The URL can be used to link to this page

060397 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 4. 4.1' 4.2* 4.3* 5.2 7.1 7.2 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 97-09 Request for a Vadance to Allow a Second Existing Garage to Place, 5933 Boone Avenue North, Elmer Geislinger, Petitioner Remain in Case 97-10 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher, Petitioners Case 97-11 Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow An Extension Onto the Existing Tower for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North, American Portable Telecom, Nextel Communications, and John Miner, Petitioners COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: June 12 at 8 a.m. (if necessary) Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: June 18 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1997. Review of City Council Minutes of April 28 and May 12, 1997. ANNOUNCEMENTS 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 Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the 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 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 Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the 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 Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. JUNE PLANNING CASES 1.1 5933 Boone Avenue PC97-11 5008 Hillsboro Avenue ZONING DISTRICT MAP R-I Sing~ Family Re~dentia~ R-2 $ing~ ~ Two Family Remdentia R-3 M~i~ O~ ~i~nti~l ~2 R~ ~3 ~ 0~ I-1 ~ I~ I-2 ~ I~M O~ ~ / PC97-10 2900 Nevada Avenue 1 INCH - 2100 FEET Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-09. Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Existing Garage to Remain in Place 5933 Boone Avenue North 06-118-21-24-0088 R-l, Single Family Residential Elmer Geislinger May 30, 1997 June 3, 1997 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow a second existing garage to remain in place on the property, pursuant to Section 4.22 and 4.032(3)(g)(h)of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioners obtained a building permit to build a detached garage and convert the existing attached garage for storage/other use in 1981. When the construction was completed that year, the owners declined to remove or convert the existing attached garage. A decision was made at that time t~ defer the conversion until the "point-of-sale" housing inspection. Instead of converting the attached garage, the petitioners are now requesting a variance to allow two garages on the property (the existing attached garage and the existing detached garage). Section 4.032(3)(g) of the City Code states that "no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) private accessory garage structure for each dwelling." The Code states that "each lot shall be limited to one (1) accessory building in addition to an accessory garage." The Code further states that "no accessory building or garage for single or two family residential uses shall occupy more than 25 percent of a rear yard, nor exceed 900 square feet." Other Code language and definitions prevent a'storage shed from being used for garage purposes. 4. The property, which is a standard 86' x 105' (9,030 square feet) residential tot, is located on the west side of Boone Avenue south of 60th Avenue North. The property contains a single family home with an attached 288 square foot single car garage on the south side of the home. A 576 square foot detached garage is located in the southwest corner/rear yard of the property (constructed in 1981). The rear detached garage is accessed by an expanded driveway along the side of the home/attached garage. Total garage space on the property totals 864 square feet. 6. The property is located in a Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes on the north/south/east/west. 7. The property is located in Planning District #1 of the Comprehensive Plan, which notes the quality residential development in this neighborhood. 8. The topography of the property slopes down from the southwest (rear) of the property towards the northeast street front from approximately 916' to 912'. The Building Official reports that several instances have arisen in the past where a building permit garage is authorized with a condition to remove an existing second driveway or garage as part of .. project. He states that in this case, a garage building permit application was received in 1981. It proposed a new detached double garage, but there was an existing single attached garage on the property. Since City Code prohibits two garages, he states that he advised the applicants to: A. apply for a variance B. remove the second garage, or C. submit plans and obtain a permit to show the existing garage converted to another use at the time of the new garage construction. Many attached garages in the past have been converted to porches, recreation rooms, living rooms, storage and kitchen expansion. The Building Official states that the petitioners understood the ordinances and agreed to comply. The plans were signed and marked "Remove existing overhead door - eliminate original garage." On the final inspection of the new garage, he wrote "OK - Submit plans on second garage conversion or variance application." No action was taken by the petitioners. In 1988, the Fire Marshall and Police Department were called to the property regarding a day care operation. The garage issues were again brought to the City's attention and the attached memo was entered into the file. A determination was made to defer the garage conversion order until the property was sold and inspected at "point-of-sale." , On April 30, 1997, the General Inspector made the dwelling maintenance inspection and re-issued the previous order, which prompted this variance application. The petitioners have taken good care of their property and buildings in recent years. 10. The petitioners have submitted several letters outlining their recollection of past events. They state that the building permit stated nothing about removing an overhead door - eliminate original garage or apply for a variance. They indicate that after an inspection for day care in 1988, a memorandum was filed on this matter. They indicate the reason for the second garage was for vehicle storage and miscellaneous storage. They state that the garage is set back with the neighbors garage to the rear and does not block views anymore than the neighbors garage. They state that they did not receive a copy of the file memo and would have applied for a variance at that time if they had received a copy. 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. Staff have received correspondence from an adjoining neighbor opposing the granting of the variance. ANALYSIS Variance 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the-terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. values within the The petitioners state that a hardship would be created if the variance were not granted because more vehicles would be parked outside, more vandalism to vehicles could occur, and the property would not appear as well kept. They are requesting approval of the variance. Staff agree that a second garage creates two additional indoor parking spaces and support the idea that garage expansion is desirable for additional storage. However, staff also appreciate the City Code prohibition of two separate garages per lot. Very few variances of this type have been granted in the past. One is a block south of this property at 5804 Boone, where numerous complaints have been received. Regardless of what has occurred in the past, staff encourage the Commission to evaluate this request based on the Zoning Code criteria for granting a variance. This property is not unique and the "undue hardship" definition is not met. RECOMMENDATION Pending comments from the public and facts presented by the petitioner, staff is recommending conversion of the original garage to a living/storage use (removal of overhead door) and denial of the variance. Attachments: ZoningFFopo/Address Maps Certificates of Survey Photo Letters from Petitioner Letter from Neighbor 1988 Inspection Report 1989 File Memo 1997 Housing Condition Report Application Log IIIIII/I 62 NO I 'i. 611/2 AVE. NO. J:~' , 615T AVE. NO. MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8~ PARK 60 U2 AVE. N. LIBERTY PARK V I S'1" O RY PARK 60TH AVE. NO. 5700 56 TH. Q Z - '-ENG'J NEE. R5 -2 lT/-r_.)/;' 1997 SITE PLAN MAY 2_ 8 1997 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 May 27, 1997 To whom it may concern; We would like to thank you for informing us regarding the variance applicatiOn by Elmer Geislinger, located at 5933 Boone Avenue North, requesting a second existing garage to remain on this property. This is planning case number 97-09. It is our understanding New Hope City Ordinances prohibit two garages to be located on a residential lot such as this. In our opinion, this is a very good requirement, and a way of keeping a neighborhood more attractive looking and maintaining property values. As close neighbors to this property, and concerned citizens, we would like the City to consider denying this request to ensure setting a precedence in the neighborhood. Also, we are not aware of any hardship in this matter. Thank you for letting us express our opinions with you and we will respect your final decision. Sincerely, . Alvin and Margaret Steinbring TIME: BUSII~SS NAME: SOURCE: ~Construction Comments . INSPECI ON !-1 Complaint [] Other [] Annual Corrected Issued this ¢b.y to: Representing: NOTE: Reinspection Date: d~ys t° corr~~v~ Inspector ~"~ white: applicant yellow: inspector Pink: pid fil® F I'LE MEMORANDUM 3/22/89 - NOTE: Director Sm[th & I are recording brief details on this 5933 Boone Avenue'garage/sisituation, for further enforcement at "point-of-sale". 'Building Permit ~.B 9979 was issued on 4/24/81 for a detached garage, with plans that were marked "Remove existing overhead door-eliminate original garage",and s~gned.by me. Owner/con~ractQr discussed the prQject with me and Unders%ood ou~ "one-garage"' ordinance. At time of final inspection, I wrote on'the Inspection C~r~!(8/6/81): "OK. Submit plans on 2nd garage conversion or Variance application." and signed, "Doug". Owner Kathleen Geislinger conf.i, rmed this with me on 2/3/88 after I called her at 533-8028. She had been a neighbor of the City Managers and this may have beenidiscussed with him. The record is blurred, on what was said by whom. At this time, Doug Smith has elected to ~tay any further enforcement action until the next "point-of-sale" inspection. At that time, my 8/6/8t order will be repeated: "Remove existing overhead door,eliminate original garage or ap~ly for second garage Variance." HOUSING CONDITION REPORT. I have this day inspect~ these p=emises, unde= the au~o=it~ o~ the New Hope Dwelling Maintenance and Occupancy C~et and ~he ~b~ov~flg condit'zo~._~o. ~ain'ing minimum housing- DAYS OR BK~)RK CLOS'IHG! Contact Utility BLlling - 531-5132 · ~' When corrections have been made; please call 531-5127, for re-inspection. Depa~n~ of Fi~e and Safe~y INSP-O04 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E f G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 97-09 Elmer Geislinger 5/1/97 6/30/97 8/29/97 5933 Boone Avenue N. New Hope 55428 533-8028 B. C. D. Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension,'the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-10 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service 2900 Nevada Avenue North 20-118-21-34-0029 I-1, Limited Industrial CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher May 30, 1997 June 3,1997 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 100-foot tall steel monopole with antenna array for telecommunications wireless service, pursuant to Sections 4.21, 4.022(3D), 4.039D(3) and 4.144 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This is an application for a conditional use permit by US West that will allow the location of a PCS telephone antenna and cell site on the property at 2900 Nevada Avenue North. CB Commercial has been authorized by US West to act as their representative for planning and zoning matters. US West is proposing to construct a 100-foot steel monopole tower on the noted property. A PCS antenna array will be placed at the top of the pole. 3. The monopole would be located at the northeast corner (rear yard) of the Northland Mechanical Contractors property at the end of Nevada Avenue North, just north of Medicine Lake Road. There is an existing office/warehouse building on the site, which contains 4.3 acres. 4. CB Commercial states that the foundation for the tower will be a caisson type. The tower steel and foundation will be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. These specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines, and the type of equipment to be attached to the tower. A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a tower that typically exceeds local building code requirements. Additionally, the cell site will meet both FAA and FCC requirements for the location. Tower color will be chosen to blend in with the surrounding environment. No signs or lighting will be attached to the tower. 5. The petitioner further states that an unmanned prefabricated equipment pad measuring approximately 12'0' x 9'6" x 6'0" will be located at the base of the pole. The drainage of the site will not be changed. A chain link fence and landscaping will be implemented per the City's requirements. The site will only require single phase 200 amp electrical service and T1 telephone for utilities. These will be brought in underground. 6. Surrounding zoning/land uses are I-1 office/warehouse to the north, wetland/marsh zoned I-1 to the east (and several R-1 properties), I-1 office/warehouse to the south, and a non-conforming home located in an I-1 zone to the west. 7. The area is known as Planning District 30 in the Comprehensive Plan and contains a small industrial park at the southeast corner of the City. 8. One paved parking space is available for service within 75' of the tower. Note from the Building Official's attachments that the north half of this property is not yet developed. 9. The topography of the property slopes toward the east marsh and the property contains mini~'-'~.l vegetation. 10. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this request. The City of Crystal was also notified due to the proximity of the municipal boundary. ANALYSIS 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 criteria 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. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning 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 (I-1, I-2): a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing oi' 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 Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. 3. The petitioner has submitted the following statements in regard to the Zoning Code criteria for a CUP: A. The site meets the City's standards for conditional uses. The antenna will be visually unobtrusive and go unnoticed by the casual observer. B. New wireless communication technology has developed rapidly in the past few years and many new applications are vital to industrial and business uses. Business and industry will be seeking out and adapting to these new technologies to remain competitive as the new Information Highway becomes a reality. Having access to these emerging wireless technologies will be an important amenity for the success of future business. :~ ~ C. This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US West to bring this new CDMA cellular technology to the area. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way for business, individuals, and government services to communicate. Police can use CDMA cellular fax machines as part of their drug enforcement program to obtain immediate search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building en route to more safely fight fires. Ambulances can use it to transmit vital data to emergency rooms which allows the emergency rooms to be better prepared to receive injured accident victims. At spill sites, hazardous material information can be obtained "on site" by accessing computer data bases throughout the country with a CDMA cellular modem. Motorists who do not have the cellular phones are benefited by this system. Passing motorists with a phone can place an emergency call. D. CDMA cellular radio transmissions are very safe and pose no health risk. It is really nothing more than a digital Iow power two-way radio. CDMA cellular uses Iow power to insure that the signal stays within the designated "cell" so it will not interfere with neighboring "cells." The output for PCS cellular is 40 watts. Television and radio station transmitting towers can range from 50,000 watts to one million watts of power output. In fact, the output of a PCS antenna array impacts the population at approximately half the output and associated absorption rate of the microwave oven found in most kitchens. E. The question is often asked if the operation of a cellular antenna will affect home radio and television reception. The use of the frequency spectrum is tightly controlled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The CDMA cellular system is operated in the 1900 MHz range. This is a higher frequency on the radio spectrum than home radio and television frequencies. This is important .because higher frequency users cannot interfere with lower frequency users. Since 1984, over 15,000 cellular antennas have been erected across the United States, and there have been no documented instances of interference with home entertainment equipment. Additionally, CDMA encoding will virtually eliminate the possibility of phone number cloning and cell number theft. 4. Staff agree that the plans meet the CUP criteria, as the proposed tower use is compatible with an industrial area, it will not create any nuisance characteristics, and it will provide an economic return. Ordinance 97-04 1. The newly adopted ordinance establishing regulations for the construction and placement of telecommunication towers and facilities states that "Personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within Industrial Zoning Districts, provided they comply with the following standards: A. Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. B. 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. C. All antenna towers shall be 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 manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. E. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any requ;-'-'d federal, state, or local agency licenses. F. The City many 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. G. 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 ($0) 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. H. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of one thousand (1,000) feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. I. 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. 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. K. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. L. Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. M. Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse visual effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. N. 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. 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 right-of-ways. P. If a new antenna tower is to be constructed, it shall be designated to accommodate at least two (2) antenna arrays including, but not limited to, other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire, and ambulance companies. Q. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 4.21 of this Code must also be satisfied. The petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on May 15 and all of the ordinance requirements were reviewed. Additional plans/dOcuments were submitted as a result of the meeting. The specific applicable requirements of Ordinance 97-04 are addressed as follows and also outlined on the enclosed PCS CUP checklist from the Building Official: A. Written authorization by the property owner has been provided. B. Removal - Staff requests that the tower owner and land owner submit a signed statement indicating that they will be responsible for removing the tower within 12 months of cessation of operation at the site if it becomes obsolete and unused, and that this be a condition of the CUP approval. C. Building Code compliance will be a condition of approval. E. F. G. Structural desi_~n verification by engineer - A structural analysis has been provided and will also be a condition of approval. Federal License has been provided. Not applicable. Setbacks or "confined collapse" documentation - The tower is set back 44 feet from the north property line and. over 135 feet from the building. The 50 percent tower height from building setback requirement is met, but the 75 percent tower height from property line is not met. Setback requirements may be reduced if collapse documentation is provided. The petitioner has provided two letters regarding the structural integrity of the tower (November 7, 1996, letter from Engineered Endeavors, Inc., and May 12, 1997, letter from Millerbernd). H. 1,000-foot separation - The tower meets the 1,000-foot separation requirement; please see Building Official attachment. I. Hei_~ht - Maximum height of a three antenna array tower can be 165 feet and this tower is 100 feet tall, with antenna array at 100 feet and future growth at 70 feet and 85 feet. J. Illumination - none proposed. K. Advertising - none proposed. L. & M. Painting - The tower extension will be painted silver or gray to reduce visual impact. N. Security fence/anti-climb device - The site will be surrounded by an eight-foot chain-link fence. The petitioner has not submitted information for an anti-climb device. Any approval should include this condition. O. Equipment at base of tower - An unmanned prefabricated equipment pad (12' x 9' x 6') will be located at the base of the pole to hold the necessary equipment for the tower. A detailed, generous landscaping plan and schedule have been submitted showing landscaping on all sides (exterior) of the fenced enclosure, including Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Marshall Seedless Ash, Bush Honeysuckle and Cranberry. Staff find that the petitioner has submitted or is in the process of submitting all of the information requested by the Design & Review Committee. The revised plans also show the location of the building to the north and include an erosion control fence. Staff does want to take this opportunity to comment on the Northland Mechanical property. The property is "unfinished," since it was built in 1984 as "Phase 1." Council allowed Northland Mechanical to defer the completion of the north half landscaping and paving/curbing until "Phase 2" building was erected, understood to be a few years. The property owner was required to apply for a CUP for outdoor storage on the day of final inspection of the new building in 1984. Plan Case 85-1 was approved, as a CUP for the outdoor storage of six semi-trailers on the unfinished north side of the building, with no screening and a maintained driveway. The General Inspector has regularly found that their storage exceeded the scope of the CUP. Staff ask that a revised Site Plan be submitted for completion of the entire property in a reasonable manner. The City now permits outdoor storage in the I-1 zone, not to exceed 20 percent of the building, under a set of conditions. With the 24,000 square feet of warehouse, Northland can show 4,800 square feet of outdoor storage on a finished surface, without any CUP, in the new plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the CUP to construct a 100-foot monopole at 2900 Nevada Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with State Building Code. 2. Engineer's certification of all tower modifications. 3. Submittal of "Removal Statement." 4. Submit anti-climb device details, for this tower and submit revised elevation and specifications, which are to be reviewed/approved by Building Official. 5. Annual inspection by staff. 6. Property owner is requested to submit a revised 1997 site plan for completed property. Attachments: Zoning/Address/'ropo/Aerial Maps Certified Survey 5/29 Petitioner Correspondence Revised Plans: Title Sheet Vicinity Map Site Plan Equipment Pad Plan Monopole Elevation Landscaping Plan/Schedule Monopole Color Photo 5/5 Petitioner Correspondence 5/2 Petitioner Correspondence Site Lease Agreement FCC License Information Miscellaneous Submittals PCS Tower CUP Checklist Tower Separation Map Building Official Attachments re: Outdoor Storage and Phase Construction Collapse Information Letter Application Log I-1 Limited Industri~ I-2 General Industri Open Space / Pu 1 INCH = 1000 FI 1000 LANE .0 , 710g ' 3~0~ .t tO TH N ,?-.730 ff NORTH SCALE t' - 100' PROJECT NO. MIN 063 su.v~r re.: BOARMAN KROOS PFISTER VOGEL & ASSOCIATES PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2900 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope. MInne~ota OESCRIPTK)N: Lot l. Block 1, NEVADA PARTNER~ ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this map wac prepared by me or under my dlm~ ~uper~t~on and that I am o duly Uc~ee<l Land Surv~/or under the la~ of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 16th day of December, 1g~6. ..v,.ed th,. 2.d day o, .ay. ,,,,//...,... ~d~ck Bo[ke MinnesOta Uceese No. 2028! 1. No title work wee fu~shed for the preF~ratlon of thla .~Jr'vw to ve~ the legal de~Hpt~n or the existence of 2. ~la Ou~ does not pu~ff to show all imp~eats to the pm~. 3. ~e o~ of the ~pe~ de~d hem~ 19 190,66~ ~re f.t or 4.3~ acres. 4. ~H~K: T~ n~ of the ~mnt No~h and L~lslana Avenue No~. (~on - g37.25 feat) ,2slo/t5 EGAN, RELD & NOWAK INC. SURVEYORS 23702R1 1702 CB CO~,~4ERCL~L REAL ESTATE GROUP. INC. BROKERAGE SERVICES I CB COMMERCIAL D¢iive~ng Solutions Local Knowledge Work e FOUNDED 1906 May 29, 1997 Doug Sandstad City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Conditional Use Permit application to construct 100' monopole. Dear Mr. Sandstad Enclosed please revised site plans for US West's proposed monopole at 2900 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope. The revised plans show the existing building to the north of the said property and a erosion control fence. Please feel free to call me at 603-6127 if you have any questions or reqUire further information. Sincerely, Scott Hoelscher Zoning Specialist CB Commercial-Telecommunication Division IN EXCLUSIVE ALLIANCE WITH DTZ AND C.Y. LEUNG ~ EXCEEDING CLIENT EXPECTATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST. SUITE 159 SOU'rH, ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55114-1052 U S WEST WIRELESS PROJECT SITE NO. SITE NAME: CITY: MIN-063 NEVADA AVE. N. NEW HOPE COUNTY: HENNEPIN STATE: MINNESOTA DESIGN TYPE: MONOPOLE ZONING SUBMI'I-I'AL INDEX TITLE SHEET D1 D2 D4 D5 TITLE SHEET VICINITY MAP OVERALL SITE PLAN DETAIL SITE PLAN SITE ELEVATION PROJECT INFORMATION SITE NAME: NEVADA AVE. N. SITE ADDRESS: 2900 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA OWNER: US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 426 NORTH FAIRVIEW, ROOM 101 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: BECHTEL TELECOM (612) 642-6294 ENGINEER: BECHTEL TELECOM (612) 642-6294 SURVEYOR: EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK (612) 546-66.37 HWY. IGcJ HWY. om zC~ ~om NEVADA AVE. N. ATM G. ~vOR'r~ PROPER l~f LINE I I LUCENT TECHNOLOGg_q ~ ,.~. ~ ,=x OVERALL SITE PLAN f Z 0 -13 0 k,~.../.~ 3' UGHTNING ROD )NOPOLE ANTENNA MONOPOLE CONFIOURATION BF..CI-I'I"~ IlS ~ SITE £LEVATION LUC~.NT TECi'iNOLOC~--q ,=,,~.,m ~m*,,a. me ~.. ~ ...... 16' O HOW 01STANCI~: TO NEAREST ABU'rl'IHG STRU~ HIGH CHAINUNK GAT~ SEE NOTE FOR ON X/AX INFORMA~ON ~.~' ~TEE~ IIPMEN~ PAO O RYERSON OR EOUAL SHREAOE0 HAROWO00 MULCH ON COMMERCIAL LANOSCAPE FABRIC ' TYPICAL MONOPOLE LOCATION PLANTING LAYOUT N0r".S COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME NO~ES AUSTRIAN PINE: PINUS NIGRA B"HGT. B&:G PLANT IO' O.C. BLACK HILLS SPRUCE PICIrA CLAUCA 0ENSATA MARSHALL SEEDLESS ASH 'WARSHALL$ SEEOLESS' 8'HCT. m~',cl PLANT I0' O.C. 2.5' CAL. 8't'~ PLACE AS SHOWN BUSH HON~¥~LIO<LE 01ERV~LLA LONICERA il5 POT AU. HICHBUSH CRANBERRY V~BURNUM TRiLOBUM 5' 8 ~t,r.8 5' O.C. 5' O.C. PLOT AT 1" ~ 10' 2O B' ,-Si-' C-~A~. N,( :'ENCE TO BE G.A,W w,r~ P"]S'S O~', ("]' CEI%rE:~S W/FROST ?OOT'NCS,i~ rD .4C~R:=O.J~'.~ 3AAA ~RCWN 'OuRASLArT' F,-1EqC. l~l~l~E~' Commtlnications MIN063 2900 Nevada Ave., New Hope ~[onopole Height: 100' CB COMMERCL~L REAL ESTATE GROUP. INC. BROKERAGE SERVICES I CB COMMERCIAL Delh, eri~g Sol.,t~ons Z ~h Local Knowledge Wortawide May 5, 1997 Doug Sandstad-Building Official City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. Sandstad: Enclosed are the additional Conditional Use Permit submittal requirements for US West's proposed monopole at 2900 Nevada Avenue. Please find the following items: -20 sets of 11" x 17" site plans. -20 copies of enlarged landscape plans (attached to the site plans). -20 color computer renderings of the proposed monopole. -Revised property survey showing aH easements. -Owners signature (see permit authorization). -Evidence of Title: Owners and Encumbrance Report. -Statement regarding the signage and lighting of tower (see letter to Kirk McDonald dated May 2, 1997). -Letter from Engineered Endeavors Incorporated: Statement addressing the reliability of the steel monopole. -Copy of the lease. -Proof of US West's FCC license. US West was awarded the D block PCS license in January of 1997. FCC review and processing of applications will take 3-4 months. I have enclosed a letter and article showing the winning bids for the PCS licenses. Thank you for your continued assistance regarding this matter. Please feel free to call me at 603- 6127 with any additional questions you may have. Sincerely, Scott Hoelscher Zoning Specialist CB Commercial-Telecommunications Division IN EXCLUSIVE ALLIANCE WITH DTZ AND C.Y. LEUNG ~ EXCEEDING CLIENT EXPECTATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENL~ W'EST, SUIT~ 159 SOUTH, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114-1052 CB COMMERCIAL 2550 University Avenue West Suite 159S St. Paul, MN 55114 (612) 603-6129 Fax (612) 645-1526 May 2, 1997 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: US West Siteg MIN063 Dear Mr. McDonald: This letter accompanies an application for a Conditional Use Permit by US West that will allow the location of a PCS telephone antenna and cell site on the property at 2900 Nevada Avenue North. CBC has been authorized by US West to act as their representative for planning and zoning matters. PROPOSED USE US West is proposing to construct a steel monopole tower on the noted property. A PCS antenna array will be placed at the top of the pole. The foundation for the tower will be a caiss°n type. The tower steel and foundation will be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. These specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines and the type of equipment to be attached to the tower., A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a tower that typically exceeds local building code requirements. Please reference the enclosed drawings and the specification sheet from Engineered Endeavors, Inc. Additionally, the cell site will meet both FAA and FCC requirements for the location. Tower color will be chosen to blend in with the surrounding environment. No signs or lighting will be attached to the tower. An unmanned prefabricated equipment pad measuring approximately 12'-0" x 9'-6" x 6'-0" will be located at the base of the pole. The drainage of the site will not be changed. A chain link fence and landscaping will be implemented per the cities requirements. The site will only require single phase 200 amp electrical service and T1 telephone for utilities. These will be brought in underground. Site photographs, a site plan, and a zoning drawing are attached. ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The site meets the City's standards for conditional uses. The antenna will be visually unobtrusive and go unnoticed by the casual observer. New wireless communication technology has developed rapidly in the past few years and many new applications are vital to industrial and business uses. Business and industry will be seeking out and adapting to these new technologies to remain competitive as the new Information Highway becomes a reality. Having access to these emerging wireless technologies will be an important amenity for the success of future business. This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US West to bring this new CDMA cellular technology to the area. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way for business, individuals, and government services to communicate. Police can use CDMA cellular fax machines as part of their drag enforcement program to obtain immediate search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building in route to more safely fight fares. Ambulances can use it to transmit vital data to emergency rooms which allows the emergency rooms to be better prepared to receive injured accident victims. At spill sites, hazardous material information can be obtained "on site" by accessing computer data bases throughout the country with a CDMA cellular modem. Motorists who do not have the cellular phones are benefited by this system. Passing motorists with a phone can place an emergency call. CDMA Cellular radio transmissions are very safe and pose no health risk. It is really nothing more than a digital low power two-way radio. CDMA Cellular uses Iow power to insure that the signal stays within the designated "cell" so it will not interfere with neighboring "cells". The output for PCS cellular is 40 watts. Television and radio station transmitting towers can range from 50,000 watts to one million watts of power output. In fact, the output of a PCS antenna array impacts the population at approximately half the output and associated absorption rate of the microwave oven found in most kitchens. The question is often asked if the operation of a cellular antenna will affect home radio and television reception. The use of the frequency spectrum is tightly controlled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The CDMA cellular system is operated in the 1900 MHz range. This is a higher frequency on the radio spectrum than home radio and television frequencies. This is important because higher frequency users cannot interfere with lower frequency users. Since 1984, over 15,000 cellular antennas have been erected across the United States, and there have been no documented instances of interference with home entertainment equipment. Additionally, CDMA encoding will virtually eliminate the possibility of phone number cloning and cell number theft. I respectfully request that we be placed on the next available Planning Commission Agenda. I plan to attend the hearing to answer any questions or concerns that the committee or public may have. I appreciate the assistance I havre akeady received from the'Zoning Staff. I look forward to working with you to'provide CDMA PCS cellular capability to your area. John Hollenbeck Zoning Manager CB Commercial Telecommunications Division MIN063C OPTION AND SITE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS OPTION AND SITE LEASE AGREEMENT (this "Agreemenf') is entered into this 8th day of October, 1996 ("Date of Agreemenf') by and between 2900 Nevada LLC, a Minnesota corporation ("Lessor") and US WEST COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS GROUP, a division of US WEST Communications, Inc., a Colorado Corporation ("Lessee") whose address is 1999 Broadway, Tenth Floor, Denver, Colorado 80202. WHEREAS, Lessor is the owner of certain real prol~rty including building (s) as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference ("Property"); and WHEREAS, Lessee desires to obtain an option on the Property for the purpose of occupying and installing its communication Facilities as more specifically set forth below. WHEREFORE, Lessor and Lessee agree as follows: I. Lessor for and in consideration of Five Hundred dollars ($500.00), the receipt of whereof is hereby aclcnowledged, does hereby grant and convey unto Lessee, its successors, assigns, and agents an Option to lease the Property for the Permitted Use as set forth in paragraph three below. 2. Ootion. The option to lease Lessor's Property may be exercised by Lessee at any time within the first 18 months of the Date of Agreement ("Option Period") by providing Lessor with written notice of Lessee's intent, fessor agrees that Lessee may extend the Option Period by six additional months by providing Lessor with written notice prior to the expiration oftbe original Option Period and by paying Lessor, at the time Lessee requests the extension, an sum of Five Hundred dollars ($500.00). to as the "Site". Permitted Use. The location on Lessor's property which Lessee is occupying and installing its facilities shall be referred (a) Lessee shall have the fight, at its expense, to install, construct, reconstruct and maintain on the Site communication facilities including, without limitation, radio and other communication transmitting and receiving antennas, support mounts, cables, equipment, equipment storage smactures and other improvements relating thereto (collectively the "Communication Facilities"). Lessee shall have the right to modify, supplement, replace, upgrade or relocate the Communication Facilities on the Property at any time during the term of the lease so long as said relocation, replacement or upgrade is made for the purpose of improving the operation of its Communication Facilities, with prior written consent of Lessor, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. (b) Lessee shall be entitled to reasonable access to the Site 24 hours a day, seven days per week, and shall have all additional rights of access, ingress and egress to and from each Site, provided however, except in the case of an emergency, Lessee shall notify Lessor in advance of Lessee's proposed construction, maintenance or repair activities to be performed on the Site in order to coordinate said activities with Lessor's operations. (c) Lessee shall pay any incremental additional utility charges to the Site incurred as a result of Lessee's Permitted use. Lessee shall have a right, at its expense, to install or improve utilities within or on the Property to service this Site. 4. Term. This Lease, if executed, shall be for a term of five years ("Lease Term"), and shall commence on the date that the Lessee places its written notice to Lessor in the mail of its intent to exercise its right to lease the Property. Lessee shall have a right to renew the Lease Term four additional terms at five year terms each (each being a "Renewal Term"). 5. R~nt. (a) Each month during the initial Lease Term Lessee shall pay Four Hundred Fifty dollars ($450.00) ("Lease Payment") to Lessor as Rent. Said rent shall be payable in advance to Lessor on or before the first day of each calendar month. Each additional lease term shall be paid as follows: Renewal Term 1 - Year 6-10 Renewal Term 2 - Year 11-t5 Renewal Term 3 - Year 16-20 Renewal Term 4 - Year 21-25 $525.00/Month $610.00/Month $710.00/Month $825.00/Month (b) Lessee shall pay, as additional rent, any increase in real property taxes levied against the site, which is directly attributable to Lessee's use of the site, and Lessor agrees to furnish proof of such increase to Lessee. 6. Due Dilieence. During the Option Period and any option extension, Lessee, its agents, engineers, and contractors shall have the right to enter upon Lessor's Property to inspect, examine, sample and conduct all engineering test or studies of the Site, to apply for and obtain all licenses and permits required for the Lessee's Permitted Use from all applicable governmental or regulatory entities, and otherwise do those things on the Site, that in the opinion of Lessee, are necessary to determine the physical condition of the Site, Lessor's title to the Site and the feasibility or suitability of the Site for Lessee's Permitted Use, all at Lessee's expense. Lessee shall not be liable to Lessor or any third party on account of any pre-existing defect or condition on or with respect to the Site, whether or not such defect or condition is disclosed by Lessee's inspection, although Lessee shall be responsible for any damage, loss or destruction to the Site as a result of the actions of its employees, representatives or agents during the due diligence activities. rev:9/20/96 7, [nterf'erence. (a) Lessee shall not use the Site in any way that interferes with the existing use by: (i) Lessor or (ii) tenants or licensees of Lessor holding rights to'such Site on the date of this Agreement ("Existing Tenants"). (b) Lessor warrants to Lessee the use and quiet enjoyment of the Site. Lessor agrees that it shall not use nor shall it permit its tenants, Lessees, employees, invitees, or agents to use, any portion of the Property in any way which would interfere with the operation of Lessee, provided that continued use by Lessor or Existing Tenants in the same manner as existed at the time the Lease was executed shall not constitute interference with Lessee's operations. 8. Environmental Matters. (a) Lessee will be solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify and hold Lessor, its agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all direct claims, costs, and liabilities, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the cleanup or restoration of the property associated with the Lessee's use of Hazardous Materials. (b) Lessor will be solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify, and hold Lessee, its agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all direct claims, costs, and liabilities, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the removal, cleanup, or restoration of the property with respect to Hazardous Materials from any and all sources other than those Hazardous Materials introduced to the property by Lessee. (c) " t ' "means asbestos or any hazardous substance, waste or materials as defined in any federal, state, or local environmental or safety law or regulation including, but not limited to, CERCLA. (d) The obligations of this section eight shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Agreement. 9. Iil~uranceflndemnification/eminent Domain. Lessee shall maintain, at its expense, commercial general liability insurance covering actions by Lessee providing for a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 single limits, bodily inju~ and/or property damage combined, for damages arising out of bodily injuries to or death of all persons and for damages to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof. Coverage shall include independent contractor's protection, premises-operations, products/completed operations and contractual liability with respect to the liability assumed by Lessee hereunder. Lessor and Lessee shall look solely to insurance for loss due to any damage which is covered by insurance and neither party's insurance company shall be subrogated to a claim against the other party. In the event Lessee is self insured, lessee shall supply Lessor with a certificate of self-insurance which complies with the policy limitations set forth above. Each party shall indemnify and defend the other against loss from their negligent acts and that negligent act of their employees, agents, licensees, and invitees. The parties shall share in a condemnation award in proportion to their interest in the Property taken. l O. Assimament and Subleasinl. (a) Upon Lessor's written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, which may be based on the net worth of the buyer, Lessee may assign this Lease, in part or in whole, including its right to renew, to any person or business entity which is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (b) Lessee may sublet and assign this Lease, or portion thereof, and its other rights hereunder to any person or business entity which is a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Lessee without Lessor's consent. (c) Upon notification to Lessor of any assignment, Lessee shall be relieved of all performance, liabilities and obligations under this Option and Site Lease Agreement, except as provided in Paragraph lO(b) and after approval as provided in Paragraph lO(a). (d) In the event Lessor elects to permit another communications user the fight to use any of Lessor's Property, Lessor agrees to notify Lessee thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of such authority for the purpose of determining whether the third party communications user will interfere with Lessee's use or intended use oft. he Site. Should Lessee notify Lessor in writing that the third party communications will interfere with Lessee's operations, then Lessor agrees not to permit the third party communications user the right to use the Site. Lessee's consent shall notbe unreasonably withheld. (e) Lessor shall have the right to convey or assign Lessor's rights hereunder and Lessor's rights to the property leased provided the assignee a~rees to the terms of this lease. 11. Termination. This Option and Site Lease Agreement may be terminated as follows: (a) by Lessor if Lessee fails to cure a default for payment of amounts due hereunder within thirty (30) days after Lessee's receipt of written notice of default from Lessor; (b) by the non-defaulting party if the other party defaults (other than a default described in Section I l(a) above) and fails to cure such default within sixty (60) days after written notice of such default is received by the defaulting party from the non- defaulting party; provided, however, that if such default is capable of being cured, the Lease may not be terminated so long as the defaulting party commences appropriate curative action within such sixty (60) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion as promptly as possible; rev:9/20/96 ~ (c) by Lessee upon one hundred eighty (180) days prior written notice. 12. ~a~ulld..~fii~II~ This Agreement shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective successors, personal representatives and assigns. 13. Renresentation and Warranties. Each party covenants and warrants to the other that (i) it has full right, power and authority to execute this Option and Site Lease Agreement and has the power to grant all rights hereunder;, (ii) its execution and performance of this Agreement will not violate any laws, ordinance, covenants, or the provisions of any mortgage, lease or other agreement binding on said party; and (iii) the execution and delivery of this Agreement. and the performance of its obligations hereunder, have been duly authorized by all necessary personnel or corporate officers and do not violate any provisions of law of the party's certificate of incorporation or bylaws or any other arrangement, provision of law or court order or decree. 14. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if personally delivered, or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: [f to Lessor, to: Ron Kocher 2900 Nevada Avenue New Hope, MN 55427 Attention: with a copy to: If to Lessee, to: US WEST Communications, Inc. CIO US WEST Business Resources, Inc. 188 inverness Drive West, Suite 420 Englewood, CO 80112 Attention: PSL Manager/PCS Real Estate with a copy to: US West Communications Wireless Group 426 N. Fairview St Paul, MN 55104 Attention: Regional Real Estate Manager 15. Miscellaneous. (a) This Option and Site Lease Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the Property that is the subject matter thereof and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements with respect thereto. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by both parties. (b) any claim, controversy or dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The arbitration shall be conducted in the county where the property is located. There shall be no discovery other than the exchange of information which is provided to the arbitrator by the parties. The arbitrator shall have the authority only to award compensatory damages and shall not have authority to award punitive damages or other noncompensatory damages; the parties hereby waive all rights to and claims for moneta~ awards other than compensatory damages. (c) Either party hereto that is represented in this transaction by a broker, agent or commission salesperson (a "Representative") shall be fully and exclusively responsible for the payment of any fee, commission or other compensation owing to such Representative, and shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from and against any claim to a fee, commission or other compensation asserted by such Representative, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending such claim. (d) If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. (e) By executing this Agreement, the parties are not establishing any joint undertaking, joint venture or parmership. Each party shall be deemed an independent contractor and shall act solely for its own account. The parties have entered into this Agreement as of this date first stated above. LESSOR: 2900 Nevada Avenue LLC ITS: Federal Tax I.D. or Social Security No. 41-1811184 rev:9/20/96 LESSEE: US WEST Communications, Inc. BY: ITS: Attorney-in-fact US WEST Communications Wireless Group By: ITS: AT'rEST: ·. MIN063C ADDENDUM TO OPTION AND SITE LEASE AGREEMENT The attached option and Site Lease Agreement made and entered into this 7th day of October, 1996, by and between , a Minnesota Corporation ("Lessor") and U.S. West Communications Wireless Group, a division of U.S. West Communications, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, ("Lessee") of which this Addendum is made a part, is hereby amended and supplemented as follows: Lessee will pay for all necessary permits or approvals that are imposed by local, state or federal govemments. Lessee will restore Lessor's property to its original condition after lease is terminated. Any utilities that have to be moved to keep communications facilities operational will be paid by Lessor. Lessee shall indemnify and hold harmless Lessor for any liability occasioned by the use by Lessee of the demised site, including but not limited to, attractive nuisance liability, environmental claims, or damages due to the collapse of the tower to be placed on the site. Lessee shall not be responsible for any negligence of Lessor. Any surface improvement from exisiing blacktop to site to be by Lessee. Lease is valid contingent upon Lessor agreeing to placement ofmonopole. * Signatures In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this instrument by proper persons thereunto duly authorized so to do on the day and year first herein above written. Lessee: EXHIBIT "A' TO SITE AGREEMENT Site lI~: MIN063C Site Name: Northland Mechanical SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OWNER'S PROPERTY; 2927 Nevada Avenue North New Hope, .MN 55427 PID# 20 118 21 34 0029 It is agreed by owner and lessee that the precise legal description for the Owner's Property will be corrected, if necessary, and that the correct legal description may be placed on this Exhibit "A " Lucent Technologies Site Information Sheet q '_ Site# P111,,10¢$~ Site Sketch ~_,.1 Site Address - Indicate: leave siae & distance from known property boundary ar structure, ~tisting structure height(s) and distance from proposed lease area, access route, adj. road~ and north arrow. Ift. i., indicate equipment location, leave demising lln~, and acce~ rout& Also insicate aoning setback requirement~ from property line~ as well ay acce~ ta neare~ Telc° (TI line) and power {transformer). PERMIT AUTHORIZATION Date:, Re: Tenant's Site'Code To Property Owner: Please sign and return the letter of authorization below to Lucent Technologies., Attention: Mark Campbell, as soon as possible to assure rapid processing of this site. Any building permit applications will be made only at~er the required zoning approval process has been completed. This letter shall not constitute an agreement to enter a binding lease or option to lease, and neither party shall be bound with respect to the leasing of the property until a final Lease Agreement is negotiated and signed by both parties. Mark Campbell, Site Acquisition Manager LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned hereby authorizes Lucent Technologies, its attorney, agents or representatives, to make application for any necessary zoning petitions including the filing of building permit applications. Very truly yours, 2900 NEVADA LLC Property Owner Witness: ~ 7/30/96 (Date) Property Owner (Date) U S WE.b~l' Communlcatloa,,, lng. Tenth Flocw Denver, Colorado ~02 3O3 294-1613 Mert~/O. Olcker~oa Director Regulatory AffaJm ' ' Wireless Group COMMUNICATIONS February, 1997 FCC auctions for the D and E blocks of Personal communications Services (PCS) spectrum concluded in January. U S WEST Communications has won 53 licenses for a total of $57 million. We have money on deposit with the FCC to cover 20% of our winning bids and will be paying the remainder of the $57 million when the licenses are granted. The applications for those licenses were filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on January 30, 1997, along with applications from all the other winning bidders. We expect that FCC review and processing will take about three months, the same as for the prior PCS auctions. Attached are pages from the FCC's Public Notice, dated January 15, 1997, showing U S WEST Communications as the high bidder in specific markets. U S WEST Communications is committed to providing wireless services. example of our commitment, we have had an experimental license in the Boulder, Colorado area since 1992 for testing and developing the PCS technology that we intend to deploy. We also have invested significant resources in building a staff to develop, implement, and market wireless services. As an If you have questions about the status of our license applications with the FCC, please call Marry Dickerson, 303-294-1613. attachment 8g -:ea~ ~Cq a3uelt ~l~ :a/to o1 ~ld aagd a~ p~ ao{~ a~ JaIto I~ ' sa!uedmoo a Join subaru uo{lon~ 33~ aqz 'aoeld~o¢~a amoo~ s~ lou ;t.;nq ~'~s auoqd ~ ~s~ ~[aAllela~ ~o1~ ~ muoqd a~e~ uo{l~aau~ ~o~ uo doap -~am 1,~ a[d~ p~ ~uoqd ~eI . . pa~:ata~ ualto 'seuoqd ' ' 'Op~ -tI uo ptq satuedmoo ' P[~ '~l~S Tie lo ~ed ~aao3 qq T: TI A A *FCC Broadband PCS Auction S'u ' ission Round Results, High Bids Before Withdrawal Auction ID: 11 Round No.: 276 (Sorted by MTA,BTA) Dale of Report: 11t$197 14:28 Eastern Time I I Market Freq License Round of FCC Account No Block Description High Bid Number M0t2 - B298 B298 Bl19 Bl19 Bl19 B138 B138 B138 B277 B277 B277 B391 ..........--8391 B391 B378 B378 B166 B166 B!66 B422 Minneapolis-Sl. Paul D E F D E F D E F D E F D E F D E F D E F D Minneapolis-St, Paul, M Minneapolis-St. Paul, M Minneapolis-St. Paul, M Dululh, MN Duluth, MN Duluth, MN Fargo, ND Fargo, ND Fargo, ND Mankato-Fairmont, MN Mankalo-Fairmont, MN Mankalo-Fairmont, MN St. Cloud, MN St. Cioud, MN St. Cloud, MN Rochester-Austin-Albert Rochester-Auslin-Albert Rochester-Austin-Albert Grand Forks, ND Grand Forks, ND Grand Forks, ND Sioux Falls, SD 74 0840273800 72 0223330080 145 5163935806 65 0223330080 80 0911275998 88 6122304198 77 0810424592 53 0911686827 188 7018585231 94 0223330080 100 0421407240 68 6122304198 101 0223330080 97 0840273800 104 6122508255 64 0840273800 65 0421407240 68 6122304198 I 0911686827 215 FCC999999 133 5076418000 114 0911686827 Name U S WEST Communications, Inc. AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. Northcoast Operating Co., Inc. AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. MVI Corp. Minnesota PCS Limited Partnershi Touch America, Inc. Western PCS BTA I Corporation North Dakota Nelwork Co. AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. McLeod, Inc. Minnesota PCS Limited Partnershi AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. U S WEST Communications, Inc. Wireless Communications Ventur U S WEST Communications, Inc. McLeod, Inc. Minnesota PCS Limited Partnershi Western PCS BTA I Corporation FCC Redwood Wireless Corpration Western PCS BTA I Corporation Date/Time Net Bid Gross Bid of Bid Amount Amount I I I 10128196 9:12:46 $7,200,000 $7,200,000 10/25196 9:07:58 $6,646,000 $6,646,000 11/27196 11:26:4 $1,499,258 $1,999,011 10121196 14:33:4 $271,000 $271,000 10130/96 9:30:01 $565,001 $565,001 1111196 15:25:22 $534,750 $713,000 10/29196 9:17:31 $551,000 $551,000 10110196 15:17:4 $556,000 $556,000 12113196 10:24:4 $392,700 $462,000 1115196 15:23:25 $1,357,000 $1,357,000 11/7196 15:23:34 $1,738,000 $1,738,000 10/23196 9:11:20 $879,000 $1,172,000 1118196 9:04:41 $837,000 $837,000 11/6196 15:33:21 $836,000 $836,000 11112196 9:19:31 $1,367,250 $1,823,000 10121196 9:48:46 $1,059,000 $1,059,000 10121196 14:42:4 $1,009,000 $1,009,000 10123196 9:11:20 $659,250 $879,000 8126196 12:33:01 $374,381 $374,381 8126/96 10:00:00 $0 $0 11122196 11:25:0 $82,500 $110,000 11115/96 12:38:3 $463,001 $463,001 Page 25 of 72 I-L;tJ I:froa¢lDana I-'[;:5 AUCtIOn Submission (ouna Results, High Bids Before Withdrawal Auction ID: 11-- Round No.: 276 (Sorted by MTA,BTA) Dale o! Report: 1115/97 '14:28 Eastern Time Market Frerq License Round of FCC Account No Block High Bid Description Number M012- ~linneapolis-Sl. PaUl '" 8422 E Sioux Falls, SD 91 0421407240 B422 F Sioux Falls, SD 123 0470418455 B123 13 Eau Claire, WI .39 0223330080 B123 E Eau Claire, WI 45 0911275998 'B123 F Eau Claire, WI 88 6122304198 ------B477 D VVillmar-Marshall, MN 239 0840273800 B477 E Willmar-Marshall. MN 239 0043160187 ~B477 F WiIImar-Marshall, MN 119 5076418000 B045 D Bismarck,,ND 66 0810424592 B045 E Bismarck. ND 84 0911686827 B045 F Bismarck, ND 63 7018585231 B299 D Minot, ND 24 7018585231 B299 E Minor, ND 71 7018585231 B299 F Minot, ND 3 7018585231 B142 D Fergus Falls. MN 101 0223330080 B142 E Fergus Falls, MN 66 0810424592 B142 F Fergus Falls, MN 105 6122304198 B481 D Wodhington. MN 88 0043160187 B481 E Worlhington, MN 91 0421407240 B481 F Worthington, MN 179 6122304198 B001 D Aberdeen, SD 1 0911686827 B001 E Aberdeen, SD 121 0223330080 P~le ~of 72 · US~,' Name Mcl_eod, Inc. Northeast Nebraska Telephone C AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. MVl Corp. Minnesota PCS Limited Partnershl U S WEST Communications, Inc. Triad Cellular Corporation Redwood Wireless Corpraflon Touch America, Inc. Western PCS BTA I Corporation North Dakota Network Co. North Dakota Network Co. North Dakola Network Co. North Dakota Network Co. AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. Touch America, Inc. Minnesola PCS Limited Partnershi Triad Cellular Corporation McLeod, Inc. Minnesota PCS Limited Parlnershi Western PCS BTA I CorlSoration AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. II I I IIII Date/Time of Bid I II 1114/96 15:26:53 1011196 14:35:11 1014196 14:36:36 1/7/97 10:19:26 1/7/97 t0:20:40 t0/22/96 9:32:51 10131/96 12:43:0 9/19/96 g:08:30 10/24/96 14:33:1 8/28/96 12:54:59 11/8/96 9:04:41 10/22/96 9:32:51 1114196 t5:26:53 12112/96 9:02:12 8/26/96 12:33:01 11119/96 11:17:4 Net Bid Amount. I I I I $400,000 $550,500 $127,000 $166,501 $181,500 $91,100 $86,000 $120,0OO $238,000 $243,001 $47,600 $169,000 $190,000 $55,250 $180,000 $156,000 $174,750 $161,000 $t74,000 $133,583 $111,114 $60,000 Gross Bid Amount $400,000 $734,OO0 $127,000 $166,501 $242,000 $91,100 $86,000 $160,000 $238,0OO $243,001 $56,000 $169,000 $190,000 $6 ,ooo $180,000 $156,000 $233,000 $161,000 $174,000 $178,111 $111.114 $60,000 0 U S West Narrative U S WEST Communications a26 North Fa~rv~ew Room 101 St. Paul. MN 55104 Wiretess l I .'I /EST To Whom It May Cohere'n: US WEST Communications is ~chcdulcd m deploy ,~ wit:less ?er~onal Communications Sys'~-'m ~CS) flor tko Minneapoliff$c P~[ Tw~ Citi~ ~ in 3Q 97. ~c ~c of~e d~tgy~ ~ wis be to provid~ ubiqui~ ~rct~ s~icks m ~e Twin CiO~ communki~. ~ ix ~e goal of~b leper m outline ~c r~ons th~ US W~t m~ ~u~ Spcci~Condicioa~ Use P~u ~ ;om~ m ofyo~ co~i~. Digtinguishing fo=rares from con'~mdonal Ccllulat scrvic~ cumtly a~2~le will be ~e PCS ~s~m's voice qu~i~, capacir/~d ray.ge ~ep~. Ufil~ing Code Div~ion Mul~pie Acc~ (~) ;c~alo~, US WESts ~stcm ~ill provide voice quati~ ~at comp~:s.~vombty to I~diine quati~ wi~ si~ c~ :a;abilifi= of ~pmximately six ~im~ ~: of~ ~alog cell site. ~ ~difion, siam US ~ST in.ads ~o udlizc PCS ~ m grord~lc Wiretc~s L~I Loop i~[ce, cove~g~ ~t ~e neighborho=d level is ~smd~ (unlike Cellula, w~i~ is ~Fi~17 ~ high-co~ mobile Coverage: One of the major and most visible c[iffe:e~es between PCS and Cellular ~s-~-~ms is kc arm or' coverage of art indlvidttal cell. l:Ntc to 6¢ higher fi'equency of operation, PCS cells will have considerably smiler m,~¢-rage aren~ th.a.n Cellular ~11~. (For purely coverage,, all thin~ ~xc~c frequency being equal, to cover a given ~ea ac thc PCS frequency (1900 Ml-iz) versus r.h¢ Cellular fi'equen~ (900 MFuz) requir~ 2-3 times mom c=lls). Every az'tempt bas been m.xde by US W'~ST to loca~e sims in zoneable are~, preferably :un'?.ndy ocoapied by C:llu[~ providcn. Nowewr. ~ a ~1~ of~e higher fr~uen~ ofopmm~on md ~c desire to pro-id= rely ubiquimm to ;he Twin Ci~ mc=o ~ US ~ST will bc r~uir~ :o build sites in =~ ~= Mve not been udlN~ by exi~iag Celtul~ provide~. Addlfio~17, sJn~ ~e ~vmge footpeio~ cfP~ cells N smiler, thee N much l~s ~slack" ~tto~=d in ~c ~=m design (i.~ ~e tol~ce for.mo~ing si~ is I~) ~d ~= N much I~ abili~ mlo~= h~ ~d cover r~ctivc di~c~ from · Ca parity: CDMA technology has ma inhere'mt mpeciW advtntagc over ~mpm~le (~m~) ~log c~hnolo~o. A coosc~tdve ~l~ion pu~ ~is ~zci~ ~v~e ~ s~ tim~ for comp~blc op~dng b~dwid~. ~ addiriom gN~ ~t US WEST MIt d~loy (duc ta ~c high~ oFmt~g ~cqu=n~) u~ m ~i~ ~e numb~ ofsi~ r~uimd by a C~tluI~ opera[or for cov~ge, ~e oval PCS ~ adv~mgc [~cm~ m m~Iv~ r~. Sa, ~ough ~c hi~ o~mdng ~equen~ dire~ly ~lat~ into ~ incr~ number of sit~ r~uking zo~n~ no~ing is fo~ei~d - ~d in f~: g~s ~ mtdc - in ~c ~g ~p~id~. 1; ~ bc ~tcd ~cfore ~t cov~g~ not mpscity, :m~ to be ~c Caaclusi0a: Higher operating frequencies clkeC~ly me, zt=tcs into in~'~;*:l cell coun~ and le.~ ,q~xfbility in sire location in de:s/gning wireless ¢ommuniea~io~ ~st~m,.s. ~f-ar ~s is possible, US WEST h~s designe4, a wireless PCS ~y~r--m for ~e Twin Citi~ mer~o area dxat attempts ro work wi~in allowable zoning ordin~cc~ wi~oat compromising be in~mdcd scr~icc requirm'nmr~ ofr~c sy~m'n, r~ applying for Spmial/Conditional Lrs~ Fermi'~ it should be tmder~:ood tha~: to ~e ~ knowledge of US WEST's i'y~e.m d~ignem all r~a.~on~ble av~au~ of~tcsign modification 'have b~m cx.~,,us'ted. C o- Location Po licy USWEST Wire/ess Project 426 North Fairview, Suite 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Facsimile: 612-642-6289 January24,1997 Frank Chrz Manager of Operations CB Commercial, Telecommunications 2250 University Ave. West St. Paul, MN 55114 Dear Mr. Chrz, The enclosed assembly detail and monopole photograph represent a sample of the same type monopole we will be installing in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area for US West. These poles are designed to accommodate more than one antenna array thus making them suitable for colocation. Enclosures Sincerely, ,., eo Construction Sul~rintendent Co-Location Technical Data Sheet US West has the following parameters: PCS D Block, Actual Channels Used: 325,350, 375 Base Station Tx Frequencies: Base Station Rx Frequencies: 1946.25MHz, 1947.5MHz, 1948.75MHz 1866.25MI--Iz, 1867.5~MI--Iz, 1868.75MHz Modulation / Standard: Maximum EIP.P: Channel Bandwidth: Antenna Information: (Desired) U S West PCS Antenna Height I0 Direct Sequence Spread Spectmm / CD,MA IS-95 +53dBm (37dBm + 16dBi gain Antenna) 1.2388 ~ Swedcom sPg014-DIN Gain = 16dBi Azimuth Beam Width = 90° Elevation Beam Width = 80 Antenna Size 42" x 4.5" x 4" Weight = 15 lb. including mounting hardware - 15 ft above surrounding clutter (center of antenna) Standard Antenna Configuration: 2 antennae per sector 3 sector design, 120° each Center of sectors at 0°, 120°,& 240° w.r.t. TRUE NORTH Horizontal Spacing:. 3 ft to 6 ft. depending on antenna height. Governing FCC Rules: Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 (Telecommunications) Part 24 (subpart E) Out of Band Emissions: Section 24.238 (a) on any frequency outside a licensee's frequency block, the power of any emission shall be attenuated below the tranmmtter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log(P)dB. This is an FCC requirement. Below are the equipment specifications: Note that F = Frequency of other Party and Fbe = Frequency at Block Edge,, for E-block Fbe = 1945 and 1950 MI-Iz Out of block: <=--13dBrrdl2.5kHz for [F-Fbe] <=1 MHz <=-13dBm/Mhz - 1.2 dB/MHz [F-Fbe} for 1 ~ < [F-Fbe] < 65 ~ <= -90 dBm/MI-Iz for [F-Fbe] 65 MHz. Intermodulation Levels: Less than -125 dBm delivered to the antenna, at the IdB compression point of Tx amplifier. AC power requirements: AC input voltage: AC input current: 208/240 VAC, 50/60 Hz, single phase 35 Arms ~ 180 Vrms ~ 2KW DC output. U S WEST Communications 426 North Fa~rwew Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless 3anuary28,1997 We, US West Wireless Group, understand the importance of co-locating on our PCS communications towers and we will work to accommodate a second carrier on our facilities. Any questions should be directed to: Anthony Segale US West Wireless Group / Regional Network Operations Manager 426 North Fairview Avenue St. Paul, M2q 55104 612-642-6020 Thankyou. Sincerely, Anthony Segale USWest Wireless Group Regional Network Operations Manager USWEST Wireless Project 426 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 To: John Hollenbeck, C B Commercial From: Scott R. Ballance, Bechtel Corp. Subject: Monopole access ports Dear Sir, I am writing in response to a request for information regarding the location of access holes on our monopoles as the Civil/Structural Engineering representative. As is standard for this project we are ordering monopoles with access holes located at 15ft, 30ft, and 45ft below the centerline of our new primary antenna. For our most typical monopole heights of 90ft this will put our access holes at 45ft, 60ft, and 75ft. For other monopole heights these elevations will vary. But for up to a 105ft monopole. this standard order will provide holes at or lower than 6Oft and at every 15ft above that. Other configurations may be special ordered if necessary. Please feel free to call me at (612)642-6294 or John Pidgeon at (612) 642-6014 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott R. Ballance USWEST Communications Existing Co-Locate Pole ( 20' EI~"VATION ANTENNA IN$1-ALLATION CHART (e) *~P~2 mo' N/~. N/.~ ~-ANT-m (~) ~2 ~' N/A N/A ~-~T-OI (;) ~Z ~ N/A ~ N/A ~--~T-OI 'R-IlS IO~R HAS BEEN DESICNED FOR ~-IE FOI,.LO~MNG ~NTENNA LOADING: (S) A,U~TI2 O 80 £ . w/(1) 7/8" COAX (e) N~°~12 · 65 F'. W/(1) 7/8' COAX (~) o,s o ~0 ~. w/(0 E~3 DRA~NOS REQUIRED: sF-g7076 0E:~Oq LOAO: EBA/llA-222-E · ~ MPH +1~' IC~ Monopole Engineering & Design ED NDEAVORS L,=ORPORATED November 7, I996 Bechtel Telecom, Inc. 426 North Fairview Avenue Room 10'1 St. Paul, MN 55104 Attention: John Pidgeon Reference: Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Structure Reliability and Failure of an EEl Monopole Dear Mr. Pidgoen: In response to your inquiry regarding the quality of steel for an EEl monopole: l) 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 is fabricated from ASTIvl A871 Grade 60 material. All plate material meets a Charpy V-Notch toughness requirement of 15 fi-lbs @ -20° Fahrenheit. By meeting tiffs strict toughness requirement, the monopole is' best suited to resist the cyclic/fatigue type loading (i.e., wind induced loading) that these structures exkibit. 2) Anchor bolts are fabricated from ASTM A615 Grade 75 material. The bolts are 2 i/~ in diameter from//18,1 bar stock. Ail threads are rolled. Anchor bolts come complete with two (2) Ai94 Grade 2H hex nuts. Anchor bolt material must also meet a Charpy V-Notch toughness of 15 fi-lbs @ -20° Fahrenheit, to resist cyclic/fatigue type loading. EEI 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. If the strUcture does not have a proper silicon content, a non-uniform galvanized coating can develop. Discoloration may result at earlier stages in the life of the zinc coating which will result in higher maintenance costs. The strict toug~mess requirement is also quite important for monopole structures. A monopole that does not meet this requirement may develop "toe" cracks which could ultimately lead to structural failure. 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. All welding and inspection is in accordance with the American Welding Society's Specification DI. 1 - latest revision. ~,/G I N FF =' =t"} .F_ND F:AVORR ~'630 [Division [Drive · Memcor', Ohio 44060 Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Moaopole Structure ReLiability and Failure of aa EEl Monopole In response to your inquiry regarding the anticipated reliability and failure mode of a monopole structure, I would like to offer the following comments: 1) The 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. 2) The induced loads must be sustained for a long enough period in order for the structure to respond to the load without its removal. A typical structure will extfibit deflections at the top in excess of 10ft' before structural yielding. 3) When yielding occurs, it allows the structure to continue to deflect under the induced loading with no increase in load being required. Yielding in many structures occurs at the base since this is where the highest stresses develop. 4) As the structure leans from the induced loads, it presents a markedly reduced exposure area for the development of wind forces. This would result in the lowering of the applied forces and, therefore, the reduction of stresses and a halting of the structural deflection. 5) This type of structural failure would result in the upper portion of the structure leaning over and, upon the removal of the applied load, it would not return to a vertical position. Wind induced loads could not conceivably bring this type of structure to the ~ound. 6) An EEl monopole structure is designed to meet the requirements of the Electronics Industry Association Specification 222 F (June, 1996). It also meets or exceeds the requirements of the BOCA Building Code, the Uniform Building Code, the Manual of Steel Construction by the American Institute of Steel Construction with the foundation and anchor bolts meeting the requirements of the ,~u-nerican Concrete Institute Specification ACI 318. The pole itself is also designed to meet the provisions of the American Society of Civil Engineers Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, which was originally published in 1973 and most recently updated in 1990. 7) The monopole structure design is controlled by wind induced loads, however, earthquake induced loads are also evaluated with all building code requirements being satisfied. Reference: Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Structure ReLiability and Failure of an Afl Monopole 8) The design and loading assumptions which are used for the analysis of these structures are conservative in nature, therefore, structure failure is highly improbable. 9) Further proof to the integrity of this structure type is the fact that several of EEl's monopole structures withstood the direct impact of Hurricane Andrew with no structural damage reported. Wind speeds were reported to be well over 115 miles per hour. I hope that these comments 'address the issues which you might encounter relative to the quality of steel and the anticipated performance of Monopole structures. However, I will be most happy to answer any specific questions which you might have. Sincerely, Jay Parr Design Engineer TYI'ICAL GUYING DETAIL Lit,fiT OF TREE PIT 3 STAKES I::,q SPACED lIMIT OF ROOT BAIL 2- NYLOH WEIJlRING NOTES ON Iq.ANT kiAINTI"-RANCP ~) WRAP TREE W/ TREE TAPE FBOU ROOT TO SECOND LO~ kiAIN BR~CII ~ UNTIE · FO~ BACK ~UR~P I/~ BALL I~IGIIT ~N~IETIC B~P Sll~ EOMPL~ELY RE~OVED. ~ ~ATER ROOT BA~ TIIOROUCBLY ~ FILL A~ VOI~3 WlTII SOIL ~ APPLY T ~ RE.ASR FERTILIZER ' AS PER TREE SOURCE RECO~ENDAT ONS. WATER ~ HEEDED (~EKLY) DEPEHDIHG ~) RAIHF~ AHD SOIL CIIARACTERISTICS, DO NOT CUT lEADER __ 2' NYLON tv~BBIRG 4" kiLN. BARK kiULCII _ ~1' TEkiP. CONT. EARTB SAtJCER FIH{S{ {ED GRADE ___. I:"' kiln TOPSOIl. }4IXTUI(E (SEE SI'ECS ) _ B' MIN. COMPACTED SOIl. UNDER ROOT LOOSER IIARDSUBSOIL AT RASE OF IlOl~ IVITII PICK TYPICAL DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING N.I.S. f ..... TRIM RRANCIIES & YOI.IAGE IIY I/:l WlllI£ HETAINING NATURAl. SIIAPE __ __ :l' 1EMI' CONT. EAR'HI SAUCER {~ * I:OMIJI.ETEI.Y SCABI}'Y EII~E~ UY I101): ;~ ,~2 ~ :~ ii.. MIN rOI'SUII. MIXI'UBL {SEE ~I'tC~ j ~ ~ _~ O' MIN. COMPACTED SOIL UND~H Hour BALL ~ __ LOOSEN II~g SUBSOIL AT UA~E OF IIOI}~ ~TII IqCK NOTE: P~OVIDE ~" OF SI'ECIHED ~UI.CII IN All, PJANT BEDS, ___.Typ~!CAL DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB PLANTING P.C.S. TOWER 'C.U.P. CHECK'LlST Applicant: ~1.$ ~I;,~T'/C,~ ~'~..~a! Phone: Property Owner: ~lJ~_ ~ ~ara/atg~ Phone: Plan Case # ~'7~fO Evidence of fide: 10 sets of plans New To .wer / Existing Tower 10 lot surveys . " 1 set of reductions 1 set of transparencies ... Adjacent buildings identified .... " Existing towers within 1/4 mile-[ Minimum 1,000 foot separation'] Written authorization of property owner Service Vehicle street access/parking space Landscaping schedule; existing, new, sizes, species, quantity, maintenance agreement Wetland / erosion control issues Utility connections Soils Data State Building Code compliance Structural design verified by MN Engineer State or federal license disclosure Property line setbacks or "confined collapse" dOcumentation Tower Height: [aa' Antenna arrays designed @ 7~ ft., g,~ ft., dO~ ff. . No lighting except for FAA required No advertising Painted silver or galvanized "Harmonize" with character & environment of the area 8' Security fence, with locked anti-climb device Equipment and/or buiMing screened from residential uses and streets New tower must accommodate minimum 2 antenna arrays Conditional Use Permit standards in code section 4.21 Design-Review Meeting Date_.- Checked by: ,k~")~ ~/ des, Ma~y, 1997 date: TOWER SEPARATION MAP NORTH Scale: 1"- 400' NOTE: No existing towers within 1 feet of the propoSed tower. ,000 ADA AVE. NO.:; I - % I / ! / / ! ! ITl IT! MAY. 30. 1997 1: 2~M CB COMMERCIAL STP NO. 274 P. 2/2 · 'I".. ,. 42~ Noz~ ~"view, Boom 101 I h.~mby ~ertlfy t~it lhie plan, spe~J- fib-~ion, or 'rel~O~ was prop,'ed by me or under my direct supervi~on and that I am e duly Reglstmd Pmfeaal6nal Enginoer under 24741: MILLERBERND MANUFACTURING COMPANY · ~0, BOX ~W · ~ MINNESOTA 55395 PHONE (320) 45..',;-211'/· FAX (320J ; CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A '~ B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation appli ,cption was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City ~ that required expires expires of under application Phone .information extension extension was missing or waiver 97-10 CB Commemial 5/7/97 7/6/97 9/4/97 2550 University Avenue W. Suite 159-South St. Paul 55114-1052 Scott Hoelscher 603-6127 645-1526 fax Site Location 2900 Nevada Avenue N. B. C. D. Ho Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled oui. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign eaCh application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City .sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Boa G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-11 Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow An Extension onto the Existing Tower for Telecommunications Wireless Service 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North 07-118-21-23-0012 I-1, Limited Industrial American Portable Telecom, Nextel Communications, and John Miner May 30, 1997 June 3, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit amendment to allow the addition of an extension onto an existing tower for telecommunications wireless service, pursuant to Sections 4.21, 4.022(3B)(3C)(3D), 4.039D(3) and 4.144 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This is an application for a conditional use permit amendment for a proposed Personal Communications Services (PCS) wireless telephone antenna cell site at the existing Nextel tower at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North in New Hope, Minnesota. Nextel, or OneComm, has previously been issued a conditional use permit to construct this tower at this location. This application is for an amendment of the existing CUP to allow for a 23.6 foot extension to the tower, including three antenna array. The property at issue is controlled by Nextel and owned by John Miner. 3. APT is a subsidiary of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. (TDS). TDS is a Chicago-based telecommunications company which provides cellular telephone, local telephone, and radio paging services to more than 1.9 million customers in 37 states and the District of Columbia through its subsidiaries, including United States Cellular Corporation, TDS Telecommunications Corporation, and American Paging, Inc. APT directs PCS technology for TDS. 4. APT is providing PCS services to the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. Last year, APT was granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a PCS Wireless Phone System in the Twin Cities market area as well as five other 'major markets in the United States. APT is the fifth largest PCS license holder in the United States in terms of population equivalents. 5. The site is zoned I-1, Industrial, and is currently being used for a Nextel communications tower. APT is proposing to extend the tower by 23.6 feet and place its antennas at the top of the extension. There will be up to nine directional panel antennas (77" high x 6" wide x 1.5" deep) mounted at a 120 foot elevation. These panels operate within the 1.9 GHz to 2.2 GHz radio frequency range. Unmanned prefabricated equipment cabinets measuring approximately 5' high x 3' wide x 3' deep will be located at the base of this tower. Typically, these weather-proof, self-contained equipment cabinets are connected to the antennas by 1 5/8" cables (each antenna requires one cable run). The communication equipment requires 100 amp, 220 volt, single phase electrical service. The antennas will transmit and receive Iow power radio signals. No lighting or advertising is planned or required for the tower or antennas. The tower extension will be coated with galvanized steel to match the existing tower. 6. The existing lattice style tower was granted a CUP in 1994. The site contains 1.8 acres and the tower is located at the northeast corner of the property and contained within a 50' x 50' (250 square feet) fenced enclosure. 7. The site is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District. All of the properties surrounding the ~ are I-1 Limited Industrial, with Collins Electrical to the south and Olson Concrete to the north. , existing Cellular One self-supporting radio tower is located on the adjacent property to the north. 8. The property was first developed in 1976 by Olson Concrete, the owner and occupant of the adjacent lot with the existing tower. The building is a four-tenant office/warehouse that was purchased in the last two years by John Miner and "Mello Smello," the rapidly expanding conglomerate located about 400 feet northwest. No major changes have been made to the property. 9. Ingress and egress to the existing tower is by a recorded easement through the Miner's property using the existing driveway from Hillsboro Avenue. The site is visited approximately once a month by maintenance personnel using utility trucks. An unmanned prefabricated equipment shelter measuring approximately 11' x 20' by 10' high is currently located at the base of the existing tower. The shelter has a washed aggregate finish. 10. The existing building and tower enclosure occupy most of this flat lot which abuts a large wetland to the east. The east side of the lot has a tall wooded buffer of softwood trees, such as cottonwoods. Because of the existing buffer, no additional landscaping was required when the existing tower was constructed in 1994. 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments in regards to this proposal. Conditional Use Permit Criteria ANALYSIS 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. Other general criteria 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. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning 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 (I-1, I-2): 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 L~ _/, commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. 3. All of the above criteria were addressed in the attached 1994 CUP report for the existing tower (pages 3 and 4) and were found to be met. Please refer to that report. 4. Additional statements submitted by the applicant with this CUP amendment that address the Zoning Code criteria for a CUP are as follows: A. The proposed use is consistent with the existing use of this property. The existing tower has been in place since 1994. It will not impair the use and enjoyment of surrounding property nor impede its normal development. No special parking is necessary and traffic will not increase due to the use. B. The site will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. PCS wireless uses Iow power to insure that the signal stays within the designated "cell" and does not interfere with neighboring "cells." An important feature of this Iow power is that no ionizing radiation is created. C. In fact, this site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable APT to bring PCS technology to the City of New Hope. The advantages to the business or individual using a PCS phone will be clear to them. But PCS can also aid those who do not choose to own a portable phone. Police officers are aided in their public safety efforts by being able to use PCS wireless fax machines to obtain immediate search warrants. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building, while en route, to more safely and quickly fight fires. Ambulances can transmit vital data to hospitals, allowing for more personalized preparation of emergency rooms to meet the needs of their patients. At spill sites, hazardous material information can be obtained by accessing computer databases throughout the county. Stranded motorists without mobile phones benefit from passing motorists who are able to call for help. These are just a few examples of how the PCS technology can work to enhance public safety and welfare. Ordinance 97-04 1. The newly adopted ordinance establishing regulations for the construction and placement of telecommunication towers and facilities states that "Personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within Industrial Zoning Districts, provided they comply with the following standards: A. Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. B. 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. C. All antenna towers shall be 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 manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. E. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. F. The City many authorize the use of City property for an antenna tower in appropriately zor,~, districts in accordance with the procedures of the City Code. The City shall have no obligat,~., whatsoever to use City property for such purposes. G. 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. H. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of one thousand (1,000) feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. I. 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. 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. K. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. L. Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise'required by federal law. M. Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse visual effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. N. 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. 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 right-of-ways. P. If a new antenna tower is to be constructed, it shall be designated to accommodate at least two (2) antenna arrays including, but not limited to, other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire, and ambulance companies. Q. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 4.21 of this Code must also be satisfied. The petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on May 15 and all of the ordinance requirements were reviewed. Additional plans/documents were submitted as a result of the meeting. The specific applicable requirements of Ordinance 97-04 are addressed as follows and also outlined on the enclosed PCS CUP checklist from the Building Official: A. Written authorization by the property owner has been provided. B. Not applicable C. Building Code compliance will be a condition of approval. D. Structural design verification by engineer - a structural analysis has been provided and will also be a condition of approval. E. Not applicable Not applicable Setbaci{s or "confined collapse" documentation - The existing tower does not meet the setback requirements of the .new ordinance and is essentially "grandfathered in." The tower is located adjacent to the north property line and is setback 50 feet from the existing building. The ordinance states that the setback requirements may be reduced if "confined collapse" documentation is provided. In the 5/21 petitioner's correspondence, they indicate they are in the process of having a report prepared on this issue. Any approval should be subject to the petitioner providing adequate "confined collapse" information. H. 1,000-foot separation - The existing tower does not meet the 1,000-foot separation requirement, as there is another existing 150-foot tower located 175 feet north of the site. This is not an application for the construction of a new tower, but a request to extend the height on an existing tower. It is staff's opinion that the existing tower does not need to meet this requirement. I. Height - Maximum height of a two-antenna array tower can be 145 feet and this tower is 123.5 feet tall, with two antenna arrays at 100 feet and 120 feet, respectively. K. L. M. N. Illumination - none proposed. Advertising - none proposed. Painting - The tower extension will be galvanized and match the existing structure. Not applicable Security fence/anti-climb device - The site is currently surrounded by an eight-foot chain-link fence and the petitioner has submitted concept information for an anti-climb device. Any approval should include this condition. Equipment at base of tower - There will be four equipment cabinets at the base of the tower to accommodate the tower extension. The cabinets will be light beige in color and are approximately the size of an air conditioner. 4. No additional landscaping is being proposed due to the natural buffer that currently exists on the site. 5. Staff find that the petitioner has submitted or is in the process of submitting all of the information requested by the Design & Review Committee. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the CUP amendment to add a 23.6-foot extension to the existing tower at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with State Building Code. 2. Engineer's certification of all tower modifications. 3. Submittal of "confined collapse" information, which is to be reviewed/approved by Building Official. 4. Finalize anti-climb device details for this tower and submit revised elevation and specifications, which are to be reviewed/approved by Building Official. 5. Annual inspection by staff. Attachments: ZoningfTopo/Address Maps 5/21 Petitioner Correspondence Certified Survey Nextel/Miner Lease Amendment Lease Excerpt Re: Property Maintenance Site Location Map/Existing Buildings Anti-Climb Device Information 5/7 Petitioner Correspondence Site Plan Sections/Elevations FCC Radio Station Authorization Structural Stress Analysis 1994 Plan Case Report PCS Tower CUP Checklist Tower Separation Map Application Log SAINTE MARIE ~Ol C51 ST. AVE. · 4~ TH AVE. AVE. ~017 AVE N L__._~._J __-: ' ~ ' ?' -f--"%~---:--'~ i ............................ ~ ~ --~-- ~ F - ~ :----~-_-.~ L.-- HI,IH ~CH~OL × ~ .[~SSORO AVENUE ! X 2, ,~'BO~ 500 E APT 1701 ~=. 79th Street Su!te 19 Minneapolis, MN 55425, 612-858-0000 Fax 612-851-9103 A TDS COMPANY 21 May 1997 Doug Sandstad 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit Amendment Proposed PCS Wireless Telephone Antennas Site A10025 Dear Mr. Sandstad: Enclosed please find additional information requested by the city to supplement APT's application to extend the existing tower at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue. · Survey signed by surveyor · original lease amendment between Nextel and John Miner authorizing APT to pursue this application · portion of lease with John Miner relating to maintenance of the property site layout showing the location of existing buildings on adjacent properties- please note that this has plan has been reduced for easier reading so the scale is 1" = 100'-0". · information on anti-climb device to be installed on tower All construction will be conducted on the asphalt portions of the property. No trees will be disturbed. Utilities will be taken from the existing Nextel utilities located within their equipment building. Ehresmann Engineering, Inc. conducted the structural analysis of the tower. They are in the process of revising their report so that it includes Mr. Ehresmann's Minnesota engineering stamp. They are also providing APT with a letter discussing the failure aspects of the tower, to address the sufficiency of the existing tower setback. At this time, we do not have either of these reports from them. They have been promised by the end of the week and they will be transmitted to the city of New Hope as soon as they are available to APT. Mic~llL~e R.' R'~Joh nson~ Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc., on behalf of APT 858-0090 (office), 854-4105 (fax) Please note that Charles Johnson has signed the Conditional Use Permit application on behalf of Nextel Communications, the owner of the tower in question. As this application is for an amendment to the CUP issued to OneComm Corporation, dba Nextel Communications, Mr. Johnson has signed the application to show approval of the amendment. Please find enclosed the lease amendmem between OneComm Corporation and John Miner, the owner of the property where the tower is located, which authorizes APT to pursue applicable city permits to permit the extension of the tower. AMENDMENT NO. 1 This Amendment is attached to and made a part'of the Communications Site Lease Agreement ("Agreement") dated July 13, 1994, by and between OneComm Corp. N.A. (successor in interest to C-Call Corp.), a Delaware Corporation, dba Nextei Communications,~'' ("Nextel"), (herein called "Lessee") and Jonathan S. Miner & Leah J. Miner (now deceased), (herein called "Lessor"). In case of any inconsistencies between the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement and the terms and conditions contained herein, the terms and conditions herein shall control all terms used herein and shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement. Except as set forth below, all provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full. forCe and effect. NOW~ THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ~.. 1. That Paragraph 21 of the Agreement, is hereby amended to provide as follows: Nextel is allowed to sublet a portion of the Premises to one new subtenant: APT of Minneapolis, Inc.. This subtenants will place communications devices on Nextel's tower and may use Nextel's building, and easement rights to Access Areas. 2. That Paragraph 2 (a) of the Agreement, is hereby amended to provide as follows: APT Minneapolis, Inc. may be required to obtain a building permit from the City of New Hope in order to modify the existing tower height to meet their needs. Lessor recognizes that the city will monitor the changes to ensure that all requests in the new permit meet the applicable building codes and other restrictions imposed by the City of New Hope and any other applicable governmental agencies. Lessor consents to any minor changes to the site improvements which are approved by the City of New Hope. Upon final approval and issuance of a building permit by the city, Nextel will provide a copy of the permit and plans to Lessor. 3. To compensate Lessor for the addition of the new subtenant the following provision is added to the Agreement: one-half of the sublease payment received from the subtenant will be paid to Lessor. Nextel will provide to Lessor copies of the relevant portions of the collocation agreement between Nextel and subtenants which will show the total required payment from the subtenant. For the administrative convenience of all of the parties, the entire rent paid by the subtenant shall be paid directly to Nextel, who will add one-half of the total collected from the subtenant to Nextel's rent payment to Lessor. However, it is understood that Nextel shall only be acting as a collection intermediary and shall not be liable for any amount unpaid by the subtenant. If there is any discrepancy from the normally scheduled payments Nextel will provide to Lessor an accounting of the payments received from the subtenant and the amount transferred to Lessor. k:\legal\contract.bnd\lseslics.ags\amendmt.doc the IN WITNESS~-]EREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed on /~ day of p~-~u~,-~)/ , 1997. LESSOR Jonathan S. Miner LESSEE By: ~X's ~ , By: N e:/x~,-r-Y'0=r.(.~,,~x.~_,,..,.~__~~.,LA~Q ~Nam¢: S~: ) Title: ~~~ ~ Date: OneComm Corp. N.A., a Delaware Corporation, dba Nextel Communications k:\legal\contract.bnd\lseslics.agsXamendmt.doc 14. Exercis~ gf Ootions I~Q Extenct. C-CALL. snail have successive op[icns [o ex, eRa me term ut ~ Lease lor :ne succensJve extension periods set forth in Section 4 of this Lease, on the same terms, covenants and conditions (except as to the number of remaIning option terms) as are contained in this Lease. C-CALL shall be deemed to ha'~e timely exercised each option w~tnout further notice to Lessor unless C-CALL shall provide written notice to Lessor not less than ten (10) days pdor to the expiration of the thren current term of C-CALL's intent to terminate the Lease at the end of that term; 15. Warranties and Covenants of Lessor. Lessor warrants and covenants that (a) Lessor has legal right to possession of the Premises and the power and the right to enter into this Lease and that C-CALL. upon the faithful pedormance of all of the terms--.. conditions and obligations of C-CALL contained in this Lease. shall peaceably and quietly hold and enjoy the Premises upon the term'. covenants and conditions set forth in this Lease throughout the term of this Lease and any extensions thereof; (b) Lessor shall deliver the Premises to C-CALL clean and free of debris on the Commencement Date and shall maintain the Property in a manner which will not interfere with C-CALL's use of the Premises as contemplated hereby;, (c) Lessor shall make available to C-CALL at the Premises, all presently existing utility services required by C-CALL for purposes ot the operation of C-CALL's equipment at the Premises, provided that C-CALL may at its own expense (or Lessor may. if C-CALL so requests, at C-CALL's expense), install any and all additional utilities service facilities which are so required; (d) Lessor snail, during the term hereof, make payment of all real property taxes and general and special assessments levied against the Property and the Premises which it has the duty to pay within the time allowed by the taxing authorities in order to avoid penalty and C-CALL shall compensate Lessor for any real property taxes directly attributable to the value of improvements placed upon the Premises by C-CALL; and (e) C-CALL shall have access to the Premises from the nearest public way at ail times and all secudty gates and access roads (if any) shall be operational. 16. Wiarranties and Covenants of C-CALL. C-CALL warrants and covenants that throughout the term of this Lease. C- CALL shall maintain fire, casualty and comprehensive liability insurance, naming Lessor as an additional insured, protecting and indemnifying Lessor and C-CALL against claims and liabilities for injury, damage to persons or property, or for the loss ot life or of property occurring upon the Premises resulting from any act or omission ot C.CALL. its employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors. Such insurance Shall afford minimum protection of not less than $1,000,000 for injury to or ~ieath of'any one person, $2,000,000 for iniury or death of two or more persons, and $1,000,000 for property damage. C-CALL shall furnish Lessor with a certificate indicating the applicable coverage upon request. C-CALL shall maintain the Pret'nises in a clean, sale and sanitary condition throughout the Lease Term. 17. Liability and Indemnification. C-CALL shall at all times comply with all laws and ordinances and all rules and regulations of municipal, state and federal governmental authorities relating to the installation, maintenance, height, location, use. operation, and removal of improvements authorized herein, and shall fully indemnify Lessor against any loss, cost or expense which m:ay be sustained or incurred by Lessor as a result of the installation, operation or removal of such improvements. Except for the acts ot Lessor and Lessor's agents or employees Lessor shall not be liable to C-CALL for any loss or damages arising out of perso.nat injudes or property damage on the Premises. 18. Titl{~ To and Removal Of C-CALL's Eauioment. Title to C-CALL's equipment, and all improvements installed at and affixed to the Premises or Property by C-CALL shall be and shall remain the property' of C-CALL. Lessor hereby waives any lien rights it may have or acquire with respect to such property and shatl promptly execute any document, required by any supplier, lessor, or lender of such property which waives any rights Lessor may have or acquire with respect thereto. C-CALL may, at any time, including any time it vacates the Premises, remove C-CALL's improvements, equipment, fixtures, and all of C-CALL's personal property from the Premises, but C-CALL shall not be required to remove any foundations below four (4') feet below grade for the tower or equipment shelter nor any underground cable or condUit. At Lessor's option, C-CALL may or may not be required to remove foundations for the tower or equipment shelter above four (4') feet below grade. 19. Hgldina Over. If C-CALL holds over after this Lease has been terminated, the tenancy shall be month.to-month, subject to the provisions of this Lease. 20. Surrender. Upon termination of this Lease, C-CALL shall remove the equipment and improvements installed at the Premises by C-CALL except as set forth in Section 18, and shall surrender the Premises in as good order and condition as when first occupied by C-CALL, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire or other casualty excepted. 21. Assi_anment and Subletting. C-CALL shall not assign, sublet or otherwise transfer or encumber all or any part of C- CALL's interest in this Lease without Lessor's pdor written consent, which Lessor shall not unreasonably withhold. Notwithstanding the foregoing, C-CALL may assign or sublet its interest in this Lease or may assign or sublet the Premises, or any portion thereof, without Lessor's consent, to any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under the common control with C-CALL, or to any entity resulting from any merger or consolidation with C-CALL, or to any partner of C-CALL or to any partnership in which C-CALL is a general partner, or to any person or entity which acquires all of the assets of C.CALL as a going concern, or to any entity which obtains a security interest in a substantial portion of C-CALL's assets. Lessor hereby consents to: the assignment by C-CALL of its rights under this Lease as collateral security to any entity which provides financing for the purchase of the equipment to be installed at the Premises; and the license of portions of the Premises to communications users similar to C-CALL. Any such assignment, subletting or transfer shall nnt relieve C-CALL of its obligations under this Lease. Should Lessor sell, lease, transfer or other,vise convey all or any part of the Property to any transferee other than C-CALL. then such transfer Shall be subject to this Lease and all of C-CALL's rights hereunder and the easement rights of C-CALL to the Access Areas. In the event of such sale, lease, transfer or other conveyance by Lessor, Lessor shall not be liable to C-CALL hereunder with respect to any event, action or nonaction occurring on or subsequent to the date of such sale, lease, transfer or conveyance. 22. Notices and Other Communications. Every noticte required by this Lease shall be delivered either by (i) personal delivery, or (ii) postage prepaid return receipt requested certified mail addressed to the party for whom intended at the addresses appearing in the tirst paragraph of this lease or at such other address as the intended recipient shall have designated by written notice. 3 CenCall Minnesota G[ound Lease Form ~ Apnl t 5 1994 Mackenzie & AIDnrton ~ j ~' ~E' ~H ~N LINK m m ~ EX~ BUmL~NG I I SITE PLAN ~ APT f ~EIC~ POETAB~.~ T~.~C APT 1701 E. 79th Street Su~:e 19 Minneapolis, MN ,55425 612-858-0000 Fax 612-81~1-9103 13 May 1997 Doug Sandstad 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit Amendment Proposed PCS Wireless Telephone Antennas Site At0025 Dear Mr. Sandstad: The attached drawing shows a model anti-climb device for installation on towers. Although this is particular to a monopole, it can be installed on the legs of a lattice tower as well. This is the type of anti-climb device that APT would like to propose to meet the requirements of the zoning code. The engineering staff at APT is in the process of ordedng this type of device for this tower. Details on its dimensions will be included in the building permit plans for the tower, as they are not available at this time. Sincerely, Michelle R. Johnson Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc., on behalf of APT 858-0090 (office), 854-4105 (fax) ANTI-CLIMB DEVICE for Monopole (Aluminum) PART .-~I.U?,I. DESCRIi'TION WEIGI-rr NUMBER (LBS.) 91190 Anti-Climb Device 58 Formed weldment and formed plate included. Padlock not included . . F' SECTION A - A Anti-Chm~, can he ,ecured with padlock Red Asterisk Indicates New Product Monopoles 22.3 APT 7 May 1997 Doug Sandstad 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit Amendment Proposed PCS Wireless Telephone Antennas Site A10025 Dear Mr. Sandstad: This letter accompanies an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed Personal Communications Services (PCS) wireless telephone antenna cell site at the Nextel tower at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North in New Hope, Minnesota. Nextel, or OneComm, has previously been issued a Conditional Use Permit to construct this tower at this location. This application is for an amendment of the existing CUP to allow for a twenty foot extension to the tower. The property at issue is controlled by Nextei and owned by John Miner. I have been authorized by APT to act as their representative for planning and zoning matters. APT is a subsidiary of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. ('I'DS). TDS is a Chicago- based telecommunications company which provides cellular telephone, local telephone, and radio paging services to more than 1.9 million customers in 37 states and the District of Columbia through its subsidiaries, including United States Cellular Corporation, TDS Telecommunications Corporation, and Amedcan Paging, Inc. APT directs PCS technology for TDS. APT is committed to providing PCS services to the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. Last year, APT was granted a license by the Federat Communications Commission to operate a PCS Wireless Phone System in the Twin Cities market area as well as five other major markets in the United States. -APT is the fifth largest PCS license holder in the United Stated in terms of population equivalents. PCS is one of the newest emerging Iow-power wireless technologies. PCS stands for Personal Communications Services and will truly allow businesses, individuals, and government services to communicate in an entirely new way. Although similar to traditional cellular systems, PCS will look, sound and work better, with the added advantage of being able to provide fax service, paging, computer data, and video transmission in just one portable handheld phone. PCS wireless is digital so it transmits with more cladty than cellular. Also, PCS is secure. User verification systems eliminate cloning and encryption prevents calls from being overheard. These are just some of the features PCS can offer. PROPOSED USE The site is zoned I-1, Industrial, and is currently being used for a Nextel communications tower. APT is proposing to extend the tower by twenty (20) feet and place its antennas at the top of the extension. There will be up to nine directional panel antennas (77" high x 6" wide x 1.5" deep) mounted at a 120 foot elevation. These panels operate within the 1.9 GHz to 2.2 GHz radio frequency range. Unmanned prefabricated equipment cabinets measuring approximately 5' high x 3' wide x 3' deep will be located at the base of this tower. Typically, these weather-proof, self-contained equipment cabinets are connected to the antennas by 1 518" cables (each antenna requires one cable run). The communication equipment requires 100 amp, 220 volt, single phase electrical service. The antennas will transmit and receive Iow power radio signals. No lighting or advertising is planned or required for the tower or antennas. The tower extension will be coated with galvanized steel to match the existing tower. ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS The proposed use will be in conformance with the ordinances of the city of New Hope. An ordinance specifically addressing telecommunication towers has recently been enacted. One purpose the ordinance was to address is to protect against the proliferation of towers within the city. By extending an existing tower, APT is able to avoid the need for an additional freestanding tower in the area. Although there is another existing tower within 1000 feet of the Nextel tower, the Nextel tower offered the best opportunity for co- location for APT because of our pdor working relationship with the company. There will be minimal impact on adjacent properties from the proposed use. As there will be no personnel stationed at the site, the equipment cabinets are not equipped with water or sewer facilities, nor are they large enough to house employees. The cabinets are intended only to enclose and protect the radios and electronics. They are light beige in color. The proposed use is consistent with the existing use of this property. The existing tower has been in place since 1994. It will not impair the use and enjoyment of surrounding property nor impede its normal development. No special parking is necessary and traffic will not increase due to the use. No, landscaping is intended at this time. To the west of the site, there is an existing parking lot. To the east and south, there are existing trees. To the north, there is insufficient space for landscaping between the tower, equipment and property line. The equipment cabinets will be screened from view from Hillsboro Avenue by the existing building on the property. The existing tower was erected pdor to the city's recent moratorium on towers and subsequent ordinance amendment. It does not fully meet the setback requirements imposed by the newly enacted ordinance. APT respectfully requests a waiver of this requirement for the extension of this nonconforming use. The extension allows a co- location possibility that would otherwise be unavailable for this tower. Please see the attached structural analysis which shows that the tower is capable of supporting the extension and additional equipment. This site will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. PCS wireless uses Iow power to insure that the signal stays within the designated "cell" and does not interfere with neighboring "cells." An important feature of this Iow power is that no ionizing radiation is created. In fact, this site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable APT to bdng PCS technology to the city of New Hope. The advantages to the business or individual using a PCS phone will be dear to them. But PCS can also aid those who do not choose to own a portable phone. Police officers are aided in their public safety efforts by being able to use PCS wireless fax machines to obtain immediate search warrants. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building, while en route, to more safely and quickly fight rites. Ambulances can transmit vital data to hospitals, allowing for more personalized preparation of emergency rooms to meet the needs of their patients. At spill sites, hazardous matedal information can be obtained by accessing computer databases throughout the country. Stranded motorists without mobile phones benefit from passing motorists who are able to call for help. These are just a few examples of how the PCS technology can work to enhance public safety and welfare. Enclosed please find a completed Application for CUP, a copy of the relevant portions of the amendment to OneComm Corporation's lease with landowner John Miner which authorizes APT to proceed with plans for the tower extension, ten (10) copies of the site plan, ten (10) copies of the site plan reduced to 11" x 17", one copy of the site plan reduced to 8 ~" x 11", one set of transparencies of the site plan, ten (10) copies of the survey of the land and plot plan, ten (10) copies of the structural analysis indicating the stability of the tower with the extension, a copy of APT's FCC license, and a check in the amount of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450). APT respectfully requests that this proposal be placed on the Planning Commission Headng Agenda for June 3, 1997. APT appreciates the assistance you have provided and looks forward to working with you to provide PCS wireless capability in the city of New Hope. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Michelle R. Johnson Zoning Coordinator, Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc., on behalf of APT 858-0090 (office), 854-4105 (fax) i VICINITY MAP PROJECT OAT~ APT i~ ...... ~ERIC~ PORTAB~ TE~COM ?; ~-' GENERAL NOT[~ CONDITION~ OF USE PERMIT CO0~$ ANO STANDARDS PROJECT TEAM ~ ~~~~ ~ .... _ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 0ESIGN CRITERIA SCOPE OF WORK LEGEN0 ABBREVIATIONS DRAWING INDEX ,. ~~~~ ............. x--x x--x x NV'id 3J. IS ..... :il ,,,/ \ .............. [L[VATION rNLARG£D ~LEVATION -'" '- "~, ~ ~W ~ I~_L_m~ORO AVE ~L) APT ~~ i .................. --' - ~ .......... m~"~I~ ..... / ~ AND United Strafes of America Federmi Communicaliom Commimdon RADIO STATION AUTHOR ATION PersOILNJ CommonicBtjOl~ ~'vk~ - Jrosdbll~cl APT MINNF. APOI. IS, INC. 130 North LaSalle Slreet Suite 4000 CNcaoo, IL 6060'2 Call Sign: Madr~c Channel Block: File N-re_bet. KNLJ:I24 M012 MMNEAPOLI6.6T. PAUL B O0021-CW-L-gS Imrial Oran[ Daze ..................... , . June 23, 1995 Fivc-ycar Build Out Date ................... June 2~, 2000 Expiration Dare ........................ June 2~, 2005 No waiv=s as,mciau~ wi~ ~ autimrizau'on. Issue Da[e: June '.3, 1995 FCC Form -~3a Parc ] o,' 2 KNLF224 ~: CONDITIONS~ AFl' MINNEAPOU$, INC. 00021..CW-L-95 d~ll bc ruq~i~d ~o olbn~ ny tmnnful ~t~=cn~ m ~m~us m Ih~ ft~m~cn~ h~n ~ This ~ is ~ubjcct ro d~ coud~itm ~ ~ ~g ~ o( thc winning hid amount will be ixiid in ~cordsn~ wi~ Psrt I o[ ~e Commission's rules, 47 C,F.K. Part l. ' T~l~_,e ~,~_: ~,::_--.~ 23, 1~'~ Page 2 o( 2 RR5 Box 380B * Yankton, South Dakota 57078 Phone: (605) 6~5-7532 * FAX: (605) 665-9780 Tuesday, December 17,1996 Mr. Chuck Johnson Systems Development Manager Nextel Communications Suite 170 7900 International Drive Bloomington, MN 55425 Ph#: (612) 851-6060 Fax#: (612) 853-0827 Subject: 120' ROHN SSV Self Supporter Site: New Hope, MN EEI JO: 3504-96 Dear Mr. Johnson: We have completed our structural stress analysis of the above described tower per your request. All data required to complete our structural analysis was furnished to EEI by your office. Our analysis was completed per TIA/EIA-222-F, 80 MPH wind and 1/2" ice with reduction allo~ved while supporting tower loading as shown below. We have mn one option for your review. We understand that the (3) DBS10 are to be replaced with the (9) DB874 at 105', so the DB810 were not included in this analysis. Existing and Proposed Loading ITEM ELEVATION REMARK (9) PCSA060-19-0 7NST Platform (9) DB874 on (3) #99287 Mounts 120' Existing 120' Existing 105' Proposed I TOWER DESIGN ,, FOUNDATION DESIGN", STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS · INSPECTION PROJECT MA~VAGEMENT · SPECIFICATIONS · DETAILING o PE. CERTIFICATION Required Modifications 1. Elevation 0' to 80', install horizontal redundant members at the midpoint of each tower bay. 2. Distribute feedlines on all three faces as shown on EEI drawing #3504A1. Results, Option #1 Modified Tower with Existing & Proposed Antennas 80 MPH Wind and 1/2" ice; Reduction allowed. Analyzed per TIA/EIA-222-F. Mast Legs: Diag: The maximum combined stress ratio in the vertical members is 1.21 at elevation 40' to 60' which is less than the maximum allowable value of 1.33. See comments. __ The maximum combined stress ratio in the bracing members is 0.86 at elevation 80' to 100' which is less than the maximum allowable value of 1.33. See comments. Foundations Actual base reactions from our analysis are: Uplift = 89.5 kips, Download = 102.2 kips. Maximum allowable load per TIA/EIA-222-F and Rohn drawing # A942208-1 for straight piers and normal soils is 301.6 kips. See comments. Comments: The 120' ROHN SSV self supporting tower located at New Hope, MN does meet the specifications of TIA/EIA-222-F with existing & proposed loading provided all information as supplied to EEI is correct and current and all modifications as outlined in this report are met. As noted in the required modifications, feedlines need to be distributed as shown on drawing #3504A1 in order for the tower to work with proposed loading. If tower loading is changed or altered in any way, we suggest an additional analysis be completed. Upon request we can furnish fabrication and installation details with materials to allow antenna installation and/or completion of the required modifications outlined in this report. We can also furnish services regarding supervising installation and inspection after project completion. If you require any of the services outlined above please notify for scheduling purposes. 2 If you elect to have the antenna mounts or modifications materials fabricated by someone other than ..... EEl we require that all details and installation drawings be furnished to us prior to installation. There are some criteria we feel you should be aware of regarding the subject tower. Due to the tubular construction of the tower legs, we cannot account for any rusting that may be taking place. The tubular tower members can be ultrasonically tested to determine the area of steel remaining. However to be absolutely sure that no rusting is taking place, every square inch of each tower leg would have to be tested, which is not economically feasible. We are not implying that you do have rusting problems in the subject tower, we are simply stating that we cannot guarantee that no rusting is taking place, and you should be aware of this. We would like to point out the fact that we considered this tower to be in near new condition when completing our structural analysis. No allowance was made for missing, damaged, or deteriorating tower members. This report is based on the following: 1. Tower properly installed and maintained. 2. All members in good condition. 3. All members in place. 4. All bolts in place and properly tightened. 5. Weep holes on tube and pipe members open. 6. All members being galvanized. 7. All tower members being properly designed, detailed, fabricated, installed and maintained over the years... Upon request Ehresmann Engineering, Inc. will visit the previously described tower site and inspect tower, lines, and antennas for compliance to this engineering analysis in its entirety. Cost will be quoted at time of request. If you elect to not have Ehresmann Engineering complete this inspection after project completion, Ehresmann Engineering can not be held responsible for installation of antennas, antenna mounts, feedlines and/or modification materials in accordance with our analysis and specifications. Ehresmann Engineering, Inc. is not responsible for any modifications completed prior to or hereafter which Ehresmann Engineering Inc. is not or was not directly involved. Modifications to include but are not limited to: 1. Replacing or strengthening bracing members. 2. Reinforcing vertical members in any manner. 3. Installing antenna mounting gates or side arms. 4. Extending tower. Ehresmarm Engineering, Inc., hereby states that this document represents the entire report and that it assumes no liability for any factual changes that may occur after the date of this report. All representations, recommendations, and conclusions are based upon the information contained and set forth herein. If you are aware of any information which is contrary to that which is contained herein, or you are aware of any defects arising from the original design, material, fabrication and erection deficiencies, you should disregard this report and immediately contact Ehresmann Engineering, Inc. Ehresmann Engineering, Inc., disclaims all liability for any representation, recommendation, or conclusion not expressly stated herein. Thank you, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely Eric Heine ! . Pete Ehresmann Enclosures: Standard Terms and Conditions - Tower Analysis Stress analysis, Option # 1 - dated 12/16/96 Feedline placement drawing #3504A 1 4 STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS - TOWER ANALYSES Ehresrnann Engineering, Inc. - RR5 Box 380B - Yankton, SD 57078 Engineering consultations and tower analyses provided by Ehresmann Engi- neering, Inc. (hereinafter called EEl) are subject to the following terms and condiUons with respect to responsibilities of all parties (EEl, CLIENT, and/or tower OWNER). Professional Engineering services performed by EEl, as represented by EEl report, include analysis of tile tower (s) in accor- dance with applicable codes, EIA, ANSI, UBC, considering the latest revi- sion% or as Indicated on the report, and compilation of a report based on the results of Engineering analysis specifying areas of concern with recommen- dations to correct, modify, or repair any discrepancies found at the site. Note: If tower has never been modified or no antennas added/removed, governing codes will have been those which were applicable at the time of tower erection unless otherwise requested by CLIENT/OWNER; Modified or newly designed towers are analyzed to current codes. Prior to tower analysis, CLIENT/OWNER will make available to EEl all known Information regarding existing and proposed requirements which al. fect the work to be performed. Information will include, but not be limited to specifications, contracts, recommendations, plans, change orders, photo- graphs, soil test reports and recommendatimls, local codes, etc. Specific information required for tower structural analysis shall include tile tower location (state and county); tower model, height, and orientation on tower site; as-built drawings; tower leg, diagonal and girt size with type and grade of steel, and quantity/size of bolts, accurate antenna loading (show configuration on tower; azimuth of microwave dishes, etc.) soil analysis, lo- cation, size and grade of all guy strand, location and sizes of feed lines, plat. forms, ladders and other appurtenances, location and size of stabilizers, guy anchor radii, tower base type (pivot or fixed), and foundation design for tower and anchors. CLIENT will immediately transmit to EEl any new information which be- comes available to it or its subcontractors, so that recommended actions, designs, and drawings can be reviewed and new recommendations by EEl made, if needed. CLIENT will provide a representative to answer questions about the project when required by EEl upon 24 hours notice, if possible. if CLIENT/OWNER is unable or unwilling to provide tile information speci- fied above, EEl will, upon written request of the CLIENT/OWNER, perform or cause to be performed an on-site iuspection of the tower to obtain the neces. sary information. CLIENT/OWNER accepts that lack of any information outlilled above shall cause the tower to be analyzed or advice provided based on certain assump- tions such as normal soil conditions, manufacturers' specifications, and professional engineering experience and judgment. Written analysis provided by EEl represents conditions as furnished above. EEl assumes no liability for any factual changes that may occur after the date of the report. All representations, recommendations, and conclusions of said reports were based upon the information contained and set forth in the report. The report is prepared on the assumption that the tower and tower components including all modifications or additions, were properly de. signed, detailed, fabricated, erected, and maintained throughout the life of the tower. The report assumes also that tile tower members and hardware are in place and in good condition; bolts are properly tightened; weep holes on tube and pipe members are open; tower is in plumb condition with proper guy ten. sion; and all members are galvanized or free or corrosion. EEl assumes no liability for any damage or failure of the tower or any tower component If such failure was due to inadequancies in engineering design, detailing, fab- ricating, erecting, materials, or maintenance. Recommended modifications outline the scope of work only and are not in. tended to imply sequence of work or construction procedures. Persons per. forming modification work will use safe and acceptable industry practices to effect modifications, and will be responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local safety codes. EEl will not be liable to any incorrect advice, judgment, or decision based on any inaccurate information furnished by CLIENT, and CLIENT will indemnify EEl agaillst all liability arising out of or contributed to by such information. If CLIENT/OWNER becomes aware of any information which Is contrary to that contained in tile report; or if CLIENT/OWNER becomes aware of any de- fects arising from the original design, material, fabrication, and erection de- ficiencies, CLIENT/OWNER shall disregard said report and immediately no- tify EEl. Often EEl is retained to provide partial engineering services for a project and is not liable for portions of tile project EEl is not retained to provide services for. Please refer to EEl's project consultant proposal-agreement, contract with the CLIENT for scope of work. EEl's liability to CLIENT and all contractors and subcontractors on the pro- ject, for damages due to professional negligence, or breach of any other obli. gation to CLIENT or others, will be limited to the amount of EEl's fee received on the project unless other specific arrangements are made in writing. In tile event CLIENT does not wish to limit EEl's amount of liability on the project, EEl will consider waiving this limitation on written notice from CLIENT re- ceived within 10 days after an agreement is fully executed or before EEl's work on the project begins, whichever is earlier. The CLIENT may request the size of insurance policy limits and time period of coverage, and CLIENT will pay additional consideration equal to EEl's total insurance prmnium fee (wtlen a policy is arranged with an insurance carrier) plus 25% as a charge for a Waiver of Limitation on Liability. This 25% charge is a charge for in- surance and an increase in consideration for tile greater risk involved where work is performed with no limitation of liability. CLIENT will notify the OWNER and any contractor or subcontractor who per- forms work in connection with any work done by EEl of the limitation of II. ability for design defects, errors, omissions or professional negligence, and to require as a condition precedent to their performing their work, a like in- demnity and limitation of liability on their part as against EEl. In the event the CLIENT fails to obtain a like limitation, CLIENT will indemnify EEl for any liability to any third party. Q O OO OO O LEGEND 0 1-5/8' NOTE: i. THE ABOVE VIEW INDICATES THE LINE POSITIONING USED TO CALCULATE PROJECTED AREA FOR OPTION ~i, SOME ITEMS LEFT OUT OF VIE~/ FOR CLARITY REASONS. SITE: NE~V HOPE, MN ANTENNA FEEDLINE PLACEMENT [ NC. _ 7ST 7ST 9 I0 11 EHRESHANN Et~, NEERI NO, CONSUL TI NG ENG[NEERS RR$ BOX $80B Y~HKTON. SOUTH D,~KOTA $7078 PH: 605-655-7552 OR 655-9780 OPT/ON // ~ - EL. i;~0'-0' PROPOSE'I) EXTEN2[~N - EL. 100'-0' EL. 80'-0' - EL. 60'-0' EL. 40'-0' EL. 20'-0' B.S. = 14'-7 7/8" -- MODiFIED TOWER - EX/STING & PROPOSED ANTENNAS - EO MPH ~z I/2" /CE - ,4N~LY$/S PO? REV. ~Y _0 d.O. ~ 3504 STRESS ~EEI$:ST-3 DATE ..t8/16/96 PAGE t WiND Bo ~U , ..... ICE 1/2' SITE .NE'~/ HOPE, MN ,~tODEL ~aHN SSM HE/OH? ~0' BF.. EJH DA ELEV, ITEM RAD, AZ, LINE I20' (9) PCSAO60-i9-O (9) ~ ,;/8' 120' 7NST PLATFORM I05' (9) DB87~ 0N (3) ~9~7 MOUNTS -~ - PROPOSED LOADING NOTES: t. TOVER ANALYZED ACCORDING T0 P.ANTENNA LOADS F'~OM MANUFACTURES IFICATIONS AND ANDRE~/S BULLETIN 1015F. 3, WELDED CONNECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST REVISION OF THE AMERICAN WEL~IN6 SOCIETY, A.W.S, D LI-O2. 4. ALL TD~ER MEM~ERS SHALL BE HOT-DIP 6ALVANIZE2 AFTER FABRICATION. GALVANIZING SHALL CO~ORM TO ASTM-122. 5. ALL ~OLTS ~HALL BE GALVANIZED ACCOROING TO THE STANgAR9 SPECIFICATION FOR ZINC COATING ~ [R~ ~O S~E~L HARDWARE, ASTM 153, ~. TOWER MEH~ERS A. LEGS' __~_ KSI STEEL ~. ~IAG ___~_ K~I gT~L. C. HORIZ___~_ KSI STEEL O. ALL QTHER STE~, GUSSETS, PLATES, ETC. 36 KSI STEEL. 7, ALL ~OLTS GRA9E A3~5 O~ A490, IF THIS TOWER AND FOUNDATIONS WERE, NOT FABRICATED, INSTALLED OR ,WAINTAINED IN ACCORDANAE YK,,r~'f,, .THIS AN.,4LYE!_q ANn qI=C~.I~IC,4, TIAN AIlR I')F'qI~N ,4Nl')/f')l~ I?I='I~ITI,C'It?,4TII"JIV lC I...N~..4llr~ .,4Nr) ~'~'l o/sc i s ANY R SP'67¢s/ il '"k /i 'F;i %-- ;i ' f'kKfi/CE . .......................... 'EHRESMA~NI~ ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. Page 1 !20~ .... <OHN SSV .SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ~XTAL¥SiS COMPLETED PER TIA/EiA-222-F SO MPH WiND .r~ND !/2 IN~ iCE .WITH REDUCTION g~LOWED ~_~N #I - MODIFIED TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND PROPOSED ANTENNAS EEi JO: 3504 REVISION 0 12-16-96 *** TRIANGULAR TOWER TOWER HEIGHT (ft.) WIND SPEED (mph) RADIAL ICE (in.) No. OF LEGS = 120 = 69.6 = .5 = 3 No. OF WIND LOAD LEVEL(S) FROM 120 ft FROM !00 ft FROM 80 ft FROM 60 ft FROM 40 ft FROM 20 ft TO !00 ft TO 80 f= TO 60 ft TO 40 ft TO 20 ft TO 0 ft WIND LOAD WIND LOAD WIND LOAD WIND LOAD WIND LOAD WIND LOAD 20 psf 19 psf 18 psf 16 psf !4 psf 14 psf *** ANTENNA LOAD DATA *** WIND LOAD DEAD LOAD ELEVATION kips kips ft. 0.91 1 03 I 87 0 O8 0 O9 0 O9 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 !! 0 1! 0.1! 0 .12 0.12 0.13 0 .14 0.63 1.50 1.99 0.15 0 16 0 18 0 19 0 19 0 22 0 24 0 24 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.33 120 120 105 78 73 68 63 57 50 43 37 3O 23 17 10 3 DESCRIPTION (9) PCSA060-!9 PLATFORM * (9) DB87=. ON (3) BOOMS REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDA~NT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT FROM (fi) 105: 120 TO (fi) 0 0 *** UNIFORM LOADING *** PROJECTED AREA (sq. ft./fi) DEAD LOAD (k/ft.)' DESCRIPTION 1.10 0.009 FEEDLIN]ES 1.50 0.016 FEEDLINES EKRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. Page 2 120' ROHN SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN A~IALYS!S COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F 80 MPH WiND A~ND 1/2 IN. iCE WiTH REDUCTION ALLOWED OPTION ~! - MODIFIED TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING ~ND PROPOSED ANTENNAS EEI JO: 3504 REVISION 0 12-16-96 FROM ELEV. 120 ft. TO FROM ELEV. 120 ft. TO *** TOWER MEMBER DATA *** 0 ft. 0 ft. Fy OF LEGS = 50 ksi Fy OF DIAGONALS AND GIRTS = 36 ksi ELEVATION TOWER'S DIAG. K- Lb r AREA Fa FROM TO LEG CONFIG. VALUE OR Ft f~ fz SIZE in. in. in2 ksi 3 0 SCH 40 3 0 SCH 40 3 0 SCH 40 3 0 SCH 40 3 0 SCH 80. 3 5 SCH 80 120 I00 !00 80 80 60 60 4O 40 20 2O 0 ALLOW LOAD kips XC !.00 48.0 1.16 2.23 25.64 57~!7 XC !.00 48.0 1.16 2.23 25.64 57.17 XC 0.50 60.0 1.i6 2.23 27.65 61.66 XC 0.50 80.0 1.16 2.23 26.58 59.28 XC 0.50 80.0 1.14 3.02 26.50 80.04 XC 0.50 80.0 1.31 3.68 27.09 ~ 99.68 ELEVATION FROM TO fU ft i20 100 i00 8O 80 60 60 4O 40 20 20 TOWER'S DIAGONAL SIZE L!.5X1.SX3/!6 Li. SX!.SX3/!6 L!.75Xl.75X3/16 L2X2X3/16 L2.SX2.5X3/16 L2.SX2.5X3/16 DIAG. CONFIG. XC XC XC XC XC XC K- Lb r AREA Fa VALUE OR Pt in. in. in2 ksi ! 00 1 00 1 00 ! 00 1 00 1 00 43 1 43 1 56 6 72 2 82 7 93 6 0.29 0.53 0.29 0.53 0.34 0.62 0.39 0.71 0.50 0.90 0.50 0.90 6 90 6 90 5 48 4 45 5 35 4 17 ALLOW LOAD kips 3 .64 3 .64 3 .40 3 .18 4.82 3 .76 ELEVATION TOWER'S FROM TO GIRT ft ft SIZE 120 100 .00 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE DIAG. CONFiG. XC XC XC. XC XC XC VALUE t 00 i 00 ! 00 I 00 i 00 1 00 Lb r AREA Fa ALLOW OR Ft LOAD' in. in2 ksi kips 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 O.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 E~RESMAN~T ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. Page 3 120' ~N SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ~AL¥~iS COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F £" >IPH WiND A~D 1/2 IN...iCE r ..... - ~ REDUCTION ALLOWED OPTION #! - MODIFIED TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND PROPOSED ~NTENNAS EEI JO: 3504 REVISION 0 12-16-96 *** TOWER SECTION DATA *** NOTE: UNIFORM WIND & DEAD LOADS INCLUDE SECTION & LINEAR ATTACHMENT SPAN FACE WIDTH UNIFORM UNIFORM ANT'S LEG ELEV TOP BOTTOM WiND LOAD DEAD LOAD LOAD AREA f~ ft ft k/ft k/ft kips in2 TORQUE ft-k 120 !00 80 60 40 20 6 56 6 56 8 59 !0 61 12 63 6 56 6 56 8 59 10 61 12 63 14 66 0.109 0.084 0.103 0.084 0.099 0.087 0.094 0.090 0.094 0.116 0.102 0.132 4 12 0 00 0 68 0 65 0 79 0 92 2 23 2 23 2 23 2 23 3 02 3 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. Page 120' ROHN SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ~AL¥SIS COMPLETED PER T!A/EIA-222-F 80 MPH WIND ~D 1/2 iN..ICE WiTH REDUCTION ALLOWED CPTiON ~! - MODIFIED TOWER W/(20' EXT.) EXISTING ~ND PROPOSED A~TENNAS EEi JO: 3504 REVISION 0 *** RESULTS OF STRESS ANALYSIS *** ELEVATION CONFIG. NO. MOMENT ACCUM'D ACCUM'D ACCUM'D FROM TO OF OF OF DEFLECTION SWAY TWIST ft ft DIAG PA~NELS INERTIA ft deg deg 120 100 XC 5 !00 8O XC 5 80 60 XC 4 ~0 4O XC 3 40 20 XC 3 20 0 XC 3 47 98 47 98 63 94 102 70 203 97 342 71 0 934 0 700 0 469 0 230 0 067 0 0O7 0 796 0 674 0 527 0 331 0 144 0 029 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 ELEV WiND SHEAR SHEAR PER FACE ~~ k k 120 100 80 60 40 20 5 99 8 04 10 37 12 56 14 78 17 21 3 99 5 36 5 99 7 25 8 53 9 93 SHEAR P. ES iSTED BY LEG k 0 00 0 00 2 68 3 43 4 15 4 85 TORQUE SHEAR k 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 NET SHEAF. k 3.99 5.36 3.30 3.81 4.38 5.08 DIAGONAL LOAD k 2.34 3.14 1.74 2.10 2.32 2.63 GIRT LOAD k 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 E~RESMANN ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. Page 5 120' '~.~HN SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ~NALysIs COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F 30 MPH WIND AND !/2 IN. 'ICE WITH REDUCTION ALLOWED DPTION ~1 - MODIFIED TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING A~ND PROPOSED ANTENNAS EEI JO: 3504 REVISION 0 12-16-96 *** RESULTS OF STRESS ANALYSIS *** SPAN BASE OVERTURNING ~XIAL COMPRESSION UPLIFT ELEV SPREAD MOMENT LOAD PER LEG PER LEG ft. ft. ft-k kips kips kips 6 56 6 56 8 59 10 61 12 63 14 66 100 8O 6O 4O 20 0 69 89 210 15 394 13 623 36 896 69 1216 51 5.79 14.23 10.37 7.47 39.48 34.50 9.89 56.31 49.72 12.34 71.96 63.73 15.46 87.10 76.80 19.03 102.16 89.48 *** BASE REACTIONS *** SHE.~R ~MA/~. UPLIFT MAX. COMP. OVERTURzNING ESTIMATED PER LEG PER LEG PER LEG MOMENT STEEL WEIGHT kips. kips kips ft-k kips 89.48 5.74 102.16 12!6.51 6.57 EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. Page 6 120' ROMN SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ANALYSIS COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F 80 MPH WIND AND 1/2 IN.'-ICE WITH REDUCTION ALLOWED OPTION ~1 - MODIFIED TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND PROPOSED ANTENNAS EEI JO: 3504 REVISION 0 12-16-96 SUMMARY OF STRESS P~ATIO:- ELEVATION MEMBER TOWER MEMBER ALLOWABLE COMBINED FROM TO OF MEMBER LOAD LOAD STRESS f~ ft TOWER SIZE (kips) (kips) P~ATIO 120 100 LEG 3.0 SCM 40 14 23 57.17 0.25 DIAG LI.SX1.5X3/!6 2.34 3.64 0.64 I00 80 LEG DIAG 3 0 SCH 40 LI.SX1.SX3/16 80 60 LEG DIAG 3 0 SCM 40 L1.75X!.75X3/16 60 40 LEG DIAG 3 0 SCH 40 L2X2X3/16 40 20 LEG DIAG 3 0 SCM 80 L2.SX2.5X3/16 20 0 LEG DIAG 3 5 SCH 80 L2.SX2.SX3/!6 MEMBER- I.D. 3 39.48 57.17 0.69 3 3 . 14 3 . 64 0 . 86 6 56.31 61.66 0.91 1.74 3.40 0.51 71.96 59.28 1.21 2.10 3.18 0.66 3 3 10 102.16 99.68 1.02 6 2.63 3.76 0.70 12 87.10 80.04 1.09 4 2.32 4.82 0.48 12 .FROM : EHR~SMANN ENGINEERIN~ 'NC PHONE NO. : 605~659780 D~c. ~0 199G 02:15PM PO1 EHRZ~MANN ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. 120~ ROI{N SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW NOPE, MN ANALYSIS COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F 80 ~'PH WIND AND .1/2 IN. ICE wITH REDUCTION ALLOWED OPTION ~2 - EXISTING TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND' PROPOSED ANTENNAS EEI'JO: .3504~ REVISION 0 12-16~96 TRIANGULAR TOWER *** TOWER HEIGHT (ft.) WIND SPEED (mph) RADIAL ICE {in.) No. OF LEGS = 120 -- 69.6 .S = 3 No. OF WIND LOAD LEVEL(S) ~ 6 FROM 120 ft. FROM 100 ft. FROM 80 FROM 60 ft. FROM 40 ft. FROM 20 ft. TO !00 ft. WIND LOAD TO 80 ft. WIND LOAD TO 60 ft. WIND LOAD TO 40 ft. WIND LOAD TO 20 ft, WIND LOAD TO 0 ft. WIND LOAD 20 psf 19 psf 15 psf 16 psf 14 psf i4 psf WIND LOAD kips i.03 1.87 FROM TO (ft) (fi) 105 0 ].20 0 * * * ANTENNA LOAD DATA * ** DEAD LOAD ELEVATION kips ft. 0.63 120 1.S0 3.20 1.99 105 UNIFORM LOADING *** PROJECTED AREA (sq. ft./ft) DEAD LOAD (k/ft.) 2.30 0'009 2.80 0.016 DESCRIPTION (9) PCSA060-19 PLATFORM * (9) DB874 ON (3) BOOMS DESCRIPTION FEEDLINES FEEDLINES FROM : EHRESMRNN ENGINEERING 'NC PHONE NO. : 605665~780 Dec. 20 1Sg6 02:l~PM P02 ENRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC. , YANKTON, S.D. Page 2 120' RO~;N SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ANALYSIS COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F 80 MPH WIND AND ]./2 IN. ICE WITH REDUCTION ALLOWED OPTION ~2 - EXISTING TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND PROPOSED ANTEN-NAS EEI'JO: 3504 REVISION 0 12-16-96. *** TOWER MEMBER DATA FROM ELEV. 120 .ft. TO FROM ELEV. ].20 'fU. TO 0 ft. 0 ft. Fy OF LEGS = .50 ksi Fy OF DIAGONALS AND GIRTS ~ 30 ksi r AREA 'Fa TO LEG OR ft SiZE in. in. in2 100' 3.0 SCM 40 XC 1.00 48.0 1.16 2.23 25.6% 80 3'.0 SCH 40 XC !.00 48.0 1.16 2.23 25.'64 60 3.0 SCH 40 XC 1.00 60.0 1.16 2.23 24.08.: 40 3.0 SCH'40 XC 1.00 80,0 1.16 2.23 21.13 20 3.0 SC~ 80 XC 1.00 80.0 1.14. 3.02 20..91' 0 3'.5 SCM 80 XC 1.00 80.0 1.31 3.68 22.53 ELEVATION TOWER'S DIAG. K- Lb CONFIG. VALUE. FROM. ft 120 100 80 60 4O 20 ALLOW .LOAD kips 57.17 57.17 53.70 47.12 63.13 82.93. ELEVATION FROM TO .ft ': ft !00' 80 80 .60 40 20 TOWER'S DIAG. K- Lb r AREA Fa DIAGONAL CONFIG. VALUE OR Ft SIZE in. in. in2 ksi L!.SXi. SX3/16 L1.SXl.5X3/16 L!.$SX1.75X3/16 4.0' L2X2X3/16 20 L2.5X2.5X3/16 0 L2.5~2.5X3/16 XC 1.00 43.1 0.29 0.53 6..90 XC 1.00~ 43.1 0.29 0.53 6.90 XC 1.00 56.~ 0.34 0.62 5.'48 XC 3..00 72.2 0.39 0.71 4.45 XC 1.00 82.7 0.50 0.90 5.35 XC 1.00 93.6 0.50 0~90 4.].7 ALLOW LOAD kips. 3.64 3.64 3.40 3.18 4.82 3.76 ELEVATION TOWER'S FROM TO GIRT ft f~ SIZE 120. 100 100 80 80 60 60" 40 40 20 20 0 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE DIAG. K- Lb r AREA 'Fa ALLOW CONFIG. VALUE OR Ft LOAD in. in. in2 ksi kips xc xc xc xc xc xc I 00 I 00 I 00 i 00 1 00 i 00 0,0 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00' 0,00 0.0 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.0 0.00' 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0,00 0,00 0.00 0 O0 · 0O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 .FROM : EHRESMANN ENGINEERING '~C PHONE NO. : 6056659780 D~c. 20 1996 02:16FM F03 EHRr ~ANN ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, $.D. Page 3 120' ROaN SSV SELF sUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW ~OPE, MN ANALYSIS COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA.-222-F 80 MPH WIND AND 1/2 IN. ICE WITH REDUCTION ALLOWED OPTION #2 - EXISTING TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND PROPOSED ANTENNAS EEI JO: 3504 REVISION 0 ].2-].6-96 *** TOWER SECTION DATA NOTE: UNIFORM WIND & DEAD LOADS INCLUDE SECTION & LINEAR ATTACHMENT SPAN ELEV 120 100 80 60 4O 2O FACE WIDTH UNIFORM UNIFORM ANT'S LEG TOP BOTTOM WIND LOAD DEAD LOAD LOAD AREA 'fU ft k/ft k/fi kips in2 6 56 6 56 6 56 8 59 10 61 12 63 6 56 6 56 8 59 10 6]. 12 63 ].4 66 0.159 0.150 0.!43 0.134 0.3.30 0.138 0 O84 0 O84 0 087 0 090 0 0 132 4.12 2.23 0.00 2.23 0.00 2.23 0.0'0 2.23 0.00 3.02 0.00 3.68 TORQUE ft-k 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,0.0 0.0 0.0 EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. Page 4 120' ROHN SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ANALYSIS COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F 80 MPI{ WIND AND 1/2 IN. ICE WITI{ REDUCTION ALLOWED OPTION #2 - EX1STING TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND PROPOSED Ai~TENNAS EEI'JO: 3504 REVISION 0 12-16-96 RESULTS OF ~STRESS ANALYSIS ELEVATION CONFIG. NO. MOMENT ACCUM'D ACCUM'D FROM TO OF OF OF DEFLECTION SWAY ft f~ DiAG PANELS INERTIA f~ deg 12.0. 100 XC 5 47.98 1.~35 0.962 100 80 XC 5 47.98 0.850 0.813 80 6.0 XC 4 63.94 0.567 0.632 '60 40 XC 3 102'70 0.275 0.394 40 20 XC 3 203.9? 0.079 0.169 2'0 0 XC 3 342.71' 0.008 0.033 ELEV WIND S~EAR SHE/MR RESISTED TORQUE NET SEEkR PER FACE BY LEG SHEAR SMEAR ft k k k k k 120 6.99 100 9.99 80 12.85 60 3:5.53 40 18.13 20. 20.88 4.66 0.00 0.'00 4.66 $.67 0.00 0.00 ~.67 7.42 3.26 0.00 4.16 8.96 4.20 0.00 4.76 10.46 5.08 0.00 5.38 12.05 5.94 0.00 6.11 ACCUM'D TWIST 0.000 :0.000 0%000 .0.000 0.000 0.0~0 DIAG©NAL LOAD k 2.73 3.90 '2.20 2.62 2.85 3.17 GIRT LOAD 0.00. 0.00 0 .'00 0.00 0.00 0 ..00 -FROM : ~HRESMRNN ENGINEERING. "JC PHONE NO. : ~056659780 E~R~/ ~ANN ENGINEERING, INC., YANKTON, S.D. Dec. 20 19~6 02:17PM P05 Page 5 120' ROHN SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ANALYSIS COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F 80 MPH WIND AND 1/2 IN. ICE WITH REDUCTION.ALLOWED OPTION #2 - EXISTING TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND PROPOSED ANTENNAS EEI JO: 3504 REVISION 0 ].2-16-96 *** RESULTS OF STRESS ANALYSIS *** SPAN .BASE OVERTURNING AXIAL COMPRESSION UPLIFT ELEV SPREAD MOMENT LOAD PER LEG PER LEG f~. ft. f~-k kips kips kips 6 56 6 56 8 59 10 61 12 63 !4 66 100 40 2O 0 79 94 249 79 478 26 762 09 1098 70 1488 84 5.79 16.00 12.14 7.47 46.46 41.4~ 9.20 67.40 61.'26 11.01 86.61 79.27 13.34 104.86 95.9~ ].5.99 122.60 111.94 SHEAR PER LEG kips Mu%X. UPDIFT [.'ER LEG kips 111.94 *** BASE REACTIONS *'** MAX. COMP. PER LEG kips OVERTURNING MOMENT ft-k 122.60 1488.84 ESTIMATED STEEL'WEIGHT kips 6.57 · FROM : EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, :~¢ PHON~ NO. : G0~6659780 EHRESMANN ENGI. NEERING, INC. , YANKTON, ~S.D, Dec. 20 1996 02:I8PM P06 Page i20' ROHN SSV SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LOCATED AT NEW HOPE, MN ANALYSIS COMPLETED PER TIA/EIA-222-F 8'0 MPH WIND AND ]./2 IN. ICE WITH REDUCTION ALLOWED OPTION #2 - EXISTING TOWER W/(20' EXT.) - EXISTING AND PROPOSED I~NTENNAS EEI JO: 3504 REVISION 0 12-16-96 SUMMARY OF STRESS RATIO:- ELEVATION FRO~ TO · ft f.t' MEMBER TOWER MEMBER ALLOWABLE COMBINED OF MEMBER LOAD LOAD STRESS TOWER SIZE (kips) (kips) RATIO LEG 3.0 SCH 40 16.00' 57.1'7 DIAG Li. SX1.SX3/16 2.73 3.64 100 80 LEG 3.0 SCH 40 46.46 57,17 DIAG L1.SX1.SX3/!6 3.90 :3.64 LEG 3.0 SCH 40 67.40 53.70 DIAG L1.75Xl.75X3/16 2.20 3.40 80 60 60 40 LEG 3.0 SCH 40 86.61 47.12 .DIAG L2X2X3/16 2.62 3.18 40 .20 .LEG 3.0 SCH 80 ·104.86 63.13 .DIAG L2.5X2.5X3/16 2.85 4.82 20 0 LEG 3.5 SCH 80 122.60 82.93 DIAG L2.SX2.SX3/16 3.17 3.'76 MEMBER I.D., 0.28 3 0;.75 6 0.8! 3 1 ..07 6 0.65 8 1.84,';', 1.'.%..% 3 0.82 10 0.84 12 ~O P.C,S. TOWER C.U.P, CHECKLIST Applicant: I}P~ _ . PropmyO er:'" Plan Case # ~f~-/! Evidence of title: Phone: Phone: 10 sets of plans New Tower ,101ot surveys ' ' 1 set of reductions 1 set of transparencies ' Adjacent' buildings identified Existing towers within 1/4 mile-[ Minimum 1,000 foot separation] Written authorization of property owner Service vehicle street access/parking space Landscaping schedule; existing, new, sizes, species, quantity, maintenance agreement Wetland / erosion control issues Utility connections Soils Data State Building Code compliance Structural design verified by MN Engineer State or federal license disclosure Property line setbacks or "confined collapse" documentation- Tower Height: /~' Antenna 'arrays designed @/~0 ft., ?~0 ft.,_ ft. b~ No ligl~ting except for FAA required No advertising ,P,.ainted or galvanized silver ' Harmonize" with character & environment of the area 8' Security fence, with locked anti-climb device Equipment and/or building screened from residential uses and streets New tower must accommodate minimum 2 antenna arrays Conditional Use Permit standards in code section 4.21 ..Design_Review Me~ 'tm~'..~'°~_~ - Checked by: "'~,/ de~, May, 1997 TOWER SEPARATION MAP NORTH Scale: 1"- 400 One Existing tower within 1,000 feet, at 5010 Hillsboro Avenue North, 200 feet north of proposed tower extension.. Planning Case: Request: CITY OF NEw HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 94-23 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Construction of an Equipment Shelter and the Erection of a i 15 Foot ESMR Cellular Telephone Antenna/Radio Tower Location: 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North PID No: 07-118-21-23-0012 Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: I-1, Limited Industrial C-Call Corporation d.b.a. OneComm Corporation/Jonathan & Leah Miner September 1,. 1994 September 6, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an equipment shelter and the erection of a 115 foot ESMR cellular telephone antenna/radio tower, pursuant to Section 4.032(3)j and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. OneComm Corporation is requesting the CUP to allow the location of an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) cellular telephone antenna and cell site on property owned by Jonathan and Leah Miner at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North. OneComm has authorized Buell Consulting to represent them in planning and zoning matters. The petitioner states in their application that they wish to construct a 100 foot steel self- supporting tower in the north comer of the Miner's property. This type of tower does not require guy wires. A triangular platform would be put at the top of the tower on which the cellular antennas would be attached. Initially, three 15 foot whip antennas would be installed. At some time in the future, the whip antennas would be replaced with nine 4 foot by 1 foot panel antennas. The overall height would be 115 feet. The antennas wOuld transmit and receive low power (50 watts ERP) cellular radio signals. The petitioner states that OneComm Corporation is one of the largest Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") services in the United States. OneComm was granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission to operate an Enhanced SMR, or ESMR, in the Twin City market area. ESMR cellular is one of the newest emerging low-power wireless technologies that will compete with cellular. ESMR cellular looks, sounds, and works like traditional cellular but will have the advantage of being able to provide paging, fleet dispatch and data transmission all with one portable handheld phone. ESMR cellular is digital and can handle more calls per channel than traditional cellular and transmits at lower watts. The petitioner states that the foundation for the tower would be a caisson type. The tower steel and foundation would be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. These specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines and Planning Case Report 94-23 2 September 1, 1994 the kind of equipment to be attached to the tower. A safety factor is included in the design parameters re~_.lting in a tower that usually far exceeds local building code requirem6nts. The applicant states that the tower sh°uM not be required to be'lighted according to 'I~AA requirements. To minimize off site visibility, the petitioner has indicated that the tower would be left in its natural galvanized steel color. An unmanned prefabricated equipment shelter measuring approximately 11 feet by 20 feet by 10 feet high would be located at the base of the pole. The shelter is proposed to have a washed aggregate finish. The applicant states that the drainage of the site would not be changed and that a parking space would be provided near the equipment shelter building. The site would only require single phase 200 amp electrical service and T1 telephone for utilities, which would be brought in underground. The site would be securgd by a cyclone fence. The petitioner states in the application that the existing trees along the east property line would be preserved for screening. The office building and access driveway are located between the site and Hillsboro Avenue, so the applicant feels that no further landscaping should be needed. Ingress and egress to the shelter would be by a recorded easement through Miner's property using the existing driveway from Hillsboro Avenue. The site would be visited approximately once a month by maintenance personnel using utility trucks. 10. The site is located in an I-l, Limited Industrial, 'Zoning District. All of the properties surrounding the site are I-1 Limited Industrial, with Collins Electrical to the south and Olson Concrete to the north. An existing Cellular One self-supporting radio tower is located on the adjacent property to the north. 11. This property was first developed in 1976, by Olson Concrete, the owner and occupant of the adjacent lot with the existing tower. The building is a four-tenant office/warehouse, that was purchased in the last two years by John Miner and "Mello Smello", the rapidly-expanding conglomerate located about 400 feet northwest. No major changes have been made to the property. 12. The proposed building and tower meet or exceed the City's setback requirements (see petitioner's correspondence). 13. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff received an inquiry about the plans from the property owner to the north. ANALYSIS 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 lae. d or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on th~ same Planning Case Report 94-23 September 1, 1994 premi.~es or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoinihg 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. o Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: C. D. E. 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. Compatibility_. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Zoning 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 (I-1, I-2): 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 Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. In response to the criteria, staff and petitioner make the following comments: Compatibility. The proposed use should be compatible with adjacent land uses. The antenna is a compatible use in an industrial district and would not adversely impact the development of surrounding properties. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Past applicants have submitted reports by real estate appraisal fu'ms which state that they found no measurable impact to property values lying in close proximity to towers in either residential or industrial settings. Nature of Adjoining Buildings and Lands. Staff finds that the proposed use is compatible with all buildings in the area because there are outdoor storage areas for heavy equipment to the north and south and to the east is a wooded area and a large wetland buffer. Similar Use Nearby. Another Cellular One tower is located on the adjacent property to the north. Traffic. The proposed use should not cause traffic hazards or congestion as only one car per month will visit the building briefly. Planning Case Report 94-23 4 September 1, 1994 Compatible Appearance. The equipment building at the base of the tower will be a prefabricated-fiber-bond building constructed of concrete with a tan washed aggregate f'mish, intended specifically to match/blend with the Olson Concrete building to. the west. Nuisance Factors. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use should not have an adverse impact upon existing development in the area. The petitioner states that: This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it' will enable OneComrn to bring this new ESMR cellular technoIogy to New Hope. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way for business, individuals and government services to communicate. ESMR Cellular radio transmissions are very safe and pose no health risk. It is really nothing more than a low power two-way radio. ESMR Cellular uses low power to insure that the signal stays within the designated "cell" so it will not interfere with neighboring "cells". The maximum output per channel for this antenna will be 50 watts per channel. The output for traditional cellular is 100 watts per channel. The question is often asked if the operation of a cellular antenna will affect home radio and television reception. The ESMR cellular system is operated in the same 800 MHz range as traditional cellular - both being at higher frequency on the radio spectrum than home radio and television frequencies. This is important because higher frequency users cannot interfere with lower frequency users. The Design & Review Committee met with the applicant on August 18th and the issues discussed included: impact of tower on adjacent property, existing parking and access, fence enclosure, building details, lighting, total height and structural materials for tower, lease period, and snow removal. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting which include the following: D. E. F. G. Site Area - 102,750 square feet or 2.36 acres. Parking for existing site is shown - 54 stalls. This use will produce no net reduction of existing parking. Ingress and egress access easement is shown on north side of property. Tower and building to be located on 50' x 50' parcel, where trees are to be cleared. Extent of existing trees on east property line are shown. Underground telephone and electric service to building/tower are shown. Fence detail/gate detail is shown. The petitioner will add to the existing fence on the north side of the property by installing an 8' high security chain-link fence enclosing the 50' x 50' compound. Also, a.12' gate with a 2' x 5' walk through snow gate is shown. Service vehicle parking is shown. Building floor plans have been submitted. ~ ?lanning Case Report 94-23 5 September 1, 1994 Antenna tower and building elevations have been submitted. Building details are shown: precast concrete with exposed aggregate finish in a mesa tan color. One incandescent light with motion detector shown on building above door. Antenna details are shown: 100' self-suPporting tower with three 3" x 13'2" omni The petitioner has also submitted structural drawings/data, soils data, and a wetland delineation report. 5. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and made the following comments: Co The 100 year high water level (HWL) for the adjacent Wetland is estimated at 890. The proposed building and tower construction appears to be at 890. New Hope's Draft Surface Water Management Plan requires the lowest floors of buildiags be 2' above the HWL. Therefore, it is recommended the building and tower be raised a minimum of 2' to elevation 892.1. A detailed grading plan is required noting the area to be filled. The plan shall be reviewed for conformance by Shingle Creek Watershed because ..it directly abuts a wetland. A delineation of the existing wetland has been done by' OneComm. A review of the detailed grading plan once the filling has been accounted for must insure fill is not placed in the wetland. Fill placed in the wetland will require mitigation in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. Due to soil types in this area, the tower and building may warrant piling. Erosion control must comply with City and County requirements. Screening with plantings along the wetland side would be desirable. 6. The Building Official has reviewed the proposed plans and made the following comments: The adjacent property to the north was issued a CUP for a 180' cellular tower in 1987, approximately 200 feet due north of the proposed tower. Both locations are in remote industrial areas, well buffered by the large state-regulated wetland just east of the towers. Both towers are more than 1,100 feet from the nearest dwelling and residential zoning district. Both towers have a small manufactured equipment building that is unoccupied, inside a security fence. Both tower sites provide a gravel surfaced area with parking room for an occasional service vehicle. The proposed tower is the same traditional steel triangular base variety as the existing one next door. These are not as attractive as the newer "monopole' style proposed for the Victory Park location, much closer to a residential zoning district and local residential streets. It is noteworthy that this proposed tower is 100 feet high, compared to the existing 180 footer. Planning Case Report 94-23 6 September 1, 1994 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for OneComm Corporation to construct a 115' ESMR cellular telephone antenna facility and equipment building at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building and tower be raised a minimum of 2' to elevation 892.1, per City Engineer. 2. Detailed grading plan be submitted noting area to be f'flled, per City Engineer. 3. Approval .by Shingle Creek Watershed. Erosion control must comply with City/County requirements. Compliance with all State Building Code requirements, coordinated through the Building Official. Annual inspection to verify the maintenance of the 8' high fence, enclosure, building and tower. 7. Development agreement and bond required to ensure timely completion of the work. Attachments: Section/Topo/Zoning Maps Plat Plan Site Plans Floor Plan Tower/Building Elevations Fence Detail Foundation Details Petitioner's Letter City Engineer Comments Wetland Assessment CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 97-11 Amedcan Portable Telecom 5/9/97 7/8/97 9/6/97 1701 E. 79th Street Suite 19 Minneapolis 55425 Michelle Johnson Zoning Coordinator 858-0000 851-9103 fax Site Location 5008 Hillsboro Avenue N. B. C. D. Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. VVhether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the t~"*e limit expires. Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator May 30, 1997 Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CouncillEDA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. May 12 Council Meeting - At the May 12 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #593, Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Call for Bids for Rebuilding of Tennis Courts at Sunny Hollow: Approved, see attached Council request. Planning Case 96-02, Resolution Authorizing Release of Performance Bond for Taber Bushnell, 7709 Winpark Drive: Approved, see attached Council request. All improvements have been made. Resolution Authorizing Release of Certificate of Deposit for Brandell 2"d Addition, 9401 Science Center Drive: Approved, see attached Council request. All improvements have been made. D. Project #545, Resolution Authorizing Publication of Notice and Holding of a Public Hearing Regarding Sale of 6067 West Broadway: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Project #544, Resolution Approving Contract with Hild & Associates for 4400 Quebec Avenue Pond Area Planting Project: Approved, see attached Council request. Planning Case 97-06, Request for Site & Building Plan Review/Approval for Office/Warehouse Construction, 7300 49t~ Avenue: Approved, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. A Comprehensive Sign Plan was submitted prior to the Council meeting. Project #598, Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition for Public Storm Sewer Improvement at 7300 49t' Avenue North and Ordering Preparation of Engineering Report: Approved, see attached Council request. H. Project #598, Resolution Initiating Vacation of Storm Sewer and Utility and Drainage Easements at 7300-7390 49t' Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. I. Planning Case 94-15, Discussion Regarding Release of Security for Kimball Addition: Tabled to 5/27. Please refer to attached Council request and correspondence from City Attorney. J. Project #595, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Demolition of City-Own, Building at 7528 42n= Avenue North and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids: Approved, see attached Council request and parking lot plans. Project #597, Resolution Regarding Vacant Industrial Property at 9200 49= Avenue North and Consideration of Purchase Agreement to Acquire Property from MLB Properties, Inc.: Approved, see attached Council request. Ordinance No. 97-081Planning Cases 97-02 & 08, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Permitting the Use of Non-Commercial Opinion Signs, and Amending the Purpose and Political Signage Section: Approved, as recommended by the Commission. Ordinance No. 97-191Planning Case 97-07, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Exempting "Holiday Signs" From Permitting Requirements: Approved, as recommended by the Commission. 2. May 27 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the May 27 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #545, Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1 for Landscape Contract for 6067 West Broadway in the Amount of $1,300: Approved, see attached Council request. Planning Case 95-18, Resolution Authorizing Release of Irrevocable Letter of Credit for Gill Brothers Funeral Chapels, Inc.: Approved, see attached Council request. All improvements have been completed. C. Project #573, Motion Approving Quote by Lot Surveys Company in the Amount of $425 to Survey 5212 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Project #589, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate with Property Owner for Potential Acquisition of 9116 31't Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. Project #498, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for the Northwood Lake Storm Sewer, Ponding, and Park Improvements and Ordering Advertisement for Bids: Approved, see attached Council request. Detailed plans and specifications are available at City Hall if you want more information on the project. Project #567 (Area t), Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of 1997 Infrastructure Improvement: Rejected bids for area 1. The Council decided to put this project on hold until at least next year so that adjustments can be made in the assessment policy for total reconstruction of a street. Project #567 (Area 2), Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of 1997 Infrastructure Improvement: Approved, see attached Council request. Contract was awarded to Ryan Contracting in the amount of $1,071,713. H. Planning Case 94-15, Discussion Regarding Release of Security for Kimball Addition: The Council gave the developers the approval to proceed with their proposal to correct the grading o problem. City staff will oversee work to be completed and the release of the bond will be considered after the work is vedfied by the City Engineer. See attached Council request. Project #579, Resolution Approving Contract Between the City of New Hope and West Star Curb for the 1997 Sidewalk Improvement Program: Approved, see attached Council request. Property at 8901 Bass Lake Road has been deleted from the project until it is developed. Other property owners to be re-approached to share in costs. Project #598, Discussion Regarding Development of Property at 7300 49"~ Avenue: No agreement has been reached with the developer on a cost-sharing agreement, therefore, the pipe size of the storm sewer will be reduced to 30 inches and most likely will be installed as a private project, not a public improvement. See attached Council request and correspondence from City Attorney. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee did not meet in May since the information for the DNR Shoreland ordinance was not yet complete. A meeting is scheduled for June 18. Other items to be discussed include Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Hidden Lakes Development, second hand dealers, and real estate signs. Design & Review Committee - The Committee met in May to review plans for the two antenna tower conditional use permit applications to be presented at the June Planning Commission meeting. As of this writing, staff is unaware as to whether a June meeting will be necessary or not and will contact the committee after the application deadline has passed. City Council Work Session - The City Council, staff and representatives from the New Hope and Minneapolis Police Departments met on May 14 to discuss the Pawn Shop ordinance. The Council was supportive of both the zoning and licensing ordinances, as written, however, the Council also had concerns regarding second hand goods dealers, i.e., consignment shops, and excluding them from the high fees required from pawn shops and precious metal dealers. The APS is not yet ready, therefore, New Hope's moratorium, which will expire on June 30, will need to be extended for another few months. It is anticipated that the Council will extend the moratorium until September. In the meantime, the New Hope MIS person is starting to coordinate with the Police Department on the computer link to Minneapolis. July Planning Commission Meeting - Items that may be discussed at the July Planning Commission meeting include: A. Home Occupation CUP B. Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment C. DNR Shoreland Management Regulations Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - Staff will be working to coordinate the committee in June and schedule the first meeting. Open House - Reminder that there will be an open house at the newly completed City-owned home at 6067 West Broadway on June 11 from 3 - 6 p.m. and you are invited to attend. Attachments: Sunny Hollow School Park Tennis Courts Taber Bushnell Performance Bond Release Brandell 2nd Addition Certificate of Deposit Release 6067 West Broadway Sale 4400 Quebec Avenue Pond Area Planting 7300 49th Avenue Storm Sewer Project 7300 49"' Avenue Easements Kimball Addition 7528 42"" Avenue Building Demolition 9200 49t~ Avenue Potential City Purchase of Property 6067 West Broadway Landscape Contract Gill Brothers Letter of Credit Release 5212 VVinnetka Avenue 9116 31" Avenue Northwood Lake Improvement Project 1997 Infrastructure Improvement Project (Area 2) Kimball Addition 1997 Sidewalk Improvement Project 7300 49"~ Avenue RF IIEST FOR ACTION Approved fOr Agenda Agenda Section 5/12/97 Cons enc Item No. OrtginaUng Depa.,'m~ent Parks and Recreation Shad French / APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR REBUILDING OF TENNIS COURTS AT SUNNY HOLLOW SCHOOL PARK (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 593) The 1997 Park ClP calls for rebuilding of the tennis courts at Sunny Hollow School Park and contains a total of $100,000; $50,000 from 1997 plus carry over of $50,000 from the 1996 CIP. Sunny Hollow courts were chosen because their condition is in poor shape in the estimation of staff and the courts are used quite often by the general public as well as programs within the school. The engineers have drawn up plans and specs. Staff is requesting approval and a call for bids. Bids will be advertised May 14,1997, opened June 4th and taken to Council on June 9th. The project needs to begin after school is out for the spdng and be completed before school begins in the fail. The City and School District have a lease arrangement on the property. The courts were originally built by the City and have been and are to continue to be maintained by the City. The same situation exists at Meadow Lake School for both the tennis courts and the hockey rink. MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY Administration: RFA-O01 COUNCff., RF~UE~T FOR ACTION Approv~ for Agenda Agenda SecUon Consent 5-12-97 [te~ No. Originating Depaxt.uient City Manager Kirk McDonald By:. Management Assistant / RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND FOR TABER BUSHNELL, 7709 VVINPARK DRIVE, PLANNING CASE 96-02 The City has held a performance bond in the amount of $43,000 on the Taber Bushnell building expansion at 7709 Winpark Ddve (Planning Case 96-02) for the installation of public improvements and on-site extedor amenities. This amount was held to insure that specific improvements were made, including driveway apron, retaining wall and landscaping improvements. The City Engineer and Building Official have inspected the property for completion of the improvements and are recommending that the bond be released as all improvements have been completed. The enclosed resolution authorizes release of the performance bond and staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY TO: P. FA-O01 COUNCIL FOR ACTION Originating Department City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon Consent 5-12-97 Item No. 6°? RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT FOR BRANDELL 2"0 ADDITION, 9401 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE The City has held a Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $3,525 on the Brandeil 2"~ Addition, 9401 Science Center Ddve, for the installation of public improvements and on-site exterior amenities. This amount was held to insure that specific improvements were made, including sidewalk and landscaping improvements. Mr. Brandell has requested that the Certificate of Deposit be released. The Building Official has inspected the property for completion of the improvements and recommends that the certificate be released as all improvements have been completed. The enclosed resolution authorizes release of the Certificate of Deposit and staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY Review: ~tlon: Finance: RFA.O01 FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda Agenda Sectton Consent 5/12/97 Item No. 6.8 Originating Depa~ ...eat City Manager Stephanie Community Development Speciali RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE AND HOLDING OF A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SALE OF 6067 WEST BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #545) City staff has found buyers, Jeffrey and Cynthia Greenlun, for the single family home at 6067 West Broadway. A Purchase Agreement has been executed, subject to the approval of the City Council. By law, a public hearing regarding the sale must be held with at least 10 days published notice. The public hearing would then be conducted at the June 9 City Council meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing publication of notice and holding of a public hearing regarding the sale of 6067 West Broadway (Improvement Project ~545). MOTION BY TO: RFA-O01 COUNCE. REQUEST FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda Agenda Section 5-12-97 Consent Item No. Onglnatln~ Depaz Lucent Public Works Jeannine Clancy RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE AND HILD & ASSOCIATES FOR THE 4400 QUEBEC AVENUE POND AREA PLANTING PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT #544) Staff has received bids for the 4400 Quebec Avenue Pond Area Planting Project. The following bids were received: Vendor Hiid & Associates Premier Services Baee Bid $14,366.00 $14,877.18 This contract consists of planting vegetation within and adjacent to the storm water treatment pond at 4400 Quebec Avenue. The plant matedal identified is compatible for the intended use of the site. The contract requires the vendor to install the matedal and maintain it for two years. This will ensure establishment of the plant matedal by the vendor. While Conductive Containers Inc. owns the land, the City has an easement for the pond. The pond was identified as a pdority improvement in the Storm Water Management Plan and was constructed in 1'996. Routine maintenance of the perimeter of the pond is the responsibility of Conductive Containers Inc. Maintenance of the pond as a regional storm water facility is the responsibility of the City. Funding for this project is available in the 1997 Storm Water Utility Fund. Staff requests apflmval of the resolution. MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY N~mlnlstratlon: Flnal~e: RFA-O01 COUNCIl, REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~h~.ent City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant Approved for Agenda _ Agenda Section uevelopment & Planning 5-12-97 Item No. RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR PUBLIC STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT AT 7300 49TM AVENUE NORTH AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF ENGINEERING REPORT (STORM SEWER RELOCATION PROJECT NO. 598) The proposed construction of a 120,000 square foot office/warehouse building at 7300 49"~ Avenue (Lot 2, Block 1, 5000 Winnetka 2"~ Addition) will require the removal/relocation of the existing 30-inch storm sewer that bisects the site. The City Engineer is recommending that the storm sewer be upgraded in size from a 30-inch to a 36-inch pipe to improve water quality. Per the Engineers April 24 letter, the developer should at a minimum be responsible for the cost to reconstruct an equal amount of existing 30-inch storm sewer from that removed and an equivalent amount of storm sewer to serve the site. The cost to upgrade the existing 30-inch storm sewer to a 36..inch to improve water quality, and the additional length over the existing length of storm sewer would be the City's responsibility (or the properties included in the upstream drainage area). The City Engineer indicated that if the developer were to request the City to construct and assess the public storm sewers, the cost responsibilities (estimating 25% indirect costs) would be estimated as follows: Storm Sewer Cost Lot 2, Block 1 $80,000 City 30,000 TOTAL $110,000 Per the attached letter, the developer has petitioned the City to reconstruct the public storm sewer, similar to the 5000 Winnetka project, with the developer being responsible for grading the ponding areas. The developer indicates that he feels there are some important differences between the two projects ancl states that the percentage of water contributed by this site as opposed to the percentage contributed by the 5000 Winnetka project is far less. He also states that the commercial nature of the water inflow on this prOject is at sharp contrast with the residential nature of the inflow on the 5000 Winnetka project. His letter states that he readily asks that the City consider a larger allotment of the project costs be assessed to the benefiting commercial property owners on Quebec Avenue. MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 5-12-97 The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution accepting the letter as a valid petition for a public improvement. The'-~esotution also directs the City Engineer to prepare an Engineering Report on the storm sewer relocation and stipulates that the City will only go forward with the project on the condition that there is an assessment agreement including a waiver of appeal dghts and an agreement on costs before the project is commenced. The costs attributable to each party will be easier to define once the report is completed. Staff recommend approval of the resolution. Hoyt Development C O M P A N Y 13400 15th AVENUE NORTH, SUITE F PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55444 Phone 612-551-4944 Fax 612-551.49a-~ 1-800-SSl-HOYT April 6, 1997 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Attn: Kirk McDonald RE: 7300 49th Avenue North Dear Kirk: Thank you for your assistance with the above captioned project. Please consider this my formal petition for the City to install the storm sewer discussed as a public project. I have reviewed the engineering report from the City's Engineer and I appreciate your efforts in that regard. I believe that the analysis made by the City's Consultant was analyst to the project at 5000 W'mnetka, however, there are some important differences. The 5000 W'mnetha Project increased it's sewer capacity to drain a residential district that had experienced flooding problems whereas this Project handles ail of the mn off from the Industrial Park that fronts aH of Quebec Avenue. The percentage of water contributed by this site as opposed to the percentage contributed by the 5000 Winnetka Project is far less. In addition, the commercial nature of the water inflow on this pr. oject is at sharp contrast with the residential nature of the inflow on the 5000 Winnetka Project. Therefore, I would respectfully ask that the City consider a larger allotment of the Project costs be assessed to the benefiting commercial property owners on Quebec Avenue. With regard to the timing of the Project Mr. Hanson discussed the possibility that the City could early publish in order to accommodate a time flame for construction that will not prevent the timely occupancy of the building. This would'be greatly appreciated and we look forward to working with the City to bring this project to an early completion and planting prior to freeze up this fall. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, President BAH:kc cc: Mr. Rick Sheridan MINNEAPOLIS * TAMPA DEVELOPMENT · CONSTRUCTION ° MANAGEMENT · INVESTMENT BONESTRO0 AND ASSOC,tATES *~61:~ 6~61111 05/0q/97 11:41 ~ :01/0~, NO:694 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald Jeannine C~angy May 2, 1997 5000 Winnetka 2at Addition Lot 2, Block I Our File No. 34-Oen We have reviewed the revised site plan dated April 30, 197, and offer the following commenL~ and recommendationn. The developer has verbally indicated he will petition the City to reconstruct the public .~torm sewer in accordance with out memo dated April 24, 199'7. The public storm sewer will be constructed in accordam:e with City requirements and the Shingle Creek Water.ed Commis.~ion. The ponding are~ will be Iraded by the developer u part of the site improvements in accordance with the April 30, 1997, ~'nding plan. Wa. let quality features will be included in the public conlract for storm aewet. The proposed schedule is ~ follows: May 12, 1997 May 2'/, lg~7 June 9, IgSe/ .lune 23, Ig97 July 2, 1997 Au~'t 15, 1997 Council recoive,,,s petition for public storm sewer improvement and authorizes prepemion of Assessment Afxeement Council accepU Assessment Agreement and authorizes plans, q:m:ifications, and bidding Comtcil approv~ plans and specifications Council _~'_-_ivea bids and awards contract Contractor begins cons~'uction Substantial completion · Water service will be provided from the existin$ eight-inch water main in the private drive located alonf the west property line. The existing six-inch waler main stub will be recon.qtmcted u an ei~ht-ineh water rntin and ext~*nded into the site as an eight-inch water main shown on the gradinl/utility plan. Looping of water main is not required baaed on flow measurements in the area and review by the Fire MmhalL BC~ESTROO Mil) ASSOCIATE,S ~612 6361311 05/01/97 11:~1 · R~vi~w of Shinlle Creek Wamh~ is mquin~l. · Sanitary storm' service will be pmvicled Imm [he oxisdnS sewer Ioc3ued ~lon~ the west proper~y line. · ^ccas.~ will be provided by the exizKin~, privale sha.,~cl driveway located ,Jofl8 [he common ](x line between Lo~s I and 2. The existinl drive is 30 feet wide, which is not wide =nouih to accommodate pazkins. Therefore, no parkini sh~ll be enforced aJonI tl~ sh~ed driveway. Quebec Avenue to 42"~ Aveaue. TI~ haul mum ~all e to · A letter of credit shaJ1 be provided for the public storm ~we~ and pondin~ ~tmu. COU · REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depaxtment Approved fOr Age~.da ~ ~4[enda Section ueveTopment City Manager & Planning 5-12-97 Kirk McDonald item No. By:. Management Assistant By: 8.3 RESOLUTION INITIATING VACATION OF STORM SEWER AND UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AT 7300-7390 49TM AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 598) The proposed development of a 120,000 square foot office/warehouse building at 7300 49"' Avenue will require the vacation of two easements, as follows: 1. There is a 30-inch storm sewer and a 10-foot easement that runs north/south through the property. The developer is proposing to relocate the line and the easement to the west of the new building. The existing 10-foot storm sewer easement needs to be vacated and the developer will dedicate a new easement to the City over the new storm sewer line. 2. There is a 20-foot drainage and utility easement running parallel with the eastern property line. The Zoning Code allows a 10-foot building setback on a side yard adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. The developer is proposing to locate the building 10 feet from the railroad right-of-way to utilize the adjacent railroad to the east via a rail spur. Therefore, 10 feet of the existing 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the east property line needs to be vacated. The City Engineer has reviewed both of these easement vacation requests and is in agreement with them, provided that a new easement be dedicated to the City over the new storm sewer. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution initiating the easement vacations and setting a public hearing date of June 9 for the Council to consider the easement vacations. The developer is in the process of sending a letter to the City requesting the vacations along with the appropriate fee and legal descriptions. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-O01 ~ ~£N3w35v3 I 6~.t4¢J43 C 0 M P A N Y 13400 18th AVENUE NOFITH~ 8.UITE.~ PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 8844 Phofle 612-601-4044 Fnx 612.~01-4~t3 8'7: 4~ May 9, 1997 Kirk McDonald Community D~dopment Coordi~tor City of N~v Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 VIA FACSLMII.~ AND U.S. MAIL Developmeat Caaz 97-06 7300 49th Av~m~ Vacation of Ea~mznta Dear Kirk: In accordanca with City Code., and in conn~"tion with the above devdopment, we are formally requesfi~$ tha~ th~ City vacate tl~ ~ alon$ the railroad ri~ht-of-way and the existing storm sew-zr zas~nmt that will bz rdocamt as a part of the abov~ project. Enclosed is our fe~ of $200.00. It is my understanding that legal des0dptions have been provided by RLK. If not, please let me know and they will be provided. Thank you. MINNEAI~DLI~ * TAMPA DEVELOPMENT * CONSYRUGTION ' MANAGEMENT ' INVESTM~ COUNCIL ItF UEST FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda _ Agenda Section ueveTopment & Planning 5-12-97 Item No. Orlgtnattng Depa.nment City Manager Kirk McDonald By:. Management Assistant / DISCUSSION REGARDING RELEASE OF SECURITY FOR KIMBALL ADDITION (PLANNING CASE 94-15) This matter was tabled at the Apdl 28 Council meeting and referred to the City Attorney for review and comment. Subsequent to that meeting, the following actions have occurred: 1. The City Attorney has submitted the enclosed correspondence regarding options pertaining to the drainage issue. The developers contacted the City and questioned where the 1% minimum grade requirement came from and were referred to the City Engineer's May 1994 correspondence which states that "the grades through the overland drainage swale shall be 1% minimum.' 3. The developers have also met with their engineer, restaked the grades on the property and are proposing a solution to the issue. Please refer to the attached correspondence. As you are aware, the City has held a certified check in the amount of $3,000 on the Kimball Addition housing development at 36"~ and Decatur for the installation of public improvements. The developer originally provided a Letter of Credit in the amount of $133,500, and in August of 1995, the Letter of Credit was reduced to $25,000. In August of 1996, the Council authorized staff to draw on the Letter of Credit, but also agreed that the developer could pay the administrative fee (due at that time) and present an alternate secunty for a lessor amount based upon the remaining grading work. At that time, the developer paid the administrative fees and provided a certified check in the amount of $3,000. Since that time there have been on-going discussions between the developer, the developer's engineer and the City Engir~er regarding the grade of the overland swale between Lots 7 and 8. The City Engineer recommended that the developer and engineer provide a field sur~ey of the drainage swale, MOTION BY TO: Review: Admlnistra~n: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 5-12-97 and if the swale satisfied the minimum 1.0% grade, that the swale be accepted and the escrow be released. The develope~e engineer did field survey the swale and the data indicates that the swale is constructed based on an average grade of greater than 1.0% (1.05%). The City Engineer notes, however, that the curb elevation is based on the lowest portion of the curb where the top of the curb was cut out to improve the grade in the drainage swale and states that if the top of the curb had not been cut out, the existing swale would be less than 1.0%. The Council discussed this issue at the January 13 Council meeting. At that time, the City Engineer provided a letter stating that the existing drainage swale would function adequately in most cases ancl be acceptable to most. He stated that if the City is comfortable knowing that the curb elevation is based on the fact the developer removed the top portion of the curb to satisfy the 1.0% grade, he could recommend that the escrow amount of $3,000 be released, but that the Council would need to determine whether to accept the swale as is or require additional, improvements. After discussing this with the developers, the Council tabled the matter until April 28 so that City representatives could meet the developers at the site and review the situation. The Council' also requested that the developer provide the City with a written description of why the top portion of the curb was removed and a letter from the developer is enclosed. City representatives met with the developers at the site on Apdl 25 to review and discuss the matter with the developers. No resolution has been prepared regarding the release or non-release of the security, as staff is unaware what action will be taken by the Council. Previous Council minutes and correspondence are attached for your information. One other issue that needs to be addressed ia the $847.50 in outstanding administrative expenses for legal and engineering services ae of the end of the first quarter. If any of the security is released, it should be subject to the payment of administrative services.' ~¥-0~-97 ~N 09:24 P, 02/1.6 May 1, 1997 Dan Donahue City of New HoDs 4401Xylon Avenue Nor.th New Hope, NN 56428 RE: Ktmball Addltion Securlty Deoo81[ Our File: 99.1~040 Dear' Dan: Thi~ letter ia in reeooflee to the quesbiofl asked by the City Council regardtn9 our option8 ~er~alning to the drainage the Kimball Addition Zt is my understandin9 :he Developer is queotioning the C~ty'~ authority tO establish drainage and other ~ener.a3 subdivision standards relative to the Kimbail plat, The ¢~y's authority :o require drainage standards is provlded ~y Nlnn, .~;JllJ~ §462.3SR. Subds. la. eno 2a. of :hts statute give the City the authority :o enact a subdivision regulatiofle ordinance. The regulabton8 may specifically govern wtthou% limt:atlon~ among other things, grading, lo: improvements aha storm drainage. They also perm,: the City :o require develooment contracts Indicating the ~ondi~lons for D3at aoproval, require letters of credit or other financial security to guarantee performance, prohtb~b the issuance of bulldlng Detalia for lots ~thou: subdivision approval and enforce :he developmen% con~racte by eaaro~rta~e legal or e~uttab~e remedies. The Ct:y has enacted a eubd4vieion regulation ord4nance codlflea as ChaD:er 13 of :he New Hope.Code. ~o~ §13,061 requires a development con~ract for public im~rovemente guaranteed by financial security. ~13.071(4) ~equiree developers :o ma~e all improvements neoeeeary for adequate 10: aralnage in conformance with applicable regulations as determined by :he C~ty ;n$~neer. §13.074(5) indicates the grade and drainage requirements rot each lot wilt be established by ~he City Engineer at the exoense of the ~Y-05-97 ~0N 09:24 P, 03/I6 Dan Oonahue May 1, Page 2. developer. Further, ~13.O62 requires developers to pay the expense cequiremen~ is no~ incensed as a service to developers bu~ is t~e protection of [he public s~orm drainage and sewer sye~em generally. Under the "Public Duty Doctrine" the Ct[y dOeS become the guaranCor o~ ~mprovemen~e ln~roperly con$~rucl~ed by a developer by virtue of our ~nspectton deapi~e the fact we may have erred in approving the work. Regarding =~e Kimball Addition develoDment, the City and =he Developers did enter into a August lg, 1994 development contKac~ (copy enclosed). Paragraph Z of bhe development con~rac~ requires the Developers to complete all wo~k tn accordance wt~h ~he City~ specifications. Subd. 2 of said paragraph specifically requires the Developers [o ~ona[ruc~ drainage facilities adequate ~o serve ~he Addition ae dfFec~ed by ~he City Engineer, The 0eveloDera also acknowledge in subd. 2 that [he City may require edd~ionel facili=iee at a later date which it may deem necessary. In the City Engineer's May 26, 1994 letter (cooy enclosed) he indicates grade~ ~hrough bhe overland drainage swales mua~ be a~ a minimum o~ 1.OO~. ! have nob checked ~e council minutes when the pla~ was approved bu~ according to our standard procedure this requiremen~ would have been made a condition o~ approval. TheKe~ore~ ~he Developers surely were aware of ~hts condition well in advance of any construction a~ ~he stye. I would also refer you to ~he City Engineer's October a, 1998 memo wherein he indicates a review and construction phase based on his sueoicion a minimum 1% grade was no[ achievable. The Developers assured ~he City a~orm ~ewer was no~ necessary ac indicated by ~heir Engineer's Augus= lO, 1995 le~er, therefore ~e storm sawer was required. However, as we now Know, [he Oevelo~er~ have not estimated the minimum reauiremente. Two elevation points ~ra well below bhe minimum 1~ ~rade (aaa Hedlund Engineerlng'e NovemDer 2~, 1995 lab[er enclosea), Deepl~e [heee fac[s, [he Developers have requested the City to acceo% the project and releaae bhe rem~inine security de~oait, .. Based on our development contract, New HOD~ C~de Chap. 13 end,inn. StaC~ §4~2,3~ i~ ia my opinion The City could requlFe Oeveloperm [o Satisfy our minimum drainage requirements as determined by the CIty Engineer. If ~he Developers objected ~he City would be free =o make the required oorrec'bionm and reimbursement for the correcClon COSts from ll[tga[lon ie necessary and ~he City ~revaile the Developers would be required to pay cour~ cos[e, engineering and attorneys enforce the requirements of ~he contract ~er ~armgraph ? of the ¢on~rac[. Certainly ~he City may continue to retain the $),000.00 ~Y-05-97 liON 09:24 P, 04/16 Page 3, securlty deposit until this ~a~er Is resolved. imDrovemen~s constructed subs[---~-,-- . e 1) the - ff ~--~ r~y~Q O~ ~ ' ~se~ on 8om~ ~rm ~ .... d ......... e reQu~remen~ aeve~opmen~ or 37 ~he r~ u' o~ Z~ you have any o~her questions oF CO~nt8 ~egarding this matter please don'~ heal,ate ~o con[act me. S~even A. $ondrall zl~ enclosures cc: K irk McOonal d COUNCIL RE IIEST FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda _ Agenda Section oeveTopment & Planning 5-12-97 Item No. Originating DepaxLment City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OF CITY-OWN1 BUILDING AT 7528 42"0 AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 595) City staff have been coordinating with the City Engineer on the preparation of plans and specifications for the demolition of the City-owned industrial building at 7528 42"~ Avenue. The attached resolution approves the plans and specifications and authorizes advertisement for bids. Bids would be opened on June 5 and the results would be presented to the Council on June 9. As you are aware, the City acquired the building from Foremost, Inc. several years ago and recently leased the building to Phoenix Manufacturing. The lease with Phoenix Manufacturing expired after the first of the year and they vacated the building. Earlier this spdng, the Council approved the sealing of wells on the property and an environmental survey of the site. All work has been completed and the building is ready for demolition. The long-term goal of the City is to rezone this and adjacent properties from industrial to commercial use and to redevelop the site. The plans and specifications call for demolition and removal of the existing structure and its materials Site restoration will include topsoil borrow and seeding. The plans call for the removal/replacement of approximately 90 lineal feet of curb along Quebec Avenue North. The plan includes alternates for the construction of two different sized parking lots, which would provide parking for 28 and 89 parking stalls, respectively. Both plans assume a temporary design, which includes a 6-inch thick bituminous surface. Concrete Curb is not included. The large parking lot design assumes that a new storm sewer system (catch basins/25-foot pipe) would collect storm water runoff while the small parking lot design assumes overland drainage. The large parking lot design assumes two access points (42~ Avenue and Quebec Avenue) while the small parking lot assumes one access (Quebec Avenue). The construction cost estimate for each parking lot design is as follows: Parking Lot - 89 stalls $43,750.00 Parking Lot - 28 stalls $17,100.00 MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 5-12 ~ / Staff has included the .alternates only for bidding purposes and assumes the lots would not be constructed unless an agreement was reached with a neighboring business to finance the construction of the temporary lots. Staff and the City Engineer have several minor changes 'ihat need to be incorporated into the plans and specifications, but are requesting Council approval of the plans and specifications at this time so bidding can be advertised. The demolition will be financed with 42"~ Avenue Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing funds. The enclosed resolution approves the plans and specifications and authorizes bidding. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. B onestroo Rosene 1 I' Anclerlik & 'AssociaI. es Engineers & Architects ~)ffzce~. St P.auL Rocr~ester. ~/illrnar .an(~ St. Cloucl. MN · Mec~uon. ~1 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald Mark Hanson May 6, 1997 Foremost Building Demolition Parking Lot Alternatives City Project No. 595 Our File No. 34205 Attached are two cost estimates to construct two different size parking lots after the Foremost building is demolished at 7528 - 42~d Avenue. The two parking lot sizes are based on providing 89 parking stalls and 28 parking stalls. The two layouts are attached. Both layouts-assume a temporary design, which includes 6-inch thick gravel base and 2-inch thick bituminous surface. Concrete curb is not included. The large parking lot design assumes that a new storm sewer system (catch basins / 2S-foot pipe) would collect storm water runoff while the small parking lot design assumes overland drainage. The large parking lot design assumes two access points (42"d Avenue and Quebec Avenue) while the small parking lot assumes one access (Quebec Avenue). The construction cost estimate for each parking lot design is shown below. Parking Lot- 89 stalls Parking Lot- 28 stalls $ 43,750.00 $17,100.00 2J35 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 · 612-636-4600 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE FOR FOREMOST PARKING LOT - 89 STALLS FILE NO. 34205 I Qty, Unit 1,400 CY I00 CY 100 CY 60 LF 25 LF 1 EA 1 EA 1,460 TN 450 TN 60 LF 20 LF 60 SY 2,100 LF 180 CY 0.5 AC I LS Item Common excavation @ $5.00 / c.y. Subgrade excavation @ $5.00 / c.y. Select granular borrow @ $6.00 / c.y. Remove concrete curb and gutter @ $5.00 / l.f. 15" RCP, Class 5 @ $30.00 / 1.f. Construct MH over existing 21" RCP @ $1,600.00 / ea. 2' x 3' CB @ $1,000.00 / ea. Class 5, aggregate base @ $7.00 / tn. Typ~ 41 bituminous wearing course @ $30.00 / tn.. Concrete curb and gutter @ $15.00 / l.f. Bituminous curb @ $10.00/l.f. 2" bituminous trail @ $10.00/s.y. 4" solid white paint @ $0.50 / 1.f. Topsoil borrow @ $10.00 / c.y. Seeding @ $1,500.00 / ac. Traffic control @ $2,000.00 Subtotal + 5% Contingencies TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Cost $7,000.00 600.00 600.00 300.00 750.00 1,600.00 1,000.00 10,220.00 13,500.00 900.00 200.00 600.00 1,050.00 1,800.00 750.00 2,000.00 $41,670.00 2,080.00 $43,750.00 i:X34~3420Yxprelm_est PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE FOR FOREMOST PARKING LOT - 28 STALLS FILE NO. 34205 Otv. 500 50 50 550 170 550 50 0.5 1 Unit, CY CY CY TN TN LF CY AC LS Item Common excavation @ $6.00 / c.y. Subgrade excavation @ $5.00 / c.y. Select granular borrow @ $6.00 / c.y. Class 5, aggregate base @ $8.00 / tn. Type 41 bituminous wearing course @ $40.00 / tn. 4" solid white paint @ $0.60 / l.f. Topsoil borrow @ $10.00 / c.y. Seeding @ $1,500.00 / ac. Traffic control @ $2,000.00 Subtotal + 5% Contingencies TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Cost $3,000.00 250.00 250.00 4,400.00 6,800.00 330.00 :500.00 750.00 2,000.00 $16,280.00 820.00 $17,100,00 /) :I I $00 LINE R.R. N~"~ HOP~:, MINNLrSOTA I ~ waa#l~e COUNCil. I/F b'E.qT FOR ACTION Approved for Ageacla ,~eada Sect/on DeveTopment & Planning ~ 5-12-97 Item No. 8.6 Origtnatlng Depaxtment City Manager Kirk McDonald By:. Management Assistant / DISCUSSION REGARDING VACANT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AT 9200 49TM AVENUE NORTH AND CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FROM MLB PROPERTIES, INC. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 597) At the April 28 Council meeting, the Council authorized staff to negotiate with Clarence Brandell to purchase the vacant industrial property at 9200 49"~ Avenue North. The 2.8 acre site is zoned I-1. Limited Industrial, and has never been developed due to questionable soil conditions on portions of the property. The New Hope Surface Water Management Plan identifies a portion of the property as a future potential site for a water quality pond to help improve the quality of the large wetland north of and adjacent to the site. The Plan states that by diverting the trunk storm sewers into a pond on a portion of this site, the contaminant loads to the wetland could be dramatically reduced. As you are aware, the property owner recently contacted City staff and indicated that he is in failing health and inquired if the City might be interested in purchasing the property directly from him. This led staff to present the option to the Council of the City being more aggressive in possibly acquiring and controlling the development on this property if a portion of it is needed for storm water improvements. BCL Appraisals completed an appraisal on the property and indicated that the property had a market value of $209,000.00. The appraisal states that an industrial use of the land is the highest and best use, however, the soils are problematic and there is a lot of bad fill and peat which would need to be removed to develop the site and much replacement fill would also need to be added. The City Attorney reviewed the appraisal and had a concern about several of the 'comparables" that were utilized, and after further analysis, BCL revised the market value to $182,000.00 or $1.48 per square foot. Taking the poor soils on the east side of the property into consideration, the Building Official has prepared a concept plan that shows maximum development of the site with a 26,000 square foot office/warehouse and a storm water pond on the north third of the property. If the Council pursues acquisition of additional property for redevelopment in the 42"" and Quebec Avenue area, staff is suggesting that this 49"~ Avenue site may be a reasonable alternative for a business relocation. Funds from the 42"" Avenue TIF Distnct could be utilized to purchase the site if it were utilized for such a relocation. MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY Review: Adm/n/stmtton: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 5-12-97 Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, City staff met on May I with Clarence Brandell regarding the City's purchase of the referenced property. A purchase based on the following terms was discussed: 1. a purchase price of $195,000.00 2. City to pay 7/12ths of 1997 real estate taxes and special assessments (approximately $3,500.00) 3. City to assume $3,279.91 of unpaid special assessments from the 1991 Street Project No. 470 4. purchase of property in 'as is' condition. City assumes all responsibility for soil correction costs estimated at $80,000.00 to $100,000.00 5. City to pay cost for Registered Property Abstract estimated at $150.00 6. closing to occur on or before June 2, 1997 Two appraisals were completed on this property and the reported 'fair market values were $20.c ~0.00 and $182,000.00, respectively. Soil correction costs are the primary reason for the discrepancy · ,veen the appraisals. This proposal is a 'split the difference" approach. The most recent appraisal indicates the market value is $282,000.00 with corrected soils. Subtracting the $100,000.00 correction costs gets to the lower value. However, the actual costs are debatable. The City Engineer viewed the soil reports that are on file for this property and indicated correction costs may b as Iow as $80,000.00. Using this figure would increase the value of the property to $202,000.00. Since the soils information is not as adequate as it could be, there is a certain element of dsk connected to the purchase of this property. If correction costs are lower than anticipated, the proposed terms would be very favorable for the City. The City Attorney has prepared the attached Purchase Agreement and Resolution Authorizing Purchase of 9200 49"' Avenue North. If the Council is agreeable to the terms and wants to proceed with the purchase, staff recommend approval of the resolution. Loc = 80,000 sf Bldg = 26,000 sf Truck Docks: Yes Parking = 32 19~4 81% Warehouse Green = 33%- ,[ /'J., ?..,.! COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depax~,,,ent [ Approved for Agenda Agenda Section I City Manager [ 5-27-97 Consent [ /~"~ [tem,o. Stephanie Olson ~ By: Community Development S~nec_J~_list! '"~' f,/ / 6.7 RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE OP~ER NO. 1 FOR LANDSCAPE CONTRACT FOR 6067 WEST BROADWAY IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,300.00 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 545) On August 12, the City Council awarded the contract to construct a single family home at 6067 West Broadway to Equal Access Homes in the amount of $103,739.00. The contract states that landscaping and sodding will be completed by the City. At the February 24 City Council meeting, the City Council awarded the contract for landscape work at 6067 West Broadway to Wrobleski's Lawn Service in the amount of $3,202.20. Included in this contract was furnishing and planting trees, shrubs, and sod according to the landscape plan. No additional dirt was included in this contract. After the ddveway was poured, the landscaper brought it to the City's attention that additional dirt would be needed for the front yard before the landscaping and sod could be installed. The City Forester and City Engineer inspected the property and agreed with his recommendation. Wrobleski's Lawn Service provided a quote for extra black dirt, including delivery and grading, in the amount of $1,300.00. In order to complete all landscaping by the contract date of May 16, the City Manager approved the change order and the work has been completed. Change Order No. I is for $1,300.00 and includes 60 yards of black dirt, including delivery and grading. This additional cost will be paid for using CDBG, EDA, Scattered Site Housing, TIF funds and/or the proceeds from the sale of the home. Staff recommends approval of a Resolution Approving Change Order No. I for Landscape Contract for 6067 West Broadway in the Amount of $1,300.00 (Improvement Project No. 545). MOTION BY TO: RFA'O01 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Consent ~~ 5-27-97 Item No. Origtnath~ Depa~uent City Manager Kirk McDonald By:. Management Assistant RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELF_~SE OF IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT FOR GILL BROTHERS FUNERAL CHAPELS, INC., 7300 42"o AVENUE NORTH, PLANNING CASE 95-18 The City has held'a Letter of Credit in the amount of $94,500.00 on the Gill Brothers Funeral Chapel development at 7300 42"" Avenue (Planning Case 95-18) for the installation of public improvements and on-site extedor amenities. This amount was held to insure that specific improvements were made, including bituminous surface, concrete curb, ddveway apron, storm sewer, and landscaping improvements. The City Engineer and Building Official have inspected the property for completion of the improvements and are recommending that the Letter of Credit be released as all improvements have been satisfactorily completed. The enclosed resolution authorizes the release of the Letter of Credit and staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY TO: Review: AdmlntstratJon: Finance: RFA-O01 COUNCE, RF,~UEST FOR ACTION Appl~*d for Agenda Or~ina~ DeparUn~'~t City Manager Stephanie Olson /~)~) May 27, 1997 Community Dev. Specialis By:. MOTION APPROVING QUOTE B/Y LOT SURVEYS COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $425.00 TO SURVEY 5212 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #573) Agenda Sect. ton Consent Item No. In October 1996, the City purchased the single family home at 5212 Winnetka Avenue North. The home was in need of significant repair and rehabilitation. Project for Pride and Living was hired to assist staff in preparing plans and specifications, including alternatives, for rehabilitating the home. Both the City and P.P.L. continue working on plans and specifications. In order to determine appropriate alternatives, it is necessary to obtain accurate grades on the property and a survey would show this information. Staff has obtained quotes from the following firms to survey the site: FIRM Lot Surveys Company Merila & Associates, Inc. QUOTE $425.00 $475.00 Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing Lot Surveys Company to complete a survey. MOTION BY TO: RFA-O01 / / COtlNCIL Originating Depar~nent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager ~ Consent Stephanie OlsonBy:.// Item No. ~ Community Dev. Specialist May 27, 1997 6.13 / MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF~TO NEGOTIATE WITH PROPERTY OWNER FOR POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF 9116-31 st AVENUE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT//589) At th= Statuary 27 City Coungtl m=gtlng, City Council authorized staff to oota~n an appraisal tot the property located at 9116 31st Avenue North. BCL Appraisals, Inc. completed an appraisal, and estimated that the fair market value is $80,000. It was the opinion of the City Attorney and City staffthat the appraisal did not take all factors into consideration. The City Manager gave authorization to proceed with a second appraisal. The second appraisal, completed by Herman Appraisal Services, Inc., est, imated an "as is" market value of $62,250 and an "as repaired" market value of $80,000. Staffdid an interior and exterior inspection of the property on May 5. A preliminary list of rehabilitation repairs has been made and the Building Official estimated a cost of $15,000 for basic rehabilitation of the property. This property has been a problem for the City. This property is the lowest home in the area and storm water runoff from adjacent properties drain into this property. During the 1987 rainstorm, the basement flooded. The property is approximately 11,493 square feet. The rambler was built in 1967 and is approximately 1,120 square of living space, including three bedrooms, one bathroom, living room, kitchen, dinette attached double car garage. The 1997 assessed value of the property is $88,000 ($25,500 land/S62,500 building). Staff is recommending authorization to negotiate with the property owner. Once a price has been determined, staffwill return to the City Council with a recommendation as to whether the City should demolish the property, raise the grade and construct a new house, or rehabilitate the existing house. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Achnlntstra~ Finance: RFA-O01 ~ COUNCE. RF Ui T FOR ACTION OngUmu---~ Depm-m~ent Public Works Jeannine Clancy Appm~-d for AgemJa 3-10-97 ,~eada Sect. ton Development & Planning Item No. 8.]. / RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS/~,ND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE NORTHWOOO LAKE STORM SEWER, PONDING, AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT 498); ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS On March 10, 1997, the City Council held a public information meeting regarding the proposed Northwoocl Lake Storm Sewer, Ponding, and Park Improvement Project. Presentations were mede by staff regarding the basis for the project, the preliminary report, the public participation process, and the financing for the project. After taking testimony from residents present, Council directed the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the project. The plans and specifications are before Council for consideration. Plan sheets and a memorandum from the City Engineer are attached. These items present issues addressed in development of the final plans and specifications. They also identify the base bid of the project as well as alternates to the base bid. Also attached to the Council Action is a letter to the Bassstt Creek Water Management Commission from the New Hope City Manager requesting review of the project. He also requests they determine if the Commission would agree to allow the City to vary from its local surface water plan by leaving the water quality elements out of the project. The minutes reflect that the water quality elements should remain in the project. Staff will present the project and the specific plans to Council on Monday evening. Should Council approve the resolution, the following milestone schedule is suggested: Council Approves Plene May 26, 1997 Council Awards Contract June 23, 1997 C~ Begins (After Duk Duk Daze) July 14, 1997 Subetam~M Completion Fall, 1997 Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY TO: $~CONDBY RFA-O0! Apr~ 30. 1997 Mr. D~lel J. Do~*kue Ci~ ~ New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North Re: Propoood Noz~hw~ l. dke OutJet, atom Sewer, Pond, and Park Zmpt~vemonm ~ Mr. D~nahue: The abm, w-referenced pmjece was diseumed b~ ~ Beme~ Creek Water Manqument at the FeS~tm' C, ommbsian m,,..~-._-, an Thurmtay, Aprg 17, 19~7. This pr~ sbo mea~u~n ~ p~op~ed bT ~ O~T in thei~ r~ormwa~ mana&~nmt p~an ~o tmpl~ze the of s~mwa~ r-. ~,dq, ~o Ban~.R Or~k and N~d~wo~ The City at'New Hope's surhoo watew managunent plan wu tpprovod by tho Bemot~ Crook Water Management Commission. After eoMM~w~m ~ the c~izens request, diocumm o~ ixmible alMrJ3a~eo ~ me~ waMir qualL~ If,&uclm'~ and gon~ of the ~y's local plan ~3x~e~ wa~e~ quo~ meesur~ bo w~m~d now as per~ o~ ~bo improwdnent of Lake outlet. Tho C~mmmmon eonduded ~bat ~be ~ o~ sn~em fl~ws ~ o~ Nol~hwo~d ~ ~k~ wouM be mtve~ely ~ by ~he propmed modif~m~ion o~ ~ Norehwo~ Lddm If you b. ave any quef~iofd, pleeso mntle~ me. 232T0~1% 40418-1 TOTAL PAGE.00~ ~= i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects ~rl~ClpWt~; OCCO ~. 8onescroo. PE. * ~osep~ C. ~fl~rl~k. PE. · Marwn L. Sorv~ Ricfl~rO E Turner. PE · ~lefln R. Cook, PE. · RoOe~ G. Sc~,cnt. PE. · Jerry RoOert ~ Rosene. PE. aha Sus~ M EOer,n. CPA.. Sen~or Consulters ~oc~are P~flc~ls' ~owarO A. Sanfor~, PE · Keltfl A. GotOon PE. · RoDert R~cnar~ ~. Foster. ~E. · Daw~ O LosKoza. ~E · ~oOert C Russet. Al.A. · Mar~' M~c~ael T ~aut~afln. PE · re~ K.F~et~. ~E. · Kennem P AnOersofl. PE. · Mark SlQney P ~flhamso~, PE.. R S. · Ro0ert F Kotsmlt~ ~ffice~ St. Paul. ~oc~ester. ~fllmar anO SI. CJo~. ~ · Milwaukee. wi MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 22, 1997 Seannine Clancy Mark Hanson Northwood Lake Park Improvements City Project No. 498 Our File No. 34148 The detailed plan/specification approval for bidding the above-referenced project is scheduled for the May 27, 1997, Council Meeting. The elements of the plan included in the base bid and their construction estimate from the report are as follows: Box Culvert under Boone Avenue Northwood Lake Outlet Structure Water Quality Ponds No. 1, 2, & 3 including storm sewer Softball Fields (2 each) Pedestrian Trails (10' & 8' wide) Bridges (2 each - 90' x 6' & 40' x 10') Subtotal Sanitary Sewer (8317/8309 39ta Avenue) TOTAL BASE BID $100,000.00 150,000.00 250,000.00 160,000.00 60,000.00 120,000.00 $840,000.00 10,000.00 $850,000.00 In developing the base bid plan, the following changes/additions have been made: 1. The low flow storm sewer serving Pond 3 has been reduced in length from 1,700 L.F. to 1,000 L.F. which also eliminates the need to cross Boone Avenue. 2. The existing sanitary sewer serving 8317/8309 39th Avenue located in Northwood Park along the storm sewer alignment to Pond 2 is to be replaced after reviewing its condition. 3. The Northwood Lake Outlet Structure includes the alternate design presented in the preliminary report. 4. The low flow storm sewer to Pond 1 will be located south of the existing basketball court as opposed to north. 'The catch basins in the Iow point of Boone Avenue will discharge directly into the 3' x 7' box culvert. 2335 gffest Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 In addition to the base bid plan, the report identified alternates for bidding which have been further reviewed by staff. The following is a description of each alternate and each estimated cost. Extend box culvert to accommodate Duk Duk Daze Festival (140 IF) Galvanized fencing around each softball field and dugout area. Fencing around dugout and outfield will be 8' high and 6' high along foul lines (2400 LF) An additional alternate will be included for vinyl coating versus galvanized fencing Concrete maintenance curb below fencing (2200 LF) Concrete pavement between ball fields and below bleachers ( 1200 SF) Water stub 8" diameter for future irrigation @ Boone Avenue. Irrigation for both fields is not included Boardwalk bridge (40' x 6') Landscaping TOTAL $59,000.00 22,000.00 24,000.00 30,000.00 25,000.00 $225,000.00 Staff, in conjunction with the park planner, also investigated other alternatives to reduce cost, some of which have been incorporated into the plan and are discussed below. · The open area east of the easterly softball field is proposed to be seeded versus sodded. · The 200-foot long parallel 8-foot wide trail near Boone Avenue has been removed. · Staff is not comfortable constructing culverts in the channel versus the three bridges. The following is a proposed schedule: Receive Bids Award Contract Begin Construction - Outlet Structure Begin Construction in Park over Field 1 Begin Construction in Park over Field 2 Substantial Completion Including Sod Completion of Punch List Items June 18, 1997 June 23, 1997 July 7, 1997 July 24, 1997 July 31, 1997 October 10, 1997 June 15, 1998 COUNCIL RF UE T FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda Agenda Section 5-27-97 Development & Planning B~.~'~ Item No. 8.3 Otlgtrmttng Departznent Public Works Jeannine Clancy RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRAC~T FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1997 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 567 (AREA TWO) On Apdl 27, 1997, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and ordered bidding for the 1997 Infrastructure Improvements (Area Two). The bid opening was held on May 23, 1997. The bids are currently being analyzed by the City Engineer and will be presented to the City Council on Monday evening. The attached memorandum from the City Engineer describes recent modifications to the plans, outstanding design issues, and a proposed method for resolving the design issues. The City Engineer will review this memorandum with Council on Monday evening. Should Council adopt the resolution, the following project schedule would be followed: Council Awards Contract Construction Completion through Wear Course Complete Construction Assessment Hearing May 27, 1997 October 17, 1997 June 15, 1998 August, 1998 Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution. MOTION BY TO: RFA-O01 f COb'~ Ortgtnattna Depa~t~,ent ~p~ ~or ~e~a ~da ~~ 5-27-97 ~ .... , Ki~ McDonald [t~ No. ~ Management Assistant . 8.4 DISCUSSION REGARDING REL~SE ~ SECURI~ FOR KIM~LL ADDITION (P~NNING CASE 94-15) This maEer was tabl~ at the May 12 Council m~ting. At that m~ting, the developers ~dicated they had mstak~ the pro~ and that the pm~r grade could ~ achiev~ by bdnging in additional fill and regrading pa~ of the site. ~e Council dire~ the develo~m to explain their proposal in writing and submit the appropriate documentation. ~e developem have subm~ the a~ached coffespondence and documentation from Hedlund Engineering. The May 14 le~er states that "within the ne~ ~o weeks we will be bdnging in black diffi to fill to the tops of the grading stakes, removing the rocks and repairing the notch in the cu~." Upon re~ipt of the leffer, staff advis~ the deveto~m not to proceed with the proposal until it was consider~ by the Council on May 27. The Ci~ Engineer has prepared the a~ached co~esponden~ in response to the proposal. As you am aware, the Ci~ has held a ce~ check in the amount of $3,000 on the Kimball Addition housing development at 36a and De~tur for the installation of public improvements. The developer originally provided a Leffer of Credit in the amount of $133,500, and in August of 1995, the Le~er of Credit was reduc~ to $25,000. In August of 19~, the Council a~hodz~ staff to draw on the Leffer of Credit, but also agreed, that the develo~r ~uld pay the administrative fee (due at that time) and present an alternate secu~ for a lessor amount ba~ u~n the remaining grading wo~. At that time, the developer paid the administrative f~s and provid~ a ~ed check in the amount of $3,000. Since that time there have ~n' ongoing discussions be~een the develo~r, the developer's engineer' and the Ci~ Engin~r r~arding the grade of the ovedand swale ~n Lots 7 and 8. The Ci~ Engineer recommend~ that the develo~r and engineer provide a field su~ey of the drainage swale, and if the swale safi~ the minimum 1.0% grade, that the swale ~ a~pt~ and the escrow be released. The dev~o~s engin~r did field su~ey the swale and the data indicates that the swale is M~ON BY S~O~ ~ ~: ~~n: F~e: ~A~I ~ Request for Action Page 2 5-27-97 constructed based on an average grade of greater than 1.0% (1.05%). The City Engineer however, that the curt) elevation is based on the lowest portion of the curb where the top of the cum was cut out to improve the grade in the drainage swale and states that if the top of the curb had not been cut out, the existing swale would be less than 1.0%. The Council discussed this issue at the January 13 Council meeting. At that time, the City Engineer provided a letter stating that the existing drainage swale would function adequately in most cases and be acceptable to most. He stated that if the City is comfortable knowing that the curb elevation is based on the fact the developer removed the top portion of the curb to satisfy the 1.0% grade, he could recommend that the escrow amount of $3,000 be released, but that the Council would need to determine whether to accept the swale as is or require additional improvements. After discussing this with the developers, the Council tabled the matter until April 28 so that City representatives could meet the developers at the site and review the situation. The Council .also requested that the developer provide the City with a written description of why the top portion of the curb was removed and the developer provided a letter of explanation. City representatives met with the developers at the site Apdi 25 t° review and discuss the matter with the developers. At the Apdl 28 Council meeting, the Council tabled the matter and referred the issue to the City Attorney for an opinion. No resolution has been prepared regarding the release or non-release of the security, as staff is unaware what action will be taken by the Council. One other issue that needs to be addressed is the $847.50 in outstanding administrative expenses for legal and engineering services. If any of the security is released, it should be subject to the payment of administrative services. Additional legal and engineering fees have also been incurred during the second quarter related to this issue. Hidden Creek Development 9175 107~h S~. No. S~illwa=er, MN 55082 May 14, 1997 Mr, Dan Donahue City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. No. New Hope, Mn 55428-4969 Re: Kimball Swale between lots 7 and 8. Dear Mr. Donahue, At this time we have tried several options to improve =he drainage swale between lots 7 and 8 Kimball Addition, including rock between the driveways, a curb notch, and hand grading. We have also discussed a concrete apron and a concrete gutter in the swale. Since the city does not feel these are adequate solutions we have again met with our engineer and resurveyed the swale area, (Enclosed is a letter from Hedlund Engineering). Within the next 2 weeks we will be bringing in black dirt to fill to the tops of the grading stakes, removing the rocks and repairing the notch in the curb. At that time we will be in compliance with our grading and development plan. We apologize for any disruption this may have caused and request a prompt inspection and release of our escrow funds. Sincerely, Tim Jawor, county, .'~in,-.~o~.a and IL &l .... COUNCE, RF UEST FOR ACTION Approved for Rgenda ,agenda SecUon 5-27-97 Development & Planning .~ Item No. Orlgmattng DepazLment Public Works Jeannine Clancy / RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE AND WEST STAR CURB FOR THE 1997 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (IMPROVEMENT #579) In Apdl, 1997, the City Council approved the plans and authorized bidding of this project. The project includes removal and replacement or construction of sidewalks on Winnetka Avenue, Boone Avenue, a portion of Bass Lake Road, and the entrance to the New Hope Police Department. Bids were opened on May 21, 1997. The results of the bidding are presented in the attached bid tabulation. The contract documents have been prepared so that the City Council may award parts of the contract. As directed by the City Council in Apdl, staff approached property owners to propose construction of new sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue (parts B, C, and D of the bid). Staff requested that the adjacent property owners finance two thirds of the construction cost of the sidewalk. This cost shadng was requested because the property is currently developed. The following contacts were made: Mr. Jim Dahle - 4148 Winnetka (School District #281): Mr. Dahle indicated that he felt it was in the best interest of the District to evaluate this request along with the future plans for upgrading the intersection of 42'~ and Winnetka. The plans for the 42=~ and Winnetka construction are scheduled to be completed in early winter, 1997. · Mr. Roger Wentz - 4000 Winnetka (Dura Process): Mr. Wentz is not interested in paying for a portion of the sidewalk costs. MOTION BY TO: RFA-O01 Request for Action 1997 Sidewalk Improvement Project 579 May 27, 1997 Page 2 · Mr. John Miner - 3510 W~nnetka Avenue: Mr. Miner is not interested in paying for a portion of the sidewalk costs. As further directed by Council, staff approached the owner of the property at 8901 Bass Lake Road, Mr. A.C. Carlson (Part E of the bid). Staff requested that this property owner pay 100 percent of the cost of the sidewalk. This amount was requested because the property is vacant. Mr. Cadson is not interested in paying for the cost of the sidewalk. The City's options in constructing sidewalk adjacent to these properties are as follows: · Construct the sidewalk and pay for the cost out of MSA funds. Delay the construction of these sections of sidewalk until the 1999 project, and attempt to assess the cost to the property owner through special assessments. However, staff has been advised by Mr. Brad Bjorklund, the city's special projects appraiser, that unless the entire street is being reconstructed, the benefit of the sidewalk is immeasurable. Therefore, the City may be challenged by the property owner and would have a difficult time supporting the assessment. · Delay construction of the sidewalk at 8901 Bass Lake Road until the property develops. Based on the potential use of the sidewalk, the benefit to pedestrians, and the ability to fund the construction costs through Municipal State Aid and Community Development Block Grant funds, staff recommends that the sidewalks be constructed as part of the project. The project also includes construction of new sidewalk on the east side of Winnetka Avenue in the City of Crystal (Part F of the bid). Staff has approached the Crystal City Engineer and requested that Crystal pay 100 percent of the cost. Tom Mathisen, Crystal City Engineer, has indicated that Crystal will pay its share of the costs. A joint powers agreement will be prepared for Crystal's part of the project. The attached resolution approves the base bid of $248,710.10, which includes all parts of the contract. Should Council approve the resolution, a proposed project schedule is as follows: Award Contract Begin Construction Complete Construction May 27, 1997 June, 1997 September, 1997 Staff recommends approval of the resolution. REQUEST FOR ACTION COUNCIL Ortgmat. tng Depa.---m~ent City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant Approved for A~enda 5-27-97 Agenda Section Development & Plannin¢ Item No. 8.6 / DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AT 7300 49~ AVENUE- IMPROVEMENT PROJECT No. 598 At the May 12 Council Meeting the City Council approved the following resolutions with regard to the development of the Hoyt industrial property at 7300 49~ Avenue: Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition for Public Storm Sewer Improvement at 7300 49= Avenue North and Ordedng Preparation of Engineering Report (Storm Sewer Relocation Project No. 598). 2. Resolution Initiating Vacation of Storm Sewer and Utility and Drainage Easements at 7300-7390 49= Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 598). As you are aware, the proposed construction of a 120,000 square foot office/warehouse building at 7300 49= Avenue (Lot 2, Block 1, 5000 Winnetka, 2"~ Addition) will require the removal/relocation of the existing 30-inch storm sewer that bisects the site. The City Engineer is recommending that the storm sewer be upgraded in size from a 30-inch to a 36-inch pipe. Per the Engineer's Apdl 24 letter, the developer should at a minimum be responsible for the cost to reconstruct an equal amount of existing 30-inch storm sewer from that removed and an equivalent amount of storm sewer to serve the site. The cost to upgrade the existing 30-inch storm sewer to a 36-inch and the additional length over the existing length of storm sewer would be the City's responsibility (or the properties included in the upstream drainage area). The City Engineer's revised cost estimate for the City to construct and assess the public storm sewers, including 25% for indirect costs, and the cost responsibility would be estimated as follows: MOTION BY , SECOND BY RFA-O01 Requeet for Action 7300 49m Avenue Page 2 Storm Sewer Cost Lot 2, Block 1 $ 80,000 City 35,000 Total $115,000 The developer has petitioned the City to reconstruct the public storm sewer, similar to the 5000 Winnetka project, with the developer being responsible for grading the ponding areas. The developer indicates that he feels there are some important differences between the two projects and states that the percentage of water contributed by this site as opposed to the percentage contributed by the 5000 Winnetka project is far less. He also states that the commercial nature of the water inflow on this project is at sharp contrast with the residential nature of the inflow on the 5000 Winnetka project. At the May 12 Council meeting, he requested that the City consider a larger allotment of the project costs be assessed to the benefiting commercial property owners on Quebec Avenue. Subsequent to the Council meeting, the following actions have occurred: A meeting was held on May 14 with the developer and he was encouraged to submit what he felt was a reasonable cost shadng arrangement along with the appropriate documentation. The City Attomey has prepared the enclosed correspondence describing options as to how the project can be accomplished, either as a public improvement project or as a pdvate project with a City contribution or reimbursement to the developer. An additional meeting was held on May 20 which included the developer, Public Works Director, City Attorney, and City Engineer. The following summarizes that meeting: ' · The developer believes that the City's contribution to the cost of the project is $47,700 (see attached letter from RLK Engineers). · The developer is opposed to the City constructing the improvements and has indicated that he does not want the cost of the improvements assessed to the property that he owns. The developer desires to build the storm sewer improvement with a city cash contribution of $47,700. The developer has not made a commitment to following municipal contracting laws or comply with City engineering design review procedure or construction inspection standards. The developer has indicated that he will redesign the project showing relocation of the 30 inch storm sewer to a location outside the building pad or parking improvements. He indicated that he would submit this plan on May 23 so that it could be considered by the Planning Commission on June 3 and City Council on June 9. No action by Council is requested at this time. Jeannine Clancy City of New Hope 4401Xylon AvAnue NOrth New Hope, MN 5S428 RE: Storm Sewer Relocation Project Lot 2, Block I 6000 Winnetka 2nd Add. 7300 49th Avenue NOrth Our File: 99.11190 Dear demnnine; This latter will confirm the outcome of our recent meetings with Brad Hoyt the owner and developer of the referenced property. As Dart of the Planning casa for mite end buildin9 plan review the Developer requested the City to undertake Se a puD]ic Improvement relocation Of the storm sewer which dissects the ~ropert¥. Further, the Developer reqtJeated said improvement be done aa a Chap 429 e~ecial &eeeeament project. The Cl~y condition ugreeO to theme requests on tha~ an acceptaDle Agree~n ~r~= .in~o between the cit~ --- a~c~pa~od the ¢i~ w^..~ ---~ ~"~-~m u~volo~er. t~e ~roject aa ~r~J~Fu~re ~) ~tans eno spectflca~lon~-~ rocess, wer. cond.c ~o a.u uoperv~se conmtcuction of the ~oject~ iasedon ouK m~etinGs w|~h the Develo · . ?s~no~ wie~ ~o 0roceeu with +~ --~-J~ is my unUerstand~ng he assessment. There · g a Chap. 4 ' fete, h~m Ma 8th 29 I$e7) should Y De~ltlon letter (dated April H ' ~ ne -etltion eom · - .... cry. -- a.v an Agreemen~ Of AaseaS/nen~ will not I:urthar, the Developer has indicated he ~n[ ~_l?n which would maintain the -i~- .... : end. s ~°..resubml~ a new progoeea on-ei~e urainage and h~7-~?~' re~uc~ tnI mize of the ,,~,ut,,v pones eno ~intain &he otatuo 03/03 Jeanntne Clancy May. 22, lg$7 Page 2. quo with regards to utt11z&tion of the existing pil~e by of*-eite water from the contributing drainage area. He also wishes to built ~he relocated pipe without City 'involvemen~ in ~e ~l~dlng or constmuction process. Basically, our inability to reach an agreamen~ the Developers concern Over ~nno~ ........ ~n colt sharing ~n~ constructs the -ro~* ~LL' _::'L~u~On ~¢neaullng if the City ~lana w~h ~eepec~ to the ~ro~oe-~ -- ..... eloper to amend his Developer tntende to su~-i~ ....... ~. case. A~lren~ly. the ............ _-"' v a ,aw p/an Oellevad by the Developer to ~ave n~m oo:n :1ma eno monQy with respect to this deVelopmenc. ~ is my oDlnlon the City should continue to accommodate ~he Oevelooer by agreeing to the storm sawer relocation under a new plan on condition of the following: 1. .Any ~lan submitted must meet all minimum standards of the City, Watershed and any other regulatory body wlth respect bo on-site drainage an~ water Quality issues ~lrectly relate~ ~o or ~aused by the new davelopmen:, 2. If the Developer builds the new s:orm Sewer and receives any publlc funds the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law mus~ be complied with in connection with bidding and :he contract award Process, 3. T~at comDle%e ~lan$ and specifications ~or & DeYelope~ constructed storm sewer be aubmi[ba~ to :he Cl:y Engineer for review ana approv&~. Fur%her, that an inspection schedule be developed for the tone,ruction of the eysbem and that the City receives complete "Aa BUllt$" of :~e eye,em a~ter 1Ce cons:ruction. 4. That the ease~nt vacations requested by the Developer ~e conditioned on Chess requirements and further that the Developer ~ealcate as agreed new eaee~nts ~or the new constructed as part of Chip project, Please contact me tf xou have any other questions or commence, $ondra11 Zl~2 cc: Kirk McDonald Dun Donahue