The URL can be used to link to this page

050101 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 1, 2001 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 Case 01-04 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 70-Foot Galvanized Steel Monopole, Equipment Platform, and Equipment Within a 25- Foot x 30-Foot Lease Area, 3940 Quebec Avenue North, Sprint PCS and Paddock Laboratories., Petitioners 5. COMMI'R'EE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design & Review Cenimittee - Meeting May 17, 8 a.m. 5.2 Report of Codes &Standards Committee 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 2001 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of March 26 and April 9, 2001 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT - Petitioners are required to be in attendance 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 staff's 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. Al 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 Meeting Date: May 1, 2001 Report Date: April 26, 2001 Planning Case: 01-04 Petitioner: Sprint PCS and Paddock Laboratories Address: 3940 Quebec Avenue North Request: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 70-Foot Galvanized Steel Monopole, Equipment Platform, and Equipment Within a 25-foot x 30-foot Lease Area I. Request The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 70-foot galvanized steel monopole, equipment platform, and equipment within a 25' by 30' lease area, pursuant to Sections 4.039D and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Section 4.039D Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers Section 4.21 Conditional Use Permit III. Property Specifications Zoning: I-1, Limited Industrial Location: On the south side of Quebec Avenue just east of Winnetka Avenue Adjacent Land Uses: I-1 properties to the north across Quebec Avenue, a church use (Holy Nativity) to the west, railroad tracks to the east, R-1 Single Family Residential properties beyond the tracks, and a cemetery (Crystal property) to the south Site Area: 380' x 840'+ = 327.555 square feet (7.51 acres) Building Area: 111,439 square feet (no change) Lot Area Ratios: Green Area: = 28 percent Building Area: = 35 percent Paved Area: = 37 percent Planning District: No. 14; The Comprehensive Plan states that the primary land use objectives for this district will be the retention and in-place expansion of the industrial land uses. Specific Information: The 1998 site plan included 265 parking spaces, two more than the required 263. This tower proposal removes two spaces, so they comply with code. During this current review of past actions, staff has discovered that a necessary easement change was overlooked during the 1999 final approvals of the two additions started the year before: The south side of the lot adjacent to the cemetery had a platted drainage and utility easement of a five-foot width, but all parties agreed that the diversion of surface runoff water 500 feet Planning Case Report 01-04 Page I 4/26/01 to the east NURP pond necessitated a 15-foot wide easement. The project architect agreed to make this change (see attached July 7, 1998 letter) before the City would issue a grading permit, but the new survey shows the same five-foot easement. Staff is proposing that this easement correction be made a condition of this approval. No change to the existing NURP pond is proposed. IV. Background The property was used by Minnegasco as an LP tank farm from 1956 until demolition and platting Village Industrial Park 2n°Addition around 1990. In 1993, the original 80,000 square foot Paddock warehouse was built. In 1998, two additions were built (east and west sides) totaling 36,000 square feet. A "future warehouse addition" of 17,000 square feet at the northwest corner was approved at the same time, but is not yet built. The applicant, Steven Scriver Realty, on behalf of Sprint PCS, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower on the property located at 3940 Quebec Avenue North. The property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Village Industrial Park 2nd Addition. The subject property is currently occupied by Paddock Laboratories. Sprint PCS intends to locate a 70-foot monopole and the associated equipment on a 25' by 30' section of land in the southeast corner of this site. They will lease this area from Paddock Laboratories. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner submitted a narrative that stated: Sprint PCS was requesting approval of a conditional use permit for construction of a wireless communication monopole facility at 3940 Quebec Avenue. The proposed facility will consist of a 70-foot galvanized steel monopole (designed for a second carrier), equipment platform and equipment within a 25' by 30' lease area located near the southeast corner of the property. An eight-foot tall chain link fence covered with decorative cedar fencing mounted to the chain link fence posts will protect the facility. Sprint will attach up to 12 antennae to the monopole; initially six will be mounted at azimuths of 90, 210, and 330 degrees respectively. No artificial illumination will be required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the proposed site. Utilities for the site will be delivered underground from the street and metered at the site. The owner of the property has provided written permission for Sprint PCS to occupy the property and apply for a conditional use permit from the City. A location near the proposed site was explored that has an existing rooftop tower. It is Alex Audio located to the north at 4211 Rhode Island Avenue. That tower failed a structural analysis completed by AEC Engineering, Inc. on Sprint's behalf. No other structures are located in the area that offers the height needed by Sprint for its Antennae. Many discussions occurred over the past several months with city staff before the proposed site was brought forward. Zoninq and Conditional Use Standards In accordance with Section 4.039D, a street map is included depicting the location of the proposed site and two other towers (one existing, and the second approved, not constructed) both of which are more than 1,000 feet from the proposed site. The fall zone radius for the monopole is established at 35 feet by a letter from Engineered Endeavors, Inc. dated March 8, 2001, and stamped by a registered professional engineer. The fall zone radius is illustrated on the A1 drawing. The proposed monopole will be located near the southeast corner of the Paddock property. Specifically, it will be 70 feet (west) of the east property line and 36 feet (north) of the south property line. The adjoining property to the east of the proposed site is a railroad. The property it adjoins on the south is a cemetery. North of the subject property are other industrial zoned properties and on the west side, beyond the Paddock building is Holy Nativity. The proposed monopole will be located more than 275 feet east of the Paddock Laboratories building. Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 2 4/26/01 Once Sprint PCS receives zoning approval from the City of New Hope stamped construction and tower drawings will be submitted at the time an application for a building permit is made. The following list provides zoning criteria and findings as they relate to Section 4.039D for Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers in the City's Zoning Code: a) Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written authorization for antennas and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner. Finding: Included with this submittal is written authorization from the property owner and from Sprint PCS. 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 landowner. Finding: Included with this submittal is a letter from Sprint PCS that they will remove the tower upon cessation of operation of the site. The lease agreement also places removal responsibility on Sprint PCS. c) All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. Findinq: Included with this submittal is an ASAC letter outlining that the monopole will not require lighting and will comply with all FAA requirements. The attached letter from Engineered Endeavors outlines that the tower meets all ANSI TINEIA 222-F (June 1996) requirements and all Building Code requirements. The site perimeter will be secured and screened. 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. Findinq: All necessary tower and foundation drawings signed and stamped by a registered engineer will be provided upon submission of an application for a building permit once a conditional use permit is approved by the City. No drawings will be available until the tower is ordered from the tower manufacturer. e) When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna tower shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. Findinq: Included with this submission is a copy of Sprint's license to operate its PCS system. 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 to use city property for such purposes. Finding: The only city property used will be to obtain electrical and telephone utilities from the street utility easement. 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 required may be reduced if the applicant 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. Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 3 4/26/01 Findin,q: The tower meets minimum setback requirements. Included with this submittal is a letter from Engineered Endeavors outlining the reduced fall zone area of the tower in accordance with the Zoning Code. 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. Findinq: Sprint's proposed tower is at least 3,100 feet from the nearest tower location. The nearest tower is southeasterly, at 3401 Nevada Avenue. Nextel is approved for a conditional use permit. The location was examined by Sprint and it was determined that the Nextel location does not provide desired coverage for the Sprint PCS Network. A map is attached with this submittal depicting the proposed site and nearest tower locations. i) Maximum height of a two-antenna array shall be 145 feet. A tower providing three or more antenna arrays may have a maximum height of 165 feet. Findinq: Sprint's monopole will be 70 feet AGL height. The proposed site is in accordance with the height restrictions of the zoning ordinance. j) Antenna towers shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the FAA to protect the public's health and safety. Findinq: An ASAC letter is attached with this submittal verifying that no artificial illumination is required for the proposed monopole. k) No advertising signs shall be affixed to the antenna tower. Findinq: No advertising signs will be affixed to Sprint's proposed monopole. The fenced equipment area will have a sign with a contact number in case of emergency. I) Antenna towers shall be painted silver and have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. Findinq: The proposed monopole will have a galvanized finish and antennae will be painted to match the galvanized finish. m) Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. Findin.q: As mentioned above, the tower finish will be a galvanized color and antennae and hardware will match. n) A security fence shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. A locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all towers extending 12 feet above the ground. Findinq: The monopole will be located inside of a secured fence area and a locked anti-climb device shall be installed. o) Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment, whether self contained or located in a free standing 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. Findinq: The monopole and equipment will be screened from view by an eight-foot tall cedar fence in accordance with the Zoning Code. p) If a new 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. Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 4 4/26/01 F ndin.q: The proposed monopole is designed for at least one additional carrier. The letter attached from Engineered Endeavors includes 12 additional antennae mounted at 50 feet AGL for fall-zone calculations. q) The conditional use permit provisions of Section 4.21 of the zoning code must also be satisfied. Finding: Sprint will satisfy all required provisions of Section 4.21 of the code, The findings as outlined in this letter demonstrate that the proposed Sprint PCS site complies with all of the criteria in the City's Zoning Code regulating Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers. I request on behalf of Sprint PCS, approval of the conditional use permit allowing the proposed monopole and equipment at the Paddock Laboratories property. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important project. VI, Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments VII. Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Cdteria Conditional Use Permit 1. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety. 2. Other general criteda to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: A. 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. A. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. B. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. C. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. D. Zonin.q District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: 1. In Industrial Districts: a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing or future development in adjacent areas. b. Economic Return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 5 4/26/01 Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers 1. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Code is to establish predicable, balanced regulations of the siting and screening of wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wireless communication systems within the City of New Hope while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City's aesthetic resources and the public welfare. Personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within Industrial Zoning Districts if they comply with the following standards: (The bullet points under each condition are the staff/consultant response as to whether the condition is met or not.) A. Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, wdtten authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. · Staff has received wdtten authorization from Bruce Paddock of Paddock Laboratories to allow Sprint PCS to construct a personal wireless service antenna on his property. 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. · Sprint PCS has submitted a letter stating that they will remove the tower upon cessation of operation of the site. C. All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. · The City Building Official should review the plans to insure that they are in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. D. Structural design and construction plans of the antenna towers shall be in compliance with the manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. · The construction and design plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official. E. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any required federal, state or local agency licenses. · Sprint PCS has submitted to the City a copy of their license from the Federal Communication Commission to operate their PCS system. 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. · This personal wireless service antenna tower will be located on private property. 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 lesser distance under all Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 6 4/26/01 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. · According to the information from Engineered Endeavors, the fall zone for this tower is 35 feet. The site indicates that the proposed tower will be set back 70 feet from the east property line, 36 feet from the south property line, and 278 feet from the existing principal structure. These setbacks appear to meet the standards outlined in the zoning ordinance. H. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation distance of 1,000 feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. · According to the applicant's map (Exhibit I), the nearest existing personal wireless service antenna towers are at least 3,100 feet away. 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. · The applicant is proposing a 70-foot monopole. This is consistent with the 145-foot height limit called for in the City Code. J. Antenna towers shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the FAA to protect the public's health and safety. · The applicant has submitted a letter from the Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation verifying that no artificial illumination is required for the proposed personal wireless service antenna tower. K. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. · The applicant has agreed that no advertising will be attached to the proposed personal wireless service antenna tower. However, the fence around the equipment area will have a sign providing phone numbers of those responsible for both maintenance and emergency situations. L. Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. · According to the applicant, the tower will have a galvanized finish and will be painted gray. M. Antenna towers shall be 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. · Both the tower and antenna will be painted gray. N. A secudty fence eight feet in height shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. A locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all towers extending 12 feet above the ground. · The tower and associated equipment will be located on a 30' by 25' section of land in the southeastern corner of this site. The applicant will install new concrete curbing along the north and west sides of the tower site to accommodate drainage. In addition, the interior of the site will be surfaced with three-inch deep aggregate surfacing over a weed barrier. The entire equipment area will be surrounded by an eight-foot tall chain link fence. Staff recommends that a condition of approval dictate that no storage or equipment shall exceed the height of the fence. Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 7 4/26/01 O. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, whether self-contained or located in a free- standing 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. · To screen the equipment area, the applicant will relocate three existing trees and install a perimeter chain link fence with decorative cedar boards. The Police Department recommends that the cedar boards be placed one to two inches apart to insure adequate visibility within the fence enclosure for security reasons. The applicant's fence design must comply with this staff recommendation. 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. · This tower will be capable of accommodating future co-location of one additional carrier. Q. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 4.21 of this Code must also be satisfied. ·The application meets the provision of Section 4.21 of the City Code. B. Development Review Team On April 11, the Team met to consider this CUP request and supported it. They suggested that the applicant 1) Clarify the ground cover inside the entire fence enclosure; 2) Remove three small conifer trees in the area of the enclosure and provide three new, healthy six-foot conifers to the north of the area; 3) Space cedar fence boards one-inch apart for security, so the Police Department will be able to see the interior of the enclosure from all sides, day or night; 4) Identify the sign verbiage for the 24-hour phone number and mail address of responsible maintenance person. C. Design & Review Committee On April 12, the Committee supported the CUP, repeating Development Review Team comments. D. Plan Description Revised plans were submitted as a result of the two city meetings. Revisions included: 1. Ground cover inside the enclosure will be a weed barder membrane and three inches of rock. 2. Cedar fence boards will be spaced one-inch apart. 3. Responsible party maintenance sign language is provided. The only item not addressed is the landscaping. The plans propose relocating the three trees, but replacement is recommended due to tree health. Planting of three new trees is a condition of approval. E. Planning Considerations The Planning Consultant's report and recommendations have been incorporated into this report. F. Building Considerations At the time of building permit application, soils data and signed structural plans will be required to ensure compliance with the State Building Code. G. Legal Considerations City staff would like to discuss a potential code amendment to the tower ordinance with the City Attorney to better address maintenance responsibility concerns. H. Engineering Considerations Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 8 4126101 The City Engineer reviewed the plans and made the following comments: 1. We have received revised plans for the proposed Sprint PCS tower at Paddock Labs at 3940 Quebec Avenue. The submittal includes signed plans from a registered engineer and documentation verifying the structural capabilities of the tower. 2. The proposed improvements will not increase storm water runoff. Storm water quality requirements for the site were met with the site improvements completed in 1998. 3. Existing curb and gutter will be removed and replaced. The replacement curb and gutter must match the existing curb type and maintain the existing drainage pattern. 4. Site access will be via an existing parking lot. Site circulation and parking will be impacted minimally. 5. Underground cable will be installed along the existing NURP pond to the tower site. It is recommended that some financial assurance be established to assure restoration along the pond is completed and erosion is controlled. 6. No further comments are offered as part of our review. Additional staff/consultant comments regarding access/easement issues include: 1. The applicant's plan illustrates two easements across the Paddock Laboratories property. The first is a 20-foot access easement that runs down the middle of the existing drive lane. The second is a 10-foot utility easemeht that runs around the perimeter of the parking lot from Quebec Avenue to the cell tower site. 2. Staff recommends that with the approval the City grant the 15-foot drainage and utility easement along the south side of the property, as agreed in 1998, and applicant or property owner submit three revised surveys to illustrate the change and evidence of easement recording at Hennepin County. I. Police Considerations Police Department recommendations were incorporated into this review. J. Fire Considerations West Metro Fire had no comments on these plans. VIII. Summary The proposed 70-foot cellular tower in the industrial zone meets all standards in the Zoning Code. Monopole cellular tower requests are becoming more routine and staff will be recommending several minor changes to the ordinance later this year. Staff feels the petitioner has done a good job submitting detailed plans. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends CUP approval for the 70-foot tower with a single antenna array at the top with a future co-locate potential array at 50 feet above grade, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit detailed, signed plans and soils data with building permit application. All plans must be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. 2. Submit revised easement documents (south side) before final building inspection, and use, of tower. 3. Provide three new six-foot coniferous trees north of the construction area to replace existing. 4. Maintenance of the fence, tower, adjacent landscaping, equipment and sign will be the responsibility of tower owner. Compliance with written repair or maintenance orders from the City for a problem Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 9 4/26/01 with the tower site must be complete within 21 days, or the work can be authorized and assessed to the land owner. 5. No storage or equipment may exceed the height of the fence. 6. Comply with City Engineer recommendations. 7. Submit performance bond (amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer) to cover new landscaping, restoration and other site improvements, except tower and equipment. Attachments: Address/Zoning/Site Maps Aerial Photo Petitioner Correspondence Revised Plans: Cover SheetNicinity Map Lease Compound Plan/General Notes Tower Elevation/Antenna Plan Survey/Lease Description Electrical Details Site Grounding Plan Structural Framing Plan/Equipment Platform Fence/Sign Details Monopole Design Letter/Antenna Loading FAA Letter Radio Station Authorization Fence/Tower Photos 1,000-Foot Separation Map Planner's Report City Engineer Comments Paddock Architect Letter July.7, 1998 Application Log Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 10 4/26/01 ;- ~ ~ ,- ~ ~ ..=. -I h l ' 3 R4 g ~ PARK '.,. B-lw ~~ '~ I: I'~'~ z ~ SONNtSYN I-2 ELEMENTARY ~T~ AVE N ~ cTZ PARK ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ M '~ ~ , .I ~ H ' L ~ I s~.~ / ( ~ ' I ~ t 4000 ~2 4021 5945 '- ~961 395~ B~H EL MEMORIAL PARK AVE N I ADATH CHESED SHEL EMES CEMETERY IRD AVE N ~-R-1 R-O ..... 4~ST AVE N GETHSEMANE f CEMETERY _ -Z ..... z Z Z ~ ~ ~ Z ~ z ~ 40TH AvE N Z . ~ .- . -/v · ,;:.~ ~ w~SC~ ' ' ~'-" .... ~"~' I: r~ ?~~~ I-i i . ' -~,' ;_ ~ZZ''~'''-,l~;~i ~ _ I ............ ~ . ~ ~ ~~..~, . - .,<-- '~-. ~t~ ~:; ~ - ;.:~;;-~4~~ - < ~' ~. ~i '" ~' ~' - ......... '~'. -- "--'~ -- I 'Il'.."' ~ ', '- ~1-1- l~ ............ ' ~ ~ ~E-~='~ .... = I~ ~ '~' S'mven Scriver Realty" ; 9936 Windsor Terrace Eden Prairie MN 55347 _ i~-. --~ -_: -~- : 941 9646 ' ' - 952. . ...... ' .... scrivers@prons.net March 29, 2001 ........... City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. No. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Sprint PCS, Conditional Use Permit Applica~on to construct a 70 fc monopole at Paddock Laboratories Property located at 3940 Quebec Ave. No., New Hope, MN 55428 Proposed Use Enclosed is an application for my client, Sprint PCS, respectfully requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a wireless communication monopole facility at the address referenced above. This proposed facility will consist of a 70 ff galvanized steel monopole (designed for a second cartier), equipment platform, and equipment within a 25 ft by 30 ft lease area located near the Southeast comer of the property. An 8 ft tall chain link fence covered with decorative cedar fencing mounted to the chain link fence posts will protect the facility. Sprint will attach up to 12 antennae to the monopole; initially 6 will be mounted at azimuths of 90, 210, and 330 degrees respectively. No artificial illumination will be required by the FAA for the proposed site. Utilities for the site will be delivered underground from the street and metered at the site. The owner of the property has provided written permission for Sprint PCS to occupy the property and apply for a use permit from the city. A location near the proposed site was explored that has an existing rooftop tower. It is Alex Audio located North at 4211 Rhode Island Ave. No. That tower failed a structural analysis completed by AEC Engineering, Inc. on Sprint's behalf. No other structures are located in the area that offers the height needed by Spnnt for its antennae. Many discussions occurred over the past several months with city staff before the proposed site was brought forward. Zoning and Conditional Use Standards In accordance with 4.39D a street map is included depicting the location of the proposed site and two other towers (one existing, and the second approved, not constmcteq) both of which are more than 1000 ff from the proposed site. The fall zone radius for the monopole is established at 35 ft by a letter from Engineered Endeavors, Incorporated dated March 8, 2001 and stamped by a registered professional engineer. The fall zone radius is illustrated on the A1 drawing. The proposed monopole will be located near the southeast comer of the Paddock property. Specifically it will be 70 tt (west) of the East Property Line and 36 It (north) of The South Property Line. The adjoining property to the east of the proposed site is a railroad. The property t adjoins on the south is a cemetery. North of the subject property are other Industrial zoned properties and on the west side, beyond the Paddock Building is Holy Nativity. The proposed monopole will be located more than 275 ff east of Paddock Laboratories building. Once Sprint PCS receives zoning approval from the City of New Hope stamped construction and tower drawings will be submitted at the time an application for a building permit is made. The following list provides zoning criteria and findings as they relate to Section 4.039D for Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers in The City of New Hope's zoning code. (a) Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written authorization for antennas and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner. March 29, 2001 · page 2 Finding:Included with this submittal is written authorization from the property owner and from Sprint PCS. (b) Ail obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within twelve (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 responsibilities of the antenna tower owner and landowner. Finding: Included with this submittal is a letter from Sprint PCS that they will remove the tower upon cessation of operation of the site. The lease agreement also places removal responsibility on Sprint PCS. (c) All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. Finding: Included with this submittal is an ASAC letter outJining that the monopole will not require lighting and will comply with all FAA requirements. The attached letter from Engineered Endeavors outlines that the tower meets all ANSI TINEIA ~77-F ('June 1996) requirements and all Building Code requirements. The site perimeter will be secured and screened. (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. Finding: All necessary tower and foundation drawings signed and stamped by a registered engineer will be provided upon submission of an application for a building permit once a conditional use permit approval by the city. No drawings will be available until the tower Is ordered from the tower manufacturer. (e) When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna tower shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. Finding: Included with this submission is a copy of Spnnt's license to operate its PCS system. (f) The city may authonZe 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 to use City property for such purposes. Finding:The only city property used will be to obtain electrical and telephone utilities from the street utility e~sement (g) Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum set~ack to the nearest property line of seventy-five (75%) percent of tower height and a minimum set~ack from a building in the same lot of fi~ (50%) of tower height The se~ack required may be reduced if the applicant provides documentation by a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The set~ack requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum se~ack requirements of the base zoning district, whichever is greater. Finding: The tower meets minimum se~ack requirements. Included with this submittal is a letter from Engineered Endeavors outlining the reduced fall-zone area of the tower in accordance with the zoning code. (h) Ail antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of one thousand (1000') feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. · ' March 29, 2001 ·Page 3 Finding: Spdnt's proposed tower is at least 3,100 feet from the nearest tower location. The nearest tower is southeasterly, at 3401 Nevac~a Ave. No. Nextel is approved for a conditional use permit. The location was examined by Spnnt and it was determined that the Nextel location does not provide desired coverage for the Spnnt PCS Network. A map is attached with this submittal depicting the proposed site and nearest tower locations. (i) Maximum height of a two-antenna array shall be one-hundred-fortY-five (145') feet. A tower providing three or more antenna arrays maY have a maximum height of one hundred sixty-five (165') feet. Finding: Spdnt's monopole will be 70 feet AGL height. The proposed site is in accordance with the height restrictions of the zoning ordinance. (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. Finding: An ASAC letter is attached with this submittal verifying that no artificial illumination is required for the proposed monopole. (k) No advertising signs shall be affixed to the antenna tower. Finding: No advertising signs will be affixed to Sprints proposed rnonopole. The fenced equipment area will have a sign with a contact number in case of emergency. (I) Antenna towers shall be painted silver and have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. Finding: The proposed monopote will have a galvanized finish and antennae will be painted to match the galvanized finish. (m) Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. Finding: As mentioned above, the tower finish will be a galvanized color and antennae and hardware will match. (n) A security fence shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. A locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all towers extending twelve (12') feet above the ground. Finding: The monopole will be located inside of a secured fence area and a locked anti-climb device shall be installed. (o) TransmitIing, receiving and svatching equipment, whether self contained or located in a free standing equipment building, shall be located at the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened from view from residential uses and public right of ways. Finding: The rnonopole and equipment will be screened from view by an 8' tall cedar fence in accordance with the zoning code. (p) If a new tower is to be constructed it shall be designed to accommodate at least two (2) antenna arrays including but not limited to other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire and ambulance companies. Finding: The proposed monopole is designed for at least one additional carrier. The letter attached from Engineered Endeavors includes 12 additional antennae mounted at 50 feet AGL for fall- zone calculations. · Page 4 March 29. 2001 (q) The conditional use permit provisions of section 4.21 of the zoning cocle must also be satisfied. Finding: Spdnt will satisfy all required provisions of Section 4.21 of the code. The findings as outJined in this letter demonstrate that the proposed Spnnt PCS site complies with all of the criteria in The City of New Hope's Zoning Code regulating Personal VVireless Service Antenna Towers. I request on behalf of Sprint PCS, approval of the conditional use permit allowing the proposed monopole and equipment at the Paddock Laboratories Property. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important project. Sincerely, Steve Scriver Consultant S':::::) "~I !~ '- :::::)CS MINNEAPOLIS MTA TOWE~ / EC~NT DATA ~ I~ . ~, ............. ?~'!{/'~ ~.'~- ~,'~ ~.~,x. ~.,,.l,~,~ ~-'SE' i~N~C£1~ ~lAliON <,BT£) SHEET TITL~ A~oa[ss 2too u[o,c,.~ L.J ~ ~ ANTENNA~ (TX. ~X) 3-A2 LEAS[ COMPOUND ELEVATIONS S[L]OR I- ~0' AZIMhTH (1' DOWN TILT) ~ 70'-0" AGL 4 C1 SITE SKETCH e.o~.o COAX CABLES, ANTENNA ~0 BiS VICINITY MAP S~CTOR ~ ~5 ~ / ~ New Hope, MN I,t--- ....... t ............... -I ---~.~,-~- ~,, .... ~ .... .~~ m SPRINT SPECTRUM ; ........... ~ ........... ~ ~.,~,. ~ ~ ~-~,-o~ COVER SHEET MS54XC748D VICINITY MAP -_.._ 42nd Ave. North ~ ~, '~ SITE J6th Ave. North New Hope, MN ~ Z~- ~ ~ '~ ~'~- ~ ~---~ ............. c ~ .................................. I ~ ~ ~ · , ~ ~ , , ~ .... ~ ................. ~ ..... .... i ~W ~ , ~ i ..................... ~ ~ ..... ~ ........ ~ ---~-~ ~'~ .... T ........................... ,, ~ ~q ~ . :¢ I~7 ~ ~ ............................................ ~ ..... ~_~:~ ~ ~ ~ .- EXISTING PARKING AREA ~ ~ ,~/m". ~'"~' ~NORTH - GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS. THE GENERAL NOTES ARE INTENDED TO AUGMENT THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS. SHOULD CONFLICTS EXIST BETWEEN THE SPECIFICATIONS, GENERAL NOTES AND DRAWINGS, THE STRICTEST PROVISIONS SHALL GOVERN. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY FULLY WITH THE APPUCABLE PROVISIONS OF OSHA AND ALL GOVERNING BUILDING CODES, LATEST EDITION. AND ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE CODE SHALL BE ADHERED TO AS IF THEY WERE CALLED FOR OR SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE EXISTING CONDmONS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BEFORE STARTING WORK AND THE ENGINEER NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF NEW UTILITIES. COORDINATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS & COORDINATE ROUTING OF UNDERGROUND CABLES AND CONDUITS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 7. NO EXISTING SERVICE SHALL BE INTERRUPTED AT ANY TIME WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE OWNER. 8. NOTIFY AND COORDINATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER THE START DATE AND LOCATION OF THE STAGING AREA WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION START DATE. 9. CONFINE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN CONTRACT LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT THE EXISTING FACILITIES AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS FROM THE SITE ON A DAILY BASIS. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING TREES AND VEGETATION TO CONSTRUCT LEASE AREA. 13. REWORK EXISTING GRADE TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE TOWER AND COMPOUND LEASE AREA. ' . T--MM N(TE2~L~ BTS I ~- ~S f 2-~ \ ~'-0' CHUM UNK TOWER ELEVATION J lJlJ' m 1'-~~' DETAIL Scale 1" =. 20 Feet $ line ef Lot 1--," Found JL&I-~ PROPERTY LEGAL DESCR/P TION Lot 1, Block 1, VILLAGE INDUTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDI11ON, ocorrdlng to the recorded plot thereof Hennepln County. Mlnneaoto f LEASED PREMISES LEGAL DESCRIPTION NI ~hot port of Lot 1, Block I, VILLAOE INDUS1RIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, Qco~'dlng LO the recorded plot there, of flmnq)ln County, MImeeoto. : Deecribed at fcdlowt: dlltan"~'; o! 3000 fe _ ..... ~.-.. j.:- .... m.,~.,_H~.m .u~ .?egree,..,z..m_ln_ut?t ~ le~_anoe, w.ett, .e. olotonce o_f 12.50 feet to o polni heretno?er re;erm.d to. ot Point A; thence canUnulng Horth 00 dogreee 12 mbutee I1 eeconge weet, o omtonce or I;L. G4J ;eot; ~nenoe Norm aY oegreee =,~ mmute~ 04 eeO~dl Eeet, a dlltonce of 25.00 feet to ~ poker nere~ofter referred to ee Point B; thenoe oontlnulng North 89 dogreee SIS mklutee 04 ~eoondt Eost, o dltLonce of IL00 feet; thence South O0 degreel 12 mlnutet II ~e;andt Eot, o dletance of 25.00 feet to [he point of beginning. 'r Together with O 20.00 foot oCCelt eoeemant,, over and ocroee the obove delcrlbed prcq~ert¥, the centmllne of which le deeorlbed ee foilowt: Begl~nlflg/<~ the obov4 deeo~bed Point A; thence South aR dogrece 47 mlnutee 49 eeoandt Weet, a distance of 18.03 feet; thence North 00 degreee 04 mlnutee 55 eecande We~t, o dlttance of t~g.te feet; th~ce North 5~ deQree~ 16 mlnutet 41 ~¢ondt Weet, o dletence of la7.21 feet; thence'North 8g clegree; 41 mlnutee 01 eecmde Welt, o dletonce of lOa.2S feet~ thence Nort~ 3~ dogreee 37 : mloutee 2a IioOndl Welt, O dlltance of 97.35 feet Lo the ~QUtherly rlght-of-woy Ik~e of Quebeo Avenue H~rth and Hid oente~ilne there termlnQtlng. · 1'ne ildellnel of ~eld eoeement ere to be prolanged or thertened to termlnQte ot the eoutherly rlght-of-woy line of Qulbec Avenue North. Together with o 10.00 foot utility eetement, over, under and oorola the above deserlbed property, the canterllne of which Is 'described ea foilowt: Beginning ot the obove deecrlbed Point B; thence North 00 dogreet 12 mlnutet 11 eecandt Weet, o dlltance of 186.73 feet; thence nocthweltedy oiang o nofl-tangenUd ourve conceve to the ~outhwe~f~ hovlng o rodlu; of 3a0.OO fe4~, on Inoluded angle of 45 degreee 33 minutes 3S eecandt, on orc length of 2M.27 feet and o chord beorlng of North tS9 degree~ 55 mlnutN 3a leCande Weet; thence North 00 degreee 04 mlnutel 56 eeoonde Weet, not tongent to the IQlt deeoribed ourve, o dllLonce of 55.49 feel4 thence weetedy'olang a no~-tang~Ud cur~ concert to the eouth, hating a radlue of 41.~.0.0 fe_e.t, on In?lu.d.?d.angl? .of 07 .de.gre~..1 0.7 .ml.nutel~ I+. eecandl, a..n.oro Ilngth of 51.58 feet and · oherd bearing of North 86 clegreel 31 mlnutel 41 tecand~ Welt; thence South 8~ degreel SIS mmuten u4 leoanoa wear, not tangent to the ;eot aeeor~)ea curve, ~ dmtance of 8~.17 feet to the ~outh~y rlght-ofTwo¥ Ilne of Quahog Avenue North and et. Id aanterlk~e'there termlnotlng. · . qq= tldellnee of told eoeement ere to be prolonged or ~hert~ed to termlnote ot the louth~y right-of-way line of Quebec Avenue North. d~ 5'-1 1/2" 5'-1 1/2" 18-I 7'-6" CTR. 1 1/2" SCH. 40 3 O 10" = 2'-6" GALV. PIPE (TYP) 1'-9 I 10 5/16x2'-6"~ I 1" B.B WITH ABRASIVE NOSING (2) 3/4"e A325 PL 3/8x2 L 3xSx3/8" 8" Wl 0x26 ~ I II (2) 3/4"~ A325 10" ~-, ClOxl O 3/16 6x6x 10 GA. 1/2"~ A325 BOLLS L3x3x3/8" ,~ 3/16 3" LONG 1/2"e HILTI KWIK BOLT W/2 1/4" MIN EMBEDMENT $'-0"x5'-0 CONCRETE SECTIO. N ? STAIR SCALE: 3/4"--1 '--.0" --- Wl 0x26 ~/ 5/8"~ HILTI KWIK BOLT .. ~ .'~* . ~I~N ~ ~ EACH P~EmR) GALV. PIPE (TYP) ~ FB 1/4x4 TOEBOARD (TYP) 3/16 3/1 L3x3x6 (2) 3/4"~ A525 BOLTS (~HANDR. AIL CONNECTION DETAIL SCALE: 3/4 =1 '-0" ' p LAG BOLT ¢2) ~ 314' C~V.--~ / SCREWS TYP ~ / /-- Ix6 V~RTICAL ' \ / ~ czo~ S~TS CHAIN UNK FENCE: -' WIRE:. 2', jilt, 1YP ~--- ' GATE. TYP FENCE, 7YP __ ~2x4 CCA 1' BETWEEN PINE, TYP VERTIC..N. SLATS CL SEE PLAN 1/2' GALV. LAG BOLT, GATE, -~' OIA 4' LG, & WASHER, TYP 3'# TOP RAIL TYP3'e STD PIPE. LATCH 2x4 CCA -- ~ TREATED PINE 8'-0' MAX. 3000 PS1 CONCRETE. MIN I'-0" MIN TYPICAL CEDAR BOARD OVER CHAINLINK FENCE SCALE.: I/2"., 1'-0' NEW SPRINT ~ ~~1 iPLATFORId WlOx26 x; x'~ · '" ' ' .' ' ' ~ N~ .~ \5 ~ ": '~ ~ ~- -- L' ".-..',....: ..,~/ '~//~ .;I I,.' :~~> ~.. "~. :."-:" 5~ .: ~ ~ 'k~ .... ' . : ~,' . ~ CROSS SECTION OF FENCE/BTS CABINETS S~: 3/4° I 1'~I BOARDS 1/2ex4' LG I.~ BOLT w/WASHER 2x4 CCA TREATED PINE (~) DETAIL SCALE: 6'" ix26 L3x3x3/8" 5" LONG STAIR TREAD 10 5/16x2'-6" yl" B.B WITH ABRASIVE NOSING PL 3/8x2 1/2x8" WITH (2) 3/4"¢ BOLTS (2) 3/4"¢ A325 BOLTS ~STAIR D,ETAIL - PLAN VIEW SCALE: $/4'--1-0" Sprint Mointence Engineer 9801 W. Higgins Rd. Rosemonf, II. 60018 (8,~7) 38,~-5682 S~CN To ~[ LOCATED ENGINEERED ENDEAVORS ~, - ~ INCORPORATED The Experienced Point of V'~ew March 8, 2001 Susan Hatfield Sprint PCS 9701 West Higgins Road Suite 320 Rosemont, IL 60018 Reference: Design, Reliability and 35 ft Fallzone Radius of a 70fl Tapered Monopole Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Structure Sprint PCS Monopole Site: Paddock Labs, MS54XC748 Site Location: Hennepin County, MN In response to your inquiry regarding the design and anticipated reliability of a 70 ft monopole structure, EEI would like to offer the following comments: Design Loading: (12) DAPA 48000 Directional Antennas on a 14' Universal T-Arm Array @ 70ft (12) DAPA 48000 Directional Antennas on a 14' Universal T-Arm Array @ 5Oft 1) The monopole structure is designed to meet the requirements of the ANSI TIA/EIA 222-F (June, 1996) titled Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures. It also meets or exceeds the requirements of The BOCA ° National Building Code, and the Manual of Steel Construction ASD Ninth Edition by the American Institute of Steel Construction. Furthermore, the foundation and anchor bolts meet the requirements of the American Concrete Institute's Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-95). The pole itself is also designed to meet the provisions of the American Society of Civil Engineers (A.S.C.E.) Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures which was originally published in 1973 and most recently updated in 1990. 7~51 0 ~lencher Drive · Mentor, Ohio ENGINEERED ENDEAVORS, INC. 3'elephone: (440) 91 El-11 01 · Telefax: (440) 91E~-I 1 09 Reference: Design and Reliability of a Monopole 2 Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Structure 2) Based on the location of this structure, the maximum TIA/EIA 222-F basic design wind speed required is 80 MPH. Per the request of Sprint PCS the basic design wind speed used for the design is 85 MPH with no ice. The 85 MPH wind exceeds the 50 year maximum anticipated wind velocity at 33 .fi above ground level. Additional factors are appIiedto increase the wind loading, e.g., a 1.69 gust response factor is imposed in order to account for sudden changes in wind speed, a height coefficient to account for increasing wind speed with height, and an exposure coefficient. Based on these conservative coefficients, the structure could in fact survive even greater wind loads than the basic design wind speed without any failures. 3) The monopole structure design is controlled by wind induced loads, however, earthquake induced loads are also evaluated with all building code requirements being satisfied. Vertical loads (i. e., gravity loads) are minimal on these types of structures, approximately 20% of the maximum capacity. 4) The design and loading assumptions which are used for the analysis of these structures are very conservative in nature when compared to other building codes, as a result, structural failure is highly improbable. 5) Failure of a steel monopole structure is defined as being that point at which the induced stresses exceed the yield strength of the material. At this point, deflections will be induced in the structure which will no longer be recoverable once the load has been removed. Hence, a permanent deflection in the monopole would exist. 6) The induced loads must be sustained for a long enough period in order that the structure has time to respond to the load without its removal. Monopoles are flexible, forgiving structures which are not generally susceptible to damage by impact loads such as wind gust or earthquake shocks. 7) As the structure leans over from the induced loads, it presents a markedly reduced exposure area for the development of wind induced forces. This would result in the lowering of the applied forces and, therefore, the reduction of stresses and a halting of the structural deflection. 8) Hypothetically, let's assume that a pole becomes overloaded. The typical consequence of this overloading is "local buckling" where a relatively small portion of the shaft distorts and "kinks" the steel. Upon the removal of the applied load, the structure will not return to a plumb position. This does not Reference: Design and Reliability of a Monopole Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Sumcture cause a free falling pole. Even though the buckle exists, the cross section of the pole is cable of carrying the entire vertical load. As a result, wind induced loads could not conceivably bring this type of structure to the ground due to the excellent ductile properties, design criteria, and failure mode. By request of Sprint PCS, the stresses at the 37fi elevation are at least 5 Ksi greater than any other point along the monopole height. Therefore, if an unlikely free fall failure did occur, the fall zone radius for this monopole is 35 fi. 9) Further proof to the integrity of these structure-types are the fact that all EEl monopole structures in the Florida region withstood the direct impact of Hurricane Andrew with absolutely no structural damage reported. Wind loading was reported to be in the range of 100-120 MPH. Most recently, all EEI monopoles in the Wilmington, NC region withstood the force of Hurricanes Bertha and Fran which had wind speeds of 105 MPH and wind gusts of 115 MPH. 10) In another incident, an EEI monopole withstood the impact of a run away bulldozer which rammed the monopole at the base. The monopole stood finn with only a dent in the shaft. After field repairs, this monopole is still in service and performing to its design capacity. 11) Extensive research has been conducted to determine if any monopole tower (steel tapered tubular) has ever failed. All research, which includes database searches as well as interviews with tower designers and city engineers, has concluded that there has not been a single incident in which a monopole has fallen due to natural causes. 12) EEI has never experienced a structural failure due to weathered induced overloading. EEI personnel have over 25 years combined experience in design and fabrication of these types of structures. In response to.your inquiry regarding the quality of steel and fabrication of a monopole structure: 1) The monopole is fabricated from ASTM A572 Grade 65 material with a controlled silicon content of 0.06 % maximum to promote a uniform galvanized coating. The base plate material is fabricated from Grade 60 material. All plate material meets a Charpy V-Notch toughness requirement of 15 fi-lbs @ -20° Fahrenheit. By meeting the strict toughness requirement, the monopole is best suited to resist the cyclic/fatigue type loading (i.e., wind induced loading) these Reference: Design and Reliability of a Monopole 4 Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Structure structures exhibit. Monopoles made of pipe sections or other_.rypes of steel do not meet these rigorous requirements. The toughness specification is based on 35 years of taper tubular poles being designed and manufactured for the electrical transmission and communication industries. 2) Anchor bolts are fabricated from A615 Grade 75 material. The bolts are 2 ~A in diameter, made from #18J bar stock. All threads are rolled. Anchor bolts come complete with two (2) A194 Grade 2H hex nuts. The anchor bolt material must also meet a Charpy V-Notch toughness of 15fi-lbs @ -20° Fahrenheit, to resist the cyclic/fatigue type loading (i.e., wind induced loading) these structures exhibit. EEl guarantees the quality of steel used on the entire monopole. Material Certifications (Mill Test Reports) are available on all material at the time of fabrication. The toughness requirement should be taken very seriously, for over the lifetime of the structure not having this toughness requirement, "toe" cracks may occur at the base of the structure and the structure could ultimately fail. Fabrication of the monopole is performed in accordance with the provisions of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction and ASCE's Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures. Ail welding and inspection is in accordance with the American Welding Society's Specification D1.1 - latest revision. Testing and inspection reports are available upon request at the time of fabrication. EEI's monopole fabricator has two important certifications as a quality fabricator, these include: AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.) Conventional Steel Structure Certification and QMI ISO 9002-1994. In conclusion, due to the aforementioned items, monopole structures do not experience or have ever experienced "free fall" type failure due to wind or seismic induced loads. I hope that these comments address the issues which you might encounter relative to the. anticipated performance of monopole structures and quality of steel and fabrication. ' ' e most happy to answer any specific questions which you might have. Sincerely, Engineered Endeavors, Inc. Lynn A. Padgett ':/ Michael R. Morel, Design Engineer Vice Pre ~£D Customer SPRIN? PCS/IL ByL. PADGETT ENDEAVORS D o t e Structure 70' MONOPOLE Checked 01-052z~ ~.~.ORPOP, ATED Job/Qu o te N o. SITE LOCATION - HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN SITE NAME- PADDOCK LABS, MS54XC748 ANTENNA LOADING: ?0' (12) DAPA 48000 DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS -r 14, UNIVERSAL T-ARM ARRAY @ 70' (12) DAPA 48000 DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS 5o' 14' UNIV. T-ARM ARRAY @ 50' (FUTURE) DESIGN NOTES: DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIA/EIA 222 F 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 1/2" RADIAL ICE CASE I - 50 MPH OPERATIONAL WIND ALLOWABLE ROTATION = 3.0' @ TOP CASE II - 8.5 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED CASE III - 75% OF 85 MPH BASIC WIND WITH 1/2" SIMULTANEOUS ICE NOTE: DESIGN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SPRINT SPECIFICATION SSEO 5.001.06.001 NOTE: INITIAL FAILURE ZONE @ 37' FOR A FALLZONE RADIUS OF .35' NOTE: IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PURCHASER TO VERIFY THAT THE WIND LOADS AND DESIGN CRITERIA SPECIFIED MEET THE REOUIREMENTS OF ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES 7610 Jenther Drive * Mentor, Ohio 44060 ENGINEERED ENDEAVORS, INC. Telephone: (440) 918-1101 * Telefox: (440) 918-1108 Engineered Endeavors Inc. 7610 Jenther Drive Mentor, Ohio 44060 Tel {440) 918-1101 Fax (440) 918-1108 Communications Structure Nonlinear Analysis and Design Program 08:26:36 03-08-2001 Revision 1.3 - 2/07/00 Engineer: L. PADGETT Customer SPRINT PCS/I~. Job Name 01-0524 Structure 70' MONOPOLY. Location H~.NNEPIN COUNTY, MN Site PADDOCK LABS, MS54XC748 OD OD NUM. THICK TAPER LENGTH JOINT JOINT YIELD WEIGHT JOINT BOT TOP SIDES INCH IN/FT FT INCH TYPE KSI LBS HEIGHT 19.07 13.50 18 0.1875 0.153 36.46 35.00 SLIP 65.0 1174. 37.00 24.00 18.12 18 0.3750 0.153 38.46 0.00 BASEPL 65.0 3183. 0.00 TOTAL TUBE WEIGHT 4357. POUNDS POLE SHAFT LENGTH 72.00 FEET E = 29600.0 KSI UNIT WGT = 0.283 LBS/CU IN AISC constants are used for stress reductions. TUBE SECTIONS HAVE 18 SIDES AND ARE TREATED AS ROUND Internal bend radius = 3 X T Tube diameters are measured flat to flat. Tube diameters are increased by 1.020 for wind across points. Drag coefficients are increase by 1.300 for steps on the pole. AISC Tube Shape Coefficient of 1.000 is applied. REVISED DATA FILE NAME H:\LAP\QUOTES01\0524-70 APPURTENANCES DESCRIPTION NUM. ELEV. Kz AREA WGT Ca AREA WGT Ca FACTOR < WITHOUT ICE > < WITH ICE > 48000 12 70. 1.240 3.20 18. 2.0000 3.65 41. 2.0000 0.85 14' UNIVERSAL MOUNT 1 70. 1.240 19.50 550. 1.0000 25.00 710. 1.0000 1.00 48000 12 50. 1.126 3.20 18. 2.0000 3.65 41. 2.0000 0.85 14' UNIVERSAL MOUNT 1 50. 1.126 19.50 550. 1.0000 25.00 710. 1.0000 1.00 Engineered Endeavors Inc. 70' MONOPOLE 01'0~24' PAGE 2 LOAD CASE 1 OPERATIONAL LOADING DEAD LOAD FACTOR 1.00 WIND PSF REDUCTION 1.00 RADIAL ICE 0.00 IN. WIND VELOCITY 50 BOTTOM 6.45 PSF TOP 8.10 PSF MAX BASE ROTATION 0.00 DEG APPLIED APPURTENANCE FORCES ELEVATION WEIGHT WIND FT KIPS KIPS 48000 70.00 0.220 0.875 14' UNIVERSAL MOUNT 70.00 0.550 0.261 48000 50.00 0.220 0.795 14' UNIVERSAL MOUNT 50.00 0.550 0.237 TUBE PROPERTIES I MEMBER FORCES I STRESSES I STRESS I TOTAL ELEV DIAM WALL SHEAR BENDING AXIAL AXIAL BEND. ALLOW RATIOS DEFL TILT FT IN IN K K-FT K KSI KSI KSI IN DEG 72.00 13.50 0.1875 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 51.99 0.00 12.2 1.42 70.00 13.81 0.1875 1.22 0.02 0.97 0.12 0.01 51.99 0.00 11.6 1.42 60.00 15.33 0.1875 1.22 12.26 0.97 0.11 4.41 51.99 0.09 8.7 1.34 50.00 16.86 0.1875 1.33 25.53 1.28 0.13 7.57 51.99 0.15 6.0 1.17 37.00 18.85 0.1875 2.49 57.92 2.44 0.22 13.69 50.71 0.27 3.3 0.80 TYPE OF JOINT: SLIP JOINT 37.00 18.35 0.3750 2.62 57.92 3.39 0.16 7.46 51.99 0.15 3.3 0.80 24.00 20.33 0.3750 2.75 92.04 4.40 0.19 9.59 51.99 0.19 1.4 0.54 12.00 22.17 0.3750 2.75 125.06 4.40 0.17 10.91 51.99 0.21 0.4 0.27 0.00 24.00 0.3750 2.95 159.59 6.02 0.22 11.83 51.99 0.23 0.0 0.00 REACTION COMPONENTS (KIPS AND FT-KIPS) TRANSVERSE VERTICAL WIND MOMENT ABOUT MOMENT ABOUT MOMENT ABOU~ SHEAR FORCE SHEAR TRANSVERSE VERTICAL WIND AXIS 0.000 6.017 -2.952 159.585 0.000 0.000 Engineered Endeavors Inc. 70' MONOPOLE 01-0524 PAGE 3 LOAD CASE 2 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED DEAD LOAD FACTOR 1.00 WIND PSF REDUCTION 1.00 RADIAL ICE 0.00 IN. WIND VELOCITY 85 BOTTOM 18.65 PSF TOP 23.22 PSF MAX BASE ROTATION 0.00 DEG APPLIED APPURTENANCE FORCES ELEVATION WEIGHT WIND FT KIPS KIPS 48000 70.00 0.220 2.530 14' UNIVERSAL MOUNT 70.00 0.550 0.756 48000 50.00 0.220 2.298 14' UNIVERSAL MOUNT 50.00 0.550 0.686 TUBE PROPERTIES I MEMBER FORCES I STRESSES I STRESS I TOTAL ELEV DIAM WALL SHEAR BENDING AXIAL AXIAL BEND. ALLOW RATIOS DEFL TILT ET IN IN K K-FT K KSI KSI KSI IN DEG 72.00 13.50 0.1875 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 51.99 0.00 35.0 4.09 70.00 13.81 0.1875 3.53 0.06 0.73 0.09 0.03 51.99 0.00 33.3 4.09 60.00 15.33 0.1875 3.53 35.29 0.73 0.08 12.69 51.99 0.25 24.9 3.87 50.00, 16.86 0.1875 3.83 73.50 1.04 0.11 21.78 51.99 0.42 17.3 3.37 37.00 18.85 0.1875 7.19 166.89 2.08 0.19 39.45 50.71 0.78 9.4 2.32 TYPE OF JOINT: SLIP JOINT 37.00 18.35 0.3750 7.58 166.89 3.13 0.15 21.48 51.99 0.41 9.4 2.32 24.00 20.33 0.3750 7.95 265.39 4.40 0.19 27.65 51.99 0.53 4.0 1.56 12.00 22.17 0.3750 7.95 360.83 4.40 0.17 31.48 51.99 0.61 1.0 0.79 0.00 24.00 0.3750 8.53 460.61 6.02 0.22 34.15 51.99 0.66 0.0 0.00 REACTION COMPONENTS (KIPS AND FT-KIPS) TRANSVERSE VERTICAL WIND MOMENT ABOUT MOMENT ABOUT MOMENT ABOUT SHEAR FORCE SHEAR TRANSVERSE VERTICAL WIND AXIS 0.000 6.018 -8.531 460.610 0.000 0.000 Engineered Endeavors Inc. 70' MONOPOLE 0i'0~24~ PAGE 4 LOAD CASE 3 75% OF 85 MPH WIND WITH ICE DEAD LOAD FACTOR 1.00 WIND PSF REDUCTION 0.75 RADIAL ICE 0.50 IN. WIND VELOCITY 85 BOTTOM 13.99 PSF TOP 17.41 PSF MA=X BASE ROTATION 0.00 DEG APPLIED APPURTENANCE FORCES ELEVATION WEIGHT WIND FT KIPS KIPS 48000 70.00 0.49t 2.164 14' UNIVERSAL MOUNT 70.00 0.710 0.727 48000 50.00 0.491 1.966 14' UNIVERSAL MOUNT 50.00 0.710 0.660 TUBE PROPERTIES I MEMBER FORCES I STRESSES I STRESS I TOTAL ELEV DIAM WALL SHEAR BENDING AXIAL AXIAL BEND. ALLOW RATIOS DEFL TILT FT IN IN K K-FT K KSI KSI KSI IN DEG 72.00 13.50 0.1875 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 51.99 0.00 30.6 3.59 70.00 13.81 0.1875 3.13 0.05 1.21 0.15 0.02 51.99 0.00 29.2 3.59 60.00 15.33 0.1875 3.13 31.26 1.21 0.14 11.24 51.99 0.22 21.8 3.39 50.00 16.86 0.1875 3.36 64.83 1.52 0.16 19.21 51.99 0.37 15.1 2.95 37.00 18.85 0.1875 6.31 146.76 3.02 0.28 34.69 50.71 0.69 8.2 2.03 TYPE OF JOINT: SLIP JOINT 37.00 18.35 0.3750 6.60 146.76 4.25 0.20 18.89 51.99 0.37 8.2 2.03 24.00 20.33 0.3750 6.60 232.57 4.25 0.18 24.23 51.99 0.47 3.5 1.36 12.00 22.17 0.3750 6.88 315.14 5.26 0.20 27.50 51.99 0.53 0.9 0.69 0.00 24.00 0.3750 7.32 400.93 6.88 0.25 29.72 51.99 0.58 0.0 0.00 REACTION COMPONENTS (KIPS AND FT-KIPS) TRANSVERSE VERTICAL WIND MOMENT ABOUT MOMENT ABOUT MOMENT ABOUI SHEAR FORCE SHEAR TRANSVERSE VERTICAL WIND AXIS 0.000 6.880 -7.318 400.933 0.000 0.000 Engineered Endeavor~ Inc. 70' MONOPOLE 01-0524 PAGE 5 SUMMARY TABLE ELEV STRESS RATIO AXIAL BENDING LOADING 72.00 0.00 0.03 0.0 3 75% OF 85 MPH WIND WITH ICE 70.00 0.01 0.73 0.1 2 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 60.00 0.25 0.73 35.3 2 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 50.00 0.42 1.04 73.5 2 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 37.00 0.78 2.08 166.9 2 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 24.00 0.53 4.40 265.4 2 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 12.00 0.61 4.40 360.8 2 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 0.00 0.66 6.02 460.6 2 85 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED MAXIMUM SUPPORT MOMENT K-FT 460.61 CORRESPONDING AXIAL FORCE KIPS 6.02 CORRESPONDING SHEAR FORCE KIPS 8.53 Engineered Endeavors Inc. 70' MONOPOLE 01~-0524' PAGE 6 BASE PLATE AT ELEVATION 0.00 FEET TUBE DIAMETER 24.00 INCHES DESIGN MOMENT 460.6 KIP FT DESIGN MOMENT IS 0. DEGREES FROM THE WIND DIRECTION BOLTS ARE ON THE KNUCKLES OF THE TUBE APPLIED AXIAL FORCE 6.0 KIPS APPLIED SHEAR 8.53 KIPS BOLT DATA BOLT TYPE A615 GR75 BOLTS ARE EVENLY SPACED DIAMETER 1.750 INCHES EFFECTIVE AREA 1.900 SQ IN TOTAL LENGTH 6.0 FEET MINIMUM EMBEDMENT 4.5 FEET NUMBER OF BOLTS 8 BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER 32.00 INCHES ALLOWABLE STRESS 60 0 KSI APPLIED AXIAL STRESS 45 9 KSI MAX BOLT FORCE 87 1 KIPS BOLT BENDING STRESS 3 3 KSI COMBINED BOLT STRESS 49 1 KSI CLEARANCE UNDER PLATE 3 25 INCHES BOLT WEIGHT 309 7 POUNDS PLATE DATA DIAMETER OF PLATE 38.00 INCHES MATERIAL A871 GR60 PROVIDED THICKNESS 1.500 INCHES REQUIRED THICKNESS 1.153 INCHES BOLT HOLE DIAMETER 2.125 INCHES CENTER HOLE SIZE 14.00 INCHES NET WEIGHT 404.0 POUNDS RAW STOCK WEIGHT 613.0 POUNDS SURFACE AREA 13.22 SQ FT ALLOWABLE STRESS 59.99 KSI MAX APPLIED STRESS 35.44 KSI CONCRETE STRENGTH 3000. PSI Base Plate - use 38.00 inch ROUND x 1.500 inch A871 GR60 with (8) 1.750 diameter x 6.00 foot caged A615 GR75 bolts on a 32.00 inch bolt circle. Because you ws#t it right o~ the first spprosch ............ March 19, 2001 Site lI~/Name: MS54XC748-D/Paddock Labs To Whom It May Concern: Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration form must be filed with the FAA and FAA approval must be obtained prior to beginning construction. Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation (ASAC) has conducted an aeronautical study on March 19, 2001 for Sprint PCS. The study was to determine a proposed structure's effect, if any, on navigable airspace. ASAC's study is conducted in accordance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR (14 C.F.R. Subchapter E, Part 77) and Part 17 of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC Rules and Regulations (47 C.F.~ Part 17). The proposed construction site is located in the Minneapolis, Minnesota MTA. The NAD 83 site coordinates are Latitude 45° 01' 37.32" North, Longitude 093° 22' 32.05" West. The site has a surface ~ elevation of 918 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The structure has a proposed height of 80 feet above ground level (AGL), which includes the additional height of any antennas, etc. This gives an overall structure height above mean sea level of 998 feet AMSL. The site is located 12,932 feet or 2.13 nautical miles on a Tree Bearing of 210.83 degrees from the approach end of Runway 32L at Crystal Airport, the nearest landing surface for regulatory compliance purposes. The surface elevation at this point is 869 feet AMSL. The site is located 13,917 feet or 2.29 nautical miles on a True Bearing of 203.70 degrees from the airport reference point (ARP) of this public use, instrumented airport. FAR Part 77 prescribes various airspace surfaces and slopes established at and around airports. Part 77.13 prescribes slopes and surfaces which, if exceeded, require the sponsor of the smacture to provide the Federal Aviation Administration with Notice of Proposed Construction. FCC Rules Part 17 also specifies this requirement. Additionally, Part 77 Subpart C prescribes various airspace surfaces and slopes which, if any exceeded, require the FAA to provide public notice inviting comments prior to issuing a determination. Subpart C also prescribes surfaces and slopes which, if exceeded, would identify the proposed slructure as a Hazard to navigable airspace. STV 37966-01A Page 1 1903 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 250, Atlanta, Georgia 30349 678.924.8006 · Fax 678.924.8006 · www. asacinc.Com ASAC has determined that the proposed 80 feet AGL (998 feet AMSL) mucture would exceed FAR Part 77.13 (a) (2) (i) surface, the 100:1 slope at Crystal Airport, by 2 feet and would fail the FCC slope test (notice determination) by 4 feet. Exceeding either surface requires that a Notice of Proposed Consmtction or Alteration form be fried with the FAA and that FAA approval of the proposed conslmction be obtained prior to beginning construction. Should Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration be filed with the FAA, ASAC is confident the proposed 80 feet AGL (998 feet AMSL) structure will be approved at this site upon completion of the FAA's aeronautical study. The FAA should not require obstruction marking and/or lighting on this proposed structure. The maximum structure height at this site that would not require Notice to the FAA is 76 feet AGL (994 feet AMSL). Exceeding this height requires that a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration form be filed and that FAA approval be obtained prior to beginning construction. This letter and the opinions expressed herein are intended for the exclusive use of Sprint PCS in making appropriate regulatory filings and may not be reproduced by other parties in any form or rllanner. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or the study conducted by ASAC, please feel free to contact my office anytime at (678) 924-8000. Sincerely, Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation Carl F. Stokoe Aeronautical Specialist STV 37966-01A Page 2 ASAC Study No.: STV 37966-01A Site ID g/Name: MS54XC748-D/Paddock Labs AM BROADCAST STATION IMPACT: FCC roles protect existing AM Broadcast Stations from possible adverse affects caused by emissions from newly constructed cellular radio towers. KFXN, an AM Broadcast Station, is located .044 Statute Miles (SM) on a Tree Bearing of 236.75° from the study site. This station is "directional"; the interference radius is 1.9 SM. STV 37966-01A Page 3 WIRELESSCO, L.P. Call Si~: KNLF;123_ 9221 Ward Parkway' Market: M012 Kansas City, MO 64114 MiNNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL Channel Block: A File Number: O0020-CW-L-95 The licensee l~ereof iq anthoriz,'d, for thc period indica~d, to consu'uct and operate radio u~.mltting faciLide~ in accordance w/th the terms and condiaons hereinafter d~scribed. This authm'izafion i~ subject to the provisions of ,he Communications Act of 1934, as amended, subsequent Act~ of Congress, international ~rcadcs and agrecmcna m which thc Uuimd 5mms [sa ~igmatm'),, and all pcrdnenz rules and regulations of the Fcdm~l Communications Commission, contained in thc Tide 47 of ~hc U.S. Co~c o[ Fete-tel Regulations. ~=- Imfial Grant Date ....................... June 23, 1995 Five-year Build Out Date ' ' June 23, 2000 Expiration Date ........................ June :23, :2005 Pursuant to Sect/on 309(h) of the Co-,,'-unicafion~ Act of 1934. as amended. (47 U.S.C. § 309(h)). this t/cerise is subject [o thc following cond/fioa$: This License doe~ not v~t in the licensee any ri.gbt to ope'ra~ a smdon nor any fight in the usc of f:mqucncics beyond the tm"m thereof nor in any other manner than authorLzed herein. Neither thi~ license nor the right granted themuu~l~r sl~tl be assigned or other,vise transfer'red i.n violation of the Commurficadoos Act of 1934. as amended (47 U.$.C. § 151, et seq.). TI:tis license is subject in tm'ms to thc ri~t of use or control conferr~ by Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934. a.q amended (4'/U.S.C. § 606). Conctifious continued on Page 2. No waivem axsociatcd wire this audaorization. l~sue Dam: June 23. I995 84~-384-3078 · p.3 $SOR ~ KNLF223 ' _ WIRELESSCO, L.P. 00020-CW-L.~ This authorization is sulJject ~o thc condition tha£ the rc~;-~ng balance oir the winning bid amoun( will be paid in-accordance wilb Parl I of the Commission's roles, 47 C.t:.P,. Part I. .issueD3~: June 23. 1Qo~ Example of Cedar Fence Screening Example of T-Arm Mounted Antennae "~*~ ADM. ~ t.m, YMCA ' ~ ~ 41~ AVE. N. ~ G~HSEMANE SCHOOL CEMETERY BUS.,~ ~ AVE N ~ - ~ ii HOLY ~, J NATIVITY LIONS N PARK BE'TH EL MEMORIAL 58TH AVE N 38TH ADATH CHESED EMES CEMI PL N PLACE N 33RD AVE N 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Jason Lindahl/Alan Brixius DATE: April 24, 2001 RE: New Hope - Sprint PCS Wireless Communication Tower CUP Issues Memo FILE: 131.01 - 01.03 BACKGROUND The applicant, Steven Scriver Realty on behalf of Sprint PCS, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower on the property located at 3940 Quebec Avenue North. The property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Village Industrial Park Second Addition. The subject property is currently occupied by Paddock Laboratories. Sprint PCS intends to located a 70-foot monopole and the associated equipment on a 25' by 30' section of land in the southeast corner of this site. They will lease this area from Paddock Laboratories. Attached for reference: Attachment A: Cover Sheet dated 4-20-2001 Attachment B: Site Plan 4-16-2001 Attachment C: Tower Elevation 4-16-2001 Attachment D: Certificate of Survey 3-30-2001 Attachment E: Electrical Detail dated 3-27-2001 Attachment F: Grounding Plan dated 3-27-2001 Attachment G: Structural Framing Plan dated 3-29-2001 Attachment H: Fence Detail dated 4-18-2001 Attachment I: Closest Existing Tower Map ZONING AND LAND USE The land use and zoning designations for the subject property are consistent with the development of a personal wireless service antenna tower on this site. The Proposed Land Use Map guides this site for Industrial use. In addition, the Zoning Map designates this site as I-1, Limited Industrial District. Personal wireless service antenna towers are a conditional use within the I-1 District. The site is surrounded by the following existing land uses: North - Industrial South - Cemetery (In the City of Crystal) East- Railroad tracks (however, single family residential uses extend beyond the railroad). West - Church CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW According to Section 4.039D of the City Code, there are 17 criteria to weigh when considering a condition use permit to allow a personal wireless antenna tower within the I-1 District. These conditions along with staff findings for each are outlined below. 1. 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. Finding: Staff has received written authorization from Bruce Paddock of Paddock Laboratories to allow Sprint PCS to construct a personal wireless service antenna on his property. All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within twelve (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. Finding: Sprint PCS has submitted a letter stating that they will remove the tower upon cessation of operation of the site. 3. All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. Finding: The City Building Official should review the plans to insure that they are in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. 4. Structural design and construction plans of the antenna towers shall be in compliance with manufacture's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. Finding: The construction and design plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official. 5. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any required federal, state or local agency licenses. Finding: Sprint PCS has submitted to the City a copy of their license from the Federal Communication Commission to operate their PCS system. 6. 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 proposed. Finding: This personal wireless service antenna tower will be located on private property. 7. Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest property line of seventy-five (75) percent of tower height and a minimum setback from a building in the same lot of fifty (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 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. Finding: According to the information from Engineered Endeavors, the fall zone for this tower is 35 feet. The site indicates that the proposed tower will be setback 70 feet from the east property line, 36 feet from the south property line, and 278 feet from the existing principal structure. These setbacks appear to meet the standards outlined in the zoning ordinance. 8. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation distance of one thousand (1,000) feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. Finding: According to the applicant's map (Exhibit I), the nearest existing personal wireless service antenna towers are at least 3,100 feet away. 9. Maximum height of a two-antenna array tower shall be one hundred forty-five (145) feet. A tower providing for three or more antenna arrays may have a maximum height of one hundred sixty-five (165) feet. Finding: The applicant is proposing a 70-foot monopole. This is consistent with the 145-foot height limit called for in the City Code. 10. 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. Finding: The applicant has submitted a letter from the Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation (ASAC) verifying that no artificial illumination is required for the proposed personal wireless service antenna tower. 11. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. Finding: The applicant has agreed that no advertising will be attached to the proposed personal wireless service antenna tower. However, the fence around the equipment area will have a sign providing phone numbers of those responsible for both maintenance and emergencies situations. 12. Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. Finding: According to the applicant, the tower will have a galvanized finish and will be painted gray. 13. Antenna towers shall be 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. Finding: Both the tower and antenna will be painted gray. 14. A security fence eight (8) feet in height shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. A locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all towers extending twelve (12) feet above the ground. Finding: The tower and associated equipment will be located on a 30' by 25' section of land in the southeastem comer of this site. The applicant will install new concrete curbing along the north and west sides of the tower site to accommodate drainage. In addition, the interior of the site will be surfaced with three inch deep aggregate surfacing over a weed barrier. The entire equipment area will be surrounded by an 8-foot tall chain link fence. Staff recommends that a condition of approval dictated that no storage or equipment shall exceed the height of the fence. 15. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, whether self-contained or located in a free standing 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. Finding: To screen the equipment area, the applicant will relocate three existing trees and install a perimeter chain link fence with decorative cedar boards. The Police Department recommends that the Cedar boards be placed one to two inches apart to insure adequate visibility within the fence enclosure for security reasons. The applicant's fence design must comply with this staff recommendation. To install utilities to the tower location, the applicant will need to excavate the sod within the site's existing utility easement. Staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant provide a cash escrow to the City, prior to issuance of a building permit, equal to the cost of relocating the three trees and restoring the sod in the easement after the utilities are installed. 16. If a new antenna tower is to be constructed it shall be designed to accommodate at least two (2) antenna arrays including but not limited to other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire, and ambulance companies. Finding: This tower will be capable of accommodating future co-location of one additional carrier. 17. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 4.21 of this Code must also be satisfied. Finding: This application meets the provision of Section 4.21 of the City Code. ACCESS The applicant's plan illustrates two easements across the Paddock Laboratories property. The first is a 20-foot access easement that runs down the middle of the existing drive lane. The second is a 10-foot utility easement that runs around the perimeter if the parking lot from Quebec Avenue to the cell tower site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 70- foot personal wireless service antenna tower on the property located at 3940 Quebec Avenue North. The subject property is currently occupied by Paddock Laboratories and is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Village Industrial Park Second Addition. This recommendation is based on the finding made in this report and the following eight plans: Cover Sheet dated 4-20-2001, Site Plan dated 4-16-2001, Tower Elevation dated 4-16- 2001, Certificate of Survey dated 3-30-2001, Electrical Details dated 3-27-2001, Grounding Plan dated 3-27-2001, Structural Framing Plan dated 3-29-2001, Fence Detail dated 4-18-2001, and Closest Existing Tower Map. This recommendation is subject to the conditions listed below. 1. The applicant shall provide a cash escrow to the City equal to the cost of relocating the tree existing trees and restoring the landscaping in the easement after the utilities are installed prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. All plans must be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. 3. No storage or equipment may exceed the height of the fence. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall Vince Vandertop Steven Scriver Bonestroo, Rosene, AndeMik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employ~r Engineers & Architects and Employee Owned , Principals: Otto Bonestroo, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. · Glenn R. Cook. P.E. · Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. · Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. · Joseph C. Anderfik, P.E. · Richard E. Turner, P.E. Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. · Keith A. Gordon, P.E. · Robert R. Pfeffede, P.E. · Richard W. Foster, P.E. · David O. Loskota, P.E. · Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. · Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K. Field, P.E. · Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. · Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. · Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. · Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A., · Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN · Milwaukee, WI Website: www. bonestroo.com MEMO TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Vince Vander Top CC: Mark Hanson DATE: April 23, 2001 SUBJECT: Sprint Tower ~ 3940 Quebec Ave. Our File No. 34-Gen E01-07 We have received revised plans for the proposed Sprint tower at Paddock Labs at 3940 Quebec Ave. The submittal includes signed plans from a registered engineer and documentation verifying the structural capabilities of the tower. The proposed improvements will not increase storm water runoff. Storm water quality requirements for the site were met with the site improvements completed in 1998. Existing curb and gutter will be removed and replaced. The replacement curb and gutter must match the existing curb type and maintain the existing drainage pattern. Site access will be via an existing parking lot. Site circulation and parking will be impacted minimally. Underground cable will be installed along the existing NURP pond to the tower site. It is recommended that some financial assurance be established to assure restoration along the pond is completed and erosion is controlled. No further comments are offered as part of our review. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636.1311 July 7, 1998 Mr. Doug Sandstad, Building Official New Hope City Hall 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Additions and Alterations to: PADDOCK LABORATORIES, INC. 3940 Quebec Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Comm. No. 409.05-98 Dear Doug: Please accept this letter as response to items of concern relative to issuance of the grading permit for the subject project: 1. Enclosed find copy of letter from Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, dated July 2, 1998, expressing its approval for direct stormwater drainage into the existing ponding area and waiver of requirement for additional on-site ponding. 2. Concerning the retaining wall shown near the southwest comer of the building on Drawing Sheet Cl' please be advised that this wall is being deleted from work of the project. Subject retaining wall was required to accommodate a new south wall egress from the west addition. Such egress, if required, will now be located on the west wall, eliminating the requirement for slope retainage. 3. Concerning grading along the south and west walls of the west addition: please be 4. Concerning the requirement for stormwater drainage from the adjacent cemeter~.t0 be located within a drainage easement: please be advised that the width of the existing drainage easement along the south property line will be increased from 5'-0" o 15'-0', and th.e ne.w dra!n.age stmc!ure and piping will be located within such easement and routed to the existing east detention pond. This revision will be made to the existing ~"~~d survey and recorded with the City of New Hope. 5. Concerning ': ,, .... -- ~,~y ~atlvlty Lutlaeran Church: it is my understanding that a separate grading permit will be required for that portion of the work. Additionally, it is Paddock Laboratories' intent to construct a sidewalk within the public right-of-way along Quebec Avenue, from the Church's access driveway to the west access driveway for Paddock Laboratories. 6. Als.o,. Drawing Sheet A2 Landscape Plan will be submitted to your office when rev~smns to landscaping effected by grading on property owned by Holy Nativity Lutheran Church have been documented. The above-noted revisions will be made to the construction drawings and same will be reissued to your office directly following completion of same. It is my understanding that the six items noted above are the only issues requiring action prior to issuance of the grading permit. 5KDARCHITEL-[S. INC. 3c~0 Qu[8£c AVE. ~. SUITE 202 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427 (61215g 1-6115 · FAX (612! Sg 1..6119 page '~ If this letter is accepted as a satisfactory outline of required revisions, if there are other outstanding concerns or if you have any questions about the scope of the project, please call. Sincerely, SKD Architects, Inc. encl. fax: Doug Sandstad, New Hope copy: Ed Maloney, Paddock Laboratories Leonard Linton, Clark Engineering Larry Elsen, D.J. Kranz Memorandum To: Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: Apd126, 2001 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CounciI/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or other City projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. April 9 Council Meeting - At the April 9 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Project #678, Motion to Approve the 4864 Fla.q Avenue Landscape Plan and Authori~_~tion for Staff to Seek Quotes for the Project: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #692, Resolution Approvin.q Petition and Assessment Agreement for Hidden Park condominium and Ordering Improvement: Tabled until the April 23 Council meeting, see attached Council request. · Project #692, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of 60th Street Extension: Tabled until the April 23 Council meeting, see attached Council request. · PC01-03, CUPs to Allow Open Outdoor Storage in Excess of 20 Percent of the Gross Floor Area of the Principal Structure and for Outdoor Storage of a 1,000-Gallon Propane Tank, 9201 International Parkway: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. April 23 Council Meefin_cl - At the April 23 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Proiect #678, Motion to Approve a Change Order to 4864 Flag Avenue House Construction Contract in an Amount of $1,000: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #664, 676, 670, and 696, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Demolition of Structures at 5406, 5410-12, 5420, and 5432 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #692, Resolution approvin.q Petition and Assessment Agreement for Hidden Park Condominium and Ordering Improvement: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #692, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of 60t~ Street Extension: Approved, see attached Council request. · Final Discussion, Consideration, and Adoption of Ordinance Recodifying the New Hope Zoning Code: Zoning Code Update adopted as recommended by the Planning Commission. · Ordinance #2001-05~ An Ordinance RecOdifyin.q Chapter 4 "Zonin.q' of the City Code Establishinq Zoning Regulations in the City of New Hope: Adopted summary ordinancc for publication, see attached CounCil request and ordinance. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet. Adam Kramer has agreed to chair this committee when it resumes meeting. Due to the recent complaints received regarding. conflicts between single family residential and industrial zoning districts, the Council did indicated when they approved the Zoning Code that they would like the Planning Commission to further study issues such as buffers, sound barriers, increased screening, etc. This issue should be studied by the Codes & Standards Committee this year, and staff will conduct some research over the next several months and contact committee members to schedule a meeting. 4. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met in April to review the Sprint PCS plans. Following the June application deadline on May 11, staff will notify Committee members whether or not a meeting is necessary on May 17. Staff is anticipating an application from Auto Zone, a retail auto parts store, who may be purchasing the 36th & Winnetka gas station site, and several other inquiries have been made, but nothing definite. 5. Project Bulletins - Enclosed for your information is a project bulletin regarding 4864 Flag Avenue, Winnetka Avenue demolition, Hidden Park Condos, and a letter sent to Northwood Park residents regarding a "native prairie burn." 6. Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed is an excerpt from Zoning Bulletin. 7. Meeting with City Council - The City Council wants to meet with all of the commissions in a joint meeting and has scheduled the meeting for Monday, May 21, at 6 p.m. (I believe that is the correct time and that a meal will be involved.) All commissioners should be receiving correspondence from the Council about the meeting in the near future. The purpose of the meeting is very general: get reacquainted, review the City's 2001 goals and mission, share viewpoints, etc. Commissions to be included will be Citizen Advisory, Planning, Human Rights, and Personnel Board. 8. Zoning Code Completion - The City Council extends its appreciation to the Planning Commission for all the work on the Zoning Code Update. 9. Future - Now that the Zoning Code is completed, the City will be working on two additional projects: A) Livable Communities Grant - Staff is expecting a proposal from Northwest Consultants in the next several weeks on this project, which will be shared with the Commission and approved by the Council. The next step after that will be developing a committee, timeline and workplan, and several commissioners have volunteered to serve on the committee. B) V s onin,q - The City may initiate a visioning process later this year in conjunction with the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Business Council. The Comprehensive Plan identifies areas to be redeveloped and the Zoning Code update is intended to facilitate redevelopment and expansion. A visioning process, which would involve all segments of the community, would specifically identify certain uses, designs, etc. for areas to be redeveloped. Several metro cities have used this process with some success, including St. Louis Park. Attachments: 4864 Flag landscape plan Hidden Condo Assessment Agreement 60t' Street Extension 4864 Flag change order Zoning Code Summary Ordinance Demolition contract for Winnetka structures Project Bulletins Hidden Condo Assessment Agreement Miscellaneous Articles 60t~ Street Extension COUNCI~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agencla Agenda Section Consent Community Development ~,~ Item No. 04-09-01 6.9 ~ Kirk McDonald & Ken Doresk ~ · ---' MOTION TO APPROVE THE 4864/- "F~.AG AVENUE NORTH LANDSCAPE PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO SEEK QUOTES FOR THE PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 678) ACTION REQUESTED §taft is requesting a Council motion to approve the 4864 Flag Avenue North landscape plan and specifications, as well as, to provide authorization for staff to seek quotes for the project. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Landscaping is normally included in residential projects developed by the City. Staff develops a landscape plan and specifications from which quotes are solicited. BACKGROUND In April 2000, the City purchased 4864 Flag Avenue North, from a willing seller. The lot was undeveloped due to poor soils, similar to the lot at 8801 41st Avenue North (Habitat for Humanity site). In September 2000, the Council approved a concept house plan for the Flag Avenue site and approved the project to be developed in partnership with the five-city CHDO. On February 26, 2001 the Council approved plans, specifications and advertisement for bids for the construction of a single-family home at the Flag Avenue site. On March 26, 2001 the Council approved a development agreement with the CHDO, as well as, contracts for the house construction and piling installation. Tom Schuster, City Forester, developed the attached landscape plan, specifications and cost estimate. The landscape plan provides for adequate screening of 49t~ Avenue North. Two Black Hills Spruce will be placed in the northeast portion of the property and one Black Hills Spruce at the northwest portion of the property. The Black Hills Spruce evergreen trees should alleviate noise, traffic light and street light concerns from 49t" Avenue and the New Hope Athletic Field. Three Amor Maples will be placed along 49~ Avenue directly north of the house to alleviate noise. According to the City Forester, Amor Maples are dense, wide and relatively short which makes them effective for screening noise. An existing Ash tree in the west boulevard area of Flag Avenue will remain. Holmstup Arborvitae, Dart's Red Spirea, Arcadia Juniper and Minuet Weigela will be placed in the front yard near the home. Also, the plan includes sod for the entire property. The planting schedule and specifications estimate the project cost to be $5,060. Landscaping was included in the preliminary 4864 Flag Avenue budget at a cost of $5,000. Staff anticipates the landscaping of this property will occur in September 2001. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action. Page 2 C. -09-01 Once the landscape plan and the authorization to seek quotes is approved, staff will solicit quotes and bnng the lowest responsible quote amountback to the Council for contract approval. .FUNDING The proceeds from the sale of the home will be used to fund the landscaping of the property. Please see the detailed preliminary budget attached. Staff recommends approval of this motion. A'I'rAC HMENTS · Location Map · Landscape Plan · Planting schedule and specifications · Budget 4864 Flag Avenue North -- Planting Schedule 4-3-D1 Key Quantity Common Name Botar~ical Name Size Estimated Estimated Unit Price Price BHS 3 B!~_ck Hills Spruce Picea glauca densata 6" B&B $280 $840, 'AM 3 Amur Maple (clump) Acer ginnalla 'Flame" 7' B&B $300 $900 DSA 2 ' Hoimstrup Thuja occidena[~alis #7 conL $60 $120 Arborvitae "Holmstrup' DRS 10 Dart's Red Spirea Spirea x bumalcla 'Dart's #5 con[ $30 $30~) Red' BJ 6 Arcadia Juniper Juniperus sabina #5 cont $30 $180 'Arcadia' MW 5 Minuet Weigela Weigela florida 'Minuet' #5 cont. $30 $150 Sod 1175 yd Sq~ yds. $2 $2350 40 f. Valley View i=dglng $2.50/ff $100 ' ' 6 yds., Mulch Harclwood'chips Cub!c yds. $20 $120 Total (Estimated) S5,060 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-09-01 Development & Planninc~ Item No. ~McDonald RESOLUTION APPROVING PETITION AND ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIDDEN PARK CONDOMINIUM AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT (CITY PROJECT NO. 692) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Approving Petition and Assessment Agreement for Hidden Park Condominium and Ordering Improvement (City Project No. 692). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE I~ the past, the City has completed projects involving public and private improvements if there is an assessment agreement in place with property owners agreeing to pay the cost of the private improvements. In July 2000, the Council passed a similar resolution to proceed with solicitation of bids on this project, however, a contract was never awarded due to the fact that the Hidden Park Condo Homeowners Association was not l successful in obtaining the necessary votes to approve the assessment agreement. The Association contacted the City in December of 2000 and said that they were interested in pursuing the project again in 2001. BACKGROUND At the February 12 Council meeting, the City Council approved plans and specifications for this project and authorized staff to seek bids. Bids were recently opened and the Iow bidder on the project was Don Zappa & Son Excavating with a base bid of $81,720.55. The bid for the alternate parking lot construction is $19,603.10. The total cost of the project for Hidden Park Condo (without the alternate) would be: Private Driveway/Drainage $77,600.00 Street Light 2,550.00 Total $80,150.00 The $80,150 includes indirect costs for legal, engineering, and administrative expenses the City will incur for managing the project. The $80,150.00 cost divided among 68 units would average out to a cost of $1,178.68 per unit. This compares to an estimated cost of $77,000.00 or $1,132.00 per unit in 2000 and the increase is due to material price adiustments and Hennepin County traffic contro! ,rec~ui,rements. This information was MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: III I I I I II Request for Action Page 2 4-09-01 forwarded to the Hidden Park Condo Homeowners Association for consideration at its April 4 Association meeting. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Assessment Agreement in anticipatioh that the Association will vote to proceed with the improvement (excluding the alternate). The Association has notified the City that the project was approved at the April 4 Association meeting with a 76.68 percent vote. The Agreement states that the owners have petitiOned the City for the improvements and sets out the cost sharing agreement between _ the owners and the City. The owner will pay $80,150 in principal for the project and agree to a 10-year assessment at an interest rate of seven percent per annum, with the first installment anticipated to be payable with real estate taxes due in 2001 (payable in 2002). The owner also waives all objections and all rights to appeal the assessment. The owner also agrees to indemnify, reimburse and hold the City harmless for all costs to make the improvements. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ATI'ACHMENTS · Resolution · Assessment Agreement · City Attorney Correspondence COUN(~L '- R] QUt ST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section 4-09-01 Development & Community Development Piannin~l Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: 8.2 ! RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRA~T FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 60TM STREET EXTENSION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 692) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of 60~ Street Extension (Improvement No. 692). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City has completed projects involving public and private improvements if there is an assessment agreement in place with property owners agreeing to pay the cost of the private improvements. BACKGROUND At the February 12 Council meeting, the City Council approved plans and specifications for this project and authorized staff to seek bids. Bids were opened and are outlined in the attached bid tabulation prepared by the City Engineer. The Iow bidder on the project was Don Zappa & Son Excavating with a base bid of $81,720.55. This compares favorably to the City Engineer's estimate of $88,000.00. The bid for the alternate parking lot construction is $19,603.10. This information was presented to the City Council at the March 12 Council meeting and the Council tabled action on awarding the bid until the April 9 Council meeting, pending consideration and approval of the costs by the Hidden Park Condo Homeowners Association. The information was forwarded to the Association for consideration at its April 4 Association meeting. The Association has determined to proceed with the project and the City Attorney has prepared the attached resolution, which awards the contract to the Iow bidder, Don Zappa & Sons Excavating, in the amount of $81,720.55. As the Council is aware, the Association will be responsible for private driveway/drainage and street light costs and the City will be responsible for the loop water main improvements. These costs are outlined in the attached correspondence from the City Engineer. FUNDING The project will be funded through an Assessment Agreement with the Condo Association and the loop water main improvements will be funded out of the Water Fund. MOTION BY , , SECOND BY TO: t- REQUEST FOI ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda m Agenda Section Consent Community Development Item No. 04-23-01 B~ Kirk McDonald & Ken Doresk.~ ~ --- MOTION TO APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER TO 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH HOUSE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT OF $1000.00 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #678) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting a Council motion to approve a $1000.00 change order to accommodate a material change. This change order will increase the 4864 Flag Avenue house contract by $1000.00 from $155,589.00 to $156,589.00. The change order has been reviewed and approved by the City Manager, which was necessary to keep the project on schedule. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Change orders are a result of unforeseen project costs. BACKGROUND On March 26, 2001 the Council approved a development agreement with the CHDO, as well as, contracts for the house construction and piling installation at 4864 Flag Avenue. The Council awarded the 4864 Flag Avenue North home construction contract to the Iow bidder, S.V.K. Development inc. in the amount of $155,589.00. Per the project specifications, S.V.K. Development is required to install utilities at the 4864 Flag Avenue site. After obtaining the Flag Avenue site soil boring report, S.V.K. Development had concerns that the poor soils on the lot would cause the utilities to settle and potentially be damaged. The City Engineer and S.V.K. Development determined that the sanitary sewer pipe was the only utility in danger of failing after installation. Per the attached Bonestroo Engineering memo, the City Engineer details the material change, including the cost to purchase and install a different sanitary sewer pipe than the standard material from which the bid was based. S.V.K. Development has agreed that this material change and installation will be included in the overall warranty standards written in the house construction contract. Attached, please find the City Attorney's correspondence and contract addendum relating to the sanitary sewer line material change and the contract cost increase of $1000.00. Icont'd.l MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 .~ 04-23-01 FUNDING CDBG funds were used to pay for the land acquisition and will be used to pay for the installation of pilings and predevelopment work. HOME funds-will be available from the five-city CHDO for a second mortgage. The proceeds from the sale of the home will be used to fund the new construction. Please see the detailed budget attached. Staff recommends approval of this motion. A'n'ACHMENT$ · Location Map · City Engineer Correspondence · City Attorney Correspondence and Contract Addendum · Budget Bonestroo Rosene · ' Ar~erlik & Memo Project Name: 4864 Flag Avenue Client: New Hope To: Ken Doresky File No: 34-00-129 From: Jerry Pertzsch Date: 4/9/01 Re: Sanitary Sewer Remarks: I talked to Dick Curry about using 6" HDPE pipe in lieu of 4" PVC pipe for the sanitary sewer. He got back to me with the following cost based on a quote for the material from Davies. The HDPE pipe comes in 40 foot long sections. In order to install the pipe, they need to rent a fusion machine. Also, they need to have training on the use of the machine or have a trained technician run the machine. The cost of the machine rental and technician are included in the cost below. There will also be a transition from 4" lines inside the house to 6 inch line to the sanitary line in the street. The following is a summary of the cost: Item Cost 80' of HDPE pipe ($5.72-$1.24) x 80' $358 Tax on material 23 Fusion machine rental (1 day) 150 Technician rental for above equipment (1 day) 340 Sub-total $861 Miscellaneous fittings, overhead, profit 139 Total $1,000 Dick said that the additional cost to change the sanitary sewer service from 4 inch PVC to 6 inch HDPE pipe would be $1,000. This would include fusion welded joints, all fittings, reducers, etc. required for the piping system. Fusion welded joints should be made be personnel experienced in fusion welding of HDPE pipes. Connection location to the sanitary sewer in the street and route of the sanitary sewer line shall not change due to the change in the type of pipe. The cost of change to 6 inch HDPE pipe shall be a lump sum amount of $1,000.00. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates 2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311 COUNCIL - REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent Item No. 04-23-01 By: Kirk McDonald & Ken Doresk¥ By: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES AT 5406, 5410-5412, 5420 AND 5532 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 664, 676, 670 AND 696) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Council approve a resolution awarding the contract for the demolition of four single-family homes, three detached garages, two sheds and other site features on City-owned property at 5406, 5410, 5412, 5420 and 5532 Winnetka Avenue North to Kevitt Excavating, the Iow quote amount of $24,794.00. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City routinely solicits quotes for the demolition of City-owned residential properties and normally recommends awarding the contract to the submitter of the lowest responsible quote. BACKGROUND Staff had previously requested quotes for a portion of this project. The project originally consisted of the demolition of 5406, 5410 and 5412 Winnetka Avenue North. On January 22, 2001, the City Council awarded a demolition contract to Bauer Contracting Inc., in the Iow quote amount of $9,849.00. Compared to other quotes submitted for the project, Bauer Contracting Inc. was substantially iow. Due to the Iow quote amount, City engineering staff met with Bauer Contracting to determine if they could complete the job for the quote submitted. The City Engineer recommended that the City award the demolition contract to Bauer Contracting and require that Bauer obtain a bond paid for by the City, Bauer Contracting was non-responsive to the City's request for a bond and the contract requirements. Staff then contacted the contractor with the second lowest quote who indicated that they could not perform the demolition project for their original submitted quote. On February 26, 2001, after several failed attempts to receive an executed contract and bond, the City Council rescinded the demolition contract award to Bauer, rescinded all quotes for the project and directed staff to again seek quotes for the project. Due to the fact that the City was planning to seek demolition quotes for two additional properties (5420 and the foundation at 5532 Winnetka) in close proximity to the three properties originally included in the rescinded demolition contract, staff revised the demolition contract and specification packet to include the two additional properties for a total of five. 5420 Winnetka includes the total demolition of the house, garage and other site MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 04-23-01 features, 5532 Winnetka only includes the demolition of the foundation and other site features. On January 8, 2001 the Council approved the sale and removal of the house and garage at 5532 Winnetka. The home and garage at 5532 Winnetka were moved off of the site in February 2001, leaving the foundation, driveway, walks and garage pad. On March 29, 2001, quote request packets were sent to seven demolition contractors. In response to the demolition quote request for the subject properties, the City received the following three quotes for total demolition of the properties located at 5406, 5410, 5412, 5420 and 5532 Winnetka Avenue North. Contractor Quote Kevitt Excavating $24,794.00 Veit & Company Inc. $25,250.00 Jerome Johnson Excavating $35,160.00 Staff recommends awarding the contract to Kevitt Excavating in the amount of $24,794.00. Staff feels that this is a reasonable bid and Kevitt has performed many demolition activities for the City in the past and performed in a responsible manner. Staff recommends approval of this resolution. FUNDING All demolition costs will be paid for with tax increment financing funds. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · Location Map · Quote Results · ] ........... ~ ~ ..... ...L... , ..... ~.. .... I ~'~"~"~z~'~':, ~T': .................................. · .................... . .-- -. ~,., ....... ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~L DR. ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~._ ~ ............ ~. ---~ . ..~ ~ .............. ~... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~. .......................................~ ~ ~.~ ~.~, ~1 ,- .... ,..-., ,:. ' ..... - ....... ; ,. ....~ .....' AC? O Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-23-01 Development & Planning Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: RESOLUTION APPROVING PETITION AND ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIDDEN PARK CONDOMINIUM AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT (CITY PROJECT NO. 692) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Approving Petition and Assessment Agreement for Hidden Park Condominium and Ordering Improvement (City Project No. 692). The City would coordinate the project and the majority of the cost for the improvements would be assessed to the property owners. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City has completed projects involving public and private improvements if there is an assessment agreement in place with property owners agreeing to pay the cost of the private improvements. In July 2000, the Council passed a similar resolution to proceed with solicitation of bids on this project, however, a contract was never awarded due to the fact that the Hidden Park Condo Homeowners Association was not successful in obtaining the necessary votes to approve the assessment agreement. The Association contacted the City in December of 2000 and said that they were interested in pursuing the project again in 2001. BACKGROUND As the Council is aware, Hidden Park Condominium Homeowners Association requested that the City develop plans for this project, solicit bids, manage the project, and then assess the cost for the improvements back to them through an Assessment Agreement. At the February 12 Council meeting, the City Council approved plans and specifications for this project and authorized staff to seek bids. Bids were opened on February 28, and the Iow bidder on the project was Don Zappa & Son Excavating with a base bid of $81,720.55. The base bid includes private driveway/drainage and water main loop improvements, and the street light cost is not included in the contract. The bid for the alternate parking lot construction is $19,603.10. The total cost of the project for Hidden Park Condo (without the alternate) would be: Private Driveway/Drainage $77,600.00 Street Light 2,550.00 Total $80,150.00 (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 4-23-01 The $80,150-includes indirect costs for legal,-engineering, and administrative expenses the City will incur for managing the project. The $80,150.00 cost divided among 68 units would average out to a cost of $1,178.68 per unit. This compares to an estimated cost of $77,000.00 or $1,132.00 per unit in 2000 and the increase is due to matedal price adjustments and Hennepin County traffic control requiremer,ts. This information was forwarded to the Hidden Park Condo Homeowners Association for consideration at its April 4 Association meeting. The Association has notified the City that the project was approved at the meeting with a 76.68 percent vote. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Assessment Agreement to proceed with the project. The Agreement states that the owners have petitioned the City for the improvements and sets out the cost sharing agreement between the owners and the City. The owner will pay $80,150 in principal for the project and agree to a 10-year assessment at an interest rate of seven percent per annum, with the first installment anticipated to be payable with real estate taxes due in 2001 (payable in 2002). The owner also waives all objections and all rights to appeal the assessment. The owner also agrees to indemnify, reimburse and hold the City harmless for all costs to make the improvements. This matter was tabled at the April 9 Council meeting at the request of the City Attorney, due to the fact that the fully executed petition had not been received by the City. The petition has now been received and can be acted upon. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ATI'ACHMENTS Resolution Assessment Agreement · City Attorney Correspondence HIDDEN PARK CONDOMINI-3M PETITION FOR PUBLIC IM'PRO~~ AND ASSERSMENT AGREEMENT 1. Parties - The parties to this Agreement are the City of New Hope, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereafter City) and Hidden Park Condominium Owners Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation (hereafter Owner). 2. ~___.~_.~.- The Owner, the governing authority for the following described condominium property pursuant to the Declaration Establishing A Plan For Apartment Ownership No. 138 dated June 4, 1979, hereby requests and petitions the City to construct a public water main, including pipe, valves, fittings, and all other appurtenant works and services reasonably required to complete a water main loop between the existing water main in West Broadway and the existing water main serving Hidden Park Condominiums, and as part of that project to extend a storm sewer from West Broadway to the Hidden Park Condominium property, and to reconstruct the driveway from West Broadway to the Hidden Park Condominium property to a 22 foot width. The Hidden Park Condominium property is located in the City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota, and is legally described as follows: Tract B, except the North 85 feet thereof, and except that part of Tract B lying Easterly of the Southerly extension of the Westerly line of Tract D and Northerly of the Westerly extension of the South line of Tract E, all in Registered Land Survey No. 21, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepm, The purpose of this Agreement is to set out the respective cost sharing agreement between the City and the Owner relating to the water main, storm sewer, and driveway project. This improvement is being done as City Project No. 692 (the Project), formerly known as City Project No. 668, and is more fully described in the Memorandum from the Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, engineers for the City, dated March 1, 2001. Ail work shall be done in conjunction with the Project. 3. Description of Work - The public improvements described above shall be constructed according to plans and specifications prepared by the City engineers for the Project. 4. Costs - The Owner agrees that $80,150.00 shall be the amount of the Project attributed to installing the storm sewer and reconstructing the street and parking lot (hereafter the Assessed Amount), and assessed against the Property. This Assessed Amount is based on estimated construction costs of $104,750.00 for the entire Project. However, the City and the Owner understand and agree that change orders can affect the cost of the Project, including change orders based upon per umt costs. Change orders are generally the result of unforseen construction circumstances or project design changes. Owner acknowledges and agrees to pay on a pro rata basis as determined by the New Hope City Engineer all change order costs which increase total Project costs and the Assessed Amount under this Agreement. Owner acknowledges and agrees to pay the per unit costs of the project based .... upon the actual .units used, which will not vary more than ten (10) percent from the estimated quantities used for bidding the project. 5. Special Assessment - The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the proposed construction of the Project specially benefits the Property. In consideration for the City's action to cause the construction of the Project at the Owner's request, the Owner agrees that the fair market value of the Property will increase in an amount equal to or greater than $80,150.00 and that it will pay the Assessed Amount by a special assessment levied against the Property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 over a period of ten (10) years at an interest rate of seven (7) per cent per annum. The first installment is anticipated to be payable with real estate taxes due in 2001. The Owner expressly waives all objections to any irregularity with regard to the special assessment for the Project and any claim that the Assessed Amount of $80,150.00 to be levied against the Property is excessive. The Owner further waives any and all rights to appeal the special assessment in District Court under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 or any other federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation. Provided, however, the Owner shall retain the right to object to any arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious actions of the City in connection with the Project, other than the propriety thereof, the Owner's share in the cost thereof as set out above, or the City's right to levy an assessment therefor against the Property. 6. Indemnification - The Owner agrees to indemnify, reimburse and hold the City harmless for all costs to mske the improvements described above in the event the special assessment against the Property is held invalid and unenforceable for any reason, due to the improvements or special assessments being challenged by the Owner or the owners of individual units of Hidden Park Condominium, or anyone claiming through the Owner or the individual unit owners. This indemnification shall include reasonable attorney's fees and costs to collect and enforce the special assessment and this Agreement. Dated: ,2001. Hidden Park Condominium Owners City of New Hope Association By: By: Its W. Peter Enck Its Mayor By: By: Its Daniel $. Donahue Its City Manager 2 _ I EQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section 4-23-01 Development & Plannincj Community Development Item No. By.' Kirk McDonald ~ RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 60TM STREET EXTENSION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 692) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of GOth Street Extension (Improvement No. 692). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City has completed projects involving public and private improvements if there is an assessment agreement in place with property owners agreeing to pay the cost of the private improvements. BACKGROUND At the February 12 Council meeting, the City Council approved plans and specifications for this project and authorized staff to seek bids. Bids were opened and are outlined in the attached bid tabulation prepared by the City Engineer. The Iow bidder on the project was Don Zappa & Son Excavating with a base bid of $81,720.55. This compares favorably to the City Engineer's estimate of $88,000.00. The bid for the alternate parking lot construction is $19,603.10. This information was presented to the City Council at the March 12 Council meeting and the Council tabled action on awarding the bid until the April 9 Council meeting, pending consideration and approval of the costs by the Hidden Park Condo Homeowners Association. The information was forwarded to the Association for consideration at its April 4 Association meeting, and the Association has approved the project and executed the necessary petition and Assessment Agreement. At the April 9 meeting, the Council tabled the contract award, per the recommendation of the City Attorney, to be certain all documents were submitted to the City prior to awarding the contract. The Association has determined to proceed with the project and the City Attorney has prepared the attached resolution, which awards the contract to the Iow bidder, Don Zappa & Sons Excavating, in the amount of $81,720.55. As the Council is aware, the Association will be responsible for private driveway/drainage and street light costs and the City will be responsible for the loop water main improvements. These costs are outlined in the attached correspondence from the City Engineer. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action . Page 2 4-23-01 FUNDING The project will be funded through an Assessment Agreement with the Condo Association and the loop water main improvements will be funded out of the Water Fund. A'I'FACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · City Engineer Correspondence · Bid Tab · Location Map · Plans & Specs · Previous Correspondence cc: Guy Johnson Steve Sondrall Mark Hanson From: Vince Vander Top Subject: Hidden Park Condominiums/6003 West ]~roadway Water Main/Private Driveway lmprovemems Project No. 692 Our File No. 34-00-12 l Date: March 1. 200! Thc low bid compares favorably with the previous Engineer's estimate. Construction costs based on the low bid are as follows: Construction Item Construction Cos~ Es ' ~ ~Co~. __ Estimate Street Light -. 1.7.5 $6L!91.00 Water Main "' 2,550.00 2.550.00 Total '"° $84,270.55 $87,708.00 ct) Cost to be determined by Excel Energy ~2) Base Bid received from Don Z. appa & Son Excavating of $81,720.$5 docs nor include the street light In addition to the base bid, an ahemate was bid to completely reconstruct thc south parking lot. This could be done et'ficiemly with the other )mprovements. The cost would bc the responsibihty the Condo Association if the alternate is approved. Conrd'uction Item ~da~#i -R. econstruct Parking Lot ' ate 519603 JO ' ' ~' J 6.980.00 To~l ~ _ $103.873.&$ $104,&88.00 2.t3S I~'est Highway .16, St. Paul. MN 551L1, 651.6.t6o4600 · Fax: 651'63&-1311 Indirect costs such as LegaL_Engineering. and Administration are added to the construcuon :osts. Past assessment projects have included 25% of the construction costs. Construction hem Construction Indirtc~ 'Total/Assessed Cos~ Cost Cost Private Driveway/Drainage $62,061.75 $15,538.25 $ r_,-eet L.~ght 2.550.00 Water Main 19,658.80 $4,94 ] .20 ~_4.f, O0.O0 Subtotal $84.270.55 S20,479.45 S 104.'750.00 Alt #1 -Reconstruct Parking Lot ~/9,603.10 I~,4,89fi.90 .~24.500.00 :: Total $103,873.65 $25.376.35 $ I29"_50.00 The water main improvements are proposed to be financed by New Hope's Wamr Fund while the private drainage/driveway improvements, street lighL and altemale #I are proposed to be the responsibility of I-Iidden Park Condominiums (68 units). The estimated cost per unit is as follows: $1,178.68/unit without Alternate #1 (S80,150/68 units) $1,538.97/unit with Ahemate # I ($ ! 04,650/68 units) It is recommended that itc City make every effort to verify the street light cost with E.xce! Energy prior to approval by the Condo Association. Tom Schuster is working on this verification. End of memo I , I:u:::::: COUNCIL . I RI qlII! IT I OR CTIOI ' Originating Department ApprOved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-23-01 Ordinances & Resolutions Item No. B~/: Kirk McDonald By: FINAL DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE REQUESTED ACTION At the April 3, 2001, New Hope Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the recodification of the New Hope Zoning Code as prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, with a recommendation of several minor changes. Staff recommends that the Council conduct any final discussion on the Zoning Code, consider any final recommendations, and approve the recodified ordinance. With this motion, the Council is approving the text of the 100+ pages of text that are included in the three-ring binders prepared by NAC. The Planning Consultant will be present at the meeting to make a brief ~resentation and to answer questions. Per the City Attorney's correspondence, two motions are necessary for the adoption of the Zoning Code Update: 1. Motion adopting updated Zoning Ordinance, as prepared by NAC (Agenda Item 10.1) 2. Motion adopting Summary Ordinance for publication (Agenda Item 10.2) (Staff has not reproduced more final copies of the ordinance, as these were distributed with the Planning Commission mailing at the end of March. Please bring your copy to the Council meeting for reference or if you need another copy, contact staff.) POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The purpose of the Zoning Code Update is to bring the City's zoning regulations into conformance with and to help promote the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. Updating the Zoning Code was a specific recommendation under the Administration Section of the Comprehensive Plan. ,BACKGROUND Over the past 1% years, the City has been working on updating all of the Zoning Code regulations to make them consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan Update, which was adopted in 1999. A Zoning Code Update Committee was formed that included representatives from the Planning Commission, MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: ' Request for Action -- Page 2 4-23-01 Citizen Advisory Commission, Planning Consultant, City Attorney, and city staff. The Committee met a number of times and reviewed the Zoning Code section by section and reviewed recommendations made by consultants and staff. Throughout this process, as a section was completed by the Committee, it was forwarded to and reviewed by the full Planning Commission. The Zoning Code Committee completed its review in May 2000, and its final recommendations were reviewed with the Planning Commission in June 2000. In August and October 2000, city staff and consultants met with the City Council in three Council work sessions to review the entire Zoning Code and the recommendations for changes. The Council identified issues that it had questions on and/or wanted more research conducted. Staff/consultants met with the Council in a final work session on the Zoning Code on February 20, 2001. The City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to proceed with a public hearing on the updated regulations. At the March 6 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Consultant reviewed a final draft of the code with the Commission and the Commission was agreeable to proceeding with the public hearing. As you are aware, at the last Council review of the code update, the City Council determined to retain the RO Zoning District for the Prudential property on Bass Lake Road. Being that the RO District is being retained, subsequent to the March Planning Commission meeting, city staff and consultants have reviewed all of the RO properties in the City and made recommendations as to which ones should remain under the current designation and which ones should be changed. Staff has also made some other recommendations on either correcting zoning in response to how the property is actually developed (example: new twinhome on Bass Lake Road) or in grouping contiguous parcels under one zoning designation as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for future redevelopment purposes (example: the two parcels at the northwest comer of 36t~ and Winnetka). All of these recommendations were reviewed with the City Manager and are outlined in the attached Planner's Report. Legal Notice Over 1,350 legal notices were mailed to property owners who either own or live within 350 feet of property that may be impacted by the proposed zoning changes. This would include all commercial and industrial properties and residential-office properties. Notices were also mailed to all cities adjacent to New Hope's boundaries, including Crystal, Golden Valley, Plymouth and Brooklyn Park. The legal notice sent to property owners describes significant changes the new ordinance will have upon its adoption. This list is not intended to describe all the changes included in the ordinance but only those considered significant in the opinion of the city staff. 1. Updates the zoning code to be consistent with the City's 1998 Comprehensive Plan to encourage private redevelopment of existing homes and businesses. 2. Renders the zoning code format more user-friendly for City staff, City Council, Advisory Committees and local residents. 3. Renders administration of the zoning code simpler and more efficient. 4. Reduces the number of zoning districts in the commercial and industrial area by combining the B-1 and B-2 districts into a new LB Limited Neighborhood Business District, combining the B-3 and B-4 districts into a new CB Community Business District and combining the I-1 and I-2 districts into a single Industrial District. 5. Creates a new RB Residential Business District to rezone select RO districts as RB districts and provide expanded non-automotive commercial opportunities in said districts. 6. Reduces building setback requirements in the residential, commercial and industrial districts to encourage expansion in existing properties. 7. Increases density in all residential districts except the R1 Single Family District by reducing lot sizes. -. 4-23-01 Request for Action" Page 3 8. Increases building heights in 'high density residential, commercial and industrial districts conditional upon compliance with all code regulations. A memorandum was also included with each notice that provided a brief description of the changes within each district, as follows: · R-I, Single Family Residential District. R-1 Zoning District covers most of the single-family neighborhoods in the City. The district has not been changed with regard to land uses or lot size. Some reduction to required setbacks have been made to offer property owners some opportunities for home expansion. · R-2, Single Family and Two Family District. The changes in the R-2 District reduced the lot area and lot width requirements. These changes were made to reduce the number of non-conforming R-2 properties and to promote redevelopment. · R-3, Medium Density Residential District and R-4, High Density Residential District. The changes in these multiple family zoning districts increase the permitted densities of the various housing types and increase the building height within the R-4 District from four stories to seven stories. These changes were made to promote major reinvestment and/or redevelopment of the existing multiple family housing sites. · R-O, Residential Office District and R-B, Residential Business District. These zoning districts allow for a combination of residential and limited commercial land uses. The R-O District has been changed through increased residential densities and building height. Seven of the existing 19 sites will remain R-O. The new R-B District allows for expanded neighborhood commercial land uses that will provide greater use alternatives for eight of the existing R-O sites. · LB, Limited Business District. The LB Zoning District replaces the previous B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business District and the B-2, Retail Business District. Through combining these old districts, the City intends the LB District to provide a broad range of neighborhood commercial land uses in contiguous land use patterns. · CB, Community Business District. The CB Zoning District replaces the previous B-3, Auto Odented Business District and the B-4, Community Business District. This single business district encompasses a full range of business uses intended to serve the entire community. · I, Industrial District. The I Zoning District combines the previous I-1, Limited Industrial District and the I-2, General Industrial Zoning District. The new I, Industrial District includes reduced setbacks that offer in-place expansion of the City's existing industries. As a fully developed community, the Zoning Ordinance update focused on changes that serve to promote reinvestment within the City. In this regard, the district changes, as well as changes in building setbacks, parking standards, and building heights, are intended to provide property owners the opportunities to expand or renovate their homes or businesses. Planner's Report The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached reports. Please review them as they contain all of the final recommendations from staff. The first report provides specific details on the changes proposed in each section of the Zoning Ordinance. The second report outlines recommended changes to the Zoning Map and a draft copy of the proposed map is attached to this report. Both reports are dated March 27 and these are the reports the Planner will be reviewing with the City Council. Request for Action Page 4 4-23-01 Summary of Public Hearing The minutes from the April 3 Public Hearing conducted at the Planning Commission meeting are attached. The Planning Consultant also prepared the attached Apdl 6 memo summarizing the meeting. Taking into account the large number of public hearing notices that were mailed out, there were not a groat number of persons in attendance at the public hearing. Eight persons spoke at the headng and several letters were entered into the record (attached). The major concern expressed by residents involved the conflicts that arise where industrial properties abut _ single family residential zoning districts, involving building setbacks, building heights, loading zones and noise issues. In response to the first three issues (setbacks, height and loading) the Commission recommended re- inserting the existing language in the code in situations where I-1 and R-1 properties abut one another. In regards to the noise issue, this is really not a Zoning Code issue except as it relates to setbacks, loading, etc. The City has a separate noise ordinance, which is found in another section of the City Code. As some Council members are aware, thero has been an ongoing noise complaint issue with a company located on Boone Avenue and several residents on 50"' Avenue. The City is continuing to try and work with both the company and the resident to reach a long-term solution to this problem, which will probably be the construction of some type of fence or sound barrier on the property line. City staff has been in contact with the business and will be meeting with the company in the next several weeks to try and reach a consensus on how to resolve this issue. SUMMARY In summary, staff is recommending final approval of the ordinance, pending any further changes or recommendations made by the City Council. The Council will need to determine whether additional public comment should be received before final action on the ordinance. ATTACHMENTS · April 6 Planners Report- Public Hearing Summary · April 3 Planning Commission Minutes/Letters · March 29 Planners Report - Industrial Setbacks · March 27 Planners Memo- Zoning Ordinance Summary · March 27 Planners Memo- Zoning Map Changes · HIGI~I'HW'I~$1' &$$QC:fI&I'IEID C:GHStdlIL.'IrAH?$,, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: April 6, 2001 RE: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance FILE NO: 131.00 On April 3, 2001, the New Hope Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the updated New Hope Zoning Ordinance. At that meeting, the Planning Commission heard input from City residents regarding concerns with the updated Zoning Ordinance and proposed changes. Through the discussion and input from the public, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and made recommendations to adopt the Zoning Ordinance update with the following changes: 1. W'~hin the I Zoning District, the Planning Commission is recommending that where the I-1 Zoning District abuts an R-1 or R-2 zoned property, a setback of 75 feet from the property line for the building will be required. 2. Where the I Zoning District abuts an R-1 or R-2 Zoning District, the height of the building will be limited to no more than four stories. 3. Where an industrial district abuts an R-1 or R-2 Zoning District, they will reinstate the required 100 foot setback for all loading berths from the boundaries of an R-1 or R-2 property. A fourth issue was also discussed involved the zoning map. A young woman living at either 5630 or 5618 Wisconsin Avenue expressed concern with the adjoining zoning for her property. Her property is currently zoned R-l, Single Family and abuts an area that is illustrated as being zoned R-3 and expressed concern that ultimately that higher density zoning may intrude further on her property. I indicated to her at that time that the R-3 zoning would limit any development to twinhomes, townhomes, or multiple family buildings containing no more than 12 units. She responded by indicating that the Boisclair Apartments, which are located on Wisconsin Avenue, already exceed the 12 units per building standard of the R-3 District. This raises an issue as to whether that apartment complex is correctly zoned. In my opinion, Boisclair Apartments should be rezoned to an R-4 to reflect its current conditions with the properties to the north remaining R-3 to provide her with some assurance that the whole block will not be designated for R-4, high density residential. In conclusion, I was very pleased with the outcome of the Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission was able to make recommendation for approving the update with minor changes and in examining the impact of these changes on industria~ properties, you will find geographically only a few industrial sites abut the property lines of R-1 or R-2 Zoning Districts. As such, the geographic impacts will be limited. In this respect, we feel that the changes that are being suggested can be supported by staff. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 2 ~ ~ Agenda Section Originating Department Approved for Agenda Community Development 4-23-01 Ordinances & Resolutions Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: ADOPTION OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE RECODIFYING CHAPTER 4 "ZONING" OF THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE REQUESTED ACTION If the Council approves the final draft of the Zoning Code update, staff recommends that the Council approve the attached summary Ordinance Recodifying Chapter 4 "Zoning" of the City Code Establishing Zoning Regulations in the City of New Hope. The summary ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney and requires a 4/5ths vote of the City Council. POLICY/PAST PRACTI ,CE. This action will authorize the publication of a summary ordinance in lieu of publishing the entire 100+ page ordinance and the Council has followed this practice in the past with lengthy ordinances. Per the City Attorney, Minnesota Statutes give the City Council the authority to publish a summary ordinance if it determines said summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Staff believes that the enclosed summary ordinance satisfies the requirement of the statute. BACKGROUND Some of the statements included in the summary ordinance include the following: · Due to the length of the ordinance and cost of publication, the New Hope City Council hereby approves and finds the publication of the following summary of the ordinance Recodifying the Zoning Code is sufficient and will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance as if it were published in its entirety. · A printed copy of the complete ordinance Recodifying the Zoning Code is available for inspection by the public at the office of the New Hope City Clerk, New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, during regular business hours. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: · 4-23-01 Request for Action Page 2 · Ordinance Summary - The recod-ification of Chapter 4 of the New Hope Zoning Code will have the following intent and effect: 1. Comprehensive Pla_n- Updates the Zoning Code to be consistent with the City's 1998 Comprehensive Plan to encourage private development of existing homes and businesses. 2. Code Reformatted - Renders the Zoning Code format more user-friendly for City staff, City Council, advisory committees and local residents. 3. Rules and Definitions - Eliminates seldom used or obsolete definitions, conforms other definitions to State Statute definitions and groups definitions into single topic areas for ease of reference. 4. General Provisions - Establishes and maintains criteria to permit the following: · Expansion of non-conforming single and two-family structures by administrative permit and expansion of multi-family, commercial and industrial structures by conditional use permit. · Reduces building setback requirements in all districts to encourage expansion of existing properties. · Requirement to replace all dead plantings in accordance with any approved landscaping plan. · Reduce to 7 days the time limit on exterior storage of inoperable vehicles. · Revises regulation for storage of recreational vehicles by permitting storage in front yards if setback at least 15 feet from curb without encroaching on public sidewalk and located on suitable surface other than grass or landscaped yard. 5. Zonin,q District Provisions - The following changes were made in the zoning provisions: · Compartmentalizes each individual district. · Eliminates roll-over references from district to district. · Expands the list of permitted uses in each district. · Reduces lot sizes to increase density in all residential districts except the R-1 Single Family District. · Reduces the lot area and lot widths in the R-2 District to reduce the number of non-conforming properties within the R-2 District. · Increases the maximum building heights in the R-4 and R-5 Districts. · Creates a new RB Residential Business District to rezone select RO Districts as RB Districts that will allow for expanded neighborhood commercial land uses. · Reduces the number of zoning districts in the commercial and industrial areas by combining the B-1 and B-2 Districts into a new LB Limited Business District, combining the B-3 and B-4 Districts into a new CB Community Business District and combining the I-1 and I-2 Districts into a new single Industrial District. 6. Administrative Provisions - Created a new administrative section providing for a simpler and more efficient administrative permitting process and reducing the number and types of activities requiring a conditional use permit or variance. Many zoning applications will now be handled by City staff at an administrative level, saving landowners time and money. This new section also provides: · An appeal process to the City Council if there is a dispute about issuance of an administrative permit. · A new conditional use permit amendment process in the event a CUP use changes significantly from its odginal application. Request for Action" Page 3 4-23-01 · New standards for the City'to revoke a conditional use permit. · New regulations for planned unit developments. · Allows for building expansions up to 25% without a site plan review. 7. Zoninq Map - The City Zoning Map has also been amended to reflect the changes in the various distdct boundaries caused by the creation of the new RB Residential Business District, and the combining of the B-1 and B-2 Districts into the new LB Limited Business District, combining the B-3 and B-4 Districts into the new CB Community Business District, and combining the I-1 and I-2 Districts into a single Industrial District. Pending comments from the City Council, staff recommends approval of the ordinance. ATTACHMENTS · Summary Ordinance · City Attorney Correspondence ORDINANCE 2001- AN oRDINANCE RECODIFYING CHAPTER 4 "ZONING" OF THE CITY CODE ESTABLISI-HNG ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE SUMM~Y PUBLICATION The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. This ordinance is titled "An Ordinance Recodifying Chapter 4 "Zoning" of the City Code Establishing Zoning Regulations in the City of New Hope." and replaces the existing Chapter 4 "Zoning" of the New Hope City Code which is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Due to the length of the ordinance and cost of publication, the New Hope City Council hereby approves and finds the publication of the following summary of the ordinance recodifying the Zoning Code is sufficient and will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance as if it where published in its entirety. Section 3. A printed copy of the complete ordinance recodifying the Zoning Code is available for inspection by the public at the office of the New Hope City Clerk, New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, during regular business hours. A printed copy of the complete ordinance reeodifying the Zoning Code will also be available at the New Hope Ice Arena Community Center during its regular business hours, located at 4949 Louisiana Avenue North. Section 4. Ordinance Summary - The recodification of Chapter 4 of the New Hope Zoning Code will have the following intent and effect: 1. C. omprehensive Plan - Updates the Zoning Code to be consistent with the City's 1998 Comprehensive Plan to encourage private development of existing homes and businesses. 2. Code Reformatted Renders the Zoning Code format more user-friendly for City staff, City Council, advisory committees and local residents. 3. Rules and Definitions - Eliminates seldom used or obsolete definitions, conforms other definitions to State statute definitions and groups definitions into single topic areas for ease of reference. 4. General Provisions - Establishes and maintains criteria to permit the following: (a) Expansion of non-conforming single and two-family structures by administrative permit and expansion of multi-family, commercial and industrial structures by conditional use permit; (b) New regulations for roof-top screening equipment; (e) Includes minimum building width of 24 feet; (d) Inclusion of aviation obstruction provisions; (e) Reduces building setback requirements in all districts to encourage expansion of existing properties. However, it maintains the 75 foot setback on Industrial property abutting R-1 and R-2 Residential property, limits building heights in the Industrial District to 4 stories if abutting R-1 and R-2 property and requires 100 foot setback for loading berths on Industrial properties abutting R-1 and R-2 properties; (f) Elimination of special exceptions to yard setback standards no longer applicable or where the purpose of the exceptions can be better achieved by site design or screening; (g) Amendmem of encroachment provisions to prohibit building on or extending over easements of record; (h) Reduction of unit lot area and width standards for twinhomes to 6,000 square feet and 37.5 feet respectively, and quadraminuims to 5,000 square feet and 40 feet respectively; (i) 5 % open space requirement for commercial fences; 0) Requirement to replace all dead plantings in accordance with any approved landscaping plan; {k) Reduce to 7 days the time limit on exterior storage of inoperable vehicle; 2 {1) Revises regulation for storage of recreational vehicles by permitting storage in front yards if setback at least 15 feet from curb without encroaching on public sidewalk and located on suitable surface other than grass or landscaped yard; (m) Revises off-street parking standards for twinhomes and townhomes, senior housing, senior high school and post-high school facilities; (n) Increases to 7,000 square feet the building size for eligibility for a loading area waiver; (o) Includes interact sales as permitted home occupation; (p) Updates wetland conservation regulations to conform with the State's Wetlands Conservation Action. 5. Zoning District Provisions - The following changes were made in the zoning provisions: (a) Compartmentalizes each individual district; (b) Eliminates roll-over references from district to district; (c) Expands the list of permitted uses in each district; (d) Reduces lot sizes to increase density in all residemial districts expect the R-1 Single Family District; (e) Reduces the lot area and lot widths in the R-2 District to reduce the number of non-conforming properties within the R-2 District; (fl Increases the maximum the building heights in the R4 and R-5 Districts; (g) Creates a new RB Residential Business District to rezone select RO Districts as RB Districts that will allow for expanded neighborhood commercial land uses; 3 (h) Reduces the number of zoning districts in the commercial and industrial areas by combining the B-1 and B-2 Districts into a new LB Limited Neighborhood Business District, combining the B-3 and B-4 Districts into a new CB Community Business District and combining the I-1 and I-2 Districts into a new Single Industrial District. 6. Administrative Provisions- Created a new administration section providing for a simpler and more efficient administrative permitting process and reducing the number and types of activities requiring a conditional use permit or variance. Many zoning applications will now be handled by City staff at an administrative level, saving landowners time and money. This new section also provides: (a) an appeal process to the City Council if there is a dispute about issuance of an administrative permit; (b) a new conditional use permit amendment process in the event a CUP use changes significantly from its original application; (c) new standards for the City to revoke a conditional use permit; (d) new regulations for planned unit developments; (e) allows for building expansions up to 25% without a site plan review; (D exempts from site plan review parking lot expansions and accessory building construction; (g) specifically identifies variance hardship criteria. Section 5. Zoning Map. The City Zoning Map has also been amended to reflect the changes in the various district boundaries caused by the creation of the new RB Residential Business District, and the combining of the B-1 and B-2 Districts into the new LB Limited Business District, combining the B-3 and B-4 Districts into the new CB Community Business District, and combining the I-1 and I-2 Districts into a Single Industrial District. The new Zoning Map is available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk and the New Hope Ice Arena Community Center at the addresses and times indicated in Section 3 of this. Ordinance. 4 Section 6. Effective~ Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 23rd day of April, 2001. W. Peter Enek, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the ~ day of ,2001 .) P:L~morneykCnh Ordinanc~\CNH99-40100-Recodifi¢~ion of Chapter 4.doc 5 4401 Xylon Avenue North City HaI1:~ 763-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 763-531-5170 Police Fax: 763-531-5174 www. ci. new-hope, rnn. us Public Works: 763-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 763-533-7650 TDD: 763-531-5109 April 11, 2001 Subject: Northwood Park Native Prairie Burn Dear Northwood Park Area Resident: When Northwood Park was renovated several years ago, the creek channel was re-aligned and three new ponds were created. The area along the shoreline of the channel and ponds was planted with native, prairie plants. These plants provide diversity to the park as well as adding beauty and enhancing wildlife habitat in the area. The maintenance requirements of prairie plants are considerably different than those of turf grasses. For each of the past few years, the area along the channel and ponds has been mowed about 6-12 inches high, late in the spring. This type of mowing in the spring has helped promote the establishment of the prairie plants in Northwood Park. At a neighborhood meeting last summer, City staff and area residents discussed the possibility of buming the praide area as an alternative to mowing it. Historically, fire was a natural component of the praide environment. For decades, ecologists have safely used controlled burns as a maintenance tool for prairie areas. A controlled burn would get rid of problem species such as cottonwood seedlings, ragweed, and other plants that are invading the prairie and competing with the prairie plants. Fire can reduce plant competition, kill invasive plant types, release nutrients back into the soil, warm soils in the spring, and in general, assist in the propagation and maturation of native prairie plants. At another neighborhood meeting on March 14, 2001, area residents and the New Hope City Council again discussed conducting a controlled bum in the prairie areas of Northwood Park. All of the comments from neighbors at these meetings have supported using a controlled burn as an alternative to mowing. This spring, instead of mowing, the City will be doing a controlled bum along portions of the shoreline of the lake, ponds, and the creek channel. The controlled burn will have an immediate positive impact. In the long term, the burn should reduce the amount of time spent keeping undesirable woody plants under control, and help maintain an attractive area with a variety of wildflowers and prairie grasses. Specific conditions must exist for the fire to be conducted. Therefore, weather will dictate when the bum actually occurs. We hope to conduct the burn between mid-April and mid-May. The burn will take place on the first weekday that weather and other conditions are met. General conditions require that the temperature be less than 80 degrees, the wind be between 5 and 15 Projects~lorthwood Park~,Control Bum Letter 4-2-01 Family Styled City ~ For Family Living miles per hour, and the relative humidity be between 20 and 80 percent. The fire is planned for some time between late morning and mid-afternoon. Through proper planning, selection of wind direction, and appropriate ignition sequencing, the smoke from the fire can be managed so that it should dse away from homes, roads, and other sensitive areas. The prescribed fire will be planned and conducted by an experienced professional. In addition to identifying appropriate weather conditions, other important aspects of planning include identifying the personnel and equipment required to ensure a controlled bum, and determining the specific order of events. On the day of the bum, the New Hope Public Works Department will have a water tank truck on the site, and West Metro Fire and Rescue will be standing by to assure that we have a safe bum. The City recommends that residents who normally hang laundry outside to dry avoid doing so on weekdays until the controlled bum has been 'completed, We hope to complete ail burning in one day and minimize any inconvenience to homeowners. Because we cannot be specific about the day of the controlled burn at this time, residents living near the park may want to visit the City's website at ci.new-hope, mn. us before planning outdoor activities on weekdays until the bum has been completed. On the' day that conditions are correct and the decision is made to carry out the bum, a notice will be posted on the website. Residents will k.n..°w that all burning is completed when the areas along the channel east of Boone Avenue, and around the ponds, both east and west of Boone Avenue, have been charred. Immediately after the bum, the ground will be black. Within about five days, there should be evidence of new green plant growth. Re,vegetation will occur very quickly. Later this summer, the planting area will look much like it did last year, but with much less ragweed, tall clover, cottonwoods, and other weeds. Thank you for your continued interest and cooperation with maintenance activities at Northwood Park. If you have specific question about the controlled bum, please contact Tom Schuster, City Forester at 763-533-4823, ext. 13., Or, if you have general comments about the controlled bum at Northwood Park, please call the Express Your Comment Opinion Line at 763-533-5102. Sincerely ~ W. Peter Enck Mayor Projects~lorltwvood Park~Control Bum Letter 4-2-01 PROJECT NO. 678 PROJECT BULLETIN 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH Overview On March 26, 2001, the New Hope City Council awarded contracts for the construction of a new home and the installation of pilings on a City owned lot at 4864 Flag Avenue North. S.V.K. Development was awarded the house construction contract in the amount of $157,289. Atlas Foundation was awarded the piling installation contract in the amount of $22,100. The three-bedroom home, including a double garage, will measure 1,605 square feet. The home will face the west side of the lot toward Flag Avenue. Prior to the home construction, the City Engineer will oversee the installation of pilings. Pilings are steel pipes that are drilled into the ground to support the home's foundation. The City was involved in a similar home construction/piling project at 8808 41st Avenue North, where neighboring property owners did not experience any problems. The following tentative construction timeline has been established for the installation of pilings and the construction of the home. · April 10 - Site excavation; · April 12-13- Piling location staking; · April 16-18- Piling installation; · April 23 - House construction to begin. Construction of the home should be completed by September 2001. Landscaping adequate to buffer the new home from 49th Avenue will be installed after construction is completed. The new house will be sold to a qualified first-time homebuyer. Construction Hours Construction activities may occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Friday. No weekend work is expected. Site Upkeep The City will oversee the contractors and site during the spring and summer months. As a neighboring property owner, if you have any concerns or notice any suspicious activity on the property, please contact the New Hope Police Department at 911 anytime, day or night. City Contacts If you have questions or comments about the project, please contact Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137 or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 763- 531-5119. The City appreciates the cooperation of area residents and businesses that may be impacted by this construction project. Additional bulletins will be sent to you as the project progresses. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 4/5~01 PROJECT BULLETIN 5406, 5410, 5412, 5420 and 5532 Winnetka Avenue North Overview Over the last several months the City has purchased 5406, 5410, 5512, 5420 and 5532 Winnetka Avenue North from willing sellers. On April 23, 2001, the Council awarded the contract for the total demolition of structures and site restoration of the lots to Kevitt Excavating, Inc. The structures are to be demolished and removed from the sites by May 25, 2001. Site restoration work is to be completed by June 8, 2001. The City intends to utilize these lots for future residential redevelopment purposes. Neighboring property owners will be notified as the redevelopment process proceeds, but in the near future the properties will be land banked and remain vacant. Site Upkeep The City will maintain the site. As a neighboring property owner, if you notice any suspicious activity on the property, please contact the New Hope Police Department at 911 anytime day or night. Construction Hours Construction activities may occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Friday and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. weekends and holidays. All work will take place during these hours. City Contacts If you have questions or comments regarding these properties, please contact Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137 or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development at 763- 531-5119. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may be impacted by this construction project. Additional bulletins will be sent to you as the project progresses. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 4/24/01 Hidden Condos 60th St. Extension - Private Road Reconstruction Project Overview Over the past several months, the City of New Hope has been working with the Hidden Park Condominium Association to develop an assessment agreement to fund the reconstruction of their private access road to West Broadway. On April 23, 2001, the City Council approved the Association's petition for the assessment schedule and awarded a contract to Don Zappa & Son Excavating for the reconstruction of the 60th Street private extension access road, including the installation of a water mare loop and storm sewer. This project is expected to take approximately eight weeks to complete. Please see the location map on the reverse side of this project bulletin to view the 60th Street Extension construction area. The project will include the installation of storm sewer and reconstruction of the private drive to a 22 foot width with curb and gutter to improve drainage, which will be paid for by the Hidden Park Condo Association. The construction of a water main loop between West Broadway and the condominiums will be paid for by the City. The vacant property at 6003 West Broadway, which is owned by the City of New Hope, will be utilized as the staging site. Proiect Schedule The project is expected to begin on Monday, April 30 and continue through approximately June 25. Construction Hours Construction activities may occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Friday and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends or holidays. All work will take place during these hours. No weekend hours are anticipated, but may occur due to bad weather. City Contacts If you have questions or comments regarding this project, please contact Vince Vander Top, Assistant City Engineer, at 651-604-4790 or Tom Schuster, Contract Manager/City Forester, at 763-533-4823 ext. 13, weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. After normal daytime hours, contact the New Hope Police Department at 763-531-5170. For concerns relating directly to the Hidden Park Condominium property please contact Tamara Micheis, Property Manager, at 763-478-0373. As a neighboring property owner, if you notice any suspicious activity on the construction site, please contact the New Hope Police Department at 911 anytime, day or night. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may be impacted by this construction project. Additional bulletins will be sent to you as the project progresses. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 4/25/01