a a (D *> LL J m � w 4 5 D ��AKIJM di W ��. ggil b I I g � a a a (D *> It gi sit I ki � a � 20 8 ru [Oil I «.uo a a1w aow w lams LD ie o ® ®o ° 'o i g till z a ff $ 24 R .9 t .Ow9 b Z e O aj 0 1 Wo- a all s 1 khR m Ri ll LL P .x/1 01 ig z c 3 I �� �� •� S •T z �R p a W� ^ E� 8 4 T h co LU 0 LO a 2 t LU e � � 111 F � b g ma Z ° I? lug W� y N O§ w lL m 9 .C-AI 7il A <� I ° dAl A'A MI A - & N Z '= two w w @ J� a• J 0 Ox V N U b O O O / LU k ' ,s Q p $ S D 0. x $ w g M w o w b �1 w J a. n 1 t9 w ? to 4 �t 2 m. F. 00 0001 FE7MIS C.ebuc%- Pwdt Ad bb aepI by, w x b mm d. Vbam ThkW b w .dwro toad b .. to OWNER. Olm pwnb Ad t. arqu by tM Cowbodw. SS 0002 SLWff FEES Suwy 0101 be Mdded by b Arehb L wyad adiq Ad 6. eaadbeW mm the L.pwr P•r - (kW. wo 01 0010 INSURANCE a BON05 LLnbacbr b to henM baln.e. ewBRmlm for twmbw ad adw;ddadwa Cm6aiw d pmMe ae royid BonOnp. CawmM agm. b wanly tlw p.j.d For (1) a. yw .Oar .aipbN.r, m DIOD Sl0FRN ION a 000Rmim Ca*.e- rid pride egsd I thro.0 Ow PWpd..O.rdAiA Ave cab of b 5Aewmabra wd ddbwy a k6lotl. f Omerbnwm bm OwN.eNa rapow SO cordo arm*q a ewA&Ikq of lwlwyawd Wee Nora Cadmda dd .nply WM rmAdpd...mRA .xb .d/w bawd eaf bokdbq OSIL O 0600 TE511N0 Qmh.e. x ra.pawib Orr p Aganeir .M M&WA nab. b r,..p 1w Td b^Pl. (ia: Car. h6dwab ad iw BPedd NrpwOpia 01 20M NEEYMOS Mhaaw del Paw V...ma eves d, d Ord, nwNi -p w& Iw ever :ar ArdAlal. CanMeb.r b b Deed a P- Cwwhudbw M." d d pw6e AtNwd, :a b deed e.mbedMv Ot 5100 1Oi0RNO 0ORE5 Ca6edw rid rodrbb 11w job .b x a elm d rawly I.. I poddag 1m0.rw) -ftly bdaea. rM &W-11..W .wRy (fieves am w hdw made). O 5300 E294AW REMN. Cmbalw sho l hwReh @*Wand naeewy AF eWb .wk 01 3 100 FEED OFFICES At SEEMS C.6.aba dA padl amd0' (E.m soa w bdw w &" for bob wd a d kb Mel rands m.ipM a eAa 01 70M CLEAN UP a CLOSE CUT Cadadw Ad .lm p On Sb to M. wildaUm d 0- Cwftdw rid eanOl.b b Nanbbd. b Owe/.Palo001.wd Mal rip GMd.dw del mkeAr 0 ad Of dada. &N4 Ma )04 m dkh dwge Aal w mba it d K A fd .t of Ndewd A So (AaBdb) m to b gbm b M. Aid aad d Job eaSM. d alma 'mehuetim .ak •^•11.1• real.i b Q d dim Eno w. 01 am TRUCKS a NIEm Cmd.dw dd pwA 1. baapwb5en for 9reb an peaaw.d 01 6100 mNEL FINE a PER M Cwkodw Ord pad. Nam d head hr Mar cam pww.NM, wd m...M. Enos f r b..% b a hm j* rib. 01 9200 TANS C"oft 0101 pq MILS m bw a mwft M Mdb dw.bea s1EWe1M III ISSD ME PFBWNMN a O0NOR0N D. *,.e b a eWft MM 7 ed.dw day. F M8 0mw amine a STNS° aen.rrd. CH&Gew .• Anedaby rspwt to Andibd IF my oW wwwnM a.wINreBer wbL 9b rid w -WW b a dqM O r r ftimm b rmrw. vsgetlM mow, ad ehd w ebdgNed . *L Ever mMM b b. dbpa , d l aeadm0 wM 160. A Nkndr iw Fmw l b w -Ndnd rw b dMMr d b v.A m 1100 ROD 9pi0YE091f a 00MARUCION N/A m 21100 FARUTAM a E1CII N110N lla olta nmbrM dd w red far sW m Weft m narwg wes b be d.dpied a ab, Ex ,A w to w dbpmd d b -c--d- dlh RF0. Far wm, es6.lor del utl6m SSA w .Awd Rte far Rwkt of m smo PAID a BIWA= Nw W&M dd w --" to PSMA a SSW aAdSq SO prig Aapb* p.bl Ad w r bbnea. kppat avw 4 owhda ew..h ad.w dM 6' CIm S w mddww bra, Car.Nb pvbig rid b r Iddr, ridav .M O'd' .HAM wh rash or +S did bwg Ill" draw, a a r fwd mhbll. Odd p ft and be . drabs In 01 MR m 79M TEEM 10 511E WOOD a RAM SPECIAL COMSMUQ1011 Cad..br Ad peddo r atwde 40 PVC amAe, (i wdd. SS PVC wdw mo& d dMa) .9h UP l"W abed At pd a66g far TEEOD w. a n" .. pima Cidb 06 TODD RO SIN O FEN R , 13 1950 1111E OWE MN dd Odtm) ID w fib- apb OW^ seem ad prwMw T$0. 1-ha andl be . b 02 7800. Cm bb. Ad Pw* naawbb, b6w b mod d pA tli4 -SSb . 11r m pg g A ,q3 h Ord dwnda; S rah wndiq r.duR b/R Per wehAat.d dawmh m .had A-4. .IS IMIS -SO - 7/O' 1.102 b. a6d 6. 10' .ft wndln6 m&M JO 6a/R 02 800 SITE RFROYEEEMS 09 20M FM CJOP9NRf 0017 -60 - t 5/r -kA 1.9I h weud 6. Ir dr. bedp a ft .72 WA Am. bamdd by 11- W ado-I b Aabr dd -" pdp.091. paaEdia 200 N/A roach aa..A bppd AM r dap 3/4' 1. 1 1/r dm r..k (m &.1 mhW -& end .dyd by salbrw od ADD 6mbd bdaep VPMIM a Tap Of th 6- and In fNh NM MIMAL a MOIS1111E or 4 w.f.d.9. ADD I." Mr6e.P.d frdwa 0101 w and d Wft d wove ad d 9� /tFm .dqr. ache a1Ma6. 8sbd by 0wrc OF 2000 pHRA11ON 02 0001 FENCING M ISM rmlwide cad W4ky dd be 9A1rW+d del. Fwrw did w 6 t* . 9 4 726' O� W ad �b a/ 7 9L bdW . Ma . e wk C- aM M. pd. dd w /A adr pea del.. or Edo. Veda tkw poab del w 2 yr 0, d 40 dad pip.. Tap Ball 0101 be t s/r OIL dd pips. O.b hmr.e Ad w t 5 / 6 ' CA -dad pbm. I- by dd be O.w (3) arm wb . bd Ere b 7'-0' Pd4 edd edawL 6wbq rid w 3/8' bw rd. wd t 51I' 0-0' *. M- d r ewmra Ode MMr rid be c.mdd polo, %W w aqua Fide *d w b.W to d k. 1' d WAh yak eel del NOr w brad b Mr I fAsa Fars enelo..w dd be c.n III ebI eMx 7 01.18 d tw waft, Edog h..m d.l b prdse d eV" dmnege dwbp We .A, d eq dmi.p. Mat mq car 0101 be npI w rplad I. qd ..Wg pra.e*.Eb6 eane6en. WE asm O4OA11at1 sEsN36 Cre.d. ri edd b/ntiwd..Wfg W Ipth WA.. r mmwy Tar nw ha and IAd M R wadwUI d nw br4 dmEe, eel ad. x m fame LANSW P M C ft.dw t. rabwa bd wm dam.gd by OodmOwl by prepmht ad, sadkg e .d.h b ff md. qrm -t'd Apr 1 yaw. Rs pmauIS Ad b. Men 1. n h� d "ba bra a ft6b.y. wmwl�mW IN - the IemOen d r.d Wd.w. Mari Bela, rib. eve k~ Oa.Iad d 11i Areda o pormw tap ewt MW mr dwwge. ewnepe 1110.1 Em ddmAwd Iq Me oa.w a a per Cmtoatw. hd fiw a tn M WM dwde, ad pd. adadq per 02 115116 COMOME 03 1000 CONCRETE FOMF M Cam -b fix= dd w dh wwba luneq maew, w dad. m 1100 t7AOO CmlbKtmr 0101 gmd bmpfdw wawdnp b TMW Mmdaww Mod 03 M TONER FMMROMIt Owa.dw *d ramp far ddhwy d wawa d rid hedgh ad lad mwbb pw T.wr Ywnde lAw PMa % Fomddim mraw wd rd Fm d M w W b- -dd-e- pa.Twelw4 a 6K AIX * wddmd, SAO PER 0 211 days as Oda SS (am S1�dd, a &k. b gaolr. Cadaelr 0101 mnpyr dM Ow Owda Mmdwd SPETSIM R6 ANILINE OONtIkIE ANQpaS. SS 6111 CATIMmM PROF.OM MIA 07 OW TRk4WW AND ERECT TBRFA/MENNA ISOM Ca00..br dd rb I ddry d Ow w-fi ibh d Taw, W p,aM a.n. M wdedap ad "W4 Lbnbwlor rid ww. b dalae of 0 3/r cal .My e1Mb M w w wpla� m 9r Taw. Cathedw Ad pw& ter ep.tda f FM ap , Pw NO, .d wrpcwy ma.lb ft- d hm d T m MOSS SHELTER FOUNDATION Om6abr rid fad* At Mod md." for Saw MwWoU a Cmwde rhd w 6w d:1R .b . bh M 4,000 pd d m Sq. N rAdgd g dd b b w Ebd. MO WN 615) Adar bar aN h.ddW by C.dr e- Cm6ae m dd -" elk b . S dc wd CONMRUCI+m SPECIFICATIONS A NUM _ WE S A DAIms. 03 ONO TRANOO F AND SET S MM Cedeeta rid P W& am(.) and/or tldc for dfq dAm W FM Cahad. daaar d lee 1� b. aidn ddhw, k k*q bN SSE k" I. ..Mew Fit d of 0000 MASONRY N/A N/A 07 25M f00P1110OFM N/A 07 3000 SINGLES AND MM TRES N/A 07 50DO NOMPAE MIND N/A By 6000 PLASM AND MEET NEFAL NA DOORS AND R KN#iE 00 ONO 00016 AND NANDURE PRE FA& 0 b, h. MW and brddd by R" Nm • D011atlll me bw eves FORM 09 21100 DRPmL N/A 09 3780 ROOM OBYFRMO N/A US 800 ROM Cmb.dw OM a.m Mel I- it maid V m deereed b the NO. T. dwp Fad eardh ddM emp. a .11010111 13 12M CABLE Rum CAb Mdpa b be 24 kWh ebb 12 y.qa •qOF shat wppow m wrro 0. 6'-0' m radar by 3 1/2' dad pips wd r . T ! t/C . JC bwp wgIL Cella blips arnw.p eet.nlere rat b waved 1 Sbd to be hot d7P•d ".*W. 13 1100 ANEW Ism C*baier del bad Omda .rlr.s ad hW Wm " a.8 Cam ft Ad rraa..gmar..d.daa CZ 6 lm For owekaly ad ew. of Nadb b w Mt b .*4w&t rem bdaa d` 'a .as�.a r� miaoM.b IELilll6fA r.warevAVarw1.ma nmar�oavN.rb.rAVVZm is 1000 PLUle110 N/A 1s 5000 Nft �a PRIERM Maw b b *q-q fppd NM ha Bamglr -ad pxb p rib or $4. wd 10 of u...Orm NN wP.d All EIICFEC 16 Spur II0111NN AM EIBCOMA Cm6eder dd pdam wk . I . In Fbe6kel PMa Cardredw 0101 n.ow.wy I. wnNI DN wok Awn m pW. 16 0066 6ROLMM C6. d. del rrr. *~M N.M. NM d All b amwe TANMImR' SEANWIaS d VERSION WISEL . Cwdoabr dd prima ark . Am m Om.Wbg PM. Eby "r�ee� Vas ' +e. net aoa.d M So (IONIZING SUM WD aA b be am and by 0w Cada.tar b +w tar. BMW EM a FEES Loom AID T -fRNIES M AM DOO M1T IRCKOS Few FEE MOSK.S TESTMO FES SPECIAL 96PMM FEES S OL 11100 TO SEE am IRM O Ban RFl1FD NAROOVE Sw SCOPE OF MM CM4WM SIV L PRO10E NOOKS, LABOR. TOGS, TROWMWM MpFRPBNN, ETC. TO FULLY OWNS SOME NOM OFRUImM ARE MOOED 01 WE mAW9N6 IM 9ELFGRd6 AND SHALL MICLmE OLD For BE La 106 TIE FOIOR991 HENS ON9BIO1 a SRE PBARMW BITE NOM SROER mal TONE FOANAMMFB SIZE IXECONOOD F1EI:OML 10 TELEPHONE 'SERVICES IN S( TONER ND MET MILES am RO MMA5 ! CASS uME eROrf OIAYO. SIIRFIdpO Ave PMO10 Cm b d. Ad vw�ib� ad JIM wgw.d Nr d�ip�, ' A.aarm:r .erAtlEFMNM pmlq a rrxwwale VERIZON WIRELESS cow. arraAAemvn na0uealaa,meawe palm -.111 PROJECT 2008501947 MINC MEMORY PARK NEW HOPE, MN 55427 SHEET CONTENTS: OORNEO'ECFKATHM m 780 POWER 10 SM aeuas Cs bwWr dd e.ws.a Ow dd" ease b b bMq WM M. 1Rwbr ftMd . Cdub rid hods pd *bp. UhAffro W wmlft hd w 2- 1/r Wwdda 40 PY0. m am kEOIS (doab SS PVC mew rode wd dbm) CAl b w 5/0 TN011 m. ibndw Ad w k"hM by 08w, and � Omr ldidW gmctxdd SW dhd w kbHmw 6a d a r wit 1s a6w. ewmdL Swam dd w d ww ..e°d pv AEC pdbaba wdmq rid wf ra b MS *wW. r F advert reN. Snvxa tpq 0101 w Card Tone -Of p. d % b p° 12DMO Nd b . - m M M -kVk p WMM by AWS C"W WditM OW Wwpdd . •IP•r•d M W9' 1 -W IF e.dabb..d mbr bra 0101 b. wedwd 4 M. M EApWmr. Sri rid w AMY A992 OR Ailxq.d w ]/4 &m bA CaNxM FAded rid b- dMP NddM If � w gAe�3ad bM � b bh Co daabi del was lr adewae d a 5/6' edhb ad.4r deb qt. MEW/MA w wo.t w. GENERAL GROUNDING NOTES: KVM antr.cer daft cennm, Oral Tfds -M d 51B' X 10' -0' GILWMM MM mum RW n-160 surged hmervetr an mY qu6•d r ae f- support or M exUrnal burled ground ring (Land 1) shoi be tear, and Oral trammbabn rim owe to aorA .d.bhhW —und the equipped dialler and beer TL OW the bottom -arad =8 In in fated hom Oh. fa ral.D.— Lead 1 daB be hpt 24' firm tearer abd f upper Tose may ua the tea« abed feundatona: t fwdolhm oe Now 9. 49' apart, keep Lead 1 centered below. them. O td. toter boa M W Common ground, requbing an copper lead. b war 20'-0' firm Oa q*m.M ehafr. a •R•rol• 82 SWC Whip bade Land 1 shell be .dubTMhed around each foundation, D1SE WE SUPPORT POST and the two lend le shall be banded nRh bm parallel 1Mdp' lead- loll conned the burled ademal ground bade at lanai 6 led apwt herhoMly. Connections betwtan the tee land la alma be bf- limetlagL ring to the flowing Kane: All aubgred. cornaetione h.1 be by aYO—l. mild, brazed wndd, or go-W %467 -Ksbd eampralsim f&'Ip P -MNd a1h a b-add d c•hnP•ead. Subgrade ca necGone shall lnL be 'cold goWar in' coated. Land 1 dW be #2 salld bane Wh-ded (SOIC) eoppr tine buried at lord God &qdh. Load 1 be " be mi-Mm n 2r mdha. Yihlp' lead bads may be of Ir an - Creurd raga •hall be gdrmiwd and. S/616. apcead tau loot apart, « ow sAaehh. Rays b• ktPl min. 24 inehw ham fonnmd.Uaa. Gamd ray ono Depth ste th ni be e w h atWM d In pe en dlbd bn9Nh. Otpth al be eaan lo Dabs 1/G1. 9TLW CONWERATIO015 FOR CRWND RODS: When ground rods are not apeeMd to be baddlled t/ OmWnRe Surry: M boaldom beaoek, « a11ner ebdructma prerenl *" dgrouudd mft ad ben a he% fav or need to here dwh hole for ground not pbeemant. b W hackgMd w/ BanlsmTe Shay. Won paints and dwdsd Bw&onRt an awned. drfling equipnand end be mad b be wad to be bar o hale for ground red pbamard. Slrry ah.1 be made one ham pMaVad malaid (1Ro rid Or ; Poo W Batama h not footed. M ac th bedrock D a a other s pwfflwon. a nd P Contractor ehal drill b tl paeMied deptlh and prevMe BentahhRe ahmaaard.. Abo -grad. eaaadima aW be by kga a/ Mao -hob 1-900 unku noted OUNWA e, )*W to said Tade by aMng (MBP 5461569E 191IO,N7, and -Va-ft erlapin (g RE�fR ( Y EY � 27C 14 E Tf. « . S urNown d IY)afmx. that are galvanized or eraabd shal haw coaws) nanawd prior to b.Wag. BWS dal be nM sod til net wmham an so h able of the eaneaton and a bin B a al be used bebrom ga Slur awlws (upp« -to--And. ac) but ore not rapdnd beMen 6lrehd CU lugs 6: Bn lu-dad W bun boa, tag tongues shot be coated uM an6- coidnot awpwmd, a nd mean compound wiped dash after bolft The .a ..tiara dwil Van be grated end add- gaberdzing conpsned. or wM color- mdddng pwhL Grand ben opened to U. shag be hlreled toper, and sholl be dean of any addalon prier to log bolting. Ca9reniad ben, dad have sino ramsd "bin t' of amid area, and babe log surface coded a— Alec a°hdk'7 er bdit. the )dal dw1 be ceded am cam gaheaefng compound. Ground Bar lead, Cmud bam am Wolated decirkdy from toter bottom. and aq.W,.d thdla. by tat sendaR mends Ladde from each ground bar to t grand ring anal be a pet of d SUM each aameabd be Land 1 M- dbatonaly Va 02 SUC ')umped. Pin of J2 5610 may be required I aaan grand ban. Lead. Ad be muted to grand bon on falota: • The Mdn Ground Bar QIGB) typkdy maned '.ride an the quTpwd shdlr 'hock' toll. Than Entry Cable Pat Ground Ban (FL4GB), mounted inside and outside a 1d. equipment daft« tags beneath t1ha bdmmbmton ft. pat Nab: Tnemm®imn .ne grounds aloe aha:h to 1d. ECPCBt. 7d. Traambda Lira Ground Bar (TCB) mounted at tlu rat b of the tower to ahkh the tron• Isklan 1h. graaWe an alt yad. T. n b. pound. obo otbch to the TGBs Monopole Toners • Three ah4w to gauge an U. ma apob bane. at Noel Off apart. K none aw provided. atanh to the bmeplale or comult toter manufhlehw. SW Ahppat Totem: • Tom ahO to 6oge(e) an each bier b, haw. R � WO ' -Hoch to the "Fah, r madt Cured Totem: Ter tMpe to Banp(s) en the tow bow. R naa a. Pre . ataM to t basplda or ca m It toter • EdbMbh a Land 1 *Mn the hnct enclosure of nook guy amdh«, at bast 40 fad grimmer and having Wound rode. /2 SWC bads shag extend uN and be clapped (bl— dmrmwg or equal), to any tan guy Mira. NEVER meld leads to He guy tire.. The lead to the guy aneh« 'Frond' plate may be added. f feu -Win 25 fad of tat« land 1, w .Min 6 4at f fowl of .hdtr bed 1. shag hart wMp bay w fa a E h • Each pat of gob pee, • Any One pal war 20'-0' Tram . grounded pert. • Each gate Teof 1. ite rowpedF gotepat unlo9 braided snap (3/4. W-cbd capper e/ lug ands} Farm around W andhom thug be grounded in ewer faMina. Fud brdoo NEVQt WELD to a fowl ..k .w. NEVER ptnd,.W the fuel canbinmwd. Metal tanks Mal have ono" lead atanhed. the an gWond damp or tie -hob lug an an available Dohgs. BROMM t Skill« and rthr fgggggll R Extend new lead 21B p to dhdhr bole, - W& tto -May mmeetbns w needed. 6anoahr -e u"ad andM. hhve 6 each cannscbhn Camedlons t6Nn the abetter dkah be by compression: NEVER wM baud@ the dkelL«. Each vertical spW pip. o f the edsrlor .able end t:!r rlt id. eabNbe kept d bad 6' from IM bldg. d bt )umpmd to tM — l -*Mlt ptpa wAh `2 SBTC at each —Vcd • olpadb aahNm of tic roof shield suer the equipment abater. Each WAC mm ehbd, If apaab (may b. ').*..d' to main roof Weld)L Each HWC phbimge grit. • Coranmdel electric mater bee. ' Ca ender —pt.ct. t P—mt • steal buRdbmg did, M dhww in nodal Gems • Eaeh gaeirnerMa.(wY « adhwdt fan nerd • g�eneh.�ger adhau.l alaa�L o Pr.m� NaRer� 9�ar o ppot fmw, R • Oemmdr fad tank If wpaots From go. du eWL nw� s Rldn 255 f dawpo b, and ran • nd .(N Pagel of Rew an). V eat.. to • Whin odAe va11a, as each to tla ladder and to Va mhwhels rim. Man 7d. dear hare In connected to IM interior W.. and d no aepoak manecten to the le>D9eGoht 6t Triune Ted Iced /1 and ground rods after iabgatbn but before bh *rftp or con wth to ape ether graedhg. using tls 3 - Per ri fat of poen6al method. anbedor to at lout 4, hew. pbr to balbg, poanawl 'b"atla and bat ronae td. phofugropha. SYMBOL AND NOTE LEGEND ---& - /2 SRC AWAID SHELTER WK& OR ON MM • 51B' X 10' -0' GILWMM MM mum RW ® TOT WELL PREFO W LOCAM 2006301847 12 SBTC VW LENT (2) f2 SW FROM MW N9, OR IM W MO 1 ® AC KW 1Raf am Bc mum cw" 4D BD Omani ® CBS D1SE WE SUPPORT POST ® FAN riff ANCHOR RAZE ® FP FENCE POST OP WE P09, 3/4' BOO WW W IHT ® MW Our WM. MESH. WN OWY - 1W MAS (D HL mw OR LOWER ® M *MW OF NOFFWN BON ® EM COtRIBLVL aunicV MEIEA m IL DLLTINTIL Smax IROUW ® W OoWR wurnER ® MR FBRIORCM WfORMC o� CUt SI M FOR LFFO fl ] BLWI® Slm own RW foom 800. 5/611 SPADID 10' APART OR PLR PUN. TEST WELL DETAIL r1 GROUND RING & ROD DETAIL SCALE NONE SSE, NONE ILL W83 BAl%8 8tf NL BE Taa.GAD COPPEM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® sP sTm POST - ® TEL IIOFTINN 801 aaeoauomwa,as ARaeT6'r e1w YNLFVVEY/la. laBl PnMhEmtl.rala ® 16R IOWFR BIOS � • 6egsosaassAxawaa ® VP DES. FUEL VW PIPE a s • Corked r be P11M. 12 aM bas ti -dad (SOTC) .ww eke had from 9 to dr undilhner & I.. On if p Nd�by VZW. • i i • • • • YGdS,L.ON WIRELESS GRDLW 91155 BYt w/ 1RUL BIBIL7TE75 GROUdD BIAS$ MR laarwwhhAacrh.w w/ AAME ApVMS a.wwavan weww GROUND BUSS BAR DETAILS SCALE: PONE RkVAj a942 4' TYPE MR TYPE W TYPE MS TAPE his TAPE GT TYPE PT TYPE G. LW RMF. SW ROUND SLWRtCE MT SURFACE EXOTHERMIC WELD DETAILS A PROJECT ARM A & ML MC FR 2006301847 BE dVSTX= LWxy O04T TAB BMW LOWMW AM-aW caMP. X M MINC AMACIM 70 PDSM = MEMORY PARK =.r ® o TOP NEW SIDE VIEW S7w ow Ps' RITE BONG ®ro AETYCE POST p,ppp AMM COMWECM UL 9496 LASTED :/ 3/CE oO�PP�JfIMPER STweP �t� N NEW POPE, MN 55427 AoR omErr BURIAL S SHEET CONTENTS: f ZCOMPRESSION CONNECTOR DETAILS 0 61961AL NDIEB 80141E NONE 9 9U,B BAROETALS OONNEGM DETAILS TYPE RJ o EXOTH 3WRCWEWCETALS on& D MEIg a Be7iS 548568E $1'IOMRIT' 7 7MVMLLDETAL CIRSO'. B NW,, YAW 2W 14M 10.VW PSI MEiOE'01 S SCREMh MC1204211 Illf 252YLML7S,TT2 E E= . me DAIS 06011: �! ;4 45 1 a IL J W Q - z } p � V I l�� cag � W x14d� 'e Q�11 5 2 Jd� 3� NON 4 -19+ I&& aja a� 4� ��a$ a d -j il l pit 1 ® - 112 a e� CD l o l l Y IRRS V IeR��eeeee� e �eRe�x� 122 F2 fill all 111a x���� Rxaaxxx��v�3�RS� scssss�s��xrsx�dE��x JUN LLJ 4 1 LLI 4 R e e e 1212 St F2 R R e121 ---- -- --�: 7 2 8 N m W � d C L r f� a c7 z z z § �y | § | !! NZj /| § § z§ A 7 ƒ 2| ■© 2 8 q |� H � ■ - e |� | | ■| a |§ |! §| § ■ ■ —� _ _ ■ § LU A | | | ■ | w . ■ |& § q . \ t � � ■' 11 l| 2 121 | \ | K -_ § IL \ ■ ƒ� # ■� |� . | e � � � § P �! w| k �2 � § a w� z. LL c w 2 %| - | � \| �| | | |� § a j LU �% ■ s2 §S ■ | IL to; 7 pw Mal |§ � MEN 121I I S w 2 %| - | � \| �| | | |� § a j LU �% ■ s2 §S ■ | IL to; 7 |§ | | |� § a j LU �% ■ s2 §S ■ | IL to; IL to; © Z( I BM NJ $ z 9{ s oil er $� o a w 1 1 1 1 1 w M - - -- - - -_ - -- - - - - -_ _ - _ -- -------- - - - - -- , I \� 1 - - - -- -- - - - - -- m z Ee $ 1 -• /-�� 0 it 1 J I 1 t /� I 1 1 1 x \1 / I ® Z� b Ow N . v a � o w IL Jim LU C�l fi W Q$� as � v g ILI w 51 w w I z �w: w ? S�k ON I i P- INIIw a 4001 1 111 d I k I l k a 51W 1 a a LU gi Rim z 11 I NN a Il _ } � � :f d l ie d H. -' gi l l1- dr A .- -- �- 1 = 6 a 4 a� CL xk ol N SdIg m- idd$ E �3s m 6 1 E� ye a $ } Bm m a - Bill Ee m $ %�a e�$g 6 . sga5 y a 8a R m s � # n aa�` Y .� R = m •° M- H ee r ' ' E a s_ sa s •� 5i SEE m S 5 +bs g °E� "a 6 °1 3aa'' ae E ° E r° a _ 01 s aa Fry, {g� Q 7 }' ,p • m .I GRI - -- —i— �> Q _ e m4 •`. ' � �°°'.� �Q a '° I mo. //, . N �� � � ` Q � i4.. l g �ba �3 • x .' d �� ' a i C _ 1 § ' � a o E Qqb j 1 I i •-g S -E� 0° Y e 6 E € lE ale g 6 l aIiBa EY F $ . - ✓30 e � 1 1 1 � y� i SL�'29$76'�°d. -°� �E � q a � '$ wla� 5=: ° �° ° 4 a� it 1 X I lsY� � �,a'J �i _8.8 aS —•$z 4 a / tire le 8 �8° _ — _ — — _ _ _ ir °F _ f flit 1 � 1 R i s'? , : s ■ v 6 �! �m8E ��n� °�s 55a $mom F ° " .§ a e o ba eg Q� 3 Z 8 g% €aE Sir,. % SaE�s9 ae gggg E a �� - � € ao ......eao 000 .......... o o a �3Fea ors a ;6e _ Lj smeaa��t�g €: = °s8 €a�e�� a "s X 83 - ; w i? EE S a{ .. := aS ES ■■ �� M = PLANNING APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL City of New Hope, 4401 Xyton Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 Case No. Date Filed /�- Receipt No. Basic Fee 1Jc+ti t„ S Pry ��-s- Deposit 900 900-- 96 Received by f Name of Applicant: -e le-rS PID l�' Street Location of Property: '9 `l ' 0 QJe�e L 14 ✓L /t1 Legal Description of Property: n / 7 1 001 1� G�'. Z 6) OWNER OF RECORD: Name: W t o n r fk Address: ' S Z 11 EVIto:I 09• LfL Z c ell 4ame Phone: 6 f Z , 3 3 E 2 Work Phone: ? ^ S `/r Z N ?Fax: Applicant's nature of Legal or Equitable Interest: Type of Request: (pertaining to what section of City Code) 4-/ Please outline Description of Request: (use additional pages if necessary) yl Lo�9 twi rr` l-es S Ze' /'? v L1 n / a u �L c? [ 2- �� e�'rl,�+�1 , , - t s4, �� '� !✓�� Lr .tom T' / e,; f > ' d r � J b r ( Se Why Should Request be Granted: �e�fZ `� Garr �/��'1 / j rro,b/e %Zj �•�r /, Z� /z- •{'..'� - C�( u 5 �'G:/f r � /�' .f� �`�7' vti /J' y l CJG /� � � ,�' � t:' l /nr'•,�'c•. �G 'P / v F ee (att narrative to application form)f nec e.0. ✓{'\ GiO� :�` ls lr c`�jc7 1 -09 Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and/or approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials) must be paid to the city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the city, the city manager has the right to require additional payment. The city hereby notifies the applicant that state law requires that the development review be completed within 60 days from the city's acceptance of this application. If the development review cannot be completed within 60 days, regardless of the reason, the city shall extend the review completion deadline an additional 60 days as also permitted by state law. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant in writing. The Community Development Department will notify you of all meetings. Signed: `y 1C �� �rvr� C�d �✓lv1 �.'d�p Fee Owner (print or type name) Other than Owner (print or type) FOR CITY USE ONLY Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Certified Lot Survey: Legal Description Adequate: Legal Ad Required: Yes No Required Yes No Required Yes No Required Yes . No Required, Date of Design & Review Meeting: Date of Planning Commission Meeting: Approved: Denied: By Planning Commission on: Approved: Denied: By City Council on: Subject to the following conditions: 201 4021 S s 3957 3949 3941 2 3933 !4 3925 46 3917 106 3909 100 3901 74 3875 4 3867 1 3859 ; i 7900 3709 3701 7901 4210 4211, 7 752 `� 4215 4216 720 4279 7516 421'5 7600 7546 7512 7180 7140 7542 7508 71010 4200 r 7820 7700 7� 7504 7300 7401 i 7117 7107 4148 4124 4125 SCHOOL 7649 7701 YMCA 4120 4121 4120 DISTRICT 4116 4119 A JW 7200 OFFICES 4199 4119 4111 4110 I 4108 4103 4104 4103 N. 4061 4058 4059 4058 7321 7315 4055 410 SCHOOL 4055 4052 4053 4052 4053 4052 4047 BUS 7601 4049 4048 4047 4046 4047 4048 4043 4124 4100 4045 4042 4043 4042 4043 4044 4039 ,103 4039 0 4036 4039 4038 4039 4040 4035 r ,403 z 1 4033 1 4024 4031 4030 4031 4032 4031 a g 40 4029 � 4022 4025 � 4024 4027 4028 4025 402 )-p 4020 4D21 c 4020 4023 0 4020 4019 d016 4015 z 4916 4017 m 4016 4017 4014 4017 A '4008 4009 4008 4009 4008 4011 $ 4006 4009 Z - 4000 4002 4003 4002 4001 7150 4001 -400 4003 • 7351 7301 7251 7201 3940 3941 3 J 3 3964 3925 3920 3917 3073 3933 393 3943.3961 3960 3957 3956 3917 3924 9925 :3924 3951 3948 3909 916 ;19 3941 3940 3901 y 3906 C AVE 3933 32 VA ��7� 3 3927 HOLY 3 32 3940 3917 i•3 NATMTY 3916 3909 3900 31956 3903 7316{ 3849 d 3840 3941 :LIONS 31632 3835 3820 3825 361Q 3816 BETH EL MEMORIAL PARK 3817 3608 3811 ' 3800 7100 3603 38TH AVE N ;3770 3749 3756 3791 3741 3746 3781 3760 740 APATH CHESED SHEL 3733 3 3771 :3750 1 3725 3732 3761 :3740 EMES CEMETERY 3717 3724 3751 r — 3716 ;i'101 3709 3741 3706 7300 3701 3700 3731 3730 _ 3657 0 3721 :3720 - s 3656 a »n Buell Consulting, Inc. 2324 University Avenue West, Suite 200 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55114 -1854 (6 51) 225 -0792 wtivw.buellconsulting.com Site Acquisition Permitting Established 1991 To: New Hope Planning Commission/City Council: Verizon Wireless is proposing to install a 120' wireless communications monopole along with a 12' x 30' equipment shelter inside a 50' x 50' lease area at 3980 Quebec Ave N. The monopole would be built to accommodate at least two other wireless users at varying heights. This proposed monopole location is approximately 350' from an existing 75' Crown Castle monopole at 3940 Quebec Ave N (Paddock Laboratories). Crown Castle confirmed that the next highest possible tower elevation available on their monopole would be approximately 50' as there are already two users on this tower. 50' does not meet the coverage objectives of Verizon Wireless. I've enclosed a letter and accompanying map from Verizon's RF Engineer discussing (and depicting) this. I then met with Paddock Laboratories' representatives to discuss the idea of building another, taller, monopole near the existing Crown Castle monopole on their property. They were not willing to lease Verizon Wireless any additional land as it would require that Verizon place the monopole in the parking lot (in order to meet setbacks and construct on buildable land) and utilize multiple parking spots. Parking is already at a premium at this property. Given that the ordinance prohibits towers w /in 1000' of an existing tower, I pursued other industrial properties in the area whose locations still worked for Verizon's system: 4108, 4116, and 4124 Quebec Ave N were all either too small to meet the setbacks (w /o the monopole being placed in the middle of the property) or the property owner didn't have interest or the available land to enter into a lease agreement. 4100 Quebec Ave N is a suitable property with ample land for a mnopole but the property owner refused to enter into a lease agreement with Verizon. Lastly, I contacted the property owner and broker at 4000 Winnetka Ave N (though, still within 1000' of the existing Crown Castle monopole but further away than Verizon's proposed site at 3980 Quebec Ave N), but they refused to return my phone calls after numerous atttempts. Verizon has been pursuing a location for a new wireless communications site in the area for well over a year. The first desire is to co- locate on an existing tower. That option simply isn't possible as the existing tower is too short to provide Verizon the necessary coverage to improve their system and adequately fix the "hole" that currently exists. The provided maps show the current coverage gap (middle right of the map; Without Memory Park). The second map shows how the coverage would be "improved" with antennas at the 50' level on the existing Crown Castle tower (CC Tower). The last map (Proposed Tower) shows the coverage at the 115' antenna level at 3980 Quebec Ave N. The "Proposed Tower" coverage map shows coverage extending Nvest to 169 and seemlessly joining with other sites in the area to provide the best possible "in- building" coverage. The "CC Tower" map shows that coverage would still be improved, but not well enough as to justify expending the capital to build an inferior site. Furthemore, the property owner at 3940 is unwilling to lease additional land for Verizon's shelter as it would require relinquishing more parking spaces that are already at a premium at the property. The 1000' separation between towers requirement was written into the ordinance to encourage sharing of towers. Verizon may have been able to justify co- locating their anetnans as the 50' level 10 -15 years ago, but this height simply doesn't provide the coverage for today's system, technology, and number of current and future users. This proposed site is a "coverage" site. Meaning, that Verizon has a "hole" in their coverage (as depicted on the map). Other sites that service this area are all well over a mile away. "In building coverage" (meaning, how well you can establish a signal inside a building) is almost non - existent. Currently, external service (meaning, when you are outside of any structure) is excellent; while in- vehicle service coverage is inconsistent in the immediate and surroudning area. When wireless companies first built -out their wireless systems, fewer sites were needed. There were less users and far less available technology. Nowadays, people use wireless networks for not just phone calls, but email, texting, streaming audio /video, etc.; And, the capabilities, and number of users, are only going to increase. Verizon is already starting to have "capacity" issues. Meaning, the existing wireless sites' capacity to handle the volume, "traffic," and demands of its users is becoming quite compromised. To remedy this, new cell sites will need to be constructed in order to "off- load" traffic from a neighboring wireless site. Hence, the 1000' separation between towers will be virtually impossible to adhere to. There is absolutely no sign that wireless communications is slowing down. This decade, more and more "capacity" sites will be needed to fill in the existing gaps due to increased useage, type of useage (data transmission, phone calls, video, audio, etc), and number of users utilizing the system at any given time. And, don't forget, there are, currently, four (4) major wireless carriers that serve the Minneapols /St. Paul area: Sprint, T- Mobile, AT &T, and Verizon Wireless. There are three primary reasons the 1000' separation of towers restriction is prohibitive: - Different systems: Wireless carriers don't all have the same type of technology /systems /users. Each wireles carrier has a different need for the number and location of their wireless sites based upon the type of technology and number of users of its network. Hence, Verizon may, ultimately, need 6 sites to adequately cover New Hope while another user may strategically only build 3 as they have less users/traffice, so less wireless sites are required. Crown Castle Tower Height: The fact is that if the Crown Castle tower were built to the allowed 145' (two users) or 165' (three users) height, Verizon could co- locate on this tower. At the time (2001), Sprint (who originally built the tower) didn't need a taller tower or didn't want to expend the capital to build a taller tower. Verizon is now trying to better cover the same area, but can't do so at 50'. More Users: This tower was built over 10 years ago. In 2000 -2001, the "capacity" issues were not as they are now — there were far fewer users. Furthermore, the type of services offered (video, audio, etc) has increased so much and puts so much pressure on the network, that more and more towers are necessary to handle the demand. As I've mentioned previously, we fully vetted the existing Crown Castle and contacted all property owners in the area 1000' away from the Crown Castle (whose properties still worked for Verizon's system) tower to try and ahere to the 1000' tower separation requirement, but were simpy unable to find a suitable property or find a property owner willing to lease Verizon land for their tower and equipment shelter. We have entered into a lease agreement with Greg Harvey and Winnetka Properties on their industrial land at 3980 Quebec Ave N. We believe all requirements of the tower ordinance can be met with the exception of the 1000' separation between towers requirement. Hence, we are requesting a text amendment to remove such a requirement for this application and for other wireless carriers that may encounter the same issue in the future. Without a site at this location, Verizon's customers will continue to have a gap in their coverage and an inferior system. I ask that you re- consider the practicality of the 1000' separation between towers in today's wireless communications age, and allow Verizon to proceed with constructing their tower (suitable for Verizon's antennas and two other providers) to provide the best possible service for its customers in New Hope and the surrounding area. Thank you, 7z w1e1 ,1 --.--- Rob Viera Buell Consultling c/o Verizon Wireless 612.801.2228 roberti viera(a�.yahoo. corn Personal Wireless Service Antennas & Towers — Chapter 4 — (L) — (3) G — Verizon Wireless is seeking a variance /text amendment to this requirement. The monopole will be designed to have a collapse point at the Y2 way point of the tower. Thus, the setback to all property lines should be reduced to 50% of the tower's height. A letter from an engineer will be provided to address this issue: Personal Wireless Service Antennas & Towers — Chapter 4 — (L) — (3) H— The proposed wireless communications tower is approximately 350' from an existing Crown Castle tower. Verizon Wireless is seeking a variance /text amendment to the 1000' separation between antennas /towers requirement in the city's ordinance based upon the information provided above to allow for this proposed to be placed 350' from the exisitng tower. Sabre Industries - Towers and Poles August 10, 2012 Mr. Tate Brandt Design 1 9973 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Proposed 120' Monopole at MINC Memory Park, MN Dear Mr. Brandt, Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply the above referenced monopole for a Basic Wind Speed of 90 mph with no ice and 50 mph with 3/4" radial ice, Structure Class II, Exposure Category C, and Topographic Category 1, in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA- 222 -G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas ". When designed according to this standard, the wind pressures and steel strength capacities include several safety factors, resulting in an overall minimum safety factor of 25 %. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the monopole will fail structurally in a wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded within the range of the built -in safety factors. Should the wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built -in safety factors, to the point of failure of one or more structural elements, the most likely location of the failure would be within the monopole shaft. Assuming that the wind pressure profile is similar to that used to design the monopole, the monopole will buckle at the location of the highest combined stress ratio within the monopole shaft. This is likely to result in the portion of the monopole above "folding over" onto the portion below, essentially collapsing on itself. Please note that this letter only applies to the above referenced monopole designed and manufactured by Sabre Towers & Poles. In the unlikely event of total separation, this, in turn, would result in collapse of the section above, within a radius of 50% of the monopole height. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my Sincerely, direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Print Name AMY 'RB T Amy R. Herbst, P.E. Senior Design Engineer Signature Date —'a License #44860 Sabre Towers and Poles • 2101 Murray Street • P.O. Box 658 • Sioux City, IA 51102 -0658 P:712-258-6690 F:712-279-0814 W: www.SabreTowersandPoles.com Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park The proposed Verizon Wireless cell site referred to as "MINC Memory Park" is located at 3980 Quebec Ave N, New Hope, MN. Verizon Wireless has chosen this location because it will improve the quality of service Verizon Wireless provides to its customers, and it meets specific design criteria set by Verizon Wireless Engineering. The objective of this site is to provide in building coverage to the businesses and residential areas around Winnetka and 42 Ave North and to provided in building coverage going West on 42 Ave towards Hwy 169. Due to the geographic area Verizon Wireless would like to cover with this site a shorter tower will not be able to meet the coverage objective mentioned above. The signal from the shorter tower will not be able to penetrate far enough to provide better coverage for our customers. This site will hell Verizon Wireless improve its network capacity as well as enhance coverage along 42 Ave North. The following coverage maps show our coverage with and without the proposed "MINC Memory Park" site as well as the coverage of the Crown Castle tower at 50ft C/L. As can be seen by the coverage plots, our proposed "MINC Memory Park" site will provide better in- building coverage to the businesses and residential areas near Winnetka and 42 Ave N and better in- building coverage going west on 42 Ave. The enclosed coverage maps show the coverage with and without the proposed Memory Park site as well as the shorter Crown Castle tower. -75 dBm (red) represents in building coverage -85 dBm (yellow) represents in vehicle coverage -95 dBm (green) represents external (street level) coverage Verizon Wireless FCC Compliance The proposed Verizon Wireless "MINC Memory Park" site, complies with all FCC and FAA regulations. Verizon Wireless provides Commercial Mobile Radio Services ( "CMRS ") under licenses granted by the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC "). Pursuant to these licenses, Verizon Wireless is authorized to provide CMRS and operate a CMRS network in many geographic areas throughout the nation, including the City of Chaska, Carver County. The FCC exclusively regulates all technical aspects of Verizon Wireless' operations and network and preempts all state and local regulation of radiofrequency transmissions. The FCC rules protect co- channel and adjacent licensees against harmful interference. The above noted proposed Verizon Wireless facility is in compliance with all applicable FCC and FAA requirements. The following points cover Verizon Wireless' practices pertinent to complying with the FCC requirements: 1. Verizon Wireless locates its transmitting antenna(s) in order to maximize vertical and horizontal separation from other operator's systems to minimiz interference potential. 2. All operating hardware at the site is type- accepted by the FCC as far as emission levels within our licensed frequency band in addition to spurious emissions outside of our frequency band. 3. The power levels generated by the base station hardware and corresponding effective radiated power (ERP) from the transmit antenna(s) are within the limitations specified by Part 22 (for cellular), Part 24 (for PCS), or Part 101 (for microwave) of the Commission's Rules. 4. Intermodulation studies are prepared and analyzed considering all carriers on our tower to ensure no mixing of frequencies will create harmful interference to / from our wireless system. 5. This Verizon Wireless complies with all of the Federal Regulations governed by the FAA for collocation on this existing communications tower. The proposed Verizon Wireless communications services will not interfere with any public safety communications. First and foremost, interference issues are the providence and domain of the Federal Communications Commission. Licensees of the FCC, as a part of the issuance of a license and compliance with FCC rules and regulations are not allowed to interfere with other licensees whose frequencies are under the jurisdiction of the FCC. As indicated above, the establishment of this telecommunication facility will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or be materially injurious to the neighborhood, or the general welfare of the City of Chaska and Carver County. The proposed facility will not place any burden on traffic, nor will it result in objectionable levels of noise, odor, dust or dirt. The proposed facility will be an important link to the Verizon Wireless communications infrastructure. Individuals and businesses will be able to access wireless communications to operate and expand their businesses, provide personal convenience or to strengthen personal safety and the ability to communicate on demand with business, government, family and friends. In addition, the frequencies used are well below the threshold and within the parameters established by the FCC. The proposed Verizon Wireless facility will not interfere with any police, fire or emergency communications or nearby televisions or radios due to the separation in the frequency ranges used by Verizon Wireless and from those used by other communication devices. The FCC controls and regulates the operation of all the telecommunication equipment and devices to be used at this proposed facility. The proposed facility will conform to all FCC standards and regulations. Verizon Wireless is committed to providing state of the art wireless services that benefit your community. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, Nithyakalyani Shanmugam Verizon Wireless RF Engineer CATALOG NO. TYPE NO FloodPak Series FPM ORDERING INFORMATION Catalog Number Example: FPM175PMAL -8 JOB NAME FPM 5�_' SERIES 1 LAMP SOURCE I OPTIONS FPM- LX -High Pressure AMC - Automatic FloodPak Sodium standby auxiliary Medium WATTAGE (HX -HPF) LAMP light Lamp VOLTAGE HF- Compact included 57 -57W Fluorescent L -Lamp 1 -12DV 70-70W PIMA-Pulse Start furnished 5-480V 150 -150W Metal Halide 8 -120V, 175 -175W (HX -HPF) 208V 2407, 277V HID units supplied with clear medium base lamp. *AMC not available on 175W fixtures. ACCESSORIES FPSKNUCKLE -W" Adjustable Knuckle. FPSARM - Shoebox Arm. Converts FloodPak to pole -mount (minimum 4" square pole). FP2 - Single hole round cover for use with standard 4" round surface boxes. FP4A - Single hole FS style cover cover for use on standard single gang FS boxes. FP4B - Three hole FS style cover cover for use on standard single gang FS boxes. FPMSHIELD - Vandal Shield. Helps protect lens and lamp from breakage. Clear polycarbonate shield snaps in place over glass lens. FPSRPA - Round pole adapter. FPM552 - Replacement Lens. TECHNICAL INFORMArION I "N �� e U� UL W et Location Listed. Crescent/5tonco - 2345 Vauxhall Rd. • Union, NJ 07083.908- 964 -7000 - wwvustoncolighting.com 01/12 Stonco is a Philips company 1 -2 PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS • The FloodPak is a perfect blend of architectural design and performance, • The FloodPak can be surface mounted in various positions. Use it as a cut -off wallpack or tip it up 22.5° for forward throw with semi - cut -off. Tip it up 45° for floodlighting, or turn it over and use it for indirectlaccent lighting. • The FlooclPak can also be pole mounted or ground mounted using mounting accessories. • Precision die cast aluminum construction. All exposed hardware is stainless steel. • Duraplex II dark bronze polyester powder finish is standard but the FloodPak is available in a variety of designer colors. • Hinged door frame with clear tempered glass lens. • Multi- faceted reflection system provides uniform distribution. • Injection molded triple finger silicone gasket. • UL wet location listed for above or below horizontal aiming. • Complete with a UL approved mounting box rated for 90 °C supply wire with integral bubble level, • Integral heat sink ensures cool operation. • Meets IESNA cut -off requirements. • Contractor Friendly design with integral cable permiting easy, hands free wiring. PI _HiLI� 1 -2 FloodPak Series FPM PHOTOMETRICS 3110111 2MH IMH 0 IMH 2MH 3MH 3MH 2MH IMH 0 1MH 2MH 3MH .25 3MH 2MH 1MH 0 IMH 2MH 3MH FPM I75MAL -8 @ 0 3MH 2MH 1MH 0 IMH 2MH 3MH E IMH 2MH IMH 0 IMH 2MH 3MF FPM175MAL -8 @ 45 ° IMH 2MH 1MH 0 1FAH 2MH 3MF FPM 175MAL -8 @ 22.5° FOOTCANDLE CORRECTION Multipl;' the following factors times the footcandle values for changes mounting height To Change from 15' New Hght 8' 10' 15' 20' Factor 3.5 2.3 1.0 0.6 LAMP AND W:,TT CONVERSIONS Lamp 70W 100W 1 1 SOW 175W Multiplier .36 .57 0.7 1.0 MOUNTING OPTIONS 01W ah ow 0° Down 22.5 Down 45° Down 0° Up 22.5° Up 45° Up Crescent/Stonco • 2345 Vauxhall Rd. • Union, I J 07083 • 908 - 964 -7000 • www.sWncolighting.com 01/12 Stonco is a Philips company PHILIPS" SITE NAME M1NC Memory Pak. SUE NUMBER : AT 7/18112 LAND LEASE AGREEMENT This LAND LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement "), made this day of , 2012, between Winnetka Properties, a Minnesota general partnership, with its principal offices located at 2525 Nevada Ave North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427, hereinafter designated LESSOR and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, with its principal office located at One Verizon Way, Mail Stop 4AW100, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920 (telephone number 866- 862 - 4404), hereinafter designated LESSEE. The LESSOR and LESSEE are at times collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Parties" or individually as the "Party ". 1. PREMISES LESSOR hereby leases to LESSEE a portion of that certain real property located at 3980 Quebec Ave North, City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as being further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the entirety of LESSOR's property is referred to hereinafter as the "Property"), being described as a Fifty foot (50') by fifty foot (50') parcel containing 2,500 square feet (the "Land Space "), together with the non - exclusive right (the "Rights of Way ") for ingress and egress, seven (7) days a week twenty -four (24) hours a day, on foot or motor vehicle, including trucks over or along a right -of- way extending from the nearest public right -of -way, Quebec Avenue North, to the Land Space, and for the installation and maintenance of utility wires, pol:s, cables, conduits, and pipes over, under, or along one or more rights of way from the Land Space, said Land Space and Rights of Way (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Premises ") being substantially as 'described herein in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. In the event any public utility is unable to use the Rights of Way, the LESSOR hereby agrees to grant an additional right-of-way either to the LESSEE or to the public utility at no cost to the LESSEE. 2. SURVEY LESSOR also hereby grants to LESSEE the right to survey the Property and the Premises, and said survey shall then become Exhibit "B" which shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof, and shall control in the event of boundary and. access discrepancies between it and Exhibit "A ". Cost for such work shall be borne by the LESSEE. 3. TERM. RENT a. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution by both Parties, provided, however, the initial term shall be for five (5) years and shall commence on the Commencement Date (as .hereinafter defined) at which time rental 13ayments shall commence and be due at a total annual rental of to be paid in equal monthly installments on the tlrst day ot`the month, in advance, to Winnetka Properties or to such other person, firm or place as LESSOR may, from time to time, designate in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance of any rental payment date by notice given in accordance with Paragraph 23 below. The Agreement shall commence based upon the date LESSEE commences NI INC Menmry Part; Land Lease Agreement 2024247v2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year written below. LESSOR: Winnetka Properties, a Minnesota general partnership Bv: Name: t a L s Its: f"7G a a•-f Date: " LESSEE: Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b /a Verizon Wireless By: Beth Ann Droban Its: Area Vice President Network Date: Remainder of page intentionally deft blank MINC Memory Pwt Land Lease Agreement 1 a ?0 ?>247v2 CITY OF NEW HOPE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4- 3(I)(3)h OF CHAPTER 4 RELATING TO SEPARATION BETWEEN PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE ANTENNA TOWERS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 4- 3.(I)(3)h of the New Hope Zoning Code, relating to separation between personal wireless service antenna towers, is hereby amended as follows: h. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of 1,000 feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. An exception to this requirement will be made when the following conditions have been met: 1. New antennas are not able to collocate on existing towers. Documentation must be provided that illustrates the attempt to consider existing towers as alternative locations for new antennas. 2. The antenna tower is a minimum of 120 feet in height, and is able to accommodate at least three (3) service providers (the initial service provider, and collocations for two (2) additional service providers). 3. The antenna tower has a minimum service area of'/ mile. 4. The antenna tower is located within the Industrial District. 5. The antenna tower meets all other conditions of approval. SECTION 2. Effective date. This ordinance, amending and restating Section 4- 3.(I)(3)h of the New Hope Zoning Code, shall be in full force and effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the City Council of New Hope this day of , 2012. CITY OF NEW HOPE By Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: By Kirk McDonald, City Manager NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2551 planners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Curtis Jacobsen FROM: Alan Brixius / Michelle Barness DATE: August 29, 2012 RE: New Hope — Verizon Wireless /Conditional Use Permit and Text Amendment/Conditional Use Permit for the Construction of an Antenna Tower and a Text Amendment to Antenna Tower Separation Zoning Ordinance FILE NO: 131.01-12.05 BACKGROUND Verizon Wireless is requesting a conditional use permit to install a 120 foot personal wireless service antenna tower at 3980 Quebec Avenue N. This site is located within the I, Industrial District. The proposed monopole, in addition to a 12 foot by 30 foot equipment shelter, will be located on a 50 foot by 50 foot lease area within the subject property. The design of the monopole site will be able to meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements for antenna towers, with the exception of the requirement for a 1000 foot separation distance between towers. As a result, the applicant has requested that a text amendment be made to Zoning Ordinance Sec. 4- 3(I)(3)h, pertaining to the separation distance between antenna towers, so that the project may proceed at a separation distance of only 350 feet. Attachments: Exhibit A: Revised Plans (Dated: 08/24/12) Exhibit B: Verizon Wireless Coverage Maps Exhibit C: Application (Dated: 08110112) Exhibit D: Letter from Buell Consulting Inc. Exhibit E: Letter from Sabre Industries Exhibit F: "Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park" Letter Exhibit G: Land Lease Agreement Exhibit H: Text Amendment Approvals Required An amendment to existing Zoning Ordinance which Text amendment provides exceptions to the 1000 foot antenna tower separation requirement described in Section 4- 3(1)(3)(h) Conditional Use Permit for a Personal Wireless A conditional use permit to construct a personal wireless Service Antenna Tower service antenna on a new 120 foot monopole. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Zoning Text Amendments: Antenna Tower Separation. Sec. 4- 3(I)(3)h of the Zoning Ordinance currently requires that antenna towers maintain a minimum separation distance of 1000 feet from existing towers at the time a conditional use permit for the antenna tower is approved. In the past this separation distance served to limit the visual impact of antenna towers on surrounding neighborhoods, and encourage wireless providers to collocate on towers. However, the demand for wireless communication service has increased significantly since this Ordinance was written, and existing standards may not allow communities to meet the growing wireless coverage needs of residents. These issues came into focus when the City received the application from Verizon Wireless to build a 120 foot wireless communication tower at 3980 Quebec Ave. N. Verizon discovered a significant gap in their coverage in New Hope and Crystal, and a new Verizon wireless service antenna is needed to close this gap and provide consistent in- building and out of building coverage. Several maps provided by Verizon illustrate that the proposed location for the new monopole tower at 3980 Quebec Ave. N is most appropriate for joining wireless coverage with other existing towers. The "Without Memory Park" map (Exhibit B) shows the current gap in wireless coverage in consideration of Verizon Wireless' current antenna locations, and the "CC Tower" map shows a minimal increase in Verizon Wireless coverage at a potential 50' antenna level should they collocate on the existing Crown Castle antenna tower. The "Proposed Tower" map shows coverage at the 115' antenna level at 3980 Quebec Ave. N., which provides the best possible in- building coverage for wireless users. The applicant has indicated that they did make an effort to meet the 1000 foot tower separation requirement by pursuing collocation on the existing Crown 2 Castle tower at 3940 Quebec Ave. N (Paddock Laboratories), and by pursuing other industrial properties in the area whose location would work for the Verizon Wireless network while increasing separation distance between towers. These opportunities did not work out. The Crown Castle tower already has two users and the next highest tower elevation it can provide is at 50 feet, which the "CC Tower" map illustrates does not meet the Verizon Wireless coverage requirements. And the alternative industrial properties considered were too small to meet setback requirements or the property owners were not interested in pursuing a lease with the applicant. With their application Verizon Wireless included a memo from Buell Consulting, Inc., who was involved in the antenna location process. Mr. Rob Viera of Buell Consulting discusses the reasons why the 1000 foot separation of towers standard is prohibitive: Antenna towers are running into capacity issues. Existing wireless sites' ability to handle the volume and demands of users is becoming compromised. When many of these towers were built there were fewer users, and the types of wireless services offered were less extensive. As demand for wireless service and technology grows, there is pressure to construct new cell sites in order to "off- load" traffic from a neighboring wireless site. In some cases the coverage area hasn't changed, but the demand has increased. If towers can't be placed closer than 1000 feet, it will be difficult to respond to the growth in demand in existing coverage areas. In addition, different wireless carriers have different systems and users, which means they have varying needs pertaining to the number and location of their wireless antennas. This will also reflect on the height requirement for wireless service antennas. A wireless service provider serving fewer customers in a more consolidated area may be able to collocate on an existing tower at a reduced height, while service providers with increased and unconsolidated customer bases will require greater antenna heights to fulfill coverage needs. Towers like the existing Crown Castle Tower were not built with height in mind, because wireless service demand may have been less at the time and resources would not have been expended to build a taller tower. So while collocation is a good guideline for incorporating wireless antennas in the community, it may not always be practical for providing the best service coverage. In summary, antenna height requirements, wireless service coverage and technology demand, and land leasing opportunities may all make it difficult for wireless service providers to meet the existing 1000 foot separation distance requirement between antenna towers. These circumstances may be mitigated by requiring service providers to examine antenna collocation opportunities on existing towers, while allowing them to build new towers within a 1000 foot distance should they meet certain siting and tower design requirements. It should also be noted that many communities do not provide tower separation mandates. 3 See the "Antenna Towers in Surrounding Communities" table below for a brief explanation of antenna tower location requirements in nearby communities. Table 1. Antenna Towers in Surrounding Communities Community Zoning districts & towers Tower setbacks Tower location Tower separation Brooklyn Park, MN All towers Must meet Preference for None considered setbacks of existing Conditional Use in underlying zoning structures, public (see tower all districts (with district (with institution sites, & location towers regulated specific business or requirements) to park or requirements for industrial districts; institutional land abutting districts) no new towers uses in residential unless antennas districts) can't be located on existing towers within a % mi. search radius of proposed tower 120' or less Crystal, MN Permitted use in Towers shall not ust avoid � of As an approved the 1 -1 Light be located within locating tower in Conditional Use by Industrial District; 165' of any single parks, near City Council: No Conditional Use in or two family stormwater tower can be C -2 Gen. dwelling on ponds, & on located within 660' Commercial another lot, or buildings of another tower. District; prohibited within 82.5' of any containing child elsewhere unless lot line care /schooling, or A separation approved as a serving as requirement was Conditional Use by single /two family not specified for City Council (and dwellings the 1 -1 Light subject to Industrial or C -2 requirements) Gen. Commercial District. Maple Grove, MN An accessory use Towers shall not Not more than 3 None in residential, be constructed towers shall exist business, & within or upon the at any one time industrial districts, required setback on any one plot, in compliance with area for the given that at least the requirements district in which two of the towers of City Code Ch. the tower is to be do not exceed 10' 8, Article X Private located; and not in height Antennas and within front street Towers. or side street setback areas n Tower Separation Amendment. On August 16, 2012 the New Hope Design and Review Committee discussed the Verizon Wireless monopole application and a potential text amendment to Zoning Ordinance pertaining to antenna tower separation distance. Committee members raised concerns about eliminating the 1000 foot separation requirement between antenna towers altogether. They also expressed the need for special criteria for reduced separation distances should exceptions to the 1000 foot separation requirement be allowed. Attached to this report is a proposed Ordinance amendment which does not eliminate the 1000 foot antenna tower separation requirement, but rather creates an exception to the spacing requirement when certain conditions have been met. These conditions are as follows (with explanation of the reasoning behind individual conditions demonstrated): 1. New antennas are not able to co- locate on existing towers. Documentation must be provided that illustrates the attempt to consider existing towers as alternative locations for new antennas. Comment: Wireless service providers must first exhaust all antenna collocation opportunities before deciding to build new antenna towers. Additionally, providers must make an effort to locate any new towers outside of the 1000 foot separation distance before being allowed to consider locating a new tower within a reduced separation distance. 2. The antenna tower is a minimum of 120 feet in height, and is able to accommodate at least three (3) service providers (the initial service provider, and co- locations for two (2) additional service providers). Comment: Any new antenna towers must be constructed with enough height to encourage the collocation of several wireless service providers at different heights on the tower. This will reduce the need for new antenna towers in the future. 3. The antenna tower has a minimum service area of % mile. Comment: New towers should address gaps in wireless coverage, and otherwise locate antennas and towers to provide significant increased wireless coverage opportunities for New Hope residents. 4. The antenna tower is located within the Industrial District. Comment: Guided land use and design standards associated with the Industrial District will provide sufficient opportunities for the development of wireless communication towers in the future. 5 5. The antenna tower meets all other conditions of approval. Any change in Ordinance is a policy decision for the New Hope City Council and Planning Commission, who should provide additional requirements or recommendations for an amendment as they see fit. Conditional Use Permits: Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers. According to Zoning Ordinance Sec. 4 -3 ( /)(3) personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within industrial zoning districts, provided they comply with the following standards: a. Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. Comment: A land lease agreement between the Lessor, Winnetka Properties, and the Lessee, Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, has been provided by the applicant. b. All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within 12 months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the city manager or designate. The removal shall be the joint and several responsibility of the antenna tower owner and land owner. Comment: Not applicable. c. All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. Comment: The attached document from Senior Design Engineer Amy Herbst, with Sabre Industries, indicates that the proposed antenna tower is in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA- 222 -G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas." And the applicant submitted T -1 project sheet (Exhibit A) indicates that the work delineated in the project drawings and described in the specifications shall conform to codes, standards, and regulations that have jurisdiction in the state of Minnesota, and the City of New Hope. In addition, the attached document " Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park" describes that the proposed Verizon Wireless "MINC Memory Park" site complies with all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and 2 FAA regulations pertaining to the technical aspects of Verizon Wireless operations and network. The antenna tower is also subject to City building permit review and approval. d. Structural design and construction plans of the antenna towers shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. Comment: Amy Herbst, Senior Design Engineer with Sabre Industries, provided a statement describing the design of the proposed monopole in relation to wind speed and safety factors. The proposed 120' monopole would be designed by Sabre Industries for a Basic Wind Speed of 90 mph with no ice and 50 mph with 3 /" radial ice, Structure Class Il, Exposure Category C, and Topographic Category 1. Additionally, the T -1 project sheet (Exhibit A) lists departmental approvals for the project, including approval by Construction Engineer John Haugen. The antenna tower is also subject to City building permit review and approval. e. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any required federal state, or local agency licenses. Comment: The applicant has not provided copies of the necessary licenses, but has indicated that Verizon Wireless has attained a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) license from the FCC which authorizes it to provide CMRS and operate a CMRS network in geographic areas throughout the nation. Further, in the attached " Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park" document the applicant explains that licensees of the FCC, as part of the issuance of a license and in compliance with FCC rules and regulations, are not allowed to interfere with other licensees whose frequencies are under the jurisdiction of the FCC, including any public safety communications. f. The city may authorize the use of city property for an antenna tower in appropriately zoned districts in accordance with the procedures of the City Code. The city shall have no obligation whatsoever to use city property for such purposes. Comment: Not applicable. g. Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest property line of 75 percent of tower height and a minimum setback from a building in the same lot of 50 percent of tower height The setback requirements may be reduced if the applicant provides documentation by a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a 7 lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The setback requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback requirements of the base zoning district, whichever is greater. Comment: The proposed antenna tower is 120 feet tall, so the required setback from property lines would be 90 feet at 75% of tower height. The applicants provided documentation from Amy Herbst, the Senior Design Engineer with Sabre Industries, stating that the monopole will have a collapse point within a radius of 50% of the monopole height, or 60 feet. Therefore the minimum tower setback can be reduced to 60 feet. The applicants provided a Site Plan, Sheet A -1 (Exhibit A) which illustrates a 60'- 2" setback from the middle of the base of the proposed tower to the adjacent rear property lines, which appears to meet the reduced setback requirement. However, the setback should be measured from the outer face of the tower base, not the center of the tower base (as is currently illustrated on Sheet A -1), which would reduce the setback by approximately 3 feet in either direction. Given this change in setback measurement, the proposed tower would no longer meet the 60 foot setback requirement. The applicants will need to demonstrate a minimum 60 foot setback from the outside perimeter of the tower to all adjacent property lines. The antenna tower maintains a 60 foot or greater setback from the existing principal building at 3980 Quebec Ave. N.. A municipal water main is located along the south edge of the parking lot of 3980 Quebec Avenue N. The City will require a 30 foot building setback between the proposed tower and the water main. Sheet A -2, Enlarged Site Plan (Exhibit A) indicates a 30 foot setback between tower and water main, however the setback is currently measured from the center of the tower to the water main, and should be measured from the outer edge of the tower. The location of the proposed tower will need to be adjusted to rectify this water main setback requirement as well. h. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of 1,000 feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. Comment: The proposed monopole location is approximately 350' from an existing 75' Crown Castle monopole at 3940 Quebec Ave. N (Paddock Laboratories), which does not meet the separation requirement. A text amendment has been requested for Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(I)(3)h) which creates an exception to the 1000 foot separation requirement, given that certain conditions have been met. Once the conditions are met antenna towers may be constructed within 1000 feet of one another. The City will need to approve this text amendment so that the proposed Verizon Wireless monopole project may proceed, given that they have met all other wireless 8 antenna tower requirements described in Section 4- 3(I)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. Please see the text analysis of tower separation distance. i. Maximum height of a two antenna array tower shall be 145 feet. A tower providing for three or more antenna arrays may have a maximum height of 165 feet Comment: The proposed monopole will be 120', and will accommodate at least two other wireless users at varying heights, meeting the tower height requirement. j. Antenna towers shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. Comment: The applicant has not provided a lighting plan, however Sheet A -6 Outline Specifications (Exhibit A) states that the contractor will provide for the operation of FAA required lighting per the RFQ. Additionally, Sheet A -3 Tower Elevation (Exhibit A) indicates a proposed lighting rod atop the tower, as well as noting that the project contractor will ensure that the tips of antennas are below the bottoms of obstruction lights per FAA/FCC standards. If any other artificial lighting is required by law or by the FAA, the applicant will need to adapt the design of the tower to include the required lighting. k. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. The owner /operator of the tower shall place a sign, not to exceed two square feet, on the fence surrounding the associated ground equipment. This sign shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. Comment: A sign identifying the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information shall be placed on the fence surrounding the ground equipment in accordance with this requirement, and as a condition of approval. L Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. Comment: The tower shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish in accordance with this requirement, and as a condition of approval. m. Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse visual effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. Comment: In the attached document "Verizon Wireless Justification for MINC Memory Park" the applicant has indicated that the establishment of the 6 proposed telecommunication facility will not be materially injurious to the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. However, the applicant will also need to specify the color or make of the proposed tower as a condition of approval. n. A security fence eight feet in height shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. A locked anticlimb device shall be installed on all towers extending 12 feet above the ground. Comment: In Sheet A -6 Outline Specifications (Exhibit A) the applicant has indicated that a six foot galvanized steel fence will be built around the tower, with a fence top of three strands of barbed wire to 7' above grade. The fence height will need to be increased two feet to meet the fencing requirement for antenna towers. The applicants have not indicated that a 12 foot locked anticlimb device shall be installed on the tower. The design for the MINC Memory Park tower will need to be adapted to provide an anticlimb device. o. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, whether self - contained or located in a freestanding equipment building, shall be located at the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened from view from residential uses and public rights -of -way. Comment: An enclosed 12 foot by 30 foot combined equipment shelter and generator room will sit at the base of the antenna tower. In addition, Sheet A- 6 Outline Specifications (Exhibit A) indicates that existing landscaping elements will be protected during construction of the tower, and new trees and shrubs will be furnished on the monopole site by the contractor, which will help to screen the lower portion of the tower and equipment shelter from nearby land uses. Though the applicant has not provided a landscape plan which illustrates the exact location of new trees and shrubs, in meeting to review the application the Design and Review Committee determined that the proposed tower is far enough away from Quebec Avenue N. as to not necessitate the application of significant additional landscaping. p. If a new antenna tower is to be constructed it shall be designed to accommodate at least two antenna arrays including, but not limited to, other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire, and ambulance companies. Comment: The proposed 120' antenna tower will be constructed to accommodate up to two additional wireless users at different heights. q. The conditional use permit provisions of section 4-33 of this Code must also be satisfied. IN According to Section 4 -33 of the Zoning Ordinance, the planning commission and city council shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the city council and planning commission shall find that the conditional use permit complies with the following criteria: (1) Comprehensive plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official comprehensive municipal plan of the city. Comment: 3980 Quebec Avenue falls within Planning District 9S, which promotes the in -place expansion of existing industries due to the reality of limited vacant land in New Hope. Additionally, the New Hope Comprehensive Policy Plan p. 179 -180 describes the following Community Facility goals and policies which support the integration of wireless service technologies in the community: Goal 1: Maintain, improve, and create services, facilities and infrastructure to meet the needs and interests of the community. Policy J. Pursue wireless Internet and other communication technologies within New Hope. (2) Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated land uses. Comment: The proposed monopole is within the Industrial District, however it is bordered to the east by a R -1 Single Family Residential District, and separated from nearby residential land uses by a railroad right -of -way. Precautions will need to be taken to reduce the impact of any noise or traffic on nearby residences. As implied in the submitted plans, screening in the form of trees and shrubs will be furnished as part of the proposed project, and existing landscaping will be protected during construction, which will provide further'screening. In addition, a fence topped with barbed wire will surround the monopole to prevent unauthorized access. (3) Performance standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in this Code. Comment: The proposed monopole shall meet all personal wireless service antenna tower standards, with the exception of the tower separation standard. (4) No depreciation in value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 11 Comment: It is not anticipated that construction of the monopole will depreciated the area in which it is proposed. (5) Zoning district criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. Comment: The lot is which the monopole land area is to be leased has previously met lot Industrial District performance standards. (6) In residential districts. Not applicable. (7) In business districts (LB, CB). Not applicable. (8) In industrial districts (1). a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. Comment: It is not anticipated that construction of the monopole will result in nuisance characteristics that will have an adverse effect on existing and future development in adjacent areas. b. Economic return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and be commensurate with other industrial uses for which the property could feasible be used In considering the economic return to the community, the planning commission and city council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative Comment: It is not anticipated that construction of the monopole will result in any negative sociological impacts. The applicant makes the argument that the creation of the new antenna tower instead stems from intense social pressure for expanded wireless service coverage area and technology. RECOMMENDATION Text Amendment: The applicant has requested that the City create a text amendment to Zoning Ordinance Sec. 4- 3(1)(3)(4), pertaining to the separation distance between antenna towers, so that they might be allowed to build a proposed monopole at 3980 Quebec Avenue N. within 12 1000 feet of other antenna towers. The attached Text Amendment (Exhibit H) is offered for Planning Commission review and discussion. The City must review and make a decision regarding the text amendment to antenna tower Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(I)(3)h first, and then may consider approval of the conditional use permit to allow Verizon Wireless to construct an antenna tower at 3980 Quebec Ave. N. Without the text amendment, the Verizon Wireless project will fail to meet all zoning requirements. If the City decides to approve the text amendment, then planning staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit allowing Verizon Wireless to proceed in building the proposed monopole. Conditional Use Permits & Site and Building Review: Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers. The following items have been identified as supporting the approval of the proposed conditional use permit: 1. The proposed monopole meets antenna tower height requirements and is being designed to accommodate at least two additional wireless users at additional heights. 2. The proposed monopole falls within the Industrial District, as required by Zoning Ordinance, and is sharing land with an existing industrial use instead of building on valuable vacant land. 3. The proposed monopole shall meet all requirements of Sec. 4- 3(I)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the required 1000 foot separation distance between antenna towers. 4. The construction and function of the proposed monopole will meet all FAA and FCC requirements. Based on the preceding review we recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower subject to the following conditions. 1. The text amendment is made to Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(I)(3)h), creating an exception to the 1000 foot separation requirement given certain conditions. 2. The applicants demonstrate that a minimum 60 foot setback from the outside perimeter of the monopole to all adjacent property lines has been attained in the design of the monopole site. 3. The applicants demonstrate that a minimum 30 foot setback from water mains has been attained in the design of the monopole site. 13 4. The applicants provide a sign on the fence surrounding the monopole site which identifies the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. 5. The applicants provide information explaining the color and make of the proposed tower. 6. The applicants provide evidence that the height of the fence surrounding the monopole site will be increased two feet to meet the fencing requirement for antenna towers; and that a 12 foot locked anti -climb device will be installed on the tower. 7. The proposed project undergoes a building permit review. 8. A Conditional Use Agreement prepared by the City Attorney is entered into that insures compliance with the CUP and site restoration requirements. cc: Pam Sylvester Steve Sondrall Roger Axel 14 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Deadline for Date 60- Date 60- Date Deadline Date city Date city cation application required day time day Applicant for city approved or sent response number Name received information limit extension was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by city Date Applicant expires expires of under application Phone sent notice of extension extension information or waiver was missing 10/9/12 12/8/12 12 -08 Verizon Wireless 8/10/12 Rob Viera Buell consulting 5096 Merrimac Lane N Plymouth MN 55446 612- 801 -2228 17- 118 -21 -32 -0006 Boxes A -C and E -F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the city's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the city received the application. D. List the date the city sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the city gives such notice, it must do so within 15 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 60 -day extension, begin counting from the day following the first 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. G. The city will notify the Applicant by mail that a 60 -day extension period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The city must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the city sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the city not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Memorandum To: Planning Commission Cc: Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Al Brixius, Planning Consultant From: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of CD Date: September 4, 2012 Subject: City Center District -I'W IV - M F " " t? The attached memo, last months, from Al Brixius summarizes the final changes and adjustments we are proposing to the draft city center district ordinance, comp plan and design guidelines. Please review closely and contact me with any concerns you may have. After any changes /modifications to this draft proposed by the Commission on September 4, the ordinance will be amended for the public hearing to be held at the October 2 meeting. Please check your schedules and let me know if you will be unable to attend that meeting/public hearing. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 7(33.231.2561 planners @nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Curtis Jacobsen / Eric Weiss / Steve Sondrall FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: July 30, 2012 RE: New Hope — CC, City Center District FILE NO: 131.00 —11.04 BACKGROUND The Vision Study anticipates a vibrant mixture of commercial, office, entertainment, recreation, and residential land uses in a dense urban design with the New Hope City Center. However, the Vision Study does not provide a generalized land use plan or concept plan that describes the design intentions or land use options for the City Center properties. The Vision Study provides little analysis of the physical conditions of the study area or the design parameters that may influence future redevelopment efforts. Without this analysis, it is difficult to draft hard and fast zoning regulations based on the broad Vision Study recommendations. In implementing the City Center vision, we are proposing the following methods: Comprehensive Plan amendments that adopt the Vision Study as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. We are also suggesting changes to the City's Proposed Land Use Map general land use descriptions and Planning District 11, which encompasses the City Center and 42 Avenue corridor. Within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the Comprehensive Plan is the superior document to zoning, allowing the City to impose the City Center design intentions as policies, recommendations, and guidelines, rather than hard and fast zoning standards. This allows the City to allow some design flexibility without need for variance. 2. New Hope Design Guidelines were established to: 1) reinforce the community's vision for development; 2) foster high quality architecture and site design; 3) encourage creativity in accomplishing design goals; and 4) protect public and private investment in buildings and infrastructure. The New Hope Design Guidelines were adopted as Appendix F of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. The guidelines are mandatory, however, it is understood that there will be often many ways of achieving the intent of these guidelines without the formal process of a variance. 3. The City will be creating a new zoning district that is unique to the City Center. This district is intended to define range of land uses, densities, setbacks, and performance standards for the proposed district. In amending the CC, City Center District, the following design elements were considered: Study Area Size The total area of the Vision Study area west of the railroad tracks is 93 acres (see Exhibit A). However, this acreage exists in 34 different parcels and different ownership. The largest parcel, K -Mart, is 12.52 acres. The smallest commercial parcel is .27 acres in area. The two City Center super blocks are 35.5 acres and 24 acres, respectively. We raise the size of these areas to emphasize the need for design standards that will allow redevelopment to fit within these areas and /or on individual lots. The Codes and Standards Committee has already recommended that the properties east of the railroad remain zoned CB, Community Business, reflective of the small lots, the automotive uses in the area, and the recent redevelopment of the Holiday Station site. Site Access The primary streets providing access to the City Center are Winnetka Avenue and 42 Avenue, both County roads. Hennepin County will dictate street design and access management for these streets. This will influence redevelopment with regard to right -of- way use, setback, access, and public sidewalks. Transit Oriented Design The planning and vision anticipates reliance on mass transit for residents living in the City Center or those who wish to visit the City Center area. While this goal is commendable, the Vision Study gives little information on current bus ridership or anticipated trends in ridership if the project proceeds. The study does not provide information on what design elements may improve transit ridership. Comprehensive Plan Amendments The first step in the Vision Plan implementation is a series of Comprehensive Plan amendments as follows: 1. Amend the Proposed Land Use Plan (page 195) to show the CC District super block as mixed land use to facilitate the land use recommendations of the Vision Study (see Exhibit B). 2. The general land use descriptions of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan include a mixed use description that is applied to the City Center commercial site (pages 217 -220). The second Comprehensive Plan amendment is to the mixed use 2 land use description. This amendment formally adopts the Vision Study as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan and outlines the Vision Study goals within the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment also expands the commercial redevelopment target areas to include the CC District super blocks (see Exhibit C). 3. Planning District 11 of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan provides detailed planning recommendations for the City Center /42 Avenue corridor. This section has been amended to include recommendations that are consistent with the Vision Study goals. Included in the planning district is a Generalized Land Use Plan for Planning Commission review. The Generalized Land Use Plan is intended to identify the locations within the City Center where freestanding multiple family residential land uses may be acceptable (see Exhibit D). In review of the new Comprehensive Plan language, we ask the Planning Commission to edit the language to insure that it is comprehensive and reflects the City's ambitions for the City Center area. CC ZONING DISTRICT REVISED Exhibit E is the proposed CC, City Center District language intended to be adopted as Section 4 -17 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. This draft shows the proposed changes through strikes and underlines. Purpose and Intent No changes are proposed. This section of the district outlines the goals and objectives of the Vision Study. Provision 10 references the design elements of the Vision Study, Comprehensive Plan, and New Hope Design Guidelines. Procedure No changes are proposed. Projects may pursue redevelopment through a standard site and building plan review or through a planned unit development. In either scenario, the City will require the site plan to consider how it may be integrated with adjoining properties and streets. Design Standards This section was added to specifically call out the need for future projects to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations and the New Hope Design Guidelines. Uses Page 16 of the City Center Vision Plan identifies 42 Avenue and Winnetka commercial core as intended to include a diverse mix of commercial use, office, restaurants to serve City residents and neighboring surrounding communities. Mix of housing types, both within the City Center and surrounding neighborhoods, is encouraged. The intent is to create a vibrant destination in New Hope for dining, shopping, entertainment, regular exercise, or leisurely strolls. With this intent, the range of uses should be limited to those that promote, implement and complement this vision. The matrix of uses has been scaled down through City review, however in examining the current matrix, we are proposing to remove the biotechnology and research, medical, dental, optical laboratories, and conditional use permit home occupations. We question whether the range of research that may fall into this broad land use categories will be compatible with a dense residential environment. Additionally, we do not believe the two uses would contribute to the commercial accumulative attraction wanted within the City Center. The research facilities are allowed in other New Hope zoning districts. We are also suggesting that the following uses be listed as permitted uses rather than conditional uses: Conference Center Printing, Publishing, and Engraving under 2,000 square feet Theater Administrative Uses 1. We have combined farmers markets and outdoor seasonal sales under the same permit. 2. We have eliminated conditional use home occupations from the CC District. Within this district, the City allows mixed commercial residential buildings and live /work units. With this accommodation, the conditional use home occupation is not necessary. 3. Outdoor dining has combined both patio and rooftop dining. Conditional Uses 1. Freestanding Multiple Family. Per the directive of the Planning Commission, we have included a location limitation for freestanding multiple family as a condition of the conditional use permit. This was done to preserve the Winnetka /42 " Avenue corridors for first floor commercial. Please review the Planning District 11 land use map in Exhibit D to insure it meets the City's expectations with regard to location for freestanding multiple family. 2. Live/Work Building This section was revised to address the following: a. Provide an introduction to define the live /work unit. b. We have attempted to define first floor walk -in customer businesses and upper floor appointment -only customer businesses. 4 C. We provided an exception for number of employees for first floor live /work units. d. We addressed parking for the live /work unit. 3. Senior Housing. Senior housing was amended to include a location standard. 4. Day Care Provisions were amended to remove the reference to outdoor recreation area. Within the CC District, outdoor space will be scarce. As such, indoor recreation options will be considered. 5. Veterinary Clinic. The veterinary clinic conditional use permit standards are intended to insure compatibility within a multi tenant building. Bulk, Building Placement Dimensional Standards We haven't changed the standards in Table 4- 17(e)(1) related to lot size, building height or setbacks. However, we did establish some new rules for applying build to range. Section 4- 17(e)(1) requires the placement of buildings to follow the build to range on the corners lots of public streets. This will place the buildings are predominant intersection within the City Center and establish the streetscape for the various blocks. On interior lots, the build to line will be the side of the lot abutting a street. Architectural Standards We are proposing to relocate the architectural standards of the CC District into the New Hope Design Guidelines. As guidelines, the City may be flexible in their implementation. As a zoning regulation, a variance would have to be processed if the project does not meet the standards. Parking The minimum parking ratio is dependent on the use of alternative transportation (i.e., trails, mass transit) or the availability of alternative parking. With no master plan or information on transit ridership, the minimum parking ratio for residential properties is a concern. The Broadway Apartments has a similar transit availability and is closer to the Bottineau line and we pushed this project to 2+ stalls per unit. The parking demand for dining and entertainment creates a higher parking demand than retail, as is evidenced when comparing the City Center Shopping Center to Winnetka Shopping Center or Midland Center. In this respect, if the CC District is intended to be a destination for dining and entertainment, the City must provide adequate parking. The City may consider a multi- tenant building where the tenant composition is uncertain, having a higher parking standard to allow for tenant turnover and to compensate for dining establishments. 2. The criteria in Table 4- 17(f)(2) to allow parking below the minimum ratio should instead be applied to allow reduction to the minimum parking ratio. Currently, the minimum ratio is less than half the maximum ratio without any standards to qualify for this reduction. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access The Planning Commission felt that the ratio of one bicycle parking spot per 20 cars was excessive for larger buildings. Table 4- 17(g)(3) was added with a graduated standard based on building size. The following shows bike parking for various building sizes: The Planning Commission should discuss the bike parking to determine if we should require a higher standard for bike parking. Section 4- 17(h), pedestrian and bicycle access, was moved forward in the ordinance. Loading The loading requirements reference current standards. Usable Open Space We propose no changes to Section 4- 17(k), usable open space. Landscaping Section 4 -17(1) was amended to reduce the amount of foundation plantings. Signs, Banners and Pennants We propose no changes to Section 4- 17(m). Trash Enclosures We reference the City's current enclosure language. NEW ROPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Exhibit F shows the changes to the New Hope Design Guidelines. These changes took the previous language from the CC District draft ordinance and blended them with the existing guidelines. M Parking Building Size Ratio Parking Bike Parking 40,000 X.9 = 36,000 = 200 = 180 stalls = 20 = 9 spaces 60,000 X.9 = 54,000 +200 = 270 stalls i 30 = 9 spaces 80,000 X.9 = 72,000 +200 = 360 stalls = 30 = 12 spaces 100,000 X .9 = 90,000 —200 = 450 stalls T 40 = 12 spaces The Planning Commission should discuss the bike parking to determine if we should require a higher standard for bike parking. Section 4- 17(h), pedestrian and bicycle access, was moved forward in the ordinance. Loading The loading requirements reference current standards. Usable Open Space We propose no changes to Section 4- 17(k), usable open space. Landscaping Section 4 -17(1) was amended to reduce the amount of foundation plantings. Signs, Banners and Pennants We propose no changes to Section 4- 17(m). Trash Enclosures We reference the City's current enclosure language. NEW ROPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Exhibit F shows the changes to the New Hope Design Guidelines. These changes took the previous language from the CC District draft ordinance and blended them with the existing guidelines. M CONCLUSION The preparation of the CC District is a challenge in defining the City's design goals, while still providing flexibility for developers to be creative. The draft CC, City Center District has been revised to define uses, density, setbacks, and parking regulations that the City wants as hard and fast regulations. The Comprehensive Plan amendments and Design Guidelines outline the City Center vision and ambitions but offer flexibility in the implementation. 7 f T I L ; L _7 F r � r New Hope City Center Parcels By Area j-j- Parcel ff Acres -7- T - 1 4.55 L 2 0.48 19 0.80 3 L 20 099 4 0,26 21 1.39 5 6 22 0.51 6 13-85 23 --4 7: 1. 8: 91, 10 0.23 ck of k',.w N 8 0.76 25 2.12, 9 r New Hope City Center Parcels By Area j-j- Parcel ff Acres -7- T - 1 4.55 301 2 0.48 19 0.80 3 0.16 20 099 4 0,26 21 1.39 5 OAS 22 0.51 6 13-85 23 0.67 7 0.67 24 0.23 ck of k',.w N 8 0.76 25 2.12, 9 0.73 26 1.33 m 10 1.28 27 1.13 11 2.49 28 1.33 12 1.11 29 8.73 13 10.48 30 3.13 14 12.52 31 1.08 15 0.62 32 1.83 16 0.27 33 8.00 17 7.31 34 1.151 18 0.66 Subtotal (29-34) 23.92 FSubtotal (11-18) 35.46 Total 94l5j r New Hope City Center Parcels By Area j-j- 2 21 2 2 31 -7- T - 301 [7 29 A T . r - T: - 2 21 2 2 31 -7- T - 301 [7 29 A -7- T - [7 ck of k',.w N v• 9 PROPOSED LAND USE 2 fr O 2 J CL J H N V Low Density Residential Low Density / Medium Density Residential �._ Medium Density Residential High Density Residential - Commercial Mixed Use Industrial Public & Semipublic Parks & Recreation Water Outside City Limits 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles •� _7s NORTHWEST A550CIY11E0 CON @U ►.T#Ni S, INC, W ^W OI'nn Mxnnrlal Mlgl.vwµ Ounw 101. GONIwn Vwnr,: •.IN !':a1' Txlaphv,w ]r��,)9/155!1 Fw:J. is ]�l.]11 'S0t pl�nnrrnwcN.�nin0�.'•+ LAKE KU GOLDEN VALLEY Base Map: Bonestroo Rosene Anderlink & Associates June 2012 195 EXHIBIT B BROOKLYN PARK 62ND AVENUE N Land Use In addition to the general commercial land use recommendations, the Land Use Plan calls for the following changes in commercial land use patterns: 1. The commercial area at the southwest corner of West Broadway and 62 Avenue is proposed to be redeveloped as mixed use. 2. Commercial land uses have been expanded along the east side of Winnetka Avenue just north of Medicine Lake Road to include a non - conforming multiple family site. This land use change is proposed to establish a contiguous land use pattern along Winnetka Avenue between Medicine Lake Road and Terra Linda Drive. 3. Commercial land uses have been expanded to two sites located at the corner of Hillsboro Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. MIXED USE The commercial land use description on pages 215 -216 recommends the pursuit of redevelopment of select City Center commercial sites. Within the City Center area, the promotion of commercial land uses is the City's first priority. However, the City may also consider the introduction of complementary, alternative land uses that will enhance the areas and provide support for the commercial use. Commercial mixed use land use category maintains the commercial land use as a priority but may also allow for residential land uses in an integrated site design. Residential densities that may be considered within a mixed use redevelopment would be medium density housing at 10 units per acre or high density housing options at 23+ units per acre. This land U69 GategeFy gives the Gity the flexibility t9 Gens alteMative IaAd uses wheFt Any futuFe CompFeheRsive Plan amendments te allew a mixed land use fOF the Gity GenteF w ill FeqUiFe Gity appFGyal ef a . . . FnaSteF plan. Through the Fedevelepment plan the Gity will define the balanee between raommeFGial and Fesidential land uses and In 2011, the City completed the New Hope City Center Vision Study to define its land use and design ambitions for the City Center area. This study is adopted as Appendix G to the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. The Vision Study outlined the following general City Center goals. The principle and supporting themes for each of the goal statements can be found in Appendix G, Vision Study of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. cl*ta City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Framework 217 EXHIBIT C Land Use 1. General Intent. The redevelopment of City Center will strengthen its role as a vibrant year -round destination that includes retail, commercial, and residential uses. The government center and parks and recreation areas will reflect the active, prosperous and friendly character of New Hope. 2. Public and Community Gathering Spaces. City Center will be the cultural and community center of New Hope. It should be engaging, active, lively and fun. Residents and visitors will meet at City Center for celebrations, activities, theater, events, and concerts. The public spaces at City Center will support a wide variety of gatherings, from impromptu meetings for coffee, taking a stroll, and people watching, to farmer's markets and community -wide celebrations. 3. Businesses. City Center will be the hub of commercial activity in New Hope. It will serve the community by offering a unique mix of retail, commercial, service, food, office and recreational needs. The business community will continue to be a strong component of the City and will play an active role in the community. 4. Housinq. New Hope's healthy residential neighborhoods will continue to be one of the City's greatest assets. The redevelopment of City Center will add diversity and new neighborhoods to the community and provide an exciting destination for residents of existing neighborhoods. 5. Transportation. The City will work to increase transportation choices, and create a multi -modal transportation network that is efficient, safe, sustainable and comfortable for all. City Center will be the hub of the City's transportation network, with roadway, transit and trail connections to local neighborhoods, the Bottineau transit line and other regional facilities. The local transportation system will help residents, employees and business users get to their destinations quickly, while also allowing those same users to take a relaxed stroll with friends and family. 6. Environment. The health of the local and regional environment will continue to be important to the City of New Hope. City Center will provide an opportunity to implement the City's goals to enhance sustainability and the natural environment. The design of City Center will encourage walking, biking, and the use of transit. The buildings in City Center will be designed or retrofitted to reduce the use of energy and utilize sustainable materials. The Center's landscape will be a siqnature element that is attractive and enhances the natural environment. 7. Finances. The City will take a lead role in the redevelopment of City Center, and will seek partnerships with others in the public and private sectors to identify and focus the resources needed to redevelopment. The City is committed to using all available tools to secure funds, pursuing partnerships and implementing cost - effective financing programs to implement the vision and goals for redevelopment. v4Ra City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Framework 218 EXHIBIT C Land Use 8. Government. The City will take the lead role in the redevelopment of City Center to rejuvenate the area and realize its vision for the future. The City will use a variety of financial, communication and regulatory tools to -guide and support redevelopment, and develop public /private partnerships that will maximize involvement and resources. Elected and appointed City officials will champion the vision and work closely with citizens and property owners to move forward through consensus and positive action. Redevelopment will be a major component to implementing the Vision Study goals. The following tools will guide City redevelopment efforts: 1. The principle and supporting themes for the City Center vision (see Appendix G). 2. City Center falls into Planning District 11 of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. This district outlines City recommendations that will guide land use, access and redevelopment efforts. 3. The New Hope Design Guidelines outline building and site design components that will be applied to any new development within the City Center area. 4. The City will amend its Zoning Ordinance to create a City Center District that defines land use, establishes densities, and design standards that will achieve the City Center vision goals. COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT TARGET AREA ACREAGE Maintenance 3.74 acres Redevelopment 4 63.76 acres Maintenance / Redevelopment 15.10 acres Maintenance includes upkeep, improvements, renovation, or rehabilitation of existing commercial buildings. No expansion of the existing buildings is anticipated. Redevelopment of commercial areas is anticipated to achieve between 25 percent to 30 percent building coverage in the City's standard zoning districts. Within the City Center, the City anticipates a building coverage of 50 percent or greater., Fesulting in between 496,000 to 596 s feet of new Ge mmersi al, etail, r. ^�;�ffiGe 8 999 parse The identified redevelopment sites are currently active retailing locations. The City has no definite timeframe for redevelopment. The City has also identified 15.10 acres of commercial property as Maintenance / Redevelopment. These sites are a lower priority for the City. The City will emphasize maintenance until an opportunity arises to promote a larger redevelopment project. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Framework 219 EXHIBIT C I ifi Planning Districts DISTRICT 11 District 11 has been configured to include the City Center and the commercial corridor along 42 Avenue. The district extends from Zealand Avenue on the west to Louisiana Avenue on the east. In addition to the commercial land uses, District 11 includes high density residential, and public/semi- public land uses. The following recommendations are offered for District 11. 1, A stated ge -aaa - f the Gity in to nnhannn and re�i�if ��e the Gity Gen4nr as Allenlle genie ae downtown New q es have been defined fGF the Gommer-Gial land uses 4 : The 2011 New Hope City Center Vision Study calls for the City Center to be a year -round destination that includes retail, commercial, and residential uses in an urban, compact design that Provides attractive living, shopping, dining, and entertainment opportunities to City residents and visitors. In recoanition of this. the followina strateaies have been identified for District 11: a. Aggressively pursue the eeoevafiee and redevelopment of the Winnetka Center and the Kmart Shopping Center. Undertake efforts to enhance the physical appearance and tenant composition of the centers to improve the customer base of this area. A mixed land use that allows for a combination of commercial office, entertainment, recreational, and medium to high density residential land uses n4aywill be sensiderad in the redevelopment of the aforementioned sites and the balance of the City Center area b. Redevelopment e for any of the attempt to integl ate the s de g n with S adjoin henninn nentem to Tf.7 . parcels within the City Center area will require the development of a site master plan that accomplishes the following design goals: 1) Work with Hennepin County Highway Department to outline options to improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit opportunities along Winnetka Avenue and 42 Avenue. 2) Work with Metro Transit to identify opportunities to integrate mass transit into the design of the City Center's super blocks including_ but not limited to, bus stops with shelters, segregated bus lanes, and park and ride options. 3) For all Citv Center redevelopment/development. the Citv will require a master concept plan for the parcel that shows how the site V�� City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Framework 301 EXHIBIT D Planning Districts development will be integrated with adjoining lots, streets, internal Parkin. circulation systems, pedestrian circulation, and landscape. The master concept plan shall emphasize transportation connections between lots and shared parking as a means of promoting a unified design and business interchange within the City Center area. 4) The master plan must examine street patterns, site access, lot configuration, land use, building location, building orientation, and parking to insure that redeveloped parcels contribute to unified and cohesive block design. C. The 2011 Vision Study calls for a mixture of retail, office, entertainment, recreational. and residential land uses to be introduced within the Citv Center Plan on page defines the City's intentions. To accommodate the mixture of land use, the City will develoya new CC. City Center Zoning District that outlines the range uses and establishes densities and performance standards unique to this area of New Hope. d. The Citv Center area is intended to have a downtown character with buildin forward design to de- emphasize parking areas and promote a pedestrian - friendly environment for both residents and visitors to the area. The building placement and orientation shall be defined in the CC Zoning District and illustrated in future master concept plans. de. The City will pmmete the eemmunity Hope Design Guidelines and a uniform streetscape design around the City Center and along 42 Avenue to establish an attractive commercial identity. The New Hope Design Guidelines shall be amended to include guidelines for site and building desiqn unique to the City Center. All future redevelopment and /or renovations shall implement the New Hope Design Guidelines to improve building and site aesthetics. f. The School District bus garage is an unsightly industrial use in close proximity to the City Center commercial area. The appearance and future use of the site presents compatibility issues with the balance of District 11. t Both he site and building need r r i yaton i appeararin vvmZrrv�c - g-� c9 - Irrrp FB Ve e-� City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Framework 302 EXHIBIT D Planning Districts This block has been included in the 2011 New Hope City Center Vision Study I for potential redevelopment. eg. The City will pursue redevelopment of marginal commercial sites along 42 Avenue. Two target sites have been initially identified. The first site consists of two small commercial lots at the southwest corner of 42 Avenue and Oregon Avenue. The lots are over - utilized, creating operation and aesthetic problems for the businesses. Redevelopment efforts should attempt to combine the properties to create a large commercial site. The second site is located at the northeast corner of 42 Avenue and Nevada. This site is generally under - utilized and offers opportunity for commercial expansion. h. The City will pursue the painting and maintenance of the railroad bridge passing over 42 Avenue and pedestrian railings along 42 Avenue. 2. The Tradewinds Apartments, located north of 45 Avenue, face flooding and settling problems due to their proximity to the adjoining wetland /ponding area. Redevelopment efforts for the City Center shall give attention to the Tradewinds Apartments, including renovating existing buildings, improving stormwater conditions, and enhancing the site consistent with the New Hope Design Guidelines. 3. The Civic Center Park, outdoor pool, outdoor theater, and governmental buildings are included in District 11. This area serves as an important element to the City Center image and as an attraction to the planning district. The City will continue to monitor and upgrade facilities in Civic Center Park as needs are presented. Suggestions for this land use area include: a. Implementation of the Civic Center Park Master Plan. b. Build a skate park in Civic Center Park. V-4Ra City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Framework 303 EXHIBIT D [High Res idential Commercial, Mixed Use,: Public, Freestanding. Park, Residential Institutional Commercial, Mixed Use High Density Residential Commercial' Commercial, Hued Use Commercial, Mixed Use— Freestanding Freestanding Commercial' -- { PLANNING DISTRICTS Planning District 11 Generalized Land Use 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 Miles wwrrswis. �wc. Base Map: Bonestrw Rosene Andertnk d Assodatas July2012 283 EXHIBIT D l: CITY OF NEW HOPE — DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CITY CENTER DISTRICT Sec. 4 -17. CC, city center district. (a) Purpose. The purpose of the CC, City Center district is to encourage a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and civic uses in the City Center area to enhance its function as the heart of the community. The district is designed to: (1) Provide a diversity of housing opportunities and land uses by encouraging a mix of medium- and high - density residential uses with commercial, entertainment, employment, and civic uses in vertical (uses located in separate structures) and horizontal (uses located in the same structure) mixed use areas; (2) Increase opportunities for. residents to live in close proximity to jobs, non- residential development and transit connections; (3) Provide for development that is conveniently and safely accessible by multiple travel modes including transit, walking and bicycling, and for people of all levels of mobility; (4) Require aesthetically pleasing building and site design through the use of high-quality :building materials, landscaping and architectural design; (5) Encourage a sense of activity and liveliness along front building facades, public open spacesand sidewalks; (6) Provide parking in an efficient manner; (7) Provide public gathering spaces and green spaces; (8) Encourage appropriate transitions between higher - intensity uses within commercial and mixed use areas and adjacent lower - density residential districts; (9) Encourage sustainable design practices; (10) Create a unified district and implement the goals outlined in the New Hope City Center Vision, Comprehensive Plan and New Hope Design Guidelines. (b) Procedure. All developments, except for improvements to existing buildings, must be completed through the Site Plan Review process, as outlined in Section 4- 35 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process can 1 EXHIBIT E be applied, at the request of the property owner, to provide flexibility in the planning process as outlined in Section 4 -34. (c) Design standards (1) In addition to the design performance standards of the New Hope Zoning Code. all development and redevelooment shall be consistent with the New I lope Comprehensive Plan and the New Hope Design Guidelines. (d) Uses, CC. The following table indicates permitted, conditional, temporary, and administrative uses in the CC district: TABLE 4 -17 ed -1 USE Permitted Conditional Temporary Admin Re�it� nti Ili Multi- family housing (10 -50 units per acre; .. C Live -work building C Mixed -use, residential and commercial P PUD, residential C Residential care facility 7 -16 persons)C Licensed day care facility C Senior /disabled housing C .... o ; :. Civic and Pit l iC US` Community centers ' P Government buildings P Essential services P _ Farmers'. markets, festivals T A Park and ride facility, structured P Public pArlks and playgrounds P Recreation facilities, public P Comme : ial s Appliance and furniture Sales - <10,000 SF P Analogy and researeh G Clinic P Conference center P G Da care and adult daycare C Financial services P Grocery, supermarkets P Hospitality business P Hotel P Internet publishing, broadcasting P Office business P Personal service businesses P EXHIBIT E Printing, publishing, engraving, under -20W P E PUD, Commercial C Recreational business, under 10,000 SF P Recreational business, over 10,000 SF C G Restaurant, bakery, coffee shop P Retail business P Service business P Structured parking facility P Studios — dance, health, art P Theatre P 1 Training and trade school P Veterinary Clinic C , .. Aci"sorV U's Auto parking P Drive -thru service lane A Entertainment, live, as accessory to restaurant C Home occupations, permitted P 4C- A Newsstand P Off - street loading P Open/outdoor sales, seasonal products T A Outdoor dining, patio A Outdoor dining, rooftop A Radio and television receiving antennas P (1) Administrative uses. Administrative uses listed in Table 4- 17(c) -1 are subject to the fallowing administrative use provisions: a. Farmers markets', festivals & open outdoor sales — seasonal products 1. No such permit shall be approved between the months of 'November and April. 2. hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. 3. The site plan must clearly demonstrate that adequate parking for the proposed event can be provided for the permit's duration without reducing the parking requirements of the principal use below minimum parking standards of this Code. 3 EXHIBIT E 4. Signage for the sales operation may be counted separate from the maximum allowed for the principal use otherwise occupying the site. However, this waiver shall be limited to a maximum of two signs per site not to exceed a total combined area of 64 square feet of signage and one sign per individual vendor at a site, not to exceed a total area of 10 square feet of signage. 5. Any use of an outdoor sound system in any connection with farmers market shall not exceed fifty -five decibels at the property line. 6. Farmer's markets, festivals & upen outdoor sales are otherwise subieet to the detailed permit requirements of Chanter 8 of this Code. b. Drive - through service lanes. A drive- through service lane accessory to any permitted or conditionally permitted business or use shall be allowed onlyif the following additional criteria are satisfied: 1. Stacking. Not less than 100 feet of segregated automobile stacking must be provided for the single service lane. Where .multiple service lanes are provided, the minimum automobile stacking may be reduced to 60 feet per lane. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for stacking of automobiles. This amount may be adjusted, higher or lower, if peak average monthly volume for the business (or similar businesses) shows a need for a different amount. of queuing spaces. 2. Noise. Loudspeakers shall not exceed fifty -five decibels at property lines. 3. Drive -up facilities shall be designed so that circulation and drive -up windows are not adjacent to sidewalks, outdoor dining spaces, parks, and public open space or between buildings and the street, to the mamimum extent praefleable. In situations where drive - through lanes must be located between the building and the street, then additional screening and landscaping will be required. 4. No more than two drive - through stations are permitted. 4 EXHIBIT E 5. Pedestrian er-assings within per-king lots and logi pedestrian routes through parking lots sheR be eleaFty (Moved to "Vehicle and bicycle parking requirements ") 6. Pedestrian crossings of drive - through lanes shall be clearly marked with crosswalk paint, signs, raised crosswalks, and other visual cues that alert drivers to the crossing. Likewise, signs and other visual cues shall be provided to alert pedestrians of the crossing. c. Home occupations, permitted and eenditionalty permitted, accessory per subsection 4- 3(g)(3)�'of this Code. d. Openleutdoer sales, seasonal pr-�juets subjeet to the permit (Combined with "Adni n�strative uses - farmers markets ") e. Outdoor dining-,patie 1. The applicant shall he required to submit a site plan and other pertinent information demonstrating the location and type of all tables, refuse receptacles, and wait stations. 2. The size of the dining area is restricted to 30 percent of the total customer floor area within the principal structure. 3. The dining area I is screened from view from adjacent residential uses in accordance with subsection 4- 3(d)(3) of this Code.. 4. The, applicant demonstrates that pedestrian circulation is not disrupted as a result of the outdoor dining area by providing. the following: a. It is encouraged that outdoor dining areas be segregated from through pedestrian circulation by means of temporary fencing, bollards, ropes, plantings, or other methods. b. Minimum clear passage zone for pedestrians at the perimeter of the restaurant shall be at least five feet without interference from parked motor vehicles, bollards, trees, tree gates, curbs, stairways, trash receptacles, street lights, parking meters, or the like. 5 EXHIBIT E c. Overstory canopy of trees, umbrellas or other structures extending into the pedestrian clear passage zone or pedestrian aisle shall have a minimum clearance of seven feet above sidewalk. 5. The dining area is surfaced with concrete, bituminous or decorative pavers or may consist of a deck with wood or other flooring material that provides a clean, attractive, and functional surface. 6. A minimum width of 36. inches shall be provided within aisles of the outdoor dining area. 7. Outdoor furniture shall be stored inside or secured after normal operating hours. Any storage,of furniture shall not be permitted on the patio between December 1 and February 28. Sidewalk furniture that is immovable or permanently fixed or attached to the sidewalk shall not be subject to the storage prohibition of this section. 8. Additional off-street parking shall be required pursuant to the requirements set forth in subsection 4 -17(f) of this Code based on the additional'seating area provided by the outdoor dining area. 9. Rooftop dining shall meet the followine additional requirements: a; Provide permanent walls or fencing around the periphery of the dining area at a minimum height of 42 inches to ensure the safety persons /prouerty b. Any permanent structures, including divider walls, trellis work, etc. be included as part of the building ul2on which they are located and are subject to the building height limitations as specified in subsection 4 -17(d) of this Code. c. The submitted plans for a rooftop dining facility as well as the buildine upon which the proposed outdoor dining is to occur is subieet to review by the city building inspector. The inspector will determine whether the building is structurally capable of handling the additional weight of persons and equipment. EXHIBIT E fi Outdoer dining, rooftop 2. Any ineluding divideF walls, trellis peFmanent , work, ete. they are be the building upon whieh building heigh lin-eh-ld-ed- fis pa" of loen4ed to the and ar-e."in'oet 3. The fer- dining faeflity as submitted the building plans a r-ooftep the as well outdoor- dining is to upon whieh pr-opesed. (2) Conditional uses. Conditional uses listed in Table 4- 17(c) -1 are subject to the following conditional use permit provisions: a. Freestanding Multi - family housing. 1. Shall be located according to the Planning District 11 Land Use Map in the New hope Comprehensive Plan. _ 2. Shall meet all other requirements of the New Hope City Code and District 1 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. b. Live -work building A building which contains a live -work unit, a single unit (e.a. studio, loft, one bedroom) consisting of both a commercial /office and a residential component that is occupied by the same resident. 1. Businesses that serve high walk -in customer volumes (including retail, recreation, restaurant, onsite service businesses, entertainment) serving he -p*bhe -shall be located on the first floor for accessibility. apper floors or basements. 7 EXHIBIT E 2. Businesses consisting of offices, small service establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a dwelling unit, or limited retailing associated with fine arts, crafts, or personal services where customer service is on an appointment only basis, shall be located on upper floors or basements. 3. The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance. however connections between IivinL and wort in areas will be allowed. establishments, small seMee . arts, retailing assee6ted with fine erafts, or- persona repair- for- any vehiel6i other- than those Feg6tered to 4. The business of the live -work unit must be conducted by a person who resides:in the dwelling unit. The business shall not employ Gore than two (2) workers on -site at any one time who live outside of the live -work unit. An exception to the aforementioned employee number will be granted for first floor businesses with a separate exterior customer entrance. 5. All buildings that permit live -work units shall adopt rules to regulate their operations in order to ensure that live -work units function harmoniously with other living units within the building. 6." The number of parking Spaces for live -work buildings will be based on the square footage of both residential and commercial independently, and. according to the requirements of Table 4 -17 (g) — 1. trc. PUD, residential. Residential planned unit developments and townhomes as regulated by section 4 -34 of this Code. e:d. Group care facility. A state licensed facility serving seven or more persons, EXHIBIT E 1. The faeffity is not leested within 1,320 feet of any similaf 2A. The entrance of the facility is located within 400 feet of a public transit route and stop, and pedestrian access is available, or the operators provide a transportation /access plan which is found acceptable by the city council. d. Day ear-e + , serving 13 eF more peFsons, pr-evided that. e. Senior /disabled housing. Senior housing provided that: 1. Age limit. Within wsenior housing facility,. 80 percent of the dwelling units must be occupied by at least one person of the age of 55 years or older. 2. Public transit. The site of the main entrance of the principal use is served or is located within 500 feet of regular transit -service. 3. Elevators Elevator service is provided to each floor level. 4. Gpen -RM eation space. 20 percent of the gross lot area shall be. maintained for passive or active recreational use, and this mab_e comprised of either indoor or outdoor recreational space. 4A. Location. if it is freestanding residential use, it shall meet the locational criteria outlined in Planning District l l of the Comprehensive Plan. j f. Daycare and adult daycare, commercial. A day care facility (as defined in subsection 4 -2(b)) and /or an adult day care (as defined in subsection 4 -2(b)) serving 13 or more people provided that: 9 EXHIBIT E 1. The design and location of the facility drop off area shall not .nterfere with internal site circulation. 2. Off-street loading. The loading area size may be reduced or the requirement waived if the site cannot physically accommodate a loading berth to the size required. All deliveries must be received at times that will not conflict with customer or employee building access or peak parking demand. 3. OuMoor R ecreation area. Outdoor- areas for active or passive recreation shall be provided in compliance with the following requirements: a. Each_ facility shall provide a minimum of 1,500 square feet of eutdee - recreation area and must have 75 square.feet of eatdoerrecreation area per person within the 6utdeer7recreation area at any given time. The eu4deer- recreation area may be reduced for adult day care if the applicant can demonstrate that limited client, mobility warrants a reduction of the eutdo - recreation area. b. The outdoor- recreation area shall be located in a side or rear yard, shall be subject to accessory building setbacks, and shall be fully enclosed and delineated via fencing and landscaping in accordance with subsection 4 -3(d) of this Code. c. No more than 75 percent of the outdoors recreation area shall be covered with an impervious surface. The surfacing material shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The remaining 25 percent of the outdoor recreation area shall be green space and shall be planted with grass or sod and landscaped. • Printing, Publishing, j1 PUD, Commercial. Commercial planned unit development as regulated by section 4 -34 10 EXHIBIT E k.-h. Recreational business. Recreational business facilities exceeding 10,000 square feet in area, provided that: 1. Aeems, Location. The site of the proposed use has dir-eet aeeessto abuts a minor arterial street as defined in the New Hope Comprehensive Plan Utilizing publie streets of a lower tr-effie hand! Plassifiention to reeeh the miner. ar-ter-oal street. 2. Compatibility. The primary recreational facilities are enclosed such that the architectural appearance and functional plan of the° building and site shall Abe se dissimilar similar to the existing buildings or areas as-to blighting w and shall meet the architectural guidelines of the New Ilope Design Guidelines. 3. Access Vehicular access points shall be limited and designed and. constructed to create a minimum of conflict with through trafffic movement between adjoining lots or onto public streets. IJ. Theatre M:i. Veterinary care. Provided the elinie beards without trefi4ment ten 6-r- fi-mupnekiftnals; in a 24 hour- period. All setivity shall be within a eompletdy en6l6sed building with soundproofing and odor- eontrol. Or 1wonels shall be prohibited. 1. No boarding or kenneling of animals for longer than a period of twenty four (24) hours. 2. All activity shall be within a completely enclosed building or tenant bay with sound proofing and odor control. 3. Applicant shall provide a plan for waste disposal, for both animals and medical waste. 4. Outdoor activities shall be prohibited in the City Center District. irk. Entertainment, live, as accessory to restaurant 1. Buildings shall be designed and constructed in a manner that 11 EXHIBIT E sound proofs the building: or tenant bay so that adjoining properties are not subiect to nuisance, noise or vibrations. (3) TeWerffi7 uses. Temper-aFy uses listed in Table 4 17(e) I are subjeet to a. Farmers' markets, festivals (e) Bulk, building placement and dimensional standards: The following requirements shall be observed in the CC zoning district, subject to additional requirements, exception and modification set forth in this.Code: TABLE 4- 17(de, -1 Lit $tandd.rds Minimum lot area All uses No minimum Minimum lot width All uses No minimum h Structure Heights t Maximum height Principal building . - 72 feet Accessory building- 20 feet * , Structure Setback. Street side build -to range All uses 10 -25 feet Side yard setback Uses adjacent to non- 5 feet residential or multi - family uses or districts Uses adjacent to single- 20 feet family residential uses or districts Corner, local or arterial 10 feet street Rear yard setback Uses adjacent to non- 10 feet residential or multi - family uses or districts 12 EXHIBIT E () The s side s h a ll be deter-mined to he the g the primary street. The primaFy street is defined as.the street as eutlimd in the • > > City Center- Golleetaf-Air-eets in the eit - distriet are to be- y eenter designated under- thisbieFir-ohy as part 6f the eampr-ehensive plan. (1) Street Side Build -to Range. a. Existing buildings in the CC District are exempt from the build -to range requirement. b. Buildings on corner lets will meet the build -to range on both streets theti abut. . c. Buildings on internal lots will meet the build -to range of streets on which they have direct frontage. d, Patios, outdoor seating areas. or usable open space integrated with a building desigli may exempt a portion of the building, from the build -to range. provided that a connection between public sidewalks and internal building -< sidewalks, parking areas, or usable open space is provided. (2) Residential Density. The maximum residential density is 50 units per net acre. Maximum densities may be increased by up to 25 percent if two of the following' amenities are provided and up to 50 percent if four or more of the following amenities are provided: a. At least 80 percent of the required parking is provided in under- ground or above - ground structures, including all levels of parking ramps. b. Housing is provided above ground floor commercial or civic uses and the total floor area of the housing is at least twice the floor area of the commercial and /or civic uses. 13 EXHIBIT E Uses adjacent to single- 20 feet family residential uses or districts Tv ®f Arreaatlo (FAR Minimum Net FAR All uses, except civic 0.5 FAR Minimum Net FAR Civic uses None qq Minimum green space Residential 10 percent Commercial, mixed use 5 percent () The s side s h a ll be deter-mined to he the g the primary street. The primaFy street is defined as.the street as eutlimd in the • > > City Center- Golleetaf-Air-eets in the eit - distriet are to be- y eenter designated under- thisbieFir-ohy as part 6f the eampr-ehensive plan. (1) Street Side Build -to Range. a. Existing buildings in the CC District are exempt from the build -to range requirement. b. Buildings on corner lets will meet the build -to range on both streets theti abut. . c. Buildings on internal lots will meet the build -to range of streets on which they have direct frontage. d, Patios, outdoor seating areas. or usable open space integrated with a building desigli may exempt a portion of the building, from the build -to range. provided that a connection between public sidewalks and internal building -< sidewalks, parking areas, or usable open space is provided. (2) Residential Density. The maximum residential density is 50 units per net acre. Maximum densities may be increased by up to 25 percent if two of the following' amenities are provided and up to 50 percent if four or more of the following amenities are provided: a. At least 80 percent of the required parking is provided in under- ground or above - ground structures, including all levels of parking ramps. b. Housing is provided above ground floor commercial or civic uses and the total floor area of the housing is at least twice the floor area of the commercial and /or civic uses. 13 EXHIBIT E c. Buildings are placed at or near the street right -of -way and off - street parking is screened from public right -of -way by buildings. d. At least 50 percent of the building ground coverage is concentrated in structures of four or more stories in height, thereby conserving open space within the development site. e. Durable exterior wall finishes consisting of glass, brick, stone or stucco on 80 percent of the wall face. f. Indoor recreation and social rooms equal to a minimum of 25 square feet per unit or 750 square"feet total, whichever is greater. g. Rooftop outdoor recreational, facilities such as swimming pools, porches, tennis courts, gardens or similar facilities equal to a minimum of 25 square feet per unit or 750 square feet total, whichever is greater.. h. Transit service available within 300 feet of entrance. i. The site can provide parkirig. per Section 4 -174g) of this Ordinance to address the.added density. (3) In cases of double frontage lots, buildings may choose to the street, but buildhigs . are permitted to follow the street side ya to vvhuh.thev apply the build -to. ` . range. (4) All above- ground utility structures associated with electric, natural gas, telecommunications, cable television distribution lines, pipes, conduits, or other public utilities shall be located behind the minimum setback unless otherwise approved as part of the site plan approval. This applies to air Merits, utility boxes, and back- flow" preventers. (5) Driveways may cross the street side setback, but shall be perpendicular to the street for pedestrian safety and to minimize the intrusion into any landscaped area. (6) Plazas patios; outdoor dining or usable open space may encroach into required setbacks provided it does not encumber public or private sidewalks. streets. or parking areas (� Architectural standards (1) Building e!mtranees and orientation. a. When a !at abuts a publie street right-of-way, open spaee system-, eenneetion shall be provided to eonneet the building to the pedestrian zone. (Mewed to "Pedestrian and bicycle access ") b. Entranees shall be elear-ly visible and identifiable from the street and delineated with elements sueh as reef overhangs, reeessed (Moved to New Hope Design Guidelines p. 8 "Entries ") 14 EXHIBIT E ha. grade. the building(s) along all streets inelude elear glass window doem to ereate pedestrian interest. These openings shall be arranged so that the uses are visible from and to the street en at least 30 pereent of the length and at least 20 pereent of the area o the first floor street level fagade f0entage. At least 50 pereent of the windows shall heve the lower- sill within thme feet of the (Moved to New Hope Design Guidelines p. 7 "Transparence: Window & .Poor Openings ") +h:b. For residential uses, buildings shWl be designed so that the first the uses are visible frem'and/ neeessible, to the street on at least. (Moved to New Hope Design Guidelines p. 7'" Transparency. Window & Door Openingg ") c. Width. A bpilding more OAB 4$,�bet in width shall be divided into more than 20 feet through artieulatien of the- fellewhi Nlo.ved to New Hope Design Guidelines p. 5 "Facades ") -portion of , 2. Ver-fleal div*sien 9. different te*tur-es or- f ppevjding materials are drawn from a eammon palette; 7 of lines with alternating demners, Steopeo mefs, gables or other r-eef elements; f bays wind equal to the or-tieulation intei-val. d. d '1.... 1.34....1......1 is — C&Ek6p @S,— l�i� 86iiriEca;- s s ��i�r iai�cnrcc�cmisr -sr @ccns� -iriv permitted on e*terier- building walls. Sueh features shall be the streetsespe of the area. Any sueh feature may e*teimd from building no more than four- feeti. in no instanee shall sueh feature e*tend over- or- interkre with the growth or maintenanee of any tr-ee plantings. Alinimum ever-head elearanee shall be eight feet. Ground supports for these features are not permitted in the sidewalk or- publie right of . (Moved to New Hope Design Guidelines p. 5 `Facades ") 15 EXHIBIT E i e. Baleonies may pr-ojeet up to five feet ever- the street side or- side eor-Her- yard setbaeks. Baleonies shall have a minimum elear-anee a ten feet f0em gr-ade. (Moved to Nev * Hope Design Guidelines p. 5 "Facades ") (3) (.Moved to New Hope Design Guidelines p.10 "Building Materials & Colors ") a. The primaFy exterior- opaque materials on efteh elevation of a building, e*eept for the serviee side, must be br-iek, stene deeerative masonry, or similar- materials eF a eembination thereof.- b. The following materials are not ag6w6d as ex4er-ier- materialsm painted or unpainted eoner-ete bf6ek aluminum, Any! or- fiberglass f Architectural design guidelines for the City Ceni: r District have been incorporated r_ -4?4 District. JEJQ . Alternative Designs or Materials. To encourage creativity, imagination, innovation, and variety in architectural design, the planning commission may recommend modifications of the requirements of this- Sestien - the New .Hope Design Guidelines and the city council may approve such modifications upon determining that the proposed architectural design or exterior facades materials meet all of the following conditions: a. The proposed design or material is consistent with the purposes of this section. b. The proposed design or material would enhance the architectural appearance of the building and would be equal or superior to designs or materials permitted by this section. c. The proposed. design or material would be in harmony with the character of adjacent buildings and the surrounding district. d. Strict adherent a to the requirements of this section would result in reduced functionality, operation, or safety of the site and/or building. (g) Vehicle and bicycle parking requirements. For purposes of this section, new uses within the CC district shall be required to meet the minimum /maximum parking spaces as shown in the following chart. All square footage is measured as `gross footage.' Table 4- 17(€g) -1 Off: Str�ee# N k►ng Ratios Land Use Unit Minimum Ratio Maximum Ratio Residential Per housing unit 1, plus 10% for guest parking 2.5, plus 10% for guest parking Commercial retail Square feet 1 per 400 SF 1 per 200 SF 16 EXHIBIT E Commercial service Square feet 1 per 400 SF 1 per 200 SF Commercial office Square feet 1 per 400 SF 1 per 300 SF Restaurant Square feet 1 per 200 SF 1 per 75 SF Restaurant, on -sale Square feet 1 per 100 SF 1 per 50 SF liquor Hotel or motel Per room .75, plus 10% for 1. 5, plus 10% for guests and staff ` guests and staff Clinic Square feet 1 per 300 SF 1 per 100 SF Community center, Square feet 1 per 400 SF 1 per 200 SF Conference center, library, health club, museum Theatre Per seat .167 (1 per 6 .333 (1 per 3 seats), plus 5% for seats), plus 10% staff for staff Multi - tenant commercial ' Squai-e feet 4 pof l'000'SF 5 per 1.000 SF building (shopping center (1) The required /permitted number of parking spaces of any building within the CC District, including mixed -use buildings, shall be the sum total of the requirements for each use in the building. (2) The Parking Maximums shall be applied to all oroiects: except a reduction down to the minimum Parkine ratio may be applied under the following circumstances, if one or more of the following is provided: Table 4- 17( €g)-2 arkjin - 11';Cinimums 17 EXHIBIT E Provision Adjustment Principle use is located within 800 feet of a parking 25 percent facility with public spaces available to the general public reduction or within 800 feet of a public transit park and ride facility with an approved joint -use agreement 20 percent increase Shared parking areas between abutting uses 10 percent are not visible from the public right -of -way reduction Payment in lieu of parking provided for use of existing Per'stall reduction municipal parking stall A reduction in the required number of parking stalls may Negotiated also be permitted if evidence is provided demonstrating reduction that the parking requirements of the proposed use, will be less than the number of parking stalls required above during the peak demand period, based on factors such as number of employees, type of use, projected volume of customer traffic, etc. (3) Parking maximums may be exceeded. under the following circumstances, if one or more of the following is nrovided: Table 4- 17(€g) -2 r » Park - bg Mazi wins Provision Adjustment Structured above- ground or under- ground-parking is 25 percent increase provided on site Shared parking agreement is executed 20 percent increase All parking spaces are located behind the building and 10 percent increase are not visible from the public right -of -way Driveways and access points are shared by at least two 10 percent increase adjacent properties Combining or interconnecting adjacent parking lots and 10 percent increase pedestrian access points 18 EXHIBIT E *%(12) Parking that is located to the rear of the primary structure may extend the entire width of the lot, with the exception of any required screening or landscaped areas. Shared parking shall be permitted and encouraged. v:(] 3) The following bicycle_ parking requirements will be applied : BkTele par-king shall he provided as a eemponent of all par-king feeilities as a ratio parking stalls, whiehever- is greater- Bieyele par-king must be provided within view of eaeh business ffirannt .�.�-traaee. AAjoining businesses may Table 4 -17 (g)- 3 bicycle Parking l Building area (square feet) Up to 40,000 40,001 — 80,000 80,001 or more Bike parking/auto I bike stall/ 1 bike stall/ 1 bike stall/ parking ratio 20 car stalls 30 car stalls 40 car stalls Minimum bike stalls (if # is greater than bike 4 bike stalls park ratio) x(14) All parking areas for more than ten motorized vehicles, except for parking areas for townhouse. dwellings on a single lot, shall provide screening. If a wall is provided, then the area devoted to the wall shall be wide enough to allow for its maintenance. The screening may be eliminated;if abutting.parking lots are combined or interconnected with vehicular and pedestrian access. vii.- (15) Structured parking, with the exception of civic structured parking, shall:.meet the following additional requirements: e. At least .50 percent of the linear street level frontage of the facility shall b devoted to retail, office, civic, institutional or residential uses. If 75 percent or more of the linear street frontage is devoted to such uses, then the total square footage of these uses shall be credited 100 percent toward the required FAR minimums. L If retail, office, civic, institutional or residential uses are constructed on the rear or side of the facility or above the ground floor on the street frontage of the facility, then the total square footage of these areas shall be credited 100 percent toward the required FAR minimums. 20 EXHIBIT E (4) In no case shall the cumulative increase or decrease in parking exceed 25 percent. (5) The off - street parking dimensional standards shall conform to the general requirements for off - street parking located in Section 4 -3(e) of this Code. (6) No surface parking or maneuvering space shall be permitted within a required setback as outlined in Section 4 -3(e) or between the primary structure and the abutting street side lot line, except that driveways providing access to the parking area may be installed across these areas. (7) No surface parking shall be located on corner lots at the point of street intersections. (8) Parking and loading facilities, and all other, areas upon which motor vehicles may be located fronting.along a public street, public sidewalk or public pathway may be provided if the following standards are met: a. A landscaped yard at least seven feet wide shall be provided along the public street, sidewalk or pathway, except where a greater yard is required. If a parking facility contains over 100 parking spaces, the minimum required landscaped yard shall be increased to ten feet in width. b. Screening consisting of either a masonry wall, fence, or hedge, or combination thereof that. forms a screen three feet in height and not less than 60 percent opaque shall be provided, except that where areas are devoted principally to the parking or loading of trucks or commercial vehicles of more than 15,000 pounds screening six feet in height. and not less than 60 percent opaque shall be required. C. Not less, than one tree shall be provided for each 20 linear feet or fractionAlloreof of parking or loading area lot frontage. d. Total parking or loading area lot frontage shall not exceed 100 linear feet along a public street, public sidewalk or public pathway. J-49) On- street parking spaces located along the portions of a public street(s) abutting the use where parking is currently permitted may be .counted toward the minimum number of parking spaces as required by this section. Those on- street parking spaces must be located on the same side of the street as the use, have a dimension of at least 20 feet in length, and be located in areas approved by the city's Public Works Department. On- street parking directly across the street from the use may be counted if that parking abuts property that is undevelopable because of physical constraints. ir•.(10) On- street parking shall not be counted in calculating maximum parking spaces. iiLM) Parking requirements may be met on -site or off -site at a distance of up to 800 feet from the permitted use. Off -site parking to meet the requirements of this section may be provided through a lease, subject to the review and approval of the city. 19 EXHIBIT E g. Under - ground parking structures are permitted. Under - ground parking located in the minimum setback shall be permitted with an eight foot clearance from the top of the under - ground structure to the sidewalk, subject to an approved encroachment agreement. No ventilation shall be permitted in the setback. h. A minimum nine foot clearance shall be maintained on the first level and any additional level that provides disabled parking spaces. A minimum seven -foot clearance shall be maintained throughout the remainder of the parking deck to ensure the safe movement of vans and emergency vehicles. design. (h) Pedestrian and bievcle access (1) Pedestrian access. a. Connectivity and Circulatian:Uses in the CC district shall be integrated with the surrounding area; easily accessible, and havu a good internal circulation system for a varietof.travel modes. 1. The pedestrian sidewalk 5�stem shall meet the following standards: a. Sidewalk connections are required between buildings ana.from buildings to all on -site facilities such as but 'not hir+ited to parking areas, bicycle facilities, and open space. b. €S idewalk connections are required to provide direct connections from all buildings on -site to the existing andor required public sidewalk system and to adjacent trails, parks, and greenways. c: All :sidewalks shall be finished with a hard surface and maintain an open width of at least .five feet. d. All crosswalks across public or private drives shall be a minimum of five feet wide and shall be constructed with a distinctive paving material, as approved by the city. e. All sidewalks shall be designed for pedestrian movement and should be unencumbered by objects that would inhibit pedestrian circulation. (2) Building entrances and orientation: a. When a lot abuts a public street right -of -way. open space system._ multi- use trail, or grcenway a sidewalk. connection shall be provided to connect the building to o the pedestrian zone. (i) Loading. Will meet the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Sec.4 -3(_ ) General Provisions: Off- Street Loading. 21 EXHIBIT E .6L ghting a. Exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of this Ordinance, Section 441(5), the requirements of the NeNv. Hope Design Guidelines pertaining to lighting and the following additional requirements: 1. Poles within landscaped areas and plazas shall have a maximum height of 20 feet, measured from grade, and shall be coordinated with city standards. 2. Lighting fixtures mounted directly on structures shall be permitted when utilized to enhance specific architectural elements or to help establish scale or provide visual interest. 3. Shielded illumination or fixtures shall be permitted to light building mounted signage, building facades, or pedestrian arcades if they are integrated into a building's architectural design. 4. Lighting should highlight entrances, art, terraces, and special landscape features. 5. Separate pedestrian scale lighting or other low -level fixtures, such as bollards, shall also be incorporated for all pedestAnn ways through parldeg rop -off areas at entrances to buildings. 6. All pr4mary *alkways, steps, or- ramps along pedestrian routes shall be illuminated-. b. Light Intensity 6. The following minimum levels of illumination must be maintained for each of the specific locations within the CC District: Table 4- 17(gj) -1 Location Minimum Level of Illumination (foot candles) Building entrance 5.0 Sidewalks 2.0 Bikeways 1.0 Courts, plazas and terraces 1.5 Stairways, ramps and underpasses 5.0 Parking lots 1.0 22 EXHIBIT E 1}tALUseable open space (1) Useable open space for public congregation and recreational opportunities shall be required for all new commercial and mixed -use buildings with a gross floor area 20,000 square feet and greater. Such buildings must provide useable open space proportionate to the building square footage according to the following schedule: Table 4- 17(h) -1 Gross floor area (GFA) Useable Open Space Minimum 20,000- 39,999 SF 1 SF per 150 SF GFA 40,000+ SF 1 SF per 100 SF GFA a. Open space; may be located on, roofs of buildings or enclosed on the ground floor.:A maximum of 30=percent of the required open space may be provided on an enclosed ground floor level. b. All required open space shall be accessible to the users of the building and shall be improved with seating, plantings, and amenities, and be visible;fr' m the street or pedestrian areas. c. FAR credits are allowed for all new developments when the pedestrian space is available for use by the public, including Widened sidewalk areas: d. To encourage public useable open space and a pedestrian - friendly atmosphere; useable open space may encroach into the setbacks under the following circumstances: 1. In thestreet side yard facing a public street, sidewalk or pathway 2. In the side yard facing a public street, sidewalk or pathway; 3. In an interior side yard, setback three feet from the "property line; -4. When adjacent to non - residential zoning district. 0* Conneetivity Cirealation. Uses in the CC distriet he a. and shall inter-on! CeF -variety travel good eirealatien system a 1. The of modes. the fellowi*g pedestr-ean sidewalk system sball meet standards: buildings and ftem buildings te all en site f4eififies sueb 23 EXHIBIT E .. ............... i .,....... t , . »., »..... ----- J - Moved after parking requirements section) g}fLLandscape and buffer standards (1) Landscape standards a. The landscape plan must be consistent with the city's design guidelines and any applicable master plan for the City Center. b. The plan for landscaping - must include ground cover, shrubs, trees, foundation plantings, sculpture, fountains, decorative walks, or other similar site design features or materials. Landscaping must conform to the requirements of the City Code Section 4- 3(d)(4), and the following: 1. A minimum of one deciduous or evergreen shrub per ene- ten linear foot of foundation. 2: The periphery of all parking lots shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with this ordinance. (2) Buffer. Standards a. All uses shall provide landscaping along all property lines abutting residentially used property located adjacent to the CC district. This requirement also applies in situations where an alley with a right -of- way width of 25 feet or'less separates uses in the CC district from a non -CC district residential property. Landscaping shall be provided along all property lines abutting the alley when adjacent to residential uses. Multi - family developments in the CC district are exempt from this landscaping requirement when they abut other multi - family uses. b. In no instance shall a chain link, wood, vinyl, or barbed wire fence be permitted. (1) All design r-equir-emeMs, as outlined in the design gUidOlifleS, f6F thO C Genter- distr-iet shall apply. The design guidelines have been adepted as paI4 ef (Moved to beginning of CC` Dist.Ordinance) .69Lmj Signs, banners, flags and pennants ffi(l ) - Signage shall be designed to be integral with the architectural character of the building to which it belongs. Specifically, the scale, proportion, and color shall be appropriate to the building in which the sign is attached. Elements to be considered include architectural appearance, sign size, type of illumination, 24 EXHIBIT E sign motion, sign setback, surface colors, and message. The architectural appearance of the sign shall not be so dissimilar to the existing signage on surrounding buildings as to cause impairment in property value or constitute a blighting influence. �34(2) Where signs, banners, flags and pennants for identification or decoration are provided, they shall conform to the following: a. Wall signs shall have a maximum of 150 total square feet or five percent of the building wall area occupied by the user, whichever is less. Wall signs may be increased by 20 square feet per sign in lieu of a ground mounted or monument sign. b. Wall signs are permitted to project up to two feet into the minimum setback as measured from the building. A minimum overhead clearance of eight feet from the sidewalk shall be maintained. c. Marquee signs are permitted. d. Ground mounted or monument signs are permitted as follows: 1. Signs shall not exceed ten feet in height and 40 square feet in area. 2. Signs shall be located behind the right -of way and out of any sight distance triangle.. 3. Signs shall be setback five feet from any property line. 4. No freestanding pole signs shall be permitted. 5. No off - premiss signs shall be permitted. s_ Will meet the requirements ofLonin. 25 EXHIBIT E Facade Treatments ALL DISTRICTS Objective: To add visual interest and variety, emphasize the pedestrian scale, and avoid long, monotonous facades. Derrned Base, Middle, and Top Buildings should have a well- defined base, middle, and top. The base or ground floor should appear visually distinct from the upper stories through the use of a change in building materials, window shape or size, an intermediate cornice line, an awning, arcade or portico, or similar techniques. The base or ground floor of the building should include elements that relate to the human scale, including texture, projections, doors, windows, awnings, canopies, or ornamentation. Distinct Modules The primary farade(s) of buildings of 40 feet or more in width should be articulated into smaller increments through the , WaFnental featwFes suGh as aFoade6 9F aWR OF by division of the building mass into GeveFal sma segments-. combination of the following: 1. Facade Modulation: Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade. 2. Storefront Division: Dividing the building facade into storefronts with separate entrances and display windows. 3. Building Materials: Using different materials, textures, and/or colors drawn from a common palette to break the building mass. 4. Roof Lines: Varied roof lines with alternating dormers, stepped roofs, -gables, parapets, or other roof elements. 5. Articulation Intervals: Placement of arcades, awnings, window bays, arched windows, or balconies at intervals of equal articulation. Canopies I Awnings / Balconies . Awnings should closely complement the building's architectural character and aesthetics. City Center District • Canopies awnings cornices, and similar architectural accents are permitted on exterior building walls. Such features shall be constructed of rigid or flexible material designed to complement the streetscape of the area. Any such feature may extend from the building no more than five feet. In no instance shall such feature extend over or interfere with the growth or maintenance of any required tree plantings. Minimum overhead clearance shall be eight feet. Ground supports for these features are not permitted in the sidewalk or public right -of -way. • Balconies may project up to five feet over a required setback. Balconies shall have a minimum clearance of ten feet from grade. Transparency: Window and Door Openings ALL DISTRICTS Objective: To enliven the streetscape and enhance security by providing views into and out of buildings with windows and door openings. EXHIBIT F Window and Door Design • Windows should be designed with punched and recessed openings to create a strong rhythm of light and shadow. • Mirrored glass or glass block should not be used on street - facing facades. Glazing in windows and doors should be clear or slightly tinted, allowing views into and out of the interior. • Window shape, size, and patterns should emphasize the intended organization of the facade and the definition of the building. • Display windows at least three feet deep may be used to meet these requirements, but not windows located above eye level. CITY CENTER AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS For commercial or mixed -use buildings, window and door openings shall comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the ground floor building facade frontinq a public street A minimum i of 20 percent of any twe -sides or rear facades at ground level shall consist of window and door openings designed as specified above when fronting a patio, private street, sidewalk, or usable open space A minimum of 15 percent of all upper story facades shall consist of window or balcony door openings designed as specified above. HIGHWAY DISTRICT Where commercial or office uses are found on the ground floor, at least 20 percent of the ground floor primary (street- facing) facade and 15 percent of each side or rear facade shall consist of window and door openings designed as specified above. Note that spandrel glass may be used on up to half the window and door surfaces on any building facade. MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT For multifamily residential buildings, a minimum of 2025 percent of primary (street- facing) facades and 15 percent of each side or rear facade shall consist of window and door openings designed as specified above. EXHIBIT F CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2012 City Hall, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, Sunday Onadipe, Steve Svendsen Absent: Paul Anderson, Christopher McKenzie, Tom Schmidt Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 12 -07 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.1, request for text amendment to Section Item 4.1 4 -20(e) conversion of warehousing to self - storage - conditional use permit, conditional use permits for conversion of warehousing to self- storage facility and outdoor storage, and site plan review, 5040 Winnetka Avenue North, Todd C Jones/Premier Storage, LLC, petitioner. Commissioner Landy disclosed that his son -in -law was one of the partners who owned the property at 5040 Winnetka Avenue North. He stated he had no financial interest or involvement in the partnership for the property and would vote on the planning case unless there was an objection. No one objected to his voting on this case. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen reported that Premier Storage was proposing acquisition of the building at 5040 Winnetka Avenue and converting it into a climate - controlled, self- storage facility with outdoor storage, along with a text amendment to update the city code. Two conditional use permits would be required for the conversion of the warehouse to a self- storage facility and for outdoor storage. A site and building plan review is also required. The site is located east of Winnetka Avenue where it intersects with 51st Avenue. The property is zoned industrial. Adjacent land uses include industrial to the east, south and north and residential to the west across Winnetka Avenue. The site contains 3.15 acres. The building area is 38,180 square feet. Lot area ratios are 30 percent green space after the expansion of the parking area and 70 percent hard surface. The parcel is located in Planning District 5 and is guided for industrial land uses. Mr. Jacobsen stated the suggested changes for the text amendment would include a comprehensive security system as an alternative to a full -time, onsite manager; upholding prohibited storage through rental agreement prohibitions; removal of the requirement for routine inspection access; and providing an option for bays with exterior access. All setbacks are fully compliant with city code, circulation and site access are adequate, curbing, sidewalk and pavement are compliant. This facility is not intended for pedestrian traffic, therefore, pedestrian access would not be provided on the site. Parking does not meet city standards for a warehouse, however, the applicant indicated this self- storage facility should fall under the "other" category, and in that respect parking would be adequate. The proposed floor plan illustrated the west exterior to be renovated with EIFS (exterior insulation and finishing system) which meets city design guidelines. The remainder of the building would be repainted to match the front fagade. Doors toward the old rail spur to the north would be closed up permanently. The renovation would include the construction of a second floor in the building with both floors dedicated to self - storage units. Rooftop equipment would be screened and /or painted to match the building. Mr. Jacobsen reported the applicant had proposed an eight -foot, chain -link security fence with slats for the perimeter of the outdoor storage area east of the building. One row of three pine trees in the northwest corner of the site has been proposed to screen the overhead doors, however, staff feels that number should be increased. The proposed lighting plan would cover all but the far eastern portion of the outdoor storage area. Lighting cut sheets should be provided showing lights would be directed downward. At the Design and Review meeting, the applicant indicated he was trying to minimize the lighting to the back storage area to accommodate the residential properties located to the northeast. The applicant proposed signage in the front yard and would submit information for the sign permit at a later date. The building is connected to public utilities and the current connection is adequate for this use. Snow storage was proposed in the storm water pond area east of the outdoor storage area. In the event of a lot of snow, it would be hauled off the site. The grading and drainage plan was submitted to the city engineer and watershed commission and no major issues were identified. The applicant must comply with the city engineer's recommendations. The main loading and unloading area would be inside in the drive - through aisle. A keypad security system would be installed in the building. Trash would be stored inside the building. There are 62 outdoor storage spaces of various sizes proposed on the east side the building. The existing site generally meets the requirements of the design guidelines. The building will be renovated to incorporate a new west fagade and the remainder would be painted to match. A new storm water retention and infiltration basin has been proposed for the site along the east property line. Previously, no storm water treatment had been provided on this site. Thirty percent of the site would remain as green space after the addition of the outdoor storage area. The project generally is in compliance with all review criteria as set out in the city code. The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant and revised plans Planning Commission Meeting 2 August 8, 2012 were submitted as a result of that meeting. Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that the petitioner had indicated the proposed project would give this 50 -year old industrial building an updated look and new life. No subsidies are required from the city and the city's tax base would be increased. The project would provide a quality, secure and well - managed self- storage facility for New Hope and area residents. Premier Storage indicated they are a Twin Cities based company and have a long track record in warehouse conversion to self storage. The petitioner proposed verbiage for the text amendment. The entire building would be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. A sample copy of the lease was provided, which indentified regulations for access and the inspection of units for hazardous materials. The petitioner was in the process of getting a railroad easement on the site terminated. The existing cell tower easement would be assigned to Premier Storage at the closing. The applicant provided information to substantiate the reduced amount of parking. The turning radius from the inside drive aisle to the outdoor storage area would be adequate. The petitioner indicated the security system would have eight video cameras that record 24/7 and could be viewed by the manager anytime. There would be keypad controls on the entry door which, upon a lessee entering, would also deactivate the alarm on that party's individual unit. All entry and exit times are documented. The units could be accessed 365 days per year from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. The office hours are Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and weekends from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. These times would be adjusted seasonally. The distance to the curb has been increased on the northwest corner of the building due to concerns by the Design and Review committee regarding the turning radius. Mr. Jacobsen reported that a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site and a notice was published in the official newspaper of the city. No comments were received. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff recommended approval of the text amendment, the site and building plan review, and two conditional use permits, subject to the recommendations in the planning report. Providing the text amendment is adopted, the applicant has met most of the conditions for the conditional use permits and site and building plan review. Commissioner Hunten stated she was concerned that 12 trees would be too many once they grew to full height and suggested that number be reduced. Mr. Brixius, city planner, stated the front elevation shows the main door and three overhead doors to the north of that. It was felt that three trees was not enough to screen those doors from the street from day one. Mr. Brixius added that the city did not have an issue with the overhead doors facing Winnetka as long as they were screened from the public right -of -way and residential properties. The recommended 12 trees may be excessive, however, three would be inadequate. Hunten cautioned that once the trees matured they would become unsightly. Brixius continued by saying that the trees Planning Commission Meeting 3 August 8, 2012 could be staggered so there would be more space for the trees to grow. When the city reviews a new project or new use for a facility, the screening is considered at day one. Commissioner Hunten questioned whether the drive aisle was adequate for trucks to pass through the building. She also questioned how people would access the second floor. Mr. Jacobsen replied that there are two lifts available for use in moving lessee's items to the second floor, as well as a set of stairs on either side of the drive aisle. She confirmed that a ventilation system would be required to remove exhaust fumes, and questioned the type of slats in the fence. Commissioner Brinkman inquired about the security system and the number of cameras that would be provided at the rear of the building. Mr. Todd Jones, Premier Storage, 150 West 81st Street, Bloomington, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. He stated that the drive lane in the facility would be 21 feet wide. There would be room for one vehicle to be parked on one side of the drive lane with adequate room for another vehicle to pass by it. There would be two material lifts in the facility to be used for storage items, not for people. The controls are on the outside of the lift. Mr. Jones stated they would be using vinyl slats in the chain -link fence, which would screen the outdoor storage area and yet allow air movement, per city code. The camera system utilizes eight cameras. There would be at least one camera in the outdoor storage area. The rest would be spread throughout the most important areas of the facility. The cameras record 24/7. Mr. Jones stated he had minor comments with regard to the staff report. He clarified that there is a railroad spur track easement on the north side of the property with six designated spots for parking in that area. His attorney indicated that it was a non - exclusive easement and they could use it for parking. The spur track has not been used in about 30 years. Mr. Jones stated he would agree not to park in the existing railroad easement until such time as he submits to the city documentation as to the vacation of the easement by the railroad. His attorney has drafted an easement vacation document and is working with the railroad. He agreed that until the document was signed he would not allow parking in that easement area. Mr. Jones stated the EIFS would totally change the front elevation of the building and would be a significant investment in this property and did not feel it should be hidden behind a large row of trees. The four overhead doors would be scaled down in size from what is currently there. He would agree to plant six 6 -foot trees in a V -shape pattern in front of the building rather than the three 8-foot trees suggested by staff. Mr. Jones stated he could increase the lighting in the rear storage area, but questioned whether the city considered the area parking or storage due to the fact that there are different lighting requirements for each use. An effort was made to provide enough lighting for outdoor storage. There would be a bigger risk for vandalism if the area is lit so people can see what is stored in this area. Mr. Jones commented that he has over 25 years in this business and Planning Commission Meeting 4 August 8, 2012 has knowledge of what has worked best in the past. He stated he appreciated that staff was considering his request. Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether the 9 p.m. closing time would be needed year round. Mr. Jones responded that many of his tenants are winter storage people who leave their vehicles in place until spring, and the time may be adjusted seasonally. Commissioner Nirgude inquired of the lighting at the other locations. Mr. Jones replied that the Edina location is similar to this location. The interior of the building has motion activated lighting. The exterior lighting has sensors so the lights go on when it gets dark. In some cases, the lights turn off at a designated time during the night. He added that in 25 years they have only had one break -in into a construction trailer, allegedly by a former employee. Mr. Brixius stated that the Design and Review Committee also had concerns with too much lighting. The area is outdoor storage and the lighting was intended to provide for security and for access to those traveling through the building to the outside. Lighting would provide coverage along the first drive aisle to the exit gate. Brixius remarked that after hearing Mr. Jones comments regarding his experience and the security at other facilities, staff would be comfortable with the present lighting configuration. The light fixtures should be 90- degree cutoff and the luminaries should not be seen by adjacent residential properties. The lights could be dimmed down after 9 p.m. Mr. Brixius added that for outdoor storage areas the police department indicated it liked some lighting so the property can be viewed during patrol. The main concern was that enough lighting was provided so that people exiting the building have a visible line of sight to the exit gate. Commissioner Hunten maintained that due to the building sitting lower than Winnetka Avenue she felt there was no need for 12 trees to screen the front of the building. Mr. Brixius stated that staff would be comfortable with six trees in a staggered row. He explained that the applicant was asking for a text change in the ordinance, which not only affected this property, but all applications in the future. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, inquired whether there would be a CUP/ site improvement agreement and financial guarantee required to insure the improvements would be completed on the outside of the building. Mr. Jacobsen stated that site improvement agreements are required when work is to be done in the roadway right -of -way. Mr. Sondrall then inquired whether the applicant would need to provide proof of parking, which was usually incorporated into the site improvement agreement. Mr. Jones pointed out that the 23 projected parking spaces were for a standard warehouse setting. He was proposing self - storage which falls under the "other" parking category in the ordinance. Mr. Sondrall explained that, if staff was not claiming this site as a warehouse, the condition for proof of parking would not be required. Mr. Brixius interjected that he would like the city to have the opportunity to require additional parking if the seven existing spaces were not adequate in the future. Mr. Sondrall stated that the city should then have a "proof of parking" agreement with the property owner to ensure additional Planning Commission Meeting 5 August 8, 2012 parking would be provided in the future, if needed. This could be accomplished with a certificate of filing. Mr. Jacobsen agreed this use fit into the "other" category. He added that the city's inspectors check annually on properties with a conditional use permit to be sure they are compliant. There would be at least 10 parking spaces available inside the building for vehicles that are being loaded or unloaded. Commissioner Svendsen stated he agreed the building should be considered a storage facility with less stringent parking requirements. Commissioner Nirgud6 wondered whether there were federal or state codes that the petitioner would need to comply with and what types of items would be stored in the units. Mr. Jones responded that they were required to comply with all local, state, federal and international laws. No perishables or hazardous materials are allowed to be stored on site. Self storage operators do not take care, custody or control of the items in the space. The lease agreement indicated that food and perishables cannot be stored on site. Commissioner Onadipe stated he did not see perishables listed in the lease agreement. A suggestion was made to add no perishables to the lease. Mr. Sondrall stated that the lease does contain a "rules and regulations" provision which could include a rule that no perishable goods be stored on site. The lease also includes a "right to enter" and a "right to remove property" that may create a problem. Commissioner Nirgude inquired whether or not the fire escape route was well defined in the building. Mr. Jones replied that there are specific requirements in the building and fire codes with regard to exit lights, door hardware, and so on. Chair Houle interjected that construction plans would be submitted to the inspections department for review. There was no one in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion #1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 12 -07, request for text amendment to Section 4 -20(e) conversion of warehousing to self- storage — conditional use permit, Todd C. Jones/Premier Storage, LLC, petitioner. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgude, Onadipe , Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, McKenzie, Schmidt Motion approved. Motion #2 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 12 -07, request for a conditional use permit for the conversion of warehousing to a self - storage facility, 5040 Winnetka Avenue North, Todd C. Jones/Premier Storage, LLC, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting 6 August 8, 2012 1. City approval of the attached proposed zoning text amendment. 2. The self - storage facility shall be limited to self - storage, all other uses shall be prohibited. 3. Applicant to provide an additional three spruce plantings to make a total of six on the northwest comer of the lot to screen the exterior loading area. Trees to be six feet high and stagger plantings. 4. The applicant provide screening for rooftop equipment for city approval. 5. All approved paving and landscaping improvements shall be completed prior to building occupancy. Voting in favor. Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgude, Onadipe, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, McKenzie, Schmidt Motion approved. Motion #3 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 12 -07, request for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage, 5040 Winnetka Avenue North, Todd C. Jones/Premier Storage, LLC, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1 The applicant shall not stack items within the outdoor storage area higher than eight feet. Boats and recreational equipment on trailers shall be considered a single item. 2 No parking in railroad easement area until easement has been terminated. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgude, Onadipe, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, McKenzie, Schmidt Motion approved. Motion #4 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 12 -07, request for site and building plan review, 5040 Winnetka Avenue North, Todd C. Jones/Premier Storage, LLC, petitioner. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgude, Onadipe, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, McKenzie, Schmidt Motion approved. Chair Houle stated the City Council would consider these requests at its meeting on August 27, 2012, and asked that the petitioner be in attendance. COMMITTEE REPORTS Planning Commission Meeting 7 August 8, 2012 Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee met with Committee the petitioner. He suggested the Codes and Standards Committee discuss Item 5.1 and potentially add language regarding "other' parking required for self storage facilities. The Design and Review Committee also discussed curbing around the outdoor storage area. Mr. Jacobsen reported that an application may be submitted for a new cell tower. Staff will contact committee members if a meeting is necessary. Codes and Standards Mr. Jacobsen reported that there are several items still to discuss from a Committee previous list. The potential cell tower applicant may be requesting a text Item 5.2 amendment to reduce the 1000 -foot separation requirement as well as a reduced setback from the property line. Mr. Brixius interjected that city code allows for a reduced setback if the applicant can provide information from an engineer stating the collapse zone is less than code requires. A suggestion was made to provide information on the number and location of existing cell towers in the city. Commissioner Nirgude stressed that decreasing the separation distance and increasing the number of towers in the city should be done only if it is a benefit to the residents of the city. NEW BUSINESS Planning Case 12-03 Chair Houle introduced Item 6.1, Discussion of City Center zoning revisions Item 6.1 and stated that he would abstain from any discussion as he had been approached by some people to put together some concept drawings /plans for redevelopment and he did not want to give the perception of influencing any discussion relative to the zoning for City Center. Commission Brinkman was asked to chair the discussion. Mr. Brixius stated that after discussion by staff, it was determined that some items belong in ordinance form, some in the Comprehensive Plan, and others in the Design Guidelines. The study area contains a total of 93 acres and is divided into 34 different parcels with the superblocks at 35 and 24 acres each. The ordinance would need to be flexible in applying to individual lots, as well as total block redevelopment. Winnetka and 42nd avenues are both county roads and Hennepin County would dictate access management, lighting, traffic control and overall design. Much of what has come into the design for the City Center district was in anticipation of heavy transit users. Incentives could be provided, however, the city should not totally rely on transit ridership. The ordinance provides for a vibrant destination for residents and visitors and includes provisions for automobile traffic. Mr. Brixius explained the changes to the Comprehensive Plan. A change in the Land Use Plan adds a mixed use arrangement over the superblocks with the anticipation that those areas would be most likely to have mixed use operations, retail, and entertainment. When drafting the Comprehensive Plan, it was anticipated the land use area would go through additional study. The goals of the visioning study were adopted as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. This was important from the standpoint that within the metropolitan area the Comprehensive Plan is the superior document to zoning. The zoning must match the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment also expands the commercial redevelopment target areas to include the City Planning Commission Meeting 8 August 8, 2012 Center superblocks. Planning District 11 encompasses all of the land in the study area. The city should adopt the generalized land use plan as part of Planning District 11. The reason being that there are areas deemed more suitable for commercial and more suitable for residential. Within the visioning study, the study indicated it wanted to preserve the 42nd and Winnetka avenue corridors for commercial, with more mixed use operations further away from the superblocks. Mr. Brixius questioned if the commissioners were agreeable to opportunities for free - standing residential at 45th/Winnetka and 42nd/Xylon avenues. Commissioner Svendsen stated he would be agreeable to residential at 42nd/Xylon avenues. Brixius explained mixed use would be commercial on the first floor with residential above. Commissioner Hunten stated she felt a senior building would be good for the area as the people walking around the area would probably be seniors as the younger people would tend to drive to a destination restaurant or entertainment and then leave. Svendsen reminded the commissioners that the corridor along 42nd would be better for commercial uses than residential. A suggestion was made to redraw the Generalized Land Use map to expand the commercial /mixed use area along 42nd Avenue from Winnetka to Xylon. Freestanding residential (apartments) would be allowed only along the northern portion of Xylon and western portion of 45th Avenue. The freestanding residential would be a conditional use and one of the conditions would be meeting the location standards of the CC district. The CC district had a lot of detailed provisions mandated as zoning ordinances, which would take a lot of imagination out of design for the developer or architect. The architectural standards were removed from the first draft to the city's Design Guidelines. The architectural guidelines will be mandatory, but there are many ways for a building meet those guidelines without requiring a variance. Based on the vision study, the city desires to create a vital, active downtown. Mr. Brixius stated he recommended removing uses that do not fit that description, such as research facilities and allow them in the industrial zoning district. He suggested that conference centers, printing, publishing, and engraving under 2,000 square feet, and theaters be listed as permitted uses. Administrative uses would include farmers markets and outdoor seasonal sales. Home occupations would be removed from this district. Outdoor dining would be allowed as an administrative use. Commissioner Hunten questioned why a park 'n ride facility would be allowed in the downtown area. Mr. Brixius answered that by drawing people to the area for a parking facility also introduced them to the City Center area and the businesses, services and entertainment offered. He added that when looking at minimum parking standards, a parking structure would more than likely be needed. Mr. Brixius explained that a freestanding multiple family use would be allowed by conditional use permit with criteria as to location. Live /work buildings would allow walk -in customer businesses on the first floor and upper floor appointment only customer businesses. Daycare provisions were Planning Commission Meeting 9 August 8, 2012 amended to remove the reference to outdoor recreation area. He questioned whether or not veterinary clinics were appropriate for this area, but built in standards to insure compatibility in multi tenant buildings to protect against odor and waste. The build to line would be required on both streets on corner lots. An exception would be if the use was built into a plaza or entryway. Commissioner Hunten stated she felt using the Metropolitan Council urban environment and putting it into a suburban small town setting did not make sense. She was concerned about visibility and traffic with buildings so close to the street and moving all of the parking to the back of the buildings. She also mentioned that too much space had been devoted to bicycles when demographics indicate an older population. Mr. Brixius stated that the vision study called for a very metropolitan, urban design. If the corners are established and protected, the build to line would not need to be the full length of the block and allowances could be made. The gaps between buildings could be landscaped parking areas with sidewalk connections to the businesses. He suggested leaving much of the design component to the developers. Commissioner Onadipe agreed flexibility in design was very important. He added that the city draw on the components of the Met Council urban image it could utilize. If the city is creating a transit oriented development, people have to get out of their vehicles. A downtown should have some urban image. People come to downtown for a reason. A park 'n ride facility brings more people to the area and they may utilize the businesses in the area before going home. Mr. Brixius stated that this ordinance would take a step back from the hard and fast rules and provides a range of flexibility. With the Comprehensive Plan and visioning study goals, which would be adopted as part of the comp plan, the city can establish some of the bulk components. The architectural standards were deleted. There is a maximum and minimum range for parking. Mr. Brixius stated that one change was to set the maximum as the standard. If the developer provided documentation that they met the city's performance standards, the parking could be reduced. He stated he would not recommend reducing the parking standard to one stall per apartment without knowing what amount of parking was needed. The developer would have to provide the facilities with transit, access, shared parking or a parking structure. If those criteria were met, then the parking standard could be lowered. Commissioner Hunten questioned why outdoor dining would be allowed and Mr. Jacobsen interjected that other people in the visioning study wanted outdoor (patio or rooftop) dining. Svendsen stated that he felt the ordinance should be written to address today's market so the city is ready for what a developer might offer. He added that he preferred having the buildings closer to the road and the parking behind the buildings so there is not a mass of parking along the street. Bicycle parking was included with a graduated scale to a maximum of 12 stalls. Planning Commission Meeting 10 August 8, 2012 Mr. Brixius stated that he felt the original draft ordinance was overly restrictive. He recommended adopting the vision study and the performance standards as comp plan guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. Rules were thought to be necessary so they address items staff and the commissioners requested with regard to range of land uses, setbacks, density, etcetera, in order to give developers greater flexibility. New design concepts typically look at the attractiveness of the building, but forget about the needs for trash, deliveries, ground equipment and how those items fit into the design. There must be turning radiuses for trucks and trash enclosures that are accessible. No changes were made to the usable open space. Commissioner Brinkman stated he would like to see some type of plan or layout of what would be allowed and where. Commissioner Svendsen recommended that the Commission review this document once more prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Landy suggested that the full Planning Commission review the final draft rather than just the Codes and Standards Committee before the public hearing. Mr. Brixius asked the commissioners to read over the draft zoning ordinance and bring specific concerns to the September meeting. Mr. Jacobsen requested that if any commissioners had concerns with any part of the draft ordinance to contact him prior to the next meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Jacobsen inquired if any of the commissioners would be interested in judging the RAVE! Award nominees and Commissioner Svendsen and Chair Houle volunteered. Chair Houle mentioned that the grand opening for the North Education Center would be conducted on August 23. Chair Houle announced that Eric Weiss had accepted another position outside the city. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 8, 2012 Mr. Brixius added that commissioners may want to visit Burnsville's Heart of the City development at Nicollet and Highway 13, which is a development closer to what New Hope may want to accomplish in City Center. Item 6.2 Mr. Jacobsen reminded the commissioners of the dinner and workshop to be Navigating the New held on August 21 and recommended that the commissioners attend. There Norm will be a panel of experts to explain various aspects of development. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 7.1 approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 2012. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Jacobsen inquired if any of the commissioners would be interested in judging the RAVE! Award nominees and Commissioner Svendsen and Chair Houle volunteered. Chair Houle mentioned that the grand opening for the North Education Center would be conducted on August 23. Chair Houle announced that Eric Weiss had accepted another position outside the city. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 8, 2012 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 12 August 8, 2012