Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.09.03 Planning Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 . 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) November 12, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) None 4. DISCUSSION \.... .. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 9, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Proud Past - A Promising.Futur, . Committed to Providing High QpQl'ty; Timely and Responsive ServIce to All Of Our Customers a) Discussion of Responses to Comments for the Seed/Genstar AUAR b) Discussion of Monopole Personal Wireless Communication Towers wftbifl Residential and Park/ Open Space Districts 5. ADJOURN . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: ;<.p '-' City Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Discussion of Responses to Comments for the Seed/Genstar AUAR DATE: December 9,2003 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The City of Farmington and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates have recently completed responses to comments submitted by the following agencies: . Metropolitan Council Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Dakota County City of Lakeville The responses to comments are attached for your review. Upon review and comment from the Planning Commission, the response to comments will be reviewed by the City Council at the December 15, 2003 meeting. The City Council will be requested to adopt the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on that date. Any formal objections to the comments must be made by the commenting agencies within 10 days of the City Council's adoption of the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan. ACTION REQUESTED Review the attached responses to comments from the above-listed agencies and make any revisions required. . Lee Smick, AICP City Planner . . Farmington Seed/Genstar AUAR Final AUAR-Responses to Comments City of Farmington November, 2003 Bonestroo File No. 141-02-181 . . Farminton Seed/Genstar AUAR Table of Contents Question Number (corresponding to EAW Form) . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 34. . Page No. Project Title...................................................................................l Proposer...................................................................................... ..1 RGU ..............................................................................................1 Reason for EAU Preparation ........................................................2 Proj ect Location............................................................................2 Description.................................................................................... 8 Project Magnitude ........ ........ ....... ............................. ...................13 Permit and Approvals Required ....................................... .....~.....13 Land Use '" ..... ....... ................. .......... ...........................................14 Cover Types................................................. .............................. .14 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically-Sensitive Resources ................21 Physical Impacts on Water Resources ........................................23 Water Use................................................................................... .24 Water-Related Land Use Management Districts ........................29 Water Surface Use ....... ............. ..... ...................................... .......29 Erosion and Sedimentation ....... ....... ...................... .....................29 Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff ......................................32 Water Quality - Wastewaters .....................................................42 Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions .......................................44 Solid Waste; Hazardous Waste; Storage Tanks..........................53 Traffic........................................................................................ .56 Vehicle-Related Air Emissions.................................................. .67 Stationary Source Air Emissions ................................................70 Dust, Odors, Noise.................................... .................. ................70 Nearby Resources....................................................................... 77 Visual Impacts ...... ........ ......... ......................... ............ ......... ....... 76 Compatibility with Plans............................................................. 77 Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services .............................79 Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts..............................80 Other Potential Environmental Impacts......................................80 Summary of Issues ........ ......... ............ .........................................80 Mitigation Plan......................................................................... .81 Appendices................................................................................ ..95 . Project Title Proposer Contact Person Address Phone Email address RGU Contact Person Address . Phone Email address . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR Farmington SeedlGenstar AUAR City of Farmington Lee Smick, Planning Department 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-1829 Fax (651) 463-1611 lsmick@ci.farminflton.mn.us City of Farmington Lee Smick, Planning Department 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-1829 Fax (651) 463-1611 lsmick@ci.farmington.mn.us 1 . Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................. ...3 Comment Letters Received Metropolitan CounciL.. ...... ... .. . ... ... ... . .. ... ... ......... .. . ......... ... ... ... ... ..... 6 Minnesota Department of Transportation... ... ... ... ......... ... ...... ..... .... .,. ... ...9 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources...... ...... ... .., ...... ... ... ... ... ... ....11 Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .13 Dakota County.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . .16 City of Lakeville. ................................................................ ...21 Appendices............... .................................................................. ...22 Copies of Comment Letters . . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 2 . INTRODUCTION The Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Farmington Seed/Genstar Area was prepared by the City of Farmington and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board and commenting agencies in accordance with EQB Rules on September 19,2003. The notice appeared in the EQB Monitor on September 29, 2003. The required 30-day comment period ended on October 29, 2003. The comment period was extended to November 14 for 2 agencies who indicated that they did not receive the first document mailing. Comments were received from various public agencies, and copies are included in the Appendices. This Final AUAR identifies the comment letters received, identifies the comments, and provides responses to the comments. The Final AUAR Mitigation Plan is also included in this document, with corrections to the Draft AUAR. The Final Mitigation Plan and changes to the Draft incorporate changes in language and content based on comments received. The Final Mitigation Plan is located in Appendix A. The Farmington City Council will formally adopt this Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on , 2004. . . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 3 . COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED Comment letters were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals. Responses to comments from each of these reviewers can be found starting on the indicated page number. All comment letters are included in Appendix C in the order shown here. Agency/Organization/Individual Date of Letter Metropolitan Council Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Dakota County City of Lakeville 10/24/03 10/28/03 10/24/03 11/06/03 11/17/03 11/26/03 . . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 4 . RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Responses to comments are organized around each comment letter to insure that responses specifically address each reviewer's concerns. To clarify what comment is being addressed, the page and item number are indicated. Comments relating to the Mitigation Plan are listed separately following comments relating to the AUAR text. If the comment is editorial or advisory, we have acknowledged the comment and any necessary correction(s) to be made. For comments that are substantive, we have replied and where necessary, referenced appropriate sections of the Draft AUAR. Revisions to Tables, Figures and in some cases text, are included in Appendix B. . . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 5 . METROPOLITAN COUNCIL COMMENTS Page 1-Item 10. Land Cover Tvoes & Fish. Wildlife and EcolofJicallv Sensitive Resources. Council staff encourages the City to add the restoration of native vegetation buffers along North Creek to the Mitigation Plan. Response: The City will add this item to the Mitigation Plan: The City will support efforts to remove exotic species and restore native vegetation in the buffer areas along North Creek to improve water quality and habitat. Page 1-Item 12. PhvsicalImoacts on Water Resources Council staff encourages the classification of wetlands within the North Creek Corridor by the City from Manage 2 to Protect status. Response: The North Creek Corridor is outside the tributary areas designated as "trout waters" by the Minnesota DNR, so a change in status would not be consistent with the policies in the City's Surface Water Plan and Wetland Management Plan. The wetland classification will remain as indicated in the Wetland Management Plan and Ordinance. . However, the existing vegetated buffer that is several hundred feet wide on either side of the creek will be protected because it is located in the floodplain area and City ordinances limit development within these areas. In most areas, the wetlands in this corridor will have buffers at least equal to those required for "trout stream" wetlands due to their location within the floodplain of North Creek. Council staff encourage the city to consider the utilization of directional boring techniques in the construction of water and sanitary sewer lines proposed to cross under North Creek. Response: The City will add this item to the Mitigation Plan: The City will consider the use of directional boring techniques in the construction of water distribution and sanitary sewer collection lines that are proposed to cross under North Creek. Page -ltem 13. Water Use Council staff note that the Metropolitan Council also reviews water appropriation permit requests that are submitted to the DNR. Response: This information will be added to Item 13 in the Final AUAR. Page 2-Item 17. Surface Water Runoff The Council encourages the City and Developer to incorporate low-impact development (LID) storm water retention techniques and native vegetation within the site. . Response: These techniques will be considered by the City and Developer as fmal plans and designs are completed for the site. Specific techniques that will be considered are listed in the Mitigation Plan under Item 17 -Goal 1. Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 6 . Council staff suggests the utilization of porous pavement for parking lot areas based on a current test at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum; and suggests other options far parking lot drainage to encourage infiltration. Response: The porous pavement demonstration area at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum was installed in the summer of 2003. The pavement will be monitored over the next several years to determine whether it is effective and reliable in Minnesota. The other design ideas described in the comments will be considered by the City and developer in developing final plans for the site. Page 2-Item 18. Water Ouality/Wastewaters Council staff request that the projections of sewer flows provided to the Council for 2000-2005, 2005-2010, 2010-2015, and2015-2020 be incorporated into the Final AUAR. Response: These projects were provided to the Council Staff, as requested. We will incorporate these projections into the Final ADAR document. It should be noted that the projections are our best estimates for planning purposes; the housing market will determine the actual phasing of the development. Page 2-Item 25. Traffic . The Draft A UAR appears complete and comprehensive from a transportation perspective. Given the significant traffic being generated by the development, MnDOT's and the County's access management standards need to be followed. An adequate internal road and trail system will be important to reduce traffic and conflicts on state and county roads that serve this poperty. No site plan was provided in the Draft AUAR laying out the internal road and trail system. Response: Comments are noted. All attempts to adhere to access management standards will be made. Should the traffic volumes require variance to standards, this will be discussed with MnDOT. It is true that the TH3 improvements and new east-west facilities are not programmed, at this time, by MnDOT or by Dakota County. The affected governmental units need to work on a plan to have these facilities programmed in conjunction with development opportunities. An internal road system and trail system will be an important component of a site plan. Of particular importance will be provision of a north-south collector within the development, one linking future east-west facilities. This will help to reduce reliance on TH3 for some of the vehicular trips. Page 3-Item 26. Nearbv Resources . Council staff suggest that the City include development of a future public trail along the creek, that park dedication requirements could be utilized for green way protection and trail development, and that the City contact Dakota County Parks to coordinate local and county trail efforts. Farmington SeedlGenstar Final AUAR 7 . Response: The City's Comprehensive Plan includes policies that recommend development of a public trail within the North Creek greenway corridor. The City is working with Dakota County Parks on coordination of local and county trail development. . . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 8 . Minnesota Department of Transportation Page I-Item 2. Traffic TH3 is a "Preservation" status corridor. No funding has been identifiedfor expansion ofTH3 in the next 20 years. Response: The Draft AUAR recognized that TH3 is not presently programmed for expansion. The affected agencies are urged to reach agreement on when expansion can be programmed. Such plan should respond to a potential development timetable if at all possible. This planning needs to commence as soon as possible. The AUAR needs to address the following issues in order to be consistent with the Draft TH3 plan: Provide maps that show that needed right of way is secure, including primary intersection locations, and additional right of way for right and left turn lanes. Ensure proper right of way exists at the time of platting. . Response: Upon submission of site plans and other development applications, the City will work with the developer to ensure that adequate right-of-way is procured along the west side ofTH3. The east side ofTH3 is under the jurisdiction of Empire Township. The provision of right-of-way for future roadway purposes will be discussed with Empire Township by the City. It is expected that the amount of needed right~of-way will be discussed at the time of application for development. These discussions will need to involve MnDOT, City of Farmington, and Empire Township. The City should work with the developer in requiring the major improvements that are needed at primary intersections. Any improvements are the responsibility of the City, the developer, or both. Response: The Draft ADAR analyzes the provisions of two major access points along TH3 to the development. A third major access point is proposed along the future 19Sth Street extension. Access proposals, when put forth on development site plans, will be reviewed with MnDOT and Dakota County. It should be noted that improvements on the west side ofTH3 are the responsibility of the City of Farmington and the developer of the Seed/Genstar property; improvements on the east side of TH3 will be the responsibility of Empire Township and/or developers in that community. Lots should be configured so that new direct private access onto TH3 would not occur. A future minor arterial route along the northern edge of the Seed/Genstar property (proposed in Dakota County East/West Arterial study) will need a signalized intersection at TH3. The site should be designed to provide for this connection. . Response: It is expected that access improvement on the west side of the proposed intersection with TH3 will be at the expense of the developer. This includes right-of-way provisions, lane requirements, and traffic signalization. The City will work with the developer on these issues. Farmington SeedlGenstar Final AUAR 9 . Other than the future access roadways previously discussed, the City will strongly discourage any other access to TH3. The City always strives to minimize access to new collectors within a development plan. Since MnDOT has the power to approve/deny access to TH3, it is expected that private lot access will not be allowed. Proper site planning will eliminate that need. The provision of a future east-west arterial north of the subject property has been identified as a desire for the regional area. The location of this future arterial, as it intersects with TH3, will be considered in the property access design for which this Draft AUAR has been prepared. Page 2. Items 10,12 and 17. Cover Tvoes and Surface WaterRunofJ The project should allow for future TH needs with regard to additional water quality treatment ponds. Response: The Surface Water Analysis section indicates that the project proposes water quality treatment well-above the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Ponds and infiltration facilities to serve the future TH3 and other portions of the project will be part of the site design. The City will work with the developer and MnDOT to determine responsibilities for water quality improvements that are the result of new development. . If direct impact from runoff will occur to wetland acreages include a table to show wetland impacts. Response: The City's Wetland Ordinance and Surface Water Plan prohibit direct surface water runoff to wetlands. No table is needed. Item 12, third paragraph ,should Figure 17.1 be Figure 12.1 ? Response: The reference in the draft AUAR is correct. City Wetland Classifications are shown on Figure 17.1. Please consider using the Cowardin and Circular 39 classification of any wetlands in the document. Response: The AUAR is required to show Circular 39 classifications under Item 10. These are shown on Figure 10.1. Please ensure that the degree of wetland protection as it affects MnDOT right of way meets Wetland Conservation Act and Federal Clean Water Act requirements. Response: The City's Wetland Ordinance requires all developers to meet the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and Federal Clean Water Act. The Ordinance includes additional requirements for wetland buffers that go beyond these standards. The City's Ordinances will be enforced as development occurs. . The development may require drainage permit applications. Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 10 . Response: Applications will be made for drainage permits as needed as the development moves forward. . . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 11 . Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Page 1. Item 10. Cover Tvpes Please correct error in Table 10.1. Response: The Table has been revised to take out typo and show the correct acreages, and will be included in the Final AUAR document: Table 10.1 Cover Types Types 1 to 7 Wetlands Floodplain Woodland/conifers Cropland/Nursery Pasture/Grassland Acres Before 25 119 4 709 74 Acres After 25 119 4 o o Rural Residential Urban Residential Commercial Open Space/Parks RailroadlHwv ROW TOTALS Before 22 o o o 53 1006 After o 757 25 23 53 1006 Paf!e 1. Item 11. Fish. Wildlife and Sensitive Resources Occurrences of 3 rare species and natural communities should be noted in the AUAR. . Response: We will add the information regarding the three rare species and natural communities in the area around the site to the AUAR, and will add the fact sheet to the document. The City's Comprehensive Plan, Shoreland and Floodplain ordinances will protect the wooded corridor along North Creek, which is near open grassland areas along the railroad tracks. The woodland edges and grassland areas may continue to provide suitable habitat for shrikes after development occurs on the site. The remainder of the site does not have good shrike habitat currently. The large infiltration areas planned for the development (16 acres total) may be designed using native grass meadows with groups of trees and shrubs at the edges. These may also provide potential shrike habitat. The City's Wetland Ordinance requires that buffers be maintained or established around wetlands, based on the wetland classification. This policy will be implemented as development occurs. The recommendations regarding native plantings will be considered during site design. Required buffer widths are detailed on Table 12.1 of the Draft AUAR. Pafte 3. Item 17. Water Duality-Surface Water Runoff Does the developer plan to manage stormwater runoff in a manner that would protect North Creek to Trout Stream standards? . Response: The AUAR document is very explicit in adopting the MPCA's standard for stormwater management to protect special waters (including trout streams), and in specifying mitigation measures that exceed the requirements of the MPCA standard. Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 12 . In August, 2003, the MPCA Board adopted the standard for stormwater management that will apply in the AUAR area. The standard applies to all special waters, including designated trout streams. The standard requires that "the water quality volume that must be treated by the project's permanent storm water management system shall be one (1) inch of runoff from the new impervious surfaces created by the project. The standard further required buffers, volume control, and the use of best management practices that will minimize the impact of increase in temperature, such as infiltration. The stormwater analysis for the AUAR was completed before the MPCA standard was adopted, while a higher draft standard for volume control was proposed for areas tributary to the Vermillion River. Storm water management methods included in the Mitigation Plan meet this higher standard: To keep the runoff volume under ultimate development conditions from exceeding the event runoff volume under pre-development (existing land cover) conditions for design rainfall events up to the 10-year, 24-hour event. The Mitigation Plan proposes the use of infiltration areas (16 acres) to control the volume of runoff to meet this standard, in addition to the use of ponds to manage water quality and runoff from larger storm events. The AUAR adopted the new (August 2003) standard for stormwater management, and includes measures in the AUAR Mitigation Plan that exceed the MPCA's requirements for storm water management to protect special waters, including trout streams. . . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 13 . DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (SWCD) Page 1. Item 10. Cover Tvpes The 100-foot wetland buffer width for trout streams should be applied to the North Creek corridor. Response: The portion of North Creek within the AUAR study area is not a designated Trout Stream by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. If we were to change our standards for this part of the City it would not be appropriate or consistent with how wetlands were classified in the remainder of the City. It should be noted that because the wetlands are located adjacent to North Creek and within a designated greenway corridor the wetlands cannot be classified below a Manage 2 even if vegetation and susceptibility would indicate a lower classification. Wetland buffers are measured from the delineated wetland edge and will be applied to both sides of the corridor. Efforts should be made to protect the high quality vegetation on the site. Plant communities such as sedge meadows have previously been identified on this site, and are sensitive to increased water level fluctuations. As noted, restoration and preservation of native habitats should be a priority for the North Creek corridor. . Response: Bonestroo & Associates completed the wetland classifications and management plan for the City of Farmington. A Bonestroo & Associates botanist reviewed the wetlands identified by the SWCD in your comments, and we do not anticipate there was enough sedge present to move the wetland into a higher classification. As we did with the Lake Julia Corridor, the City will pay special attention to pockets of sedges when the area develops to insure they are protected. It should also be noted that the Farmington Wetland Ordinance goes beyond the Wetland Conservation Act by eliminating excavation in Type 1 and 2 wetlands unless it is a reed canary grass monotype. This will also help protect the sedge communities. North Creek Corridor wetland adjacent within the City were identified as ''protect'' and "manage 1 " in 1999. As the City began its annexation process, the North Creek corridor wetlands were delineated and then classified as a "Manage 2" resource per city ordinance. No information was provided in the AUAR about the wetland assessment completed, or the difference in wetland quality. . Response: Section 12 and 13 within the City are the only areas that were not part of the inventory process that occurred with the Wetland Ordinance development in 1999. The reason was that at the time of the ordinance these two sections were going to be developed. It was thought that the ordinance process would not be done in time to protect these wetlands with buffers so the original classification provided under the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) were utilized. The Storm Water Plan classification was based on wetland community type and not vegetative diversity. The SWMP protected wetlands from storm water but did Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 14 . not provide for a buffer. Buffers were required as a part of the Wetland Ordinance. However, the SWMP and Wetland Ordinance recognized the need for classification based on vegetative diversity, and required that wetlands be classified when they were part of an area proposed for development. Sections 12 and 13 did not develop when proposed, and so the basins were later reviewed by a WCA TEP and the appropriate classifications based on the new ordinance language were provided. This was completed so that the classifications could be used for the Seed/Genstar proposal and AUAR. If the commenter wants details Brian Watson of the SWCD participated as a member of the WCA TEP and has documentation on how the wetlands were classified. Page 2. Item 11. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologicallv Sensitive Resources The opportunity to create an east-west greenway corridor that eventually would connect the North Creek corridor to UMore Park should be evaluated during the planning and plat approval process. There are opportunities to restore native habitats along existing drainage patterns and the Highway 3 barrier may be by- passed during future improvements. . Response: Umore Park is in Empire Township, and the corridor identified is largely outside the City of Farmington. The City will discuss the suggestion with Empire Township. Parle 2. Item 12. Ph vsica I Imoacts to Water Resources We encourage changing the designation of the wetlands associated with North Creek to "protect" classification; and stormwater management facilities should not be installed within wetlands or the floodplain. Response: The portion of North Creek within the AUAR study area is not a designated Trout Stream by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. If we were to change our standards for this part of the City it would not be appropriate or consistent with how wetlands were classified in the remainder of the City. It should be noted that because the wetlands are located adjacent to North Creek and within a designated greenway corridor the wetlands cannot be classified below a Manage 2 even if vegetation and susceptibility would indicate a lower classification. Wetland buffers are measured from the delineated wetland edge and will be applied to both sides of the corridor. The Dakota SWCD expects to work closely with the City during the WCA permitting process if adverse wetland impacts are proposed. . Response: The City has worked closely with the SWCD for many years to implement the WCA process and develop its Wetland Management Plan. City ordinances incorporate the provision of WCA, and add additional requirements for wetland buffers and wetland management. The City will continue to work to enforce the WCA provisions and its Wetland Ordinances during development of the AUAR area, and will continue to work with the SWCD in these efforts. Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 15 . Page 2. Item 16. Erosion and Sedimentation SWCD anticipates reviewingthe temporary and permanent erosion control plans prior to final plat approvals and will provide comments at that time. Response: The City understands that the SWCD will provide comments and will work with SWCD staff to address issues or concerns. The SWCD looks forward to working with the City and developer to minimize off-site erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with construction activities. Response: The City will work with the SWCD to address erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with construction activities on the:s:ite. Grading on the site's steep slopes should be avoided to minimize erosiondndpreserve the district's topography. Response: The City's Erosion Control and Turf Establishment Ordinances'will be enforced as the area develops to minimize erosion and preserve steep slope areas. Protection of the proposed infiltration areas during construction will be critical to ensure their long-term success. . Response: The City understands the need to protect infiltration areas from compaction and sedimentation during construction, and will work with the developer to ensure the success of the infiltration areas on the site. Paee 2. Item 17. Water Dualtiv: Surface Water Runo(f We suggest using distributed controls throughout the site to retain runoJJrather an end- of-the pipe infiltration Response: The types of infiltration controls and their distributiollQn the site will be d,etennined during site design. SWCD provides a /ist of design criteria that should be included in the infiltration basin design. Res,pO:t,lse: The criteria listed are widely available in the technical literature regarding infiltration practices, and the City's Engineer already applies these criteria in infiltration project design. These BMP's and other will be incorporated during site design. . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 16 . . . DAKOTA COUNTY Page 1- Section 5-Pro;ect Location: Roadwav Network We recommend that the draft AUAR be revised to include an internal street plan that shows how the development ties into nearby roads and adjacent property. We are concerned that providing access from the development only to TH3 and 195th Street will not be adequate to handle the number of trips that will be generated. We suggest that the City plan for access north to 17(j11 Street, and that Diamond Path should be extended to North Creek. Response: The concept site plan has not been prepared, since the developer needs to know where the access points are to be located. The trips can be accommodated with access to TH 3 and future 195th as was indicated in the draft AUAR. Access from the development to the north will be provided on the subject property, as stated on page 65 of the traffic element mitigation plan. We suggest that the draft AUAR acknowledge thefollowing: (a) coordination of local roads with identified routes for future East-West County Roads; (b) the right-of-way dedication needs for those road routes (c) access spacing requirements and right of way needs for access preservation, and (d) the need to expand A-Minor Arterial roads in the area (CSAH 31, CR 58, and CR 64). Response: Local road coordination for future East-West County routes will be achieved in the City of Farmington. The North-South collector suggested for this project site will connect future 195th, then north to the City of Farmington boundary. Extension of that facility beyond Farmington boundaries and extending to a future East-West County facility will need to be accomplished by Empire Township and Lakeville. The right-of-way needs for East-West routes needs to be further discussed with the City and County. The City can obtain some right-of-way as part of the development agreement for this project. The access spacing requirements will be met, to the extent possible, to provide effective property access. The City acknowledges the potential need to expand other A-Minor Arterial roadways in the area. The City is committed to assisting the County in their planning effort in this regard. Volume projections in this report should provide some assistance for the County on this issue. We will include a reference to the need to expand A-minor arterial roads in the area in the AUAR document. We suggest that the Draft A UAR explain the reasons for ending the proposed improvements ofTH3 at 16(j11 Street. Unless the improvements are continued north to CSAH 42, it is not clear how TH 3 will accommodate the added trips and provide a good level of service up to and through the CSAH 42 intersection. Farmington SeedlGenstar Final AUAR 17 . Response: The draft ADAR provided analysis ofTH 3 approximately two miles from the project site. Beyond this area, volumes begin to dissipate. Part ofthe reason that the proposed improvements ended at 160th Street was this coincided with the County East-West corridor study which also terminated at that point. We fully expect that improvements to TH 3, when MnlDOT analyzes them, will probably extend to CSAH 42 and north of that location also. We wish to note that Mn/DOT has no plans for the expansion of TH3 until after 2025. We recommend that the draft AUAR emphasize coordination with MnDOT on the location and staging schedule of any road improvements on TH3 that the City would be willing to fund to serve the different stages of the proposed development. Response: The draft ADAR recognized the present status of TH 3. The mitigation plan provided a method for upgrading TH 3 based on daily volume projections. Improvement and funding of these improvements is an important element that 'needs to be addressed as the project plan proceeds through the site plan review process. This will need to involve the City, State, and Empire Township as well as property developers. We suggest that the draft AUAR address how a Park/Ride facility will accommodate enough riders to offset a meaningful portion of the 30,000+ trips that will be generated by this development. . Response: It is beyond the scope of the ADAR to analyze how many riders a Park/Ride facility might attract in Farmington. When and if a Park/Ride facility is ready for consideration, it should be studied at that time. The ADAR statement was suggesting that any park and ride facility in Farmington would be advantageous for commuters. As to what is a "meaningful" trip reduction, that could be part ofthe Park/Ride facility study. Page 1- Section 13-Water Use Clarify whether the nine homes on the north side of 194/h Street West are inside the AUARproject area. Response: The nine homes are outside the ADAR project area. This will be clarified in the text. Two of the properties on the north side of 194/h Street West have had wells sealed. If the other seven homes are in the project area, it is likely that they have wells that will need to be addressed. Response: The seven existing homes on the north side of 194th Street are not in the project area. However, the information regarding wells will be noted in the text. . The draft AUAR does not discuss dewatering for the project area. Dewatering may be necessary for installation of utilities, and could affect shallow wells in or near the project area. Dewatering near North Creek may affect the water levels of the creek. Response: The City will add this item to the Mitigation Plan: Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 18 . The City will consider the use of directional boring techniques in the construction of water distribution and sanitary sewer collection lines that are proposed to cross under North Creek. Page 1 - Section 2a-Solid Wastes. Hazardous Wastes. Storage Tanks The City should try to encourage on-site composting, additional recycling, etc., in the project area Response: The City encourages on-site composting and recycling by all city residents through newsletters and other public information. The City will encourage these efforts with new residents in the SeedlGenstar project area as well. The draft AUAR does not acknowledge the presence of all waste disposal sites known to exist in the project area. We recommend that the City or its consultant access the County's data resource to update this section of the draft A UAR. Response: We have contacted the County for additional information from its database, as you recommended. Additional information obtained from the County's database regarding waste disposal sites will be added to the Final ADAR. . The draft A UAR identified GEES, Inc. as a large quantity hazardous waste generator. GEES is a minimal waste generator. Godfrey Custom Signs is not a hazardous waste generator. Several years ago, they switched to using non-hazardous components for sign making. Response: Thank you for this information. The Draft AUAR will be updated to reflect this information. Page 2 - Section 21-Tra(fic We recommend that the draft AUAR be revised to acknowledge Alignment B from the East-West study in the analysis. Response: While the draft ADAR does not specifically identify Alignment B, it does indicate, on page 65 of the traffic mitigation plan, that the provision of the north-south collector in the SeedlGenstar site needs to proceed north to an ultimate connection with the potential East-West corridor in that vicinity. This will require that extension to be provided when development to the north of SeedlGenstar is being planned. The properties to the north are not in Farmington. . We suggest that the City will need to closely coordinate with the Dakota County Transportation Department when developing the 195th/19dh Street alignment, as identified in the East- West Corridor Study. That proposed roadway will be a four-lane divided roadway, and will need to meet County standards for such a road, including the required dedicated right-of-way and access spacing. At this time, it is unknown whether the City will build the road and turn it over to the County in the future, or if the County Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 19 . will build it. The roadway is not in the County Capital Imp1<ovement Program at this time. These points should be addressed by the A UAR. Response: The City will closely coordinate with the County with regard to the provision of the 19S1h Street corridor. The County has previously agreed to participate in the funding of the 19Sth/190th Street connection to TH3. The City is open to either the City or the County delivering the project, with the timing of the construction being a factor. Provision of right-of-way and determination of access needs will be part of the design process. Page 2 - Appendix-Traffic Volume Data a. We suggest that the study area listed and analyzed in the report is not large enough to cover the road system that will have major traffic impacts from the proposed development. We recommend that the City use a more detailed traffic evaluation, with expanded study limits that will include TH3north to CSAH 42, and roadways to the west that will have intersections with the proposed East-West roadways, which the draft AUAR identified as key routes necessary to serve the area. . Response: The City believes that the study area was large enough to analyze the anticipated impacts. The County East-West study is also utilized to anticipate future volume impacts on major roadways west of the Seed/Genstar property. The effect on TH 3, north of I 60th Street, was discussed in an earlier response. The City expects that when the extension of 19SIh Street is programmed, the City and the County will further analyze roadway needs fr{)m Pilot Knob Road to TH 3. That will further detail roadway and public street access to that corridor. Given the volume projections from the East-West Corridor Study, the City believes that the 4-lane facility that was discussed will be adequate to accommodate 20-year needs that have been projected. b. We suggest that the development proposal relies very heavily on TH3 for access and is proposing access that is inconsistent with state and county roadway studies. We recommend that the City use these studies in their discussions with MnDOT about road access as the starting point for developing an access plan for the development area. Dakota County is willing to help facilitate discussions on funding the roadway infrastructure. Response: Comments are noted. Access to/from TH 3 may not fit the ~ mile spacing desired by Mn/DOT. The City has been in discussions with MnDOT on this issue. Such spacing may be excessive for this area, which will be more fully urbanized as time goes by. Access spacing is very important, as is the ability to accommodate new residential development. It has been previously stated that roadway systems access and provisions of roadway improvements will be necessary and needs to commence as a result of the AUAR. . c. We suggest that the AUAR include an overview map to show how this development fits with the overall existing and planned system, and a detailed site plan identifying the internal roadway network and how it will provide necessary north/south connections to serve as collector to the allowable connections along TH3 and other area North/South roadways. Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 20 . . . Response: A detailed site plan is not yet available, and is not required for the analysis included in an AUAR. The internal road system will be a component of the site plan. The north-south collector roadway will be an important part of the site plan, and will help to reduce reliance on TH3 for some vehicle trips. It would be Farmington's intent that the north-south collector roadway be stubbed to connect to the future Alignment B, however, that connection would be outside of Farmington's jurisdiction. d. We believe that the draft AUAR does not explain how all the improvements (in roadway systems) necessary to accommodate this development will occur. The proposed improvements focus on the need for a 4-lane divided highway on TH3, and the need to extend 195/h Street and 206/h Street. Neither the State or the County have projects planned for these roadways that would accommodate the traffic from the development- even in 2008. We recommend that the AUAR needs to define the timing and responsibility for road improvements-before development proceeds. Response: The AUAR does explain a process - one that presents improvements necessary when certain volume levels on TH 3 are attained. As previously mentioned, discussion with affected agencies need to be held to start the planning and funding for such improvements. e. This development will have major impacts to TH3 and the area network. To ensure access and continued safe and efficient operation of the road system as the development occurs, a more detailed evaluation of the road system with respect to the traffic that will be generated is needed. The development needs to be consistent with State and County plans. We believe that it will be difficult to build the connecting roadways and turn lanes if they are to be served by a highway system that needs improvements to fully accommodate the additional traffic. We suggest that a large study area with detailed traffic distribution and analysis for the site and connecting roadways would provide a better picture of the development's roadway impacts. As noted above, MnDOT has no plans for the expansion of TH3 until after 2025. We strongly suggest that the draft A UAR emphasize coordination with MnDOT on the schedule and local funding of any proposed road improvements to serve each state of development. Response: Comment noted. The timing and responsibility of improvements does need to be discussed. It is anticipated that the fIrst phase of improvements will be accomplished by the City and/or Developer. Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 21 . CITY OF LAKEVILLE Paf!e 1 - First Item The City of Lakeville requests that the City of Farmington work with Lakeville and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to plan for the potential of a new MCES interceptor sewer in the future 1951h Street Corridor that would provide future sewer service to the Urban Reserve Areas of Farmington and Lakeville after 2020. The City of Farmington will be happy to work with Lakeville and the MCES on this issue. The City of Lakevil/e has been dealing with a number of well interference claims in recent years. The City would suggest that Farmington take into account well interference issues as you plan for future well locations in the AUAR area. Lakeville would also be willing to meet with Farmington and other communities in the area to discuss well interference issues. Thank you for this information. The City of Farmington will consider this issue as it plans for future well locations in the AUAR area. . The City of Lakeville Parks and Open Space Plan identifies a greenway corridor to accommodate trails and public right of ways that would (provide) public access along the North Creek corridor. This plan also indicates that this greenway (is) potentially being extended through Farmington and Empire Township and east to Hastings. In addition, Dakota County is considering the development of aJ'uture Regional Park east of the Empire WWTP. The AUAR document references protection of the North Creek corridor wetlands, and buffers, along with the preservation ofthe,lOO-year floodplain and other natural areas. However the document does not currently reference the development of trails in this greenway corridor and the interconnection of these trails beyond the City's borders. The City requests that this reference be incorporated into the document. This information will be added to the Draft AUAR document. . Farmington Seed/Genstar Final AUAR 22 . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: \<.~~ City Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Discussion of Monopole Personal Wireless Communication Towers within Residential and Park/Open Space Districts DATE: December 9, 2003 INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION A Personal Wireless Communication Company has recently contacted the City inquiring about the construction of a monopole structure proposed for location at the Daisy Knoll Park water tower site. A monopole structure is defined as: "A freestanding pole mounted to the ground without cables, supporting lines, wires, or braces that would service a licensed commercial wireless service including cellular, personal communication services, (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public." The Company proposing the monopole structure states that they would like to locate an antenna between Daisy Knoll Park and the North Municipal Campus on 195th Street in order to increase their services within the Farmington area. They are opposed to locating an antenna on top of either the Daisy Knoll or North Municipal Campus water towers because of the over-abundance of antennae currently existing on the two towers. They claim that interference would be common because of the current number of antennae on the towers. Per the Section 10-6-14 (B) subd. 2 of the City Code (see attached), towers supporting commercial antennas are only allowed within the A-I and 1-1 zoning districts under a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, staff has enclosed Section 4-4-1 of the Building Code discussing the construction of towers. The Company has reviewed locations within these zones, however, the spacing and the elevation of these zones do not promote adequate coverage for the Company's service requirements. Planning staff is forwarding this information to you in order to discuss the merits of allowing the location of monopole structures on public property within Residential Zones in the City. Currently, all public property is located within the R-l and PIOS zoning districts. Additionally, the City currently requires setbacks from towers in the agricultural district at 4 feet for every foot of tower height exceeding 45 feet. Within the 1-1 district, the setback is 2 feet for every foot of tower height exceeding 45 feet. . Planning staff has prepared a matrix for your review in order to discuss how surrounding communities deal with personal wireless communication structures. ACTION REOUESTED Review the attached information and discuss the possible allowance of monopole structures within an R-l or P/OS district within the City. , / )':./// <""/,:?,/',, ~/ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner . . 2 10-6-14 1 0-6-14 . 10-6-14: TOWERS: Towers are necessary to facilitate and accommodate the communication needs of the residents and businesses of the city, provided they comply with the following minimum guidelines: \. (A) Minimum Guidelines: 1. Minimize adverse visual effects through the use. of careful design and siting standards; 2. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure by adhering to accepted structural standards and setback requirements; and 3. Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. (B) Districts Allowed: . 1. Towers supporting amateur radio antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this code shall be allowed only in the rear yard of residentially zoned parcels. "* 2. Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this code shall be allowed as a conditional use within the A-1 and 1-1 districts. t':.: ..':' ( . :.. 3. Use of existing towers is encouraged and will be exempt from the conditional use process. Permitting will involve the requirements listed in title 4, chapter4 of this code. (C) Colocation Requirement: 1. A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower shall not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the communications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-half C/2) mile radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: (a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or . July 2002 City of Farmington 1 0-6-14 10-6-14 . ~2. Towers in residential, conservation and agricultural districts will be 7' set back four feet (4') for every foot of height exceeding forty five feet (45'). -I- 3. Towers in industrial districts will be set back two feet (2') for every foot of height exceeding forty five feet (45'). (G) Tower Height: Towers, including all attached antennas, shall be limited to a maximum height of two hundred feet (200'). ( (H) Tower Lighting: Towers and their antennas shall not be illuminated by artificial means, except for camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or the illumination is specifically required by the federal aviation administration or other authority. (I) Signs And Advertising: The use of any portion of a tower for signs other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited. (J) Accessory Utility Buildings: All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally designed to blend with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects and complements the architectural character of the adjoining neighborhood. ( . (K) Abandoned Or Unused Towers Or Portions Of Towers: 1. All abandonments or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city planner. In the event that a tower is not removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the city and the costs of removal assessed against the property. 2. Unused portions of towers above a manufactured connection shall be removed within six (6) months of the time of antenna relocation. The replacement of portions of a tower previously removed requires the issuance of a new conditional use permit. (L) Antennas Mounted On Roofs, Walls And Existing Towers: The placement of wireless telecommunications antennas on roofs, walls . July 2002 City of Farmington 10-6-14 1 0-6-14 approved tower cannot be reinforced or modified to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost. '. (b) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. (c) No existing or approved towers or commercial/industrial buildings within a one-half C/2) mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria. (d) Existing or approved towers and commercial/industrial buildings within a one-half C/2) mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer. (e) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to colocate on existing towers and structures within a one-half C/2) mile radius was made, but an agreement could not be reached. 2. Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunications service tower shall be designed in all respects to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two (2) additional users if the tower is over one hundred feet (100') in height or for at least one additional user if the tower is over sixty feet (60') in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. . (D) Tower Construction Requirements: All towers erected, constructed or located within the city, and all wiring therefor, shall comply with the requirements set forth in title 4, chapter 4 of this code. (E) Tower And Antenna Design Requirements: Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color except in instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities. (F) Tower Setbacks: 1. Towers shall meet the setback requirements of the zoning district where located to a height of forty five feet (45'). . City of Farmington July 2002 1 0-6-14 . . (0) (E) (F) . 1 0-6-14 approved tower cannot be reinforced or modified to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost. (b) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. (c) No existing or approved towers or commercial/industrial buildings within a one-half C/2) mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria. (d) Existing or approved towers and commercial/industrial buildings within a one-half C/2) mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer. (e) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to colocate on existing towers and structures within a one-half C/2) mile radius was made, but an agreement could not be reached. 2. Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunications service tower shall be designed in all respects to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two (2) additional users if the tower is over one hundred feet (100') in height or for at least one additional user if the tower is over sixty feet (60') in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. Tower Construction Requirements: All towers erected, constructed or located within the city, and all wiring therefor, shall comply with the requirements set forth in title 4, chapter 4 of this code. Tower And Antenna Design Requirements: Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color except in instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities. Tower Setbacks: 1. Towers shall meet the setback requirements of the zoning district where located to a height of forty five feet (45'). July 2002 City of Farmington 10-6-14 /. (M) (N) r. .. 10-6-14 and existing towers may be approved by the city planner provided the antennas meet the requirements of this code, after submittal of: 1 . A final site and building plan, 2. A report prepared by a qualified and licensed professional engineer indicating the existing structure or tower suitability to accept the antenna, and the proposed method of affixing the antenna to the structure. Interference With Public Safety Telecommunications: All applications for new telecommunications service shall be accompanied by an intermodulation study prepared by a registered professional engineer which provides a technical evaluation of existing and proposed transmissions and indicates all potential interference problems. Before introduction of new service or changes in existing service, telecommunications providers shall notify the city at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of such changes and allow the city to monitor interference levels during the testing process. Additional Submittal Requirements: 1. A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which: (a) Describes the tower height and design with cross section and elevation; (b) Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co located antennas and the minimum separation between antennas; (c) Describes the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated; (d) Documents the steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with public safety telecommunications; (e) Includes the engineer's stamp and registration number. 2. A letter of intent committing all commercial wireless telecommunications service towers to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees, in writing, to meet reasonable terms and conditions for structures. July 2002 City of Farmington 1 0-6-14 1 0-6-16 3. Proof that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by the federal aviation administration and a report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) . (A) The f i1ity must not abut a property planned, resident I use. the requireme s for screening and sections 10- 9 and 10-6-10 of this RECYCLING FACILITIES: Recycling facilities, special recycling activity allowed by permit only a described under ction 7-1-3 of this code, are conditional uses in e 1-1 light industrial istrict subject to the following: (B) The facilit landscaping chapter. (C) The facility must rovide off stree parking as outlined in the industrial wholesalin land use cat gory in section 10-6-4 of this chapter. (0) The facility must not store cye! ble materials outside of a principal building or accessory buildin . (E) The facility must restrict ho rs f operation to nine o'clock (9:00) A.M. to seven o'clock (7:00 P.M.'f located within five hundred feet (500') of property planned, oned, 0 used for residential use. (F) The facility must not be used for dism tling, salvage or storage of junked vehicles. (G) The facility must fol w all municipal, state nd federal regulations. (Ord. 002-469, 2-1 -2002) 10-6-16: Y ORIENTED BUSINESSES: (A) Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish rovisions for the opportu y as well as control of sexually oriente businesses within the ci of Farmington. I ! (B)exually oriented businesses as defined in this titl the following general provisions: . July 2002 City of Farmington 1 0-6-14 1 0-6-16 . 3. Proof that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by the federal aviation administration and a report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) t. RECYCLING FACILITIES: Recycling facilities, er than special recycling activity allowed by permit only a described under ction 7-1-3 of this code, are conditional uses in e 1-1 light industrial istrict subject to the following: (E) The facility must restrict ho rs f operation to nine o'clock (9:00) A.M. to seven o'clock (7:00 P.M.'f located within five hundred feet (500') of property planned, oned, 0 used for residential use. the requireme s for screening and sections 10- 9 and 10-6-10 of this (A) The f ility must not abut a property planned, resident I use. (B) The facilit landscaping chapter. (C) The facility must rovide off stree parking as outlined in the industrial wholesalin use cat gory in section 10-6-4 of this chapter. . (0) The facility must not store cycl ble materials outside of a principal building or accessory buildin ( (F) The facility must not be used for dism tling, salvage or storage of junked vehicles. (G) The facility must fol w all municipal, state nd federal regulations. (Ord. 002-469, 2-1 -2002) 1 0-6-16: Y ORIENTED BUSINESSES: (B) Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish rovisions for the opportu y as well as control of sexually oriente businesses within the ci, of Farmington. ~ J { General: ,exually oriented businesses as defined in this tit! subject tthe following general provisions: (A) . July 2002 City of Farmington 4-4-1 I. SECTION: 4-4-1: 4-4-2: 4-4-3: 4-4-4: 4-4-5: 4-4-6: 4-4-7: 4-4-8: 4-4-1 CHAPTER 4 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ANTENNAS AND SUPPORTING TOWERS1 Purpose And Intent Definitions Permits Fee Construction Requirements Existing Antennas And Towers Lights And Other Attachments Inspections I. 4-4-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and businesses, while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of the community, the city finds that these regulations are necessary in order to: (A) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings in order to reduce the number of towers needed to produce wireless telecommunications services to the community. (8) Ensure wireless telecommunications towers are designed, sited and constructed in accordance with all applicable code requirements. (C) Screen tower equipment from the view of persons located on properties contiguous to the site and/or to be camouflaged in a manner to complement existing structures. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) 1. See also section 10-6-14 of this code. . July 2002 City of Farmington 4-4-2 4-4-3 4-4-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: ie' ANTENNA: Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting electromagnetic waves, including, but not limited to, directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes, and omnidirectional antennas, such as whip antennas. TOWER: Any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than fifteen feet (15'), including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) 4-4-3: PERMITS: (A) Permit Required: It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, construct in place, place or reerect, replace or repair any tower without first making application to the building official and securing a permit therefor as hereinafter provided. . (8) Applicant Information Required: The applicant shall provide, at the time of application, sufficient information to indicate that construction, installation and maintenance of the antenna and tower will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. (C) Permits Are Not Required For: 1. Adjustment or replacement of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a tower or antenna, provided that replacement does not reduce the safety factor. 2. Antennas and/or towers erected temporarily for test purposes, for emergency communication, or for broadcast remote pick up operations, provided that all requirements of section 4-4-5 of this chapter are met. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) e July 2002 City of Farmington 4-4-2 4-4-3 . 4-4-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: ANTENNA: Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting electromagnetic waves, including, but not limited to, directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes, and omnidirectional antennas, such as whip antennas. TOWER: Any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than fifteen feet (15'), including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) 4-4-3: PERMITS: . (A) Permit Required: It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, construct in place, place or reerect, replace or repair any tower without first making application to the building official and securing a permit therefor as hereinafter provided. ( \ (B) Applicant Information Required: The applicant shall provide, at the time of application, sufficient information to indicate that construction, installation and maintenance of the antenna and tower will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. (C) Permits Are Not Required For: 1. Adjustment or replacement of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a tower or antenna, provided that replacement does not reduce the safety factor. 2. Antennas and/or towers erected temporarily for test purposes, for emergency communication, or for broadcast remote pick up operations, provided that all requirements of section 4-4-5 of this chapter are met. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) . July 2002 City of Farmington 4-4-4 4-4-5 'e 4-4-4: FEE: The permit fee payable shall be such as may be set from time to time by the city council. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) 4-4-5: CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS: All antennas and towers erected, constructed, or within the city, and all wiring therefor, shall comply with the following requirements: (A) All applicable provisions of this code. (B) Towers shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to conform to the latest structural standards and wind loading requirements of the Minnesota state building code and the Electronics Industry Association. (C) With the exception of necessary electric and telephone service and connection lines approved by the issuing authority, no part of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment or wires or braces in connection with either shall at any time extend across or over any part of the right of way, public street, highway, sidewalk, or property line. ie (D) Towers and associated antennas shall be designed to conform with accepted electrical engineering methods and practices and to comply with the provisions of the national electrical code. (E) All signal and remote control conductors of low energy extending substantially horizontally above the ground between a tower or antenna and a structure, shall be at least eight feet (8') above the ground at all points, unless buried underground. (F) Every tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. (G) All towers shall be constructed to conform with the requirements of the occupational safety and health administration. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) (H) All towers erected within the city must conform to the applicable standards in section 10-6-14 of this code. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996; amd. Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) 'e July 2002 City of Farmington 4-4-6 4-4-8 4-4-6: EXISTING ANTENNAS AND TOWERS: Antennas and towers in residential districts and in existence as of date of adoption which do not conform to or comply with this chapter are subject to the following provisions: !. (A) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing, but may not be replaced or structurally altered without complying in all respects with this chapter. (8) If such towers are hereafter damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit therefor, but without otherwise complying with this chapter, provided, however, that if the cost of repairing the tower would be ten percent (10%) or more of the cost of a new tower, then the tower may not be repaired or restored except in full compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) 4-4-7: LIGHTS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS: No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way, except during time of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers, or other illuminating device, as described in subsection 10-6-14(H) of this code, except as required by the federal aviation agency or the federal communi- cations commission, nor shall any tower have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk, crow's nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996; amd. Ord. 002-469, 4-19-2002) .: 4-4-8: INSPECTIONS: All towers are subject to inspection by the city building inspection department to determine compliance with construction standards. Any deviation from original construction standards for which the permit was obtained shall constitute a violation of this chapter. Notice of violation will be sent by registered mail to the owner and the owner will have thirty (30) days from the date notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the building inspection department that repairs have been made, and as soon as possible thereafter, another inspection will be made and the owner notified of the results. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) '. July 2002 City of Farmington 4-4-6 4-4-8 . 4-4-6: EXISTING ANTENNAS AND TOWERS: Antennas and towers in residential districts and in existence as of date of adoption which do not conform to or comply with this chapter are subject to the following provisions: (A) Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing, but may not be replaced or structurally altered without complying in all respects with this chapter. (B) If such towers are hereafter damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit therefor, but without otherwise complying with this chapter, provided, however, that if the cost of repairing the tower would be ten percent (10%) or more of the cost of a new tower, then the tower may not be repaired or restored except in full compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) . 4-4-7: LIGHTS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS: No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way, except during time of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers, or other illuminating device, as described in subsection 10-6-14(H) of this code, except as required by the federal aviation agency or the federal communi- cations commission, nor shall any tower have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk, crow's nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996; amd. Ord. 002-469, 4-19-2002) ( 4-4-8: INSPECTIONS: All towers are subject to inspection by the city building inspection department to determine compliance with construction standards. Any deviation from original construction standards for which the permit was obtained shall constitute a violation of this chapter. Notice of violation will be sent by registered mail to the owner and the owner will have thirty (30) days from the date notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the building inspection department that repairs have been made, and as soon as possible thereafter, another inspection will be made and the owner notified of the results. (Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) . July 2002 City of Farmington .onal Wireless Service AntennaslMonopoles - Survey 12-2-03 City Allowable DistrictslLocations Height Limitations Setback Requirements Ag - 4 feet for every foot of height exceeding 45 ft; Ind - 2 feet for every foot Farmington CUP - Industrial, Agricultural Maximum 200 ft of height exceeding 45 ft Administrative Permit - Res - Max 75 ft; Ind- LakeviIle Agricultural, Residential, Max 150 ft N/A CUP - Industrial Residential: CUP's - Church sites, Meet setbacks plus 1/2 the height of the Savage park sites, Gov'tlSchool sites N/A pole In R-l districts only colocated on Mendota Heights exisitng towers, all other districts Maximum 75ft Adhere to appropriate zoning setbacks Commercial, Industrial, Residential: CUP's - Church sites, park sites, commercial recreational business sites, 5 feet from property line next to industrial apartment complexes, Res - 30ft, All other zone, 1/2 the distance of the tower height Burnsville Gov'tlSchool districts - 150 ft next to right-of-ways Res - less than 75 ft; All All districts; must be monopole other districts - over 75 Res - 4 times the height of the tower; Other Edina design no restrictions 6 times the height of the tower CUP's - Industrial, Public lands, athletic complexes, parking lots, private open space, residential areas within MUSA at 5 acres or Freeway cooridors - 1,000 ft from edge of Woodbury more N/A right-of-way All districts; must be located at the height of the pole plus 25 feet from the nearest residential Measure height of pole plus 25 feet from Chanhassen dwelling unit Maximum 175 feet nearest residential district .