090694 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
3.
3.1
3.2
*4.2
5.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT
Case 94-21
Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for City Center Addition, 7300
42nd Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Case 94-22
Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Camerons Addition, 6073
Louisiana Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case 94-23 Request for Conditional Use Permit to AllOw the Construction of an
Equipment Shelter and the Erection of a 115' ESMR Cellular
Telephone Antenna/Radio Tower, 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North,
C-Call Corporation, d.b.a. OneComm Corporation/Jonathan and Leah
Miner, Petitioners.
Case 94-25
Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 95'
Cellular Telephone Antenna Tower and a 12' x 24' Equipment
Building, 5700 International Parkway (Victory Park), U.S. West
NewVector Group, Inc., Petitioner.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of Design and Review Committee
Report of Codes and Standards Committee
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 2, 1994.
Review of City Council Minutes of July 25 and August 8, 1994.
Review of EDA Minutes of July 25 and August 8, 1994.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
* Petitioners are requested to be in attendance
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
94-21
Preliminary Plat Approval for City Center Addition, 7300 42nd Avenue North,
City of New Hope, Petitioner
7300 42nd Avenue North
17-118-21-21-0002, 17-118-21-21-0003, 17-118-21-21-0007,
17-118-21-21-0008, 17-118-21-21-0010, 17-118-21-21-0049
B-4, Community Business
City of New Hope
September 1, 1994
September 6, 1994
BACKGROUND
This is a request by the City of New Hope for Preliminary Plat approval of City Center
Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code.
The property included in the plat includes all or a portion of Lots 11 - 18, Auditor's
Subdivision Number 324. The City acquired these properties in conjunction with the 42nd
Avenue Street Reconstruction Project and the purpose of the plat is to consolidate all of the
parcels into one lot.
For the past several years the City has contracted to have gasoline-impacted soils on the east
side of the property removed in conjunction with an approved clean-up plan from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The City is now in the process of seeking an "all-clear"
letter from the PCA and is marketing the property through Thorpe Bros., and the sale of the
property will be less complicated if it is platted as one parcel.
4. The property is located at the northwest intersection of 42nd and Nevada Avenues.
The property is located in a B-4, Community Business, Zoning District and surrounding land
uses/zoning include R-4 apartments to the north, I-2, General Industrial, to the west (across
railroad), B4 to the east (Army/Navy Store), and B-4 to the south across 42nd Avenue (All
Star Sports and Rapid Oil).
6. The topography of the property is fairly flat with rising ridge on the east side.
As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City
Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies, and Hennepin County for review and comment.
The City Code states that copies of the f'mal plat shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the
Planning Commission during their review, of the preliminary plat. City staff is not
Planning Case 94-21
2
September 1, 1994
requesting a waiver from this requirement and recommends that the final plat be
reviewed by the Commission.
Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and one property owner
contacted the City to inquire about the purpose of the plat.
ANALYSIS
The total area of the plat is 74,516 square feet (including street cul-de-sac) and the total area
of Lot 1, Block 1, excluding the street is 61,376 square feet. The plat has a width of 145 feet
on the west, 221.61 feet on the east, 460.67 feet on the south (42nd Avenue), and 510.19 feet
on the north, There are no lot area or lot width requirements for the B-4 Zoning District
(appropriate site uses are determined by the setback requirement). The plat combines all the
existing parcels into one parcel.
2. The City Engineer reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations:
Ao
The right-of-way along 42nd Avenue shall be dedicated to provide a uniform width of
2' between back of sidewalk and right-of-way line.
A 20' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the existing 36" RCP
storm sewer crossing the middle of the site. A minimum 5' wide drainage and utility
easement shall be dedicated along all lot lines and right-of-way lines.
At the time the site is developed, access shall be to the Nevada Avenue cul-de-sac.
In addition, consideration should be given to improving the storm water flow from the
low point in 42nd Avenue through this site. At a minimum, the elevation of the lowest
opening in the building shall be 2' above the overflow elevation.
In the event future development warrants reconfiguration of the cul-de-sac, a driveway
easement should be maintained between the apartment complex and Nevada Avenue.
The ground water and soil contamination shall be resolved in accordance with MPCA
and City requirements.
3. Hennepin County reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations:
The developer should dedicate right-of-way for CSAH 9 as shown on the preliminary
plat.
All access from the plat to CSAH 9 must be via City streets. Direct access from the
plat to CSAH 9 will not be permitted.
All proposed construction within County right-of-way requires an approved permit
prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway, drainage
and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits
Section at 930-2550 for permit forms.
The developer must restore all areas, within County fight-of-way, disturbed during
construction.
The City Attorney reviewed the plat and found it to be in order from a legal standoint, subject
to the following:
Planning Case 94-21
September 1, 1994
Bo
Co
Do
The City of New Hope is listed as the Owner and Developer. The title of all the
relevant parcels of property is in the name of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of New Hope. The HRA should be the Developer, or
the HRA can deed the property to the EDA and the EDA can then be the Owner and
Developer.
The illustration of the plat needs to be changed so that the underlying fee title to all of
the relevant lots is included within the outer boundary of the plat. The illustration
appears to limit the plat to those portions of the subject property which are not affected
by the street easements. The plat needs to include the full extent of the fee title of the
various lots, with the existing roadway improvements or easements shown as a
dedication on the plat. This is particularly appropriate here because Lot 11 and the
East 130 feet of Lot 18 were both owned in fee by the HRA prior to the construction
of the shifted Nevada Avenue and the cul-de-sac for Oregon Estates. As a result, there
has never been a dedication or easement to reflect the roadways that have been
constructed upon those two lots. To a lesser extent, the same situation applies to all
of the remaining lots fronting 42nd Avenue North. The HRA either owned these lots
prior to the condemnation or took the entire lot as part of the condemnation. As a
result, there has been no official action to dedicate the easements for the widened 42nd
Avenue North. Normally this would be handled by a reservation of the easements
when the HRA deeds out the property, but since the plat will happen first, it is
appropriate to place the street easements of record at this time by a plat dedication.
Certain minor information required in preliminary plats by City Ordinance §13.041 is
missing, namely the location of sewer and water mains and the zoning classification.
Based upon the information available to me, the property appears to be zoned B-4 at
this time.
Because of ownership by HRA, no title work 'will be necessary. However, the
Hennepin County Surveyors will require at least a letter from our office regarding the
status of the title. I will provide that at the time of review of the final plat.
The property is tax-exempt, so the plat can be filed without regard to the payment of
real estate taxes.
°
The Building Official reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following
comments/recommendations:
Bo
Correct errors: Nevada Avenue right-of-way is drawn out of scale or dimension.
South lot line may be inaccurate, shown to NOT parallel the new sidewalk along the
County road, 42nd Avenue.
Provide perimeter easements and sewer easement bisecting the lot.
Increase lot area by reducing the generous cul-de-sac diameter on the south side from
60' to 54', where it will intersect with the southeast comer of the adjacent apartment
complex lot, as shown on attachment "C". The lot area is increased by 624
feet, to 62,000 square feet.
6. The Minnesota Department of Transportation reviewed the plat and had no comments.
Planning Case 94-21
4
September 1, 1994
7. City staff received no comments from utility companies regarding the plat.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of City Center Addition, subject to the following
conditions:
Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer, Hennepin County, and
Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat.
2. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval.
Attachments:
Section/Zoning/Topo Maps
Preliminary Plat
City Attorney Correspondence
City Engineer Correspondence
Building Official Comments & Attachment
Hennepin County Correspondence
MnDOT Correspondence
Plat Distribution Letter
4~.ol
ir'
YE. N.
4?00
'5
42-1/2
0
~Z
,7 TH
TH
FRED I
SIMS ·
PARK !
o ~
CKFOR
41 ST AVE
I~ ~
~ ~z~
N
AVE
AVE
L
ROAD
:OOPER
SCHOOl.
R.4
HSEMAN~
*'-METERY
R.4
I-1
I~ETN~/
CEMETERY
I-.1
ICE
ARENA
898.2
×
X 894.5
897.4
X
895.5
897.0
42ND
/
X
896.8
894.8
×
899.5 IQ
AVENUE
CITY
CENTER
ADDITION
CITY OF NEW
42ND AVE N ('30 ROAD NO 9)
N
SCALE tN FEET
NEy/ADA
AV/E N
Hy-Lnnd Surveying, P.A.
LBnd Survo
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R, LAFLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
CORRICK & SONDRALL, P.A.
ATTOi~,~Eys AT CAW
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671
FAX (612) 425-5867
August 26, t994
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
City Center Addition
Our File No: 99.15042
Dear Kirk-
I have examined the proposed preliminary plat of
Addition and find it to be in order from a legal
subject to the following:
City Center
standpoint,
1. -The City of New Hope is listed as the Owner and
Developer. The title of all the relevant parcels of property is in
the name of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of New Hope. The HRA should be the Developer, or the HRA can
deed the property to the EDA and the EDA can then be the Owner and
Developer.
2. The illustration of the plat needs to be changed so that
the underlying fee title to all of the relevant lots is included
within the outer boundary of the plat. The illustration appears to
limit the plat to those portions of the subject property which are
not affected by the street easements. The plat needs to include
the full extent of the fee title of the various lots, with the
existing roadway improvements or easements shown as a dedication on
the plat. This is particularly appropriate here because Lot 11 and
the East 130 feet of Lot 18 were both owned in fee by the HRA prior
to the construction of the shifted Nevada Avenue and the cul-de-sac
for Oregon Estates, As a result, there has never been a dedication
or easement to reflect the roadways that have been constructed upon
those two lots.
Mr. Kirk McDonald
August 26, 1994
Page 2
To a lesser extent, the same situation applies to all of the
remaining lots fronting 42nd Avenue North. The HRA either owned
these lots prior to the condemnation or took the entire lot as part
of the condemnation. As a result, there has been no official
action to dedicate the easements for the widened 42nd Avenue North.
Normally this would be handled by a reservation of the easements
when the HRA deeds out the property. But since the plat will
happen first, it is appropriate to place the street easements of
record at this time by a plat dedication.
3. Certain minor information required in preliminary plats
by City Ordinance §13.041 is missing, namely the location of sewer
and water mains and the zoning classification. Based upon the
information available to me, the property appears to be zoned B-4
at this time (see Ordinance §4.33(8).
4. Because of ownership by the HRA, no title work will be
necessary. However, the Hennepin County Surveyor's will require at
least a letter from our office regarding the status of the title.
I will provide that at the time of review of the final plat.
5. The property is tax-exempt, so the plat can be filed
without regard to the payment of real estate taxes.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Malecha
s3f
CC:
Daniel J, Donahue, City Manager
Steven A, Sondrall, City Attorney
Bonestroo
Rosene
Jduaderllk &
)dsocl es
Engineers & Architects
FROM: Mark Hanson, City Engineer
DATE: August 26, 1994
RE:
City Center Addition (42nd/Nevada Ave.)
File 34-gen
The City Center Addition provides for platting the property owned by the .City of New
Hope located in the northwest corner of 42nd Avenue and Nevada Avenue. The City is
presently marketing the property for sale. We have reviewed the plat and recommend the
following:
· The fight-of-way along 42nd Avenue shall be dedicated to Iirovide a uniform width
of 2' between back of sidewalk and right"of-way line.
A 20' wide drninage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the existing 36"
RCP storm sewer crossing the middle of the site. A minimum 5' wide drni-age and
utility easements shall be dedicated along all lot lines and right-of-way lines.
· At the time the site is developed, acceu shall be to the Nevida Avenue cul-de-sac.
In addition, consideration should be given to improving the storm water flow from
the Iow point in 42nd Avenue through this site. At a minimum, the elevation of the
lowest opening in the building shall be 2' above the oveffl~ elevation.
· In the event furore development warTants reC°nfiguration of the cul-de-sac, a
driveway' easement should be maintained between the apartment complex and
Nevada Avenue.
· The ground water and soil contamination shall be resolved in accordance with
MPCA and City requirements, i
cc: Milton Hyland
233S Wbst Hlghwly 36 · St. Pluh MN 55113 · 612-636-4600
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
City of New Hope
MEMORANDUM
August 31, 1994
Kirk McDonald
Douglas Sanclstad, Building Official
City Center Addition Prelim. Plat
I have reviewed the proposed plat and suggest these improvements:
* Correct errors; Nevada Avenue right-of-way is drawn out of scale or dimension.
South lot line may be inaccurate, shown to NOT parallel the new sidewalk
along the County road, 42nd Ave.
* Provide perimeter easements and sewer easement bisecting the lot.
* Increase lot area by reducing the generous cul-de-sac diameter on the south side
from 60' to 54, where it will intersect with the southeast corner of the adjacent
apartment complex lot, as shown on attachment "C". The lot are is increased by 624
square fee~ to 62,000 sf
Please advise, if you have any questions.
cc: attachment
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
August 22, 1994
RE: Proposed Plat - City Center Addition
CSAH 9, northwest quadrant CSAH g and Nevada Avenue North
Section 17, Township 118, Range 21
Hennepin County Plat No. 2176
Review and Recommendations
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County
review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat
and make the following comments:
· The developer should dedicate right of way'for CSAH 9 as shown on the
preliminary plat.
· All access from the plat to CSAH g must be via City streets. Direct
access from the plat to CSAH g will not be permitted.
· All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved
permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not
limitedto driveway, drainage and utility construction, trail development
and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for permit
forms.
· The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way,
disturbed during construction.
Please direct any response to Doug Mattson.
Sincerely,
Thomas D ~Johnson, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
TDJ/DBM
Department of Public Works
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
(612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513
01¢ T~RI~''
Minnesota Department of TransPortation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building ·
1500 West County Road B2
Rose,,ille. Minnesota 55113
August 24, 1994
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428-4898
Dear Mr. McDonald:
SUBJECT:
Preliminary Plat Review
City Center Addition
Northwest Quadrant of CR 9 & Nevada Avenue North
New Hope, Hennepin County
CS 2772
Thank you for submitting the above referenced development proposal for our review. Since the
proposal is not adjacent to an existing or proposed state trunk highway and has no apparent
impact on the state's transportation system, Mn/DOT has no comments regarding development
of this property.
As you may know, only preliminary plats which are adjacent to state trunk highways must, in
accordance with state statutes, be submitted to Mn/DOT for review prior to local approval of
final plats.. It is not necessary, however, to submit proposals which are not adjacent to a state
trunk highway and clearly do not have an impact on the state trunk highway system.
For those projects that are not within the normal preliminary plat review process, but that are
adjacent to or that will affect the state trunk highway system, we welcome the opportunity to
review and discuss preliminary plans with you in order to prevent traffic problems before they
occur.
If you have any questions, please call me at 582-1386.
Sincerely,
Ruth Ann Sobnosky
Principal Transportation Planner
An Equal Opportunity Employer
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
August 15, 1994
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Hennepin County Public Works
Minnegasco
Northern States Power Co.
U.S. West Telephone
King Cable Television
New Hope Director of Public Works
New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services
New Hope City Attorney
New Hope City Engineer
New Hope Building Official
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Preliminary Plat of City Center Addition
Enclosed you will find the Preliminary Plat for City Center Addition, a subdivision being
proposed by.the City of New Hope to combine existing City-owned properties. Please
review and return your comments by 4:30 p.m. Friday, August 26th.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119.
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
94-22
Preliminary Plat Approval for Camerons Addition
6073 Louisiana Avenue North
05-118-21-21-0111. and 05-118-21-21-0003
R-i, Single Family Residential
City of New Hope
September 1, 1994
September 6, 1994
BACKGROUND
The City of New Hope is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of Camerons Addition,
pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code.
The purpose of the plat is to create a new buildable parcel for the City's scattered site housing
program. As you are aware, the City acquired the vacant HUD house at 7109 62nd Avenue
in 1993 and it is currently being rehabilitated with MHFA and CDBG funds for resale to first-
time homebuyers. In the fall of 1993, the City approved the preliminary plat for the Carol
James Addition, as the property owner at 7105 62nd Avenue (adjacent to 7109 62nd Avenue)
desired to subdivide his property and sell off the back portion. This spring the City purchased
the rear portion of the property after the final plat was approved. The purpose of this plat is
to split off the rear portion of the 7109 62nd Avenue parcel (identified as "B" on the attached
diagram) and combine it with the rear portion of the 7105 62nd Avenue parcel (identified as
"D" on the attached diagram) to create one new buildable lot (B/D) which would have access
off of Louisiana Avenue. The City has no immediate plans to build on the parcel, but will
do so in the furore with a variety of housing program grant funding sources.
The property is located just south of the southwest intersection of 62nd and Louisiana
Avenues.
The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District and is bordered
on the south by a single family home and Broadway Village Apartments, which are both
located in an R4, High Density Residential, Zoning District. The property across 62nd
Avenue to the north is Brooklyn Park single family residential and the property to the east
across Louisiana Avenue. is Crystal park property.
o
The topography of the proposed future building site is flat with several nice trees toward the
center of the site.
o
As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City
Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies, and Hennepin County for review and comment.
Planning Case 94-22
2
September 1, 1994
The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the
Planning Commission during their review of the preliminary plat. City staff is not
requesting a waiver from this requirement and recommends that the final plat be reviewed
by the Commission.
Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified, including the cities of Crystal
and Brooklyn Park, and staff have received no comments on the request.
ANALYSIS
The total area of the proposed plat is 26,043 square feet or .59 acres and the existing "L-
shaped" parcel has a frontage width of 66.67 feet on the north (62nd Avenue), 100 feet on the
east (Louisiana Avenue), a length of 166.67 feet on the south and a length of 240.63 feet on
the west.
The plat subdivides the property into two (2) parcels. The lot area and lot width requirements
for the R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District are compared with the plat below:
R-1 Requirement
Minimum Lot Area = 9,500 square feet
Preliminary_ Plat
Lot 1 = 9,376 square feet
Lot 2 = 16,667 square feet
Minimum Lot Width = 75 feet
LOt 1 = 66.67 feet (on 62nd Avenue)
Lot 2 = 100 feet (on Louisiana Avenue)
3. Lot 2 meets the lot area and lot width requirements for the R-1 Zoning District.
Lot 1 does not meet the lot area or lot width requirements for the R-1 Zoning District for the
following reasons:
Lot Width - This is an existing non-conforming lot with a frontage (width) of 66.67 feet on
62nd Avenue and it is not possible to correct this non-conformity with this plat. Due to the
fact that thi.q is simply a re-plat of existing property and the non-conformity currently
exists, no variance to the lot width requirement is necessary with the approval of this
plat.
Lot Area - The lot area for Lot 1 is currently shown on the plat as 9,376 square feet and the
requirement is 9,500 square feet, therefore, the lot, as proposed, is 124 square feet short of
the requirement. This will be corrected on the final plat so that Lot 1 meets the ordinance
requirements, as staff is not seeking a variance on the lot area. The reason that this
situation developed is that the property owner at 7105 62nd Avenue only wanted to sell the
rear 100 feet of his property. City staff was uncertain as to what the exact square footage of
the two combined parcels would be until the area was surveyed/platted. It was the original
intention to simply extend the rear dividing line straight into the next lot so that the newly
Planning Case 94-22
3
September 1, 1994
created parcel would be rectangular in shape. Due to the fact that the square footage
requirement is not met on the new parcel, the line will have to be shifted in the final plat, as
referenced in the following comments.
5. No comments were received from Hennepin County or utility companies on the plat.
6. The City Engineer reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations:
Lot 1 does not comply with the required square footage (required 9,500 square feet,
proposed 9,376 square feet). Attached are two alternatives to reconfigure the lot line
between Lots 1 and 2 to satisfy the square footage requirement:
Sanitary sewer and water main service to Lot 2 must be satisfied by extending 160'
sanitary sewer in Louisiana Avenue and connecting a 1" service to the existing 6"
water main in Louisiana Avenue. The estimated cost for this work including utility
construction and street restoration is +$16,500.
The southwest corner of Lot 2 does not naturally overflow to Louisiana Avenue. It
is expected when Lot 2 is developed storm water will pond in this area.
Approximately 350' of storm sewer pipe in Louisiana Avenue and along the south lot
line of LOt 2 is required. In the event an easement can be secured from the property
to the south approximately 230' of storm sewer pipe is required. The estimated cost
for storm sewer is $7,000 to $12,000. In the event the storm sewer is constructed
along the south lot line of Lot 2, a 10' wide drainage and utility easement is required
along the south lot line.
Drainage and utility easements 5' wide shall be provided along all lot lines and right-
of-way lines unless otherwise noted. As noted, a 3' wide drainage and utility easement
is provided along the existing garage due to its location. Existing easements shall be
vacated as required.
The City Attorney reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following
comments/recommendations:
The City of New Hope is listed as the Owner and Developer. The City owns the real
estate described by the metes and bounds legal description, which is the property
known as 7109 62nd Avenue North. However, the New Hope EDA is the owner of
record for LOt 2, Block 1, Carol James Addition. Either the City or the EDA will
have to deed their portion of the property to the other so all property will be under
common ownership, or the City and the EDA will both have to join in the plat as
owners.
The metes and bounds legal description needs to include a reference to the section,
township and range. In addition, the legal description contains some slight variations
from the legal description contained on the Certificate of Title. Because this is
registered property, the legal description should reflect that contained in the Certificate
of Title.
The proposed Lot 2, Camerons Addition shows an easement to be vacated. Both
Minnesota law and the City of New. Hope Code require certain procedures to be
Planning Case 94-22
4
September 1, 1994
Eo
followed for the vacation of a publicly owned easement. The City can commence a
vacation proceeding by its own motion, but published and posted notice, as well as
written notice to adjoining landowners is required. Prior to commencing the vacation,
the legal description for the easement to be vacated must be obtained.
Certain minor information required in preliminary plats by City Ordinance is missing,
namely the location of sewer and water mains and the zoning classification. Based
upon the information available to me, the property appears to be zoned R-1 at this
time.
Because of recent purchases by the City, no title work will be necessary for this plat
application. However, the Hennepin County Surveyors will require at least a letter
from our office regarding the status of the title. I will provide that at the time of
review of the final plat.
With the recent platting of the Carol James Addition, we know that all of the real
estate taxes due and payable in 1994 on Lot 2, Block 1, Carol James Addition have
been paid in full. The taxes are also paid in full for the remaining property (7109),
so taxes will not be an issue when the plat is filed.
The Building Official reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following
comments/recommendations:
The only adjustment needed is to the lot area for the proposed Lot 1. It is just under
our 9,500 square foot minimum lot size. Adding 125 or 150 square feet can be done
by changing the lot shape slightly, as shown in attachment "A", which moves only the
southwest lot corner. In the alternate, an approximate rectangle can be maintained for
Lot 1 by changing the depth from 140.63' to 143' (143' x 66.67' = 9,533.81 square
feet). This changes Lot 1 into an irregular 6 sided lot (see attachment "B").
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Camerons Addition, subject to the following
conditions:
Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer, Hennepin County, and
Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat.
2. Final Plat be. submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval.
Attachments:
Zoning/Section/Topo Maps
Preliminary Plat
City Engineer Correspondence & Attachments
City Attorney Correspondence
Building Official Comments & Attachments
Plat Distribution Letter
R.4
ST. THENI:SA
NIJ(~SIN~
HI]dj
R-4
H0$TrRILAJI
1,1
COOPrR .
HIGH SCHOOL
R.4
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm~ C.,OUNTY m ROAD
,YE
AVE. N. ·
6~ $ T AVE.
60TH
I0!
60 TH.
59
~ESA
~(~
Ilmml
7800
TV
H
ROAD
AVE
× 872.
873.4
×
×
x '~'.Oc~
8~0.5 X
C
B
x
0
866.7
870.4
868.4
60'/3 L~uisiana Avem
'-.4
,$
60
9O
FEET
¥0
62 ND A/ENUE NORTH
56.67- --.
,o
! 34
24.0
,. ~;o .'--:: '"'-: '"'"
-mI:::~EASEME~IT TO B£
VACATED
Bonestroo
Rosene
' lefllk &
AssocMtes
Englfl~ers & Architects
FROM:
DATB:
RE:
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
August 26, 1994
Cameron Addition (62nd/Louisiana Avenue)
File 34-gan
The Cameron Addition includes 2 lots being platted by the City of New Hope. Lot 1
includes an existing single family home being rehabilitated by the City. Lot 2 is vacant and
proposed to be developed. We have reviewed the plat and recommend the following:
Lot 1 does not comply with the required square footage (required 9500 sq. ft.,
proposed 9376 sq. ft.). Attached are two aiternafives to reconfigure the lot line
between Lots 1 and 2 to satis~ the square footage requirement.
Sanitary sewer and water main service to Lot 2 must be satisfied by extending 160'
sanitary sewer in Louisiana Avenue and connecting a 1" service to the existing 6"
water main in Louisiana Avenue, The estimated cost for this work including utility
construction and street restoration is _.+ $16,500.
The southwest corner of Lot 2 does not naturally overflow to LOuisiana Avenue. It's
expected when Lot 2 is developed storm water will pond in this area. Approximately
350' of storm sewer pipe in Louisiana Avenue and along the south lot line of Lot 2
· is required. In the event an easement can be secured from the property to the south
approximately 230' of storm sewer pipe is required. The estimated cost for storm
sewer is $7,000 m $12,000. In the event the storm sewer is constructed along the
south lot line of Lot 2, a 10' wide drainase and utility easement is required along the
south lot line.
Drn~nn~e and utility easements 5' wide shall be provided along all lot lines and right-
of-way lines unles~ otherwise noted. As noted, a 3' wide drainage and utility
easement is provided along the existing garage due to its location, Existing
easements shall be vacated as required.
ec: Milton Hyland
2~3S Wes~ Highway 36 · St. Peul, MN SS113 · 61Z-636-4600
0
0
CD
24.0
~4',0
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR
MARTIN P, MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
CORRICK & SONDRALL. P.A.
ATTOI~EYS AT' LAW
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
$525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671
FAX (612) 425-5867
~GALASSlST&NT$
LAVONNE E. KESKE
SHARON D. DERBY
August 26, 1994
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Camerons Addition
Our File No: 99.15041
Dear Kirk-
I examined the proposed preliminary plat for Camerons Addition and
have the following comments:
1. The City of New Hope is listed as the Owner and
Developer. The City owns the real estate described by the metes
and bounds legal description, which is the property known as 7109
62nd Avenue North. However, the New Hope EDA is the owner of
record for Lot 2, Block 1, Carol James Addition. Either the City
or the EDA will have to deed their portion of the property to the
other so all property will be under common ownership, or the City
and the EDA will both have to join in the plat as owners.
2. The metes and bounds legal description needs to include
a reference to the section, township and range. In addition, the
legal description contains some slight variations from the legal
description contained on the Certificate of Title. Because this is
registered property, the legal description should reflect that
contained in the Certificate of Title.
3. The proposed Lot 2, Camerons Addition shows an easement
to be vacated. Both Minnesota law and the City of New Hope Code
require certain procedures to be followed for the vacation of a
publicly owned easement. See New Hope Code §6.09. The City can
commence a vacation proceeding by its own motion, but published and
Mr. Kirk McDonald
August 26, 1994
Page 2
posted notice, as well as written notice to adjoining landowners is
required. Prior to commencing the vacation, the legal description
for the easement to be vacated must be obtained.
4. Certain minor information required in preliminary plats
by City Ordinance §13.041 is missing, namely the location of sewer
and water mains and the zoning classification. Based upon the
information available to me, the property appears to be zoned R-1
at this time.
5. Because of recent purchases by the City, no title work
will be necessary for this plat application. However, the Hennepin
County Surveyor's will require at least a letter from our office
regarding the status of the title. I will provide that at the time
of review of the final plat.
6. With the recent platting of the Carol James Addition, we
know that all of the real estate taxes due and payable in 1994 on
Lot 2, Block 1, Carol James Addition have been paid in full. The
taxes are also paid in full for the remaining property (7109), so
taxes will not be an issue when the plat is filed.
Be sure to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mart i n P. Mal echa
s3f2
cc:
Daniel d. Donahue, City Manager
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
City of New Hope
MEMORANDUM
August 31, 1994
Kirk McDonald
Douglas Sandstad, Building Official ~/
Camerons Addition Prelim. Plat
The only adjustment needed is to the lot area for the proposed Lot 1. It is just under
our 9,500 sqaure foot minimum lot size. Adding 125 or 150 sf can be done by changing the lot
shape slightly, as shown in attachment ".4", which moves only the southwest lot corner. In the
alternate, an approximate rectangle can be maintained for Lot 1 by changing the depth from
140.63' to 143'. [143' x 66.67 = 9533,81 sf]. This changes Lot 2 into an irregular 6 sided lot.
Exhibit "B" illustrates the latter.
cc: file
attachments
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
August 15, 1994
TO:
Hennepin County Public Works
Minnegasco
Northern States Power Co.
U.S. West Telephone
King Cable Television
New Hope Director of Public Works
New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services
New Hope City Attorney
New Hope City Engineer
New Hope Building Official
FROM:
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Camerons Addition
Enclosed you will find the Preliminary Plat for Camerons Addition, a subdivision being
proposed by the City of New Hope. Please review and return your comments by 4:30
p.m. Friday, August 26th.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119.
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
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 115 Foot ESMR Cellular Telephone
Antenna/Radio Tower
5008 Hillsboro Avenue North
07-118-21-23-0012
I-l, 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 ! 15 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 resulting in a tower that usually far exceeds local building code requirements.
The applicant states that the tower should not be required to be lighted according to FAA
requirements. To minimize off site visibility, the petitioner has indicated that the tower would
be left in its natural galvanized steel color.
o
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.
o
The site would only require single phase 200 amp electrical service and TI telephone for
utilities, which would be brought in underground. The site would be secured by a cyclone
fence.
10.
11.
12.
13.
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.
The site is located in an I-1, 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.
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.
The proposed building and tower meet or exceed the City's setback requirements (see
petitioner's correspondence).
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 land or
buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same
Planning Case Report 94-23
· September 1, 1994
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:
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-l, 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:
Ao
Do
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
finish, 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
OneComm to bring this new ESMR cellular technology 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 Iow 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.
Ho
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.
Planning Case Report 94-23
September 1, 1994
Jo
Antenna tower and building elevations have been submitted.
Building details are shown: precast concrete with exposed aggregate finish in ~ 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
antennas.
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:
ho
Bo
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 buildings 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 filled, per City Engineer.
3. Approval by Shingle Creek Watershed.
4. Erosion control must comply with City/County requirements.
5. Compliance with all State Building Code requirements, coordinated through the Building
Official.
6. 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
z
I
6'0 lO
C~I ST .
~0ol
49 TH
NEW HOPE
ATHLETIC
FIELD
AVE.
AVE.
VICTORY
PARK
R.4
CENTER
PUBLIC
WORKS
~OO UNE RAILROAD COMPANY
R-4
NORTH RIOGE
CARE
CENTER
HOSTERMAN
JR HIGH SCHOOL
SCHOOL
~ 54
NEVI
ATHLETIC
FIELD
HONE~I~RD
NEW KOP~
ELEM~TARt,
COOPER
HIGH SCHOOL
CRYSTAL FREE CHUf~CH
CIVIC
CENTER
SWIMMING
POOL
FIRE
R.4
i
0~08S]]~ ×
J
t
I
!
I
I
I
I
~ I
x i
-
I
I
1
,O0.'Og
I
i
~ qt'
~ I
/4" SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4-" WEST ELEVATION,
-- AC. UNFF
~ UOT]ON DE'~C'TO~
- - ~[C~'T
UESA TAN COLOR
(3) 3" ~ 13'2" OMNI ANTENNAS SE[ 4/A4.
FOUNOA TZON SCHEOUL
VERTiCAl 8~RS C~.RCUL~R T~ES
~ '~' TIES 'd~ TIES
SIZE LAP CAGE OIA. SIZE SPACING LAP SIZE SP~CING L~P
(/0) ~9 N/A 27" ~4 3" 22" ~4 /2" 22"
NOTE: ~EE TOWER A~EM~LY ORAWZNG FOR FOUNOAT[ON LAYOUT AND ANCHORAGE
EM~EDMEN T ORA WING NUMBER.
VO~UN~ O~ CONCRE~
[I) FOUNOATION 8.~ CU. YDS.
~) FOUNOA TIONS 2~.~ CU.
CIRCULAR TIES 7
~ GROUND LINE r 1 ~--~
~ '
~ ~1 I ~ ~ -
~ I I ~ NOTE:
~ CAGE OIA. FROM
~ CENTERLINE OF
~ I VERTICAL ~ARS.
~t I
~ ~ TOWER SITE: NEW HOPE, MN.
F ~ REA C T~ONS / L
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OOWNLOAD = 100.4 KIPS
- SHEAR = 12.6 KIPS
(~ ' -0"~ _
OIA. -I SHEET I OE 3
No.~ Revision Oescrip~ion ~ O~te ~ Rev ~y ~ Ckd ~y~Appd ~y
THIS ORAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF ROHN. IT IS NOT
TO ~E RERROOUCEO, COPIEO OR TR~CEO IN WHOLE OR
IN PART WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT.
Scale: NONE ~y Oate Ti tle:
Draw~: JOM ~-2~-~4 DRILLED P~R FOUNDATION
Checked, ~ ~Z~ ~ FOR ON~CONN
FOUNDATION GENERAL NOTES
ENG. FILE NO. 31456PM
1. Work shall be in accordance with local codes, safety regulations and unless otherwise noted, the
latest revision of ACI 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete". Procedures
for the protection of excavations, existing construction and utilities shall be established prior to
foundation installation.
2. Concrete materials shall conform to the appropriate state requirements for exposed structural
concrete.
3. Proportions of concrete materials shall be suitable for the installation method utilized and shall
result in durable concrete for resistance to local anticipated aggressive actions. The durability
requirements of ACI 318 Chapter 4 shall be satisfied based on the conditions expected at the site.
As a minimum, concrete shall develop a minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi (20.7 MPa)
in 28 days.
4. Maximum size of aggregate shall not exceed 3/4 inch (19 nun); size suitable for installation
method utilized; or one-third clear distance behind or between reinforcir[g.
5. Reinforcement shall be deformed and conform to the requirements of ASTM A615 grade 60
unless otherwise noted. Splices in reinforcement shall not be allowed unless otherwise indicated.
6. Reinforcing cages shall be braced to retain proper dimensions during handling and throughout
placement of concrete. When temporary casing is utilized, bracing shall be adequate to resist
forces occurring from flowing concrete during casing extraction.
7. Welding is prohibited on reinforcing steel and embedments.
8. Minimum concrete cover for reinforcement shall be 3 inches (76 mm) unless otherwise noted.
Approved spacers shall be used to insure a 3 inch (76 mm) minimum cover on reinforcement.
9. Concrete cover from top of foundation to ends of vertical reinforcement shall not exceed 3 inches
(76mm) nor be less than 2 inches (5 lmm).
I0. Spacers shall be attached intermittently throughout the entire length of vertical reinforcing cages
to insure' concentric placement of cages in excavations.
11. Foundation design has been based on geotechnical report dated 8/9/94 by: Development Engi-
neering, P.A.
12. Foundation design has been developed in accordance with generally accepted professional engi-
neering principles and practices within the limits of the subsurface data provided. Foundation
design modifications may be required in the event the following design parameters are not appli-
cable for the subsurface conditions encountered.
A) Depth neglected for skin shear = top 13 ft. '
B) Average allowable skin shear 13 ft. to 32 ft. depth = 410 psf.
C) Allowable end bearing at 32 ft. depth = 6,000 psf.
D) Ground water table at ground surface.
E) Foundation depth indicated is based on the grade line described in the referenced geotechnical
report. Foundation modification may be required in the event cut or fill operations have taken
place subsequent to the geotechnical investigation.
13. Foundation design assumes level grade at tower site.
14. Foundation installation shall be supervised by personnel knowledgeable and experienced with the
proposed foundation type. Construction shall be in accordance with generally accepted installa-
tion practices.
DWG. NO. A942208-2
Number 7 Dorset
Saint Paul. Minnesota 55118- 1913
(612) 450-6594
Fax (612) 457-2057
August 12. 1994
CiD' of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. North
New Hope, MN 55428
Application for Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review
Proposed ESMR Cellular Telephone Antenna Facility
by OneComm Corporation
This letter accompanies an application for a Conditional Use Permit by OneComm that will allow the
location of an ESMR cellular telephone antenna and cell site on property owned by Jonathan and Leah
Miner at 5008 Hillsboro Ave. North. I have been authorized by OneComm to act as their representative
for planning and zoning matters.
OneComm is one of the largest Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") services m the United States. Last
year, OneComm was granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission to operate an
Enhanced SM1L 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 will look, sound and work
just like traditional cellular but will have the advantage of also 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.
PROPOSED USE
OneComm is proposing to construct a 100R. steel self-supporting tower in the northwest comer of the
Miner's property. This type of tower does not require guy wires. A triangular platform will be put at the
top of the tower on which the cellular antennas will be attached. Initially, three 15t't. whip antennas will be
installed. At som~ ~ m the future, .the whip antennas will be replaced with nme 4ft. by I ft. panel
antennas. The ov~ffi height will be 115ft. The antennas will transmit and receive low power (50 watts
ERP) cellular radio signals.
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 kind of equipment to be attached to the tower. A safety factor
is included in the design parameters resulting in a tower that usually far exceeds local building code
requirements.
The tower should not be required to be lighted according to FAA requirements. To minimize off site
visibility the tower will be not be p,ainted and will be left in its natural galvanized steel color.
An unmanned prefabricated equipment shelter measunng approximately l lft. by 20ft. by 10ft. high will be
located at the base of the pole. The shelter will have a washed aggregate finish. The drainage of the site
will not be changed. A parking space will be provided near the equipment shelter building.
The site will only require single phase 200 amp electrical service and TI telephone for utilities. These will
be brought in underground. The site will'be secured by a cyclone fence.
The existing trees along the Miner's east propert?' line will be preserved for screemng. The office building
and access driveway are located bem'een the site and Hillsboro Ave., so no further landscaping should be
needed. The drainage of the site will not be changed.
Ingress and egress to the shelter will be by a recorded easement through Miner's property, using the existing
driveway from Hillsboro Ave. The site will be visited approximately once a month by maintenance
personnel using utility tracks.
ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS
The site is located in an I-1 Light Industrial District. All of the properties surrounding the site are also I-1.
An existing Cellular One self-supporting radio tower is located on the adjacent property to the north. The
City's zoning code allows Radio and Television Antenna Farms, Essential Services and Public Utility
Buildings and Structures as permitted uses. Section 4.035(4) also exempts poles, towers and other
structures for essential services from the height limitations.
The proposed building and tower meet or exceed the City's setback requirements:
City Requirements Proposed Building Proposed Tower
Front Yard 50ft. 330R. 350ft.
Side Yard 20R. 20R 30R.
Rear Yard 35R. 70R. 54ff
The site meets the City's standards for conditional uses. The Olson Company's outdoor storage area for
their heavy equipment is to thc north. To the east is a wooded area and a large wetland buffer. Radio
towers are generally found m thc c~am~mial areas of a city where they are located near the heaviest users.
The local area is zooed for industrial uses and the proposed site by OneComm is compatible with the
adjacent land ~ ~
New wireless cmmmmic~on technology has developed rapidly m 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 amemty for thc success
of future business parks.
This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable OneComm to bring this new ESMR
cellular technology to New Hope. Thc 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 ESMR cellular fax machines as part of their drug enforcement program to obtain immediate
2
search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed
bluepnnts of a building in route to more safely fight fires..~anbulances 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 countD' with an ESMR 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 or stop
and give assistance.
ESMR Cellular radio transmissions are veD' 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.
Television and radio station transmitting towers can range from 50,000 watts to one million watts of power
output.
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 ESMR cellular system is operated in the same 800 MHz range as traditional
cellular. Both are at a higher fr~luency 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.
I respectfully request that we be placed on the Planmng Commission Agenda for September 6th. I plan to
attend the hearing to answer any questions or concerns that the committee or public may have.
I appreciate the assistance I have already received from the Building Staff. I look forward to working with
you to provide ESMR cellular capability to New Hope.
Sincerely,
William R. Buell
Consultant
·Enc:
Check for Application Fee in the amount of $450.00
Compleml Application for Conditional Use
Buildin$ ~ and Site Plans (8 copies and a 81/2 X 11 copy)
Memora~lum of Lease
Copy of T~le Commitment (a copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate will be forthcoming)
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMO
Kirk McDonald, City of New Hope
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
August 26, 1994
OneComm., 5008 Hillsboro Avenue
File 34-gen
A 11' X 20' equipment building and 100' tower is proposed to be constructed at 5008
Hillsboro Avenue, adjacent to an existing wetland. We have reviewed the site plan and
recommend the following:
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 buildings 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.
2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600
WETLAND DELINEATION ASSESSMENT
CELLULAR TRANSMISSION TOWER
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED BY
Development Engineering, lnc
9051 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
(612) 799-3O03
August 24, 1994
DEVELOPMENT ENGI,N EERIN G,* P.A.
p{E~C.~'
CEM F_.~E~'r
1000 0 1000 ~000 3000 4000 SO00 6000 7000 FEFT
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP
] MILl
'~EVEi.OPNl[!x,-i-ENOiNti[:Ri~x(i. p .i~ ~
SITE
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSiTE DETERMINATION METHOD1
Field Investigator(s): /fY///c~=-~/~Y',~/-/~'~/~,~K,-c/</ Date:
Project/Site: o~/c~ ~--~/-1 / /</(:~J/-~ ' State: ~'~//~ County:
Applicant/Ow~r: c~-.J<5 ~o/~-Z,4~ Ptant Commun~j #/Name:
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the ba~ of data torm or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes ~ ... No ~ (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturt)ed?
Yes ~ No ~' (If yes, explain on back)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1. ~o4.! DAd,-o /z~..T75~','~'~ FAc~J 7~~ 11.
2. F~A ~A~ ~-.. ~ ~ ~2.
4. ~~ D~Y~E~ U~. I~ ~- 14.
5. 15.
6. 16.
7. 17.
8; 18.
9. 19.
10. 2O.
Parent of dominant ~des that am OBL, FACW, ~or FAC
b the hydroph~ ~et~n c~edon met? Yes No ~
Rat~na~: ~o~ ~ ~
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Status Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
Series/phase: '/-(, G"-/,;I~ ~-
is the soil on the hydric soils list?
Is the soil a HistOsol? Yes ~
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes ~
Matrix Color:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydri¢ soil c,'fferion met? Yes
Rationale: T~: ~'r' ~ ~ 'T' H- 5-
is the ground surface inundated? Yes
is the soil saturated? Yes No
SOILS
Yes~ No ~' Undetermined
No ~ Hlsti¢ apipedon present? Yes
No /~', Gleyed? Yes~ No
Mottle Colors:
No ~
· Depth to line-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: '>' :~ ~-
List other field evidectee of surface inundation or soil saturation.
No ~
HYDROLOGY
No ;~ Surface water depth:
ls the wetland ~ criterion met? Yes No ~<
Rationale: 7~--.~.~' ,~/.;-- ~-.--~'-' ~.~,,,~/.,3 :iir' ~,"
JURISDICTIOHAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No ~
Rationale for'jurisdictional decision: / </a'~ ~ -~--.~,.~/u,f--~ ~-"~:~/.'"f 0/'4- ~
1 ~11m data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classificmion according to 'Soil Taxonomy."
B-2
OBJECTIVES
Development Engineering, P.A., 9(}51 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, MN. 55347 was
retained by One Comm to perform a wetland delineation on a portion of a commercial parcel
of land at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
On 8/22/94, the client authorized the following scope of services:
Conduct a site visit, advance subsurface test pits and obtain photographic documentation
to determine the boundaries of the wetlands.
Research applicable historical records, maps, regulatory files, and city/county zoning
records to determine the boundaries of the wetlands.
Prepare a client report documenting the research findings and concluding
recommendations.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is located in the northeast corner of lot. The subject property and surrounding
properties are developed, commercial land, partially covered by buildings and pavements. The
property to the east is covered by seasonally flooded wetlands. The actual area tested is a 5(}'
by 50' proposed easement just off a paved area.
The proposed development will be near an area largely covered by bituminous asphalt that serves
as a parking lot for a commercial facility. The parcel of land tested for this delineation is lower
in elevation than the proposed tower and is covered with moderate trees and brush.
Detailed photographs depicting the site features may be found in the appendix section of this
report.
BASIS FOR DELINEATION
A routine onsite delineation method was used during this study, This method utilizes vegetative,
hydrogeologic and soil indicators in an effort to establish a baseline for wetland criteria. A
routine on site method conforms to the standards setforth by the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act,
the 1989 Federal Manual tbr Delineating Wetlands and the Army Corp of Engineers Manual for
Delineating Wetlands.
VEGETATIVE INDICATORS
Development Engineering visited the site on 8/23/94 and 8/24/94 to conduct a visual inspection
at the property. A visual inspection of the vicinity identified that most of the surface vegetation
fully grown and seasonally matured. To the south of the proposed tower there are several
vegetative species that are found in either wetland or transitional wetland conditions (FAC,
FAC+, or FAC-). To the east of the surface water there arc several vegetative species that are
known to associate with wetland conditions (FACW or OBL).
Based upon the observed vegetative species around thc proposed tower, a delineation can not be
made. Additional soil or hydrogeological indicators will need to be accessed prior to
establishing a .jurisdictional wetland boundary.
For additional infl~rmation please refer to the routine onsite determination data form contained
in the appendix section of this report.
SOIL INDICATORS
In a effort to determine the presence of hydric soils a series of (5) subsurface test pits were
advanced to a depth of 3 feet below grade. The location of these pits correspond to the
transitional vegetative species found onsite. The soil encountered within the test pits are checked
historical signs of water inundation. Soil features typically associated with established wetlands
include, but are not limited to, gleyed or mottled soils, organic rich soils, Redoximorphic
features (iron oxidations and mineral concretions) or soils classified as having hydric indicators
by a soil survey or previous mapping.
The soils in an around the proposed tower are well drained fine sandy soils. These soils belong
to the Heyder (HeC) series and the soil taxonomic classification known as "Glossoboric
Hapludalfs". Soils within this Udic moisture regime are typically nonhydric in origin.
/'here were no additional indicators present in any of the test pits to a depth of 20".
Without the presence of other observed water indicators these soils by themselves would not
constitute a wetland environment. Additional hydrogeological indicators will need to be accessed
prior to establishing a jurisdictional wetland boundary.
For additional information please refer to the routine onsite determination data form contained
in the appendix section of this report.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL INDICATORS
With the absence of clear vegetative or soil indicators associated with this wetland environment,
a final determination will be made on the observed hydrology. There is a known water level
present onsite. This level can be established by the presence of surface water, hydric soils and
hydrophytic plant species. The area 8'-12' beyond the present surface water boundary does
exhibit the aforementknled features. According to the jurisdictional wetland definition of having
"permanent or periodic inundation or soil saturation of more than one week during the growing
season", this area would be considered part of a jurisdictional wetland.
For additional information please refer to the routine onsite determination data form contained
in the appendix section of this report.
DISCUSSION
The subsurface soil conditions and vegetative indicators around the proposed tower are
nontypical of those conditions ordinarily found in an established wetland environment. The
delineation of the outermost boundaries can be established largely by the observed surface water
levels in the nearby marsh. The proposed tower area is significantly elevated above those static
or seasonal high water levels. Thc area 5-10 feet beyond the present marsh exhibits no wetland
~ndicators. The property to the north and west is not part of the proposed development nor does
.t exhibit wetland vegetative indicators. It should be noted that the delineation was conducted
within 24 hours of a rainfall that delivered copious quantities of precipitation (1.5'; per hour).
It can be asserted that, the static water levels in the nearby marsh were at seasonal high levels.
A map depicting the wetland jurisdictional boundaries along with site photographs may be found
in the appendix section of this report.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed development does not appear to encroach on the wetland. Additional
sedimentation and erosion controls should be incorporated to insure that runoff from the
development activities will not impact the present wetland or surface water.
STANDARD OF CARE
Services performed by Development Engineering, Inc. for this project have been conducted in
a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the
profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time constraints. The
analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon research of available
information from the sources listed in the bibliography section of this report. No warranties,
expressed or implied, are made. The material contained in this report is to be considered
· mnfidential. Distribution, sale or publication of this report or any part thereof without the
expressed written consent of Development Engineering is prohibited. Additional copies of this
report may be obtained by contacting Development Engineering at (612) 799-3003.
Development Engineering, Inc.
By
Michael T. Malinowski
Environmental Engineer
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
94-25
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 95' Antenna
Tower and a 12' x 24' Equipment Building
5700 International Parkway
06-118-21-31-0019 and 06-118-21-31-0020
I-1, Limited Industrial
U.S. West New Vector Group, Inc.
September 1, 1994
September 6, 1994
BACKGROUND
In the fall of 1991, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a Conditional Use
Permit to allow U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc. to erect a 95' cellular telephone antenna
tower on the north side of Victory Park and a 12' x 36' equipment building. The approval
included a lease between U.S. West and the City whereby U.S. West would lease the property
from the City for $9,000 per year. The tower was never constructed and the one-year time
period lapsed, per the Zoning Code regulations.
The tower was never constructed and the Zoning Code states that "If the work or use
authorized by a Special Zoning Procedure has not been implemented within a year after final
Council approval, said procedure shall automatically terminate unless a petition for extension
of time to implement the use or complete the work has been granted by the City Council."
Therefore, the one-year approval time period lapsed.
The petitioner is now back before the City requesting another conditional use permit to allow
the construction of a similar 95' antenna tower and 12' x 24' equipment building, pursuant to
Section 4.142(14) of the New Hope Code.
The petitioner desires to construct the tower at the same location and is again requesting to
lease land from the City on the north side of Victory Park, near the bend in the road of
International Parkway.
The application is in the name of U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc., a part of U.S. West,
Inc., which is one of the regional holding companies formed as a result of the breakup of A.T.
&T.
The antenna would be a self-support monopole (no support lines needed) and would be used
for cellular telephone communications. The site would be accessed from International
Parkway. The tower would have a grey finish and a small modular brick building would be
constructed near the base of the tower, which would house cellular communication equipment
on the site.
Planning Case 94-25 2 September 1, 1994
Cellular service is provided through a grid of antennas arranged geographically in a hexagonal
pattern of "cells". Each cell can only handle a certain number of calls and as the number of
customers increase, more cells must be created in the same area resulting in a new grid pattern
of smaller cells. The antenna at Victory Park would increase the capacity of the system in
New Hope and the surrounding area to solve cellular phone service coverage needs. In 1991,
the petitioner submitted a detailed application with exhibits addressing 911 service, impact on
property values, and interference from the antenna and those same exhibits are enclosed.
o
Cellular One and U.S. West NewVector, both cellular telephone companies, have entered into
numerous lease agreements which allow them to use city water towers and/or public property
for the purpose of installing, maintaining, and operating antenna facilities. The petitioner is
proposing to lease the land from the City for a 20-year period (one 5-year lease and three 5-
year options). In the 1991 lease agreement, the fee agreed upon was $750 per month/S9,000
per year. The petitioner has agreed to a similar lease with a five percent annual fee increase
(from 1991) on the initial 1994 annual fee, or $826.90 per month/S9,923.00 per year. Staff
is recommending that the revenue be dedicated to parks. The only other change is that the
termination of the first 5-year term was extended to 1999 rather than 1997, due to the delay
in executing the document. All other conditions have remained unchanged. The City
Attorney has prepared a revised lease and it has been forwarded to U.S. West for review. It
is anticipated that the lease agreement will be approved by the City Council in conjunction
with the CUP approval.
Victory Park is located in an I-1, Light Industrial, Zoning District and surrounding
zoning/land uses include: Pheasant Park Apartments to the east (R-4), the park soccer/ball
fields, International Parkway and I-1 zoning to the south, Snap-On Tools to the West (I-1),
and warehouses across International Parkway to the north.
10.
The Zoning Code does not clearly address a cellular tower and equipment building on City
property regulated by the FCC. This is neither a "Radio and TV Antenna Farm" nor a "Cable
TV Studio" (which are both I-1 permitted uses), but has elements of both and is consistent
with the conditional use permit general description/criteria.
11.
The building height limitation is three stories for the I-1 District, but poles, towers, and other
structures for essential services are listed as exceptions.
Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no
inquiries about the request.
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
genera :]fare, 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
Planning Case 94-25
September 1, 1994
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.
o
Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a
conditional use permit include:
Ao
Bo
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 would make the following comments:
Ao
Bo
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. Petitioner has submitted an investigation by a real
estate appraisal f'u'm which states 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 except on the east side where the apartments
exist. There is a distance of 760 feet from the tower to the nearest apartment and staff
finds this is a generous buffer (wetlands) between the two uses.
Similar Use Nearby. Another Cellular One tower is located 2/3 of a mile south of
this site at 5010 Hillsboro Avenue.
Traffic. The proposed use should not cause traffic hazards or congestion, as only one
car per month will visit the building briefly.
Planning Case 94-25
September 1, 1994
Compatible Appearance. The equipment building at the base of the tower will be a
prefabricated building with a brick surface, intended specifically to match/blend with
the Snap-On Tool building to the west.
Nuisance Factors. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use should not have an
adverse impact upon existing development in the area and the petitioner will be having
the site maintained (mowing, etc.) by a hired firm.
Economic Return. The use should provide an economic return to the community
commensurate with other industrial uses the property could be feasibly used for.
Improved communications will be a benefit to the City and the lease payments
should offset all City costs.
The plans, lease agreement, and staff reports on this application have been shared with the
Director of Parks & Recreation and the chair of the Citizen Advisory Commission for
comments and input. The petitioner's original location in 1991 was at the south end of the
park near the fields and park building. At that time staff requested that the tower be moved
north, away from the areas utilized by park users. The long-range park plan shows a future
parking lot on the north end with two curb cuts. U.S. West will be providing one of the curb
cuts, if the tower is approved.
The plans are essentially the same as in 1991, with the following minor revisions:
A. The original equipment building dimensions of 12' x 36' have been reduced to 12' x
24'.
B. The original equipment building had a gravel type finish and the new building will
have a brick finish.
C. Tower is same height, 95 feet, with no support lines needed (grey finish).
D. Chain link fence to be 7' in height, with no barbed wire or fence slats.
E. Landscaping - same as 1991.
F. Maintenance of area - U.S. West will hire a lawn service to maintain.
G. Watershed District review/approval will again be required.
The Design & Review Committee met with the applicant on August 18th and the issues
discussed included: equipment building size and color, height and color of tower, fencing,
lighting, landscaping, maintenance, snow storage, lease agreement, and watershed review.
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting which include the following:
A. Snow storage area shown south of the entrance drive.
B. Seven-foot chain link fence to surround tower (no barbed wire).
C. Ninety-foot steel monopole with grey f'mish.
D. Equipment building size has been corrected 12' x 24', with detail shown.
E. Landscaping to include following:
11 American Alders
4 Black Hills Spruce
3 Amur Maples
Sod to be installed within 6' of building and gravel area
Provide 5,000 square feet of sod to be located by City
Six inch gravel area to include weed barrier landscape fabric
F. Light on building is shown
Planning Case 94-25
September 1, 1994
7. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and made the following comments:
Co
Eo
Go
It does not appear that the survey prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. in December,
1991, compares with the site plan prepared by Design I dated August 16, 1994. It is
recommended the survey and site plan agree with each other. Based on survey, it
appears building and tower are on slope. A detailed grading plan is required. The
high water level (HWL) for the pond is estimated at 890.2. Therefore, all grading and
filling must be above 890. The building shall be a minimum 2' above the HWL.
The plan shall be reviewed for conformance by Shingle Creek Watershed because it
directly abuts a wetland. A delineation of the adjacent wetland is required to insure
no encroachment in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act.
Due to the soil types in this area, the tower and building may warrant piling.
The drive may be used by people using Victory Park. Proper signage may be required
to restrict use of the drive to U.S. West employees only.
The curb cut at International Parkway shall comply with New Hope Public Works.
The future parking for Victory Park is properly noted if constructed. A condition for
approval shall allow for future ingress and egress from the parking area through U.S.
West's entrance and drive proposed as part of this project.
Erosion control must comply with City and County requirements.
o
The Commission will want to confirm with the petitioner that the drive area is to be
blacktopped, as this is not shown on the plan. Also size and types of landscaping plants
should be confirmed.
9. Staff f'mds that this is a reasonable use in this remote area of the park.
10.
The petitioner has also furnished color photographs of the monopole and building and these
will be distributed at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for U.S. West for a 95' monopole
transmission tower and equipment building at the north end of Victory Park subject to the following
conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Development Agreement and bond be required for all landscaping.
Approval of lease agreement and terms by City Council.
Maintenance agreement for the site between U.S. West and contractor be submitted to City.
Survey and/or site plan be revised to agree with each other, per City Engineer.
Detailed grading plan be submitted for review/approval by the City Engineer.
Planning Case 94-25
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
6 'September 1, 1994
Plans to be reviewed by Shingle Creek Watershed for conformance to wetland regulations.
A delineation of the adjacent wetland is required.
Evaluation of foundation area by soils engineer.
The curb cut at International Parkway shall comply with New Hope Public Works.
Erosion control must comply with City/County requirements.
Future ingress and egress from the parking area through U.S. West, s entrance and drive is
allowed by persons using Victory Park.
Driveway area to be of a bituminous surface.
Attachments:
Site Plan & Landscape Plan
Building Elevations
Site Survey
Photos: Equipment Building & Antenna
City Engineer Recommendations
City Attorney Correspondence
Correspondence to U.S. West
Antenna Site Agreement
Memo to Park & Rec
1991 Council Request/Planning Case Report
PLANT LIST
NOTES
VICINITY M~
INTERNATIONAL PKWY
LANDSCAPE PLAN ANDSITE
PLAN
NORTH
LJ
ELEVATIONS
U.S. WEST
~£ ;'MIMRiINDONI "
Pbon~ ,' ~ - POR- 450 - 81.~0
Bonestroo
Rosene
m-m
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
0~0 G ~onestroo. PE
t~oDeft W ~osene,
JoseDn C ^noeruk PE
Mar'v'ln L ~a~a. PE
R~chard E T~rner PE
Thomas ~ NO~S, PE
Susan M ~berJin C PA
'~n~or Consultan~
Ke,:h .A Gordon. PE Agnes M ~ng A ~C P Mdes B Jensen PE
gavmd 0 Loskota. P~ James R Maland. PE Ga~ g Ktrs[ofl~ PE
Jer~ A BourOon. PE ~o~ J A~anek. PE Oouglas J Benoit, PE
Ted K. F~eld PE Mark A ~. PE Paul G Neuer PE
Thomas A S~O. PE Damet J Edge~on PE Leo M P~lsky
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMO
Kirk McDonald, City of New Hope
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
August 26, 1994
US West New Vector Group, Inc.
North end Victory Park, File 34-gen
A 12' x 24' equipment building and 90' tower (pole) is proposed to be constructed on
property owned by the City of New Hope on the north side of Victory Park. The facility
is proposed to be constructed adjacent to an existing wetland. Access is from International
Parkway. We have reviewed the site plan and recommend the following:
It does not appear that the survey prepared by E. G. Rud & Sons Inc. in December,
1991 compares with the site plan prepared by Design I dated August 16, 1994. It's
recommended the survey and site plan agree with each other. Based on survey, it
appears building and tower are on slope. A detailed grading plan is required. The
high water level (HWL) for the pond is estimated at 890.2. Therefore, all grading and
filling must be above 890. The building' shall be a minimum 2' above the HWL.
The plan shall be reviewed for conformance by Shingle Creek Watershed because it
directly abuts a wetland. A delineation of the adjacent wetland is required to insure
no encroachment in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act.
Due to the soil tyl~es in this area, the tower and building may warrant Piling.
T~e ~rNo mav be used by people using Victory Park. Proper signage may be required
' to restrict use or' the drbxe to US West employees only.
The curb cut at International Parkway shall comply ~ w Hope Public Works.
The future parking for Victory Park is prooerly noted '_: constructed. A condition for
approval shall aEow for fi,*'---__.~,.c ingress and egress from the parking area through US
West's enti~ance and drive proposed as part of this project.
Erosion-control mu~t comply with City and County requirements.
2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECNA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
CORRICK & SONDRALL P.A.
ATTOR~NEYS AT LATM
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671
FAX (612) 425-5867
August 22, 1994
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Victory Park Antenna Site Agreement/U.S. West
Our File No. 99.29198
Dear Kirk:
In follow to our August 19, 1994 meeting please find enclosed a
revised Antenna Site Agreement in connection with the installation
of a U.S. West Cellular Telephone Antenna at Victory Park. Please
note the initial annual fee of $9,923.00. This exceeds your
calculation by $.44. For the sake of convenience I rounded it
upward to the City's advantage.
This agreement contains the identical conditions with the prior
agreement never executed by U.S. West. The only change is the
increase in fee and the termination of the first five year term in
1999 rather than 1997 due to the two-year delay in executing the
document. Otherwise, all other conditions are the same with the
request for action that was approved at the September 23, 1991
Council meeting by Resolution No. 91-164.
Contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slm
Enclosures
cc- Daniel J. Donahue
az01 X'/on Avenue No~h
,%ew ,~ope, ~l~nnesota 55~28-4898
Te/eDnope.
TDD L~ne'
6 !2-531-5100
6 t2-531-5109
C~ty Hall Fax
Police Fax.
Public Wor,~s
August 24. 1994
Mr. Bernie Wong
U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc.
2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Subject:
Victory Park Antenna Site Agreement/U.S. West
Dear Mr. Wong:
Enclosed please f'md an updated Antenna Site Agreement drafted by the New Hope City
Attorney in connection with the installation of a U.S. West Cellular Telephone Antenna at
Victory Park in New Hope. This agreement contains conditions identical to the prior agreement,
which was never executed by U.S. West due to the fact that the antenna was not constructed
after the Planning Commission and City Council approval in the fall of 1991. The only changes
are that the 5% annual fee increase was adjusted on the initial annual fee, per our recent
conversation, and the termination of the first five-year term was extended to 1999 rather than
1997 due to the two-year delay in executing the document. Otherwise, all other conditions have
remained unchanged.
Please review the agreement and let me know if you have any concerns or want changes. It is
my intent to place this item on the September 12th City Council agenda in conjunction with your
Planning Case requesting conditional use permit approval. I am sending this to you for your
review only. If it is acceptable to you, I will present it to the Council for approval in September
and after approval I will forward original copies of the agreement to you for execution by the
appropriate officials.
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
ANTENNA SITE AGREEMENT
~s Agreement, made this day of
~g~, ~et~een the C~ty of New NoDe, 4401 Xy!on Avenue North, New
~cDe, M:nnesota 55428 as Grantor, and U,S, West NewVector Group,
:nc., 335.3 151st Avenue S.E., Bel]evue, WA 98008, as Grantee.
1. ¢¢cperty. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee the r~ght to
use a port,on of Grantor's property, which portion is hereinafter
referred to as "Property", located at Victory Park in the C~ty of
New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, o~ which a single
90 foot high cellular telephone antenna, connecting cab]es and
appurtenances wi]] be attached and located, as shown on Grantee's
Landscape Plan and Site Plan dated August 2, 1991 and revised
August 20, 1991 prepared by Robert d. Davis, AIA (hereafter Plan).
2. Fee, As consideration for this Agreement Grantee shall
pay Grantor an annual fee in the amount of Nine Thousand Nine
Hundred Twenty-Three and No/lOOths Dollars ($9,923.00) for the
initial year, which shall be increased each year on the anniversary
date of this Agreement by five percent (5%). The annual fee shall
be paid in advance on the anniversary date of this Agreement
commencing on , 1994.
3. Term. This Lease will commence on , 1994,
and will terminate on , 1999, ("Initial Term")
with THREE (3) additional FIVE YEAR renewal periods ("Renewal
Term") commencing on the successive day following the termination
date hereof or of any subsequent Renewal Term. Grantee will have
the right.to exercise each of the five-year renewal terms by giving
the Grantor written notice of its intention to do so at least six
month before the end of the then current term.
4. Continuation of Agreement. If, at the end of the third
(3rd) five (5) year extension term, this Agreement has not been
terminated by either party by giv. ing the other written notice of an
intention to terminate it at least one hundred eighty (180) days
prior to the end of such term, this Agreement shall continue in
full force u~on the same covenants, terms, and conditions, for a
further term of one (1) year and for annual terms thereafter until
terminated ~¥ either ~arty giving to the other written notice of
its intentt~t to so terminate at least one hundred eighty (180)
days prior to the end of such term.
5. Grantee's Use. Grantee shall uses the Property for the
purpose of installing, maintaining, and operating a single self-
supporting 90 foot high monoDole communications antenna facility
and uses incidental thereto pursuant to the Plan. Grantee shall
house communication eeuioment necessary to the operation cf ~.~
antenoa as shown on the O~an. Th~s use shall ~e non-exclus~¥e,
Grantor s~ecif~call? reserves %he right to allow t~e ProDert~ ?o
~se~ O~ other ~ar?ies and to make additions, ~eletions,
moe~f~%at~ons to ~t$ own facilities on t~e Pro~erty. Grantee
e~ect an~ operate an antenna ~n accordance w~th ~ts suOm~ttee
apol~cation and Oian.
All ~mprovements shall be at the Grantee's expense and such
improvements, including antennas and equipment, shall be maintained
in a reasonable condition and secured by Grantee, Grantee further
agrees that if it fails to maintain the sod and landscaping it ~s
required to install as shown on the plan, Grantor may, at its sole
option, cut and maintain the grass and add the costs incurred Dy
Grantor to the monthly rent due and payable hereunder during the
month in which Grantor incurs said maintenance costs. Grantor
agrees to give Grantee 10 days notice before Grantor shall invoke
this provision. If Grantee fails to begin the maintenance work
described herein within the 10 day notice provision, then Grantor
may do the work and charge Grantee the costs for doing same. The
10 day waiting period shall commence when Grantor deposits its
notice in the mail to Grantee. Grantee shall ensure that its use
of the Property is consistent with all ordinances, statutes and
regulations of local, state and federal governmental agencies.
6. Ownership of Accessory Building. During the term of this
Agreement and any extensions of it, ownership of the accessory
building will remain in the Grantee, its affiliates or
subsidiaries. Upon termination of this Agreement and/or any
extensions, Grantee will remove the building at its own cost.
Grantee must construct and maintain the accessory building in
compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances and must
maintain the building in good repair.
7. Advances in Technology. As technology advances and
improved antennas are developed' which are routinely used in
Grantee's business, Grantor may require in its sole discretion the
replacement of existing antennas with the improved antennas if the
new antennas are more aesthetically pleasing or otherwise foster a
public purpose, as long as the installation and use of the improved
antennas are technically feasible at this location.
8. i ... Pr.. rt . Grantee shall be entitled to access
to the Pr,~gt¥ seven (7) days a week, twenty-four (24) hours a day
for the pUrl3Oee of inspecting, maintaining eno repairing its
antenna facility and related equipment. Only authorized ~er~nnel,
employees or agents of Grantee shall be entitled to such access to
the Property. Access shall be allowed only by a paved driveway as
shown on the Plan. Grantee further agrees to construct said access
at its own cost and expense according to specifications and plans
approved by Grantor.
2
9. Governmental Appro*a1Cont-ingency. It is understood and
agreed that Grantee's ability to use tne Property ts contingent
uDOn !ts Obtaining, after the execution date of th~s Agreement, all
the certlf~cates, permits, zoning and other approvals that may
required Dy any federal, state, or local authorities. Grantor
shall cooperate ~ith Grantee in its efforts to obtain and retain
such approvals and shall take no action which would adversely
affect the status of the Property with respect to the proposed use
thereof by Grantee. In the event that any of such applications
should be finally rejected or any certificate, permit, license, or
approval issued to Grantee is canceled, expires, lapses, or
otherwise withdrawn or terminated by governmental authority so
that Grantee, in its sole discretion, will be unable to use that
Property for its intended purposes, Grantee shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement. The termination right shall also apply
in the event that Grantee is otherwise, within its sole discretion,
precluded from using the property for its intended purpose. Notice
of Grantee's exercise of its right to terminate shall be given to
Grantor in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and
shall be effective upon receipt of such notice by Grantor as
evidenced by the return receipt. Upon such termination, this
Agreement shall become null and void and all the parties shall have
no further obligations to each other.
10. Indemnification. Grantee shall defend, indemnify, and
hold Grantor harmless against any claim of liability or loss from
personal injury, property damage or liens resulting from or arising
out of the use and occupancy of the Property, and the installation
and removal of Grantee's antenna facility by the Grantee, its
servants or agents, excepting, however, such claims or damages as
may be due to or caused by the negligent acts of the Grantor, its
servants or agents.
11'. Insurance. Grantee shall carry adequate insurance to
protect the parties against any and all claims, demands, actions,
judgments, expenses and liabilities which may arise out of or
result, directly or indirectly, from Grantee's use of the Property.
The policy shall list the Grantor as an additional insured and
shall provide that it will be the primary coverage. The policy
shall have .~overage limits of at least $~00,000.00 for any one
occurrence ~f property damage and $600,000.00 per person and per
occurrence.Clef personal injury or death. Grantee shall also
maintain the ~orker's compensation insurance required by law.
Insurance meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be
maintained for the entire term of this Agreement. Grantee shall
provide a certificate of insurance on the Grantor's approved form
before installing and using the communications facility. Grantee
3
shall thereafter provide current certificates of insurance u0o~
Gran~or'$ request. Grantee shall not cancel the required insurance
unless 30 days Fr~or written notice has been given to Grantor.
12. Term~mation. In the event that this Agreement shall be
revoked by Grantor, or the Agreement shall otherwise terminate,
Grantee shall have thirty (30) days from the termination date ~o
remove ~ts antennas and equipment from the Property and restore the
surface of the Property. Upon the commencement date of this
Agreement, Grantee shall deposit with Grantor the sum of Seven
Hundred Fifty and No/lOOths Dollars ($750.00), which shall be fully
refunded to Grantee only upon the timely removal of the antennas
and equipment and the restoration of the Property to the reasonable
satisfaction of Grantor. In the event that Grantee' antennas and
equipment are not removed to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Grantor within the thirty (30) day period, as it may be extended by
Grantor, the antennas and equipment shall become the property of
Grantor and Grantee shall have no further rights thereto.
13. Default. If Grantee fails to comply with any of the
provisions of this Agreement, including any of the requirements
contained in its application or Plan which are incorporated and
made a part of this Agreement by this reference as if they were
fully set out herein, or defaults on any of its obligations under
this Agreement, Grantor may at its option terminate this Agreement.
The termination shall be effective only after Grantor has given
Grantee written notice of the default and Grantee has failed to
cure the default within 20 days after receiving the notice. If the
default is not reasonably capable of being cured within twenty (20)
days, Grantee shall commence to cure the default within twenty (20)
days and shall diligently pursue the cure to completion within a
reasonable time thereafter.
14. Temporary Interruptions of Service. When Grantor
determines that continued operation of Grantee's communication
facility would cause or contribute to an immediate threat to public
health and/or safety, Grantor may without prior notice to the
Grantee cause discontinuance of Grantee's communication facility or
may order Qral~tee to discontinue its operation. Grantee shall
immediatel,~ ~3y with such an order. Service shall be
discontin~t3y for the period that the immediate threat exists.
If prior ~tt¢I is not given to Grantee, Grantor she31 notify
Grantee as soon as possible after its action end give its reason
for taking the action. Grantor shal] not be 3iable to Grantee or
any other party for any interruption in Grantee's service or
interference with Grantee's operation of its ~ommun~¢ation
facility, except as may be caused by the negligence or willful
m~sgon~uc~ of the Grantor, its employees or agents.
d~s~or~nuance shall extend for a ~eriod greater than three days,
either .sonsecut~vely or cumulatively, Grantee shall have the r~gh~
~O ~erm]nate tm~s Agreement within its sole discretion w~thout an'/
15. Znterference with the Property. Grantee small not
~nterfere w~th Grantor's use of t~e Property and agrees to cease
al1 such actions which unreasonab]y and materially interfere w~h
Grantor's use no later than three (3) business days after rece~o~
of written notice of the interference from Grantor, provided that
in the event that Grantee's cessation of action is material to
Grantee's use of the Property and such cessation frustrates
Grantee's use of the Croperty, within Grantee's sole discretion,
Grantee shall have the immediate right to terminate this Agreement.
16. Entire Agreement. It is hereby mutually agreed and
understood that this Agreement contains all agreements, promises,
and understandings between Grantor and Grantee and that no verbal
or oral agreements, promises, or understandings shall or will be
binding upon either Grantor or Grantee in any dispute, controversy,
or proceeding at law, and any addition, variation, or modification
to this Agreement shall be void and ineffective unless it is in
writing and signed by the parties hereto.
17. Interpretation. This Agreement and the performance
thereof sha~l be governed, interpreted, construed, and regulated by
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
18. Assignment. This Agreement may not be sold, assigned, or
transferred at any time by Grantee except to Grantee's affiliates
or subsidiaries. As to other parties, this Agreement may not be
sold, assigned, or transferred without the written consent of the
Grantor, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
19. Enforcement and Attorney~' Fees. In the event that
either party hereto sh&]~ institute suit to enforce any rights
hereunder, the prevai]ing party sha~ be entitled to recover court
costs and re&eoneb]e attorneys' fees incurred as a result of such
appeal.
20. ~. All notices hereunder must be in writing and
shal~ be deemed va~td~y given if sent by certified mail, return
receipt re~u®sted, addressed es follows (or any other address that
the party-to be notified may have designated to the sender by like
notice):
GPANTEE:
U.S. West NewVector Group, [nc.
3350 151st Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008
City of New Nope
4401 Xy]on Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
ATTN: City Manager
21. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall extend to and bind
the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the
parties hereto,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands
and affixed their respective seals the day and year first above
written.
GRANTOR:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
GRANTEE:
U.S. WEST NEWVEOTOR GROUP,
INC.
By:
By:
Its Mayor
Its City Manager
By: '
Its
By:
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF 14~NNEPXN )
The f~ing wa~ acknowledged before me this day of
, 1994, by Edw. J. Erickson and Daniel J.
Donahue, the Wayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of
New Hope, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said
municipal corporation.
Notary
6
STATE 0¢ MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNE=;N
SS.
The
and
and
NewVector
behalf of
foregoing was acknowledged
, 1994, by
Group, I~c. , a
said corporation.
before me this
, the
respectively of U.S. West
corporation, on
Notary Public
c:\ w p 5 l\cnl~\&rrtemnl. &gr'
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
August 19, 1994
Shari French, Director of Parks and Recreation
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Community Development Coordinator
Planning Case 94-25 - Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a
95-Foot Cellular Telephone Antenna Tower and a 12' x 24' Equipment Building at 5700
International Parkway (Victory park), U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc., Petitioner
I am sure you will recall that in the fall of 1991, the Planning Commission and City Council approved
a CUP to allow U.S. West NewVector to erect a 95-foot cellular telephone antenna tower on the north
side of Victory Park. The approval included a lease between U.S. West and the City whereby U.S.
West would lease the property from the City for $9,000 per year and said revenue was to be dedicated
to the Parks and Recreation Department. The Citizen Advisory Commission ~lso reviewed/commented
on the proposal. Anyway, U.S. West never constructed the tower and lost the approval for a CLIP
after their one-year time period lapsed, per the Zoning Code regulations.
I am writing to inform you that U.S. West NewVector is now back before the City with a very similar
request and will again be requesting approval of the same CUP that was granted in 1991. They will
be appearing at the September 6th Planning Commission meeting and the September 12th City Council
meeting. The Design and Review Committee of the Planning Commission met with the petitioner
yesterday, August 18th, and the petitioner will be submitting revised plans by August 26th as a result
of that meeting. Enclosed for your reference are the 1991 plans and lease agreement.
I am contacting you for several reasons, besides the obvious fact that this proposal is directly related
to the Park & Rec Department, including the following:
In 1991, this request was considered by the Citizen Advisory Commission. Please let me know
if they would like to review the request again (even though it is almost identical to the 1991
proposal). I will be glad to attend a CAC meeting to brief them on the proposal if you or the
Chair feel it necessary.
I have already requested the City Attorney to update the lease agreement that was prepared in
1991, as I will want to have this considered at the September I2th Council meeting in
conjunction with the Planning Case/CUP request. I will provide you with a copy of the
updated lease as soon as I receive it.
Shari French
August 19, 1994
Page 2
o
Please
CC:
The 1991 lease was for a 20-year period (one 5-year lease and three 5-year options) for a fee
of $750 per montlV$9,000 per year. The original lease also called for a 5 % increase in the
lease each year on the anniversary date. In our discussions with U.S. West yesterday, they
agreed to start this lease at a per month price that included the 5 % increases, as if the lease had
been in effect since 1991. Therefore, instead of starting at $750 per month/S9,000 per year,
the lease will start at $826.88 per montlV$9,922.56 per year, based on the calculations below:
October 1991 - 92
October 1992 - 93
October 1993 - 94
$750.00 per month/S9,000 annual
+37.50 (5%)
$787.50 per month/S9,450 annual
+39.38 (5%)
$826.88 per montlg$9,922.56 annual
The plans are essentially the same as in 1991, with the following minor revisions:
The original equipment building dimensions of 12' x 36' have been reduced to 12' x
24'.
Bo
The original equipment building had a gravel type finish and the new building will have
a brick finish.
C. Tower is same height, 95 feet, with no support lines needed (grey finish).
D. Chain link fence to be 7' in height, with no barbed wire or fence slats.
E. Landscaping - same as 1991.
F. Maintenance of area - U.S. West will hire a lawn service to maintain.
G. Watershed District review/approval will again be required.
Revised plans were received on August 19th, please find them enclosed. I will also forward
to you complete copies of the staff reports for the Planning Commission and City Council
meetings.
let me know if you have any comments, concerns or questions.
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Larry Watts, Director of Finance/Administration
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Planning Case File g94-25
C:(JUI~(JIL
f REQUEST FOR ACTION
originating Department Approved for Agenda .A/!enda Sgction
l-'lannlng
City Manager Development
-~. 9-23-91
Kirk McDonald Item No.
By: Management Assistant By: a.
PLANNING CASE 91-23 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 95-FOOT ANTENNA TOWER AND 12'X 36' EQUIPMENT
BUILDING AT 5700 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY (PID //06-118-21-31-0019/
#~6-118-21-31-0029) U.S.WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP, INC.,PETITIONER
U.S.West New Vector Group, Inc.,a pan of U.S. West, Inc.,is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
to allow construction of a 95-foot antenna tower and 12' x 36' equipment building, pursuant to
Section 4.142(14) of the New Hope Code. The petitioner is requesting to lease land from the City
on the north side of Victory Park so that a self-support monopole antenna used for cellular telephone
communications can be erected. The site would be accessed from International Parkway. A small
building would be constructed near the base of the tower to house cellular communication equipment
on the site. The petitioner has entered into numerous lease agreements which allow them to use city
water towers and/or public property for the purpose of installing and operating antenna facilities.
Petitioner is proposing to lease the land from the City for a 20-year period (one 5-year lease and 3
5-year options) for a fee of $750 per month/S9,000 per year and staff recommends that the revenue
be dedicated to parks. The lease agreement is considered under another section of the agenda.
The Planning Commission considered this case on September 3, 1991, and recommended approval
subject to the following conditions: 1)-A site survey be provided prior to tower construction; 2)-A
soils engineer evaluate foundation area; 3)-A development agreement and bond be required for all
landscaping; 4)-Approval of lease agreement and terms by City Council; 5)-Citizen Advisory
Commission comments to be addressed; 6)-5,000 square feet of sod to be installed around site; 7)-
Fee for maintenance of site by City be agreed upon between U.S. West New Vector Group and City;
8)-Shingle Creek Watershed Commission review and approve; 9)-No barbed wire used on the fence.
The Citizen Advisory Commission reviewed this matter at their September 16th meeting and
unanimously recommended approval.
S~f recommends approval of the resolution.
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01
RESOLUTION NO. 91-164
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 91-23
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 95-FOOT ANTENNA TOWER
AND 12' X 36' EQUIPMENT BUILDING
AT 5700 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY
(PID #06-118-21-31-0019/~06-118-21-31-0029)
SUBMITTED BY U.S. WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP, INC.
WHEREAS, the applicants U.S. West New Vector Group, Inc., have
submitted a request identified as Planning Case No. 91-23 for a
conditional use permit to allow construction of a 95 foot antenna
tower and 12 foot x 36 foot equipment building pursuant to Section
4.124(14) of the New Hope Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Planning Case No. 91-23 on September 3, 1991, found that all
conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for the conditional
use permit have been satisfied by the applicant, and recommended
approval of the planning case requests subject to all conditions as
set forth in the City Staff Report dated August 30, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on September 23, 1991 considered the
report of the City staff, findings and recommendations of the
Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the City
Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and concludes that the
applicant has satisfied all conditions required by the New Hope
Zoning Code for issuance of the requested conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of New Hope that the conditional use permit to allow construction
of a 95 foot antenna tower and 12 foot x 36 foot equipment
buildin9, as submitted in Planning Case No. 91-23, is approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A site survey be provided prior to tower construction.
2. A soils engineer evaluate foundation area.
A development agreement and bond be required for all
landscaping.
5.
6.
7.
Approval of lease agreement and terms by City Council.
Citizen Advisory Commission comments to be addressed.
5,000 square feet of sod to be installed around site.
Fee for maintenance of site by City be agreed upon
between U.S. West and City.
Shingle Creek Watershed review and approve.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, this 23rd day of September, 1991.
-/Edw. JJEricks°n, Mayor
Vaferie Leo~e,~ity Clerk
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
91-23
Request for A Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 95-foot
Antenna Tower and 12' x 36' Equipment Building
5700 International Parkway
06-118-21-31-0019/06-118-21-31-0029
I-1 (Limited Industrial)
US West Vector Group, Inc.
August 30, 1991
September 3, 1991
BACKGROUND
o
J
o
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 95-foot
antenna tower and 12' x 36' equipment building, pursuant to Section 4.142(14) of the
New Hope Code.
The application is in the name of U.S.West New Vector Group, Inc., a pan of U.S.West,
Inc., which is one of the regional holding companies formed as a result of the breakup
of A.T.&T.
The petitioner is requesting to lease land from the City on the north side of Victory Park
so that a self-support monopole antenna used for cellular telephone communications can
be erected. The site would be accessed from International Parkway. A small building
would be constructed near the base of the tower, which would house cellular
communication equipment on the site.
Cellular service is provided through a grid of antennas arranged geographically in a
hexagonal pattern of ~cells~. Each cell can only handle a certain number of calls and as
the number of customers increase, more cells must be created in the same area resulting
in a new grid pattern of smaller cells.
The antenna at Victory Park would increase the capacity of the system in New Hope and
the surrounding area and the petitioner has been working over the past several months
to locate an antenna site in New Hope to solve cellular phone service coverage needs.
Petitioner has submitted a detailed application with exhibits addressing 911 service,
impact on property values, and interference from the antenna.
Cellular One and lJ.S.West New Vector, both cellular telephone companies, have entered
into numerous lease agreements which allow them to use city water towers and/or public
property for the purpose 'of installing, maintaining, and operating antenna facilities.
Petitioner is proposing to lease the land from the City for a 20-year period (one 5-year
lease and 3 five-year options) for a fee of $750 per month/S9,000 per year, and staff is
recommending that the revenue be dedicated to parks. The City Attorney is in the
process of reviewing the lease agreement, which would be acted on by the City Council.
Planning Case Report 91-23
September 3, 1991
Page -2-
10.
11.
Victory Park is located in an I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District and surrounding
zoning/land uses include: Pheasant Park Apartments to the east (R-4), the park
soccer/ball fields, International Parkway and I-1 zoning to the south, Snap-On Tools to
the west (I-l), and warehouses across International Parkway to the north.
The Zoning Code does not clearly address a cellular tower and equipment building on
City property regulated by the FCC. This is neither a "Radio & TV Antenna Farm" or
a Cable TV Studio" (which are both I-1 permitted uses), but has elements of both and
is consistent with the conditional use permit general description/criteria.
The building height limitation is 3 stories for the I-1 District, but poles, towers and other
structures for essential services are listed as exceptions.
Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no
inquiries about the request.
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit criteria that should be considered include the following:
A. 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.
B. No Depreciation in Vflu, -the proposed use will not tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Petitioner has submitted an investi-
gation by a real estate appraisal firm which states that they found no measurable
impact to property values lying in close proximity to towers in either residential
or industrial settings.
C. Nature of Adjoining Buildings and Land~ -staff finds that the proposed use is
compatible with all buildings in the area except on the east side where the apart-
ments exist. There is a distance of 760 feet from the tower to the nearest apart-
ment and staff finds this is a generous buffer (wetlands) between the two uses.
Similar Llse Nearby - another Cellular One tower is located 2/3 of a mile south
of tlii$ site at 5010 Hillsboro Avenue.
~- the proposed use should not cause traffic hazards or congestion, as only
one car per month will visit the building briefly.
Com_mafible A__opearance -the equiPment building at the base of the tower will be
a prefabricated building with an exposed aggregate (rock-like) surface, intended
specifically to match/blend with the Snap-On Tool 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 main staff concern
is site maintenance. Aesthetics, such as paint color and frequency, should be
discussed.
De
Planning Case Report 91-23
September 3, 1991
Page -3-
H. Economic Return -the use should provide an economic return to the community
commensurate with other industrial uses the property could be feasibly used for.
Improved communications will be a benefit to the City and the lease payments
should offset all City Costs.
Staff members, including the Director of Parks & Recreation, met with the petitioner
on several occasions to give input during the development of the plan. Petitioner's
original location was at the south end of the park near the fields and park building. Staff
requested that the tower be moved north, away from the areas utilized by park users.
The long-range park plan shows a future parking lot on the north end with two (2) curb
cuts. U.S.West will be providing one of the curb cuts if the tower it approved.
Design & Review met with the applicant on August 15th and the issues discussed
included: tower height and construction, building materials, landscaping, curb cut and
drive surfacing, parking, fencing, lighting, noise, lease terms, and general maintenance.
Revised plans with additional landscaping on the north, curb cut and drive area were
submitted as a result of the meeting.
The staff report has been submitted to members of the Citizen Advisory Commission for
comment and input.
Staff is requesting that the area around the site (5,000 square feet be sodded). The
monopole would be surrounded by a 12-foot fence with crushed rock inside the fence
around the base of the towers. No barbed wire should be installed at the top of the fence
do to its location in a City park. The monopole would have a grey finish and the
buildings' trim would be dark brown.
Staff finds that this is a reasonable use in this remote area of the park.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for U.S.West for a 95-foot monopole
transmission tower and equipment building at the north end of Victory Park subject to the
following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Survey be provided prior to tower constructiom
A softs en~/ne~ must evaluate foundation area.
Development agreement and bond be required for all landscaping.
Approval of lease agreement and terms by City Council.
All 18 trees proposed on plan must have a minimum trunk diameter of 2-1/2 inches.
Comments received from Citizen Advisory Commission to be addressed.
5,000 square feet of sod to be installed around site.
Maintenance of the area for the term of the lease (mowing, etc,) to be agreed upon
between U.S.West and City. If City maintains, additional lease payment could be
required.
Planning Case Report 91-23
September 3, 1991
Page -4-
Attachments:
Zoning/Section Maps
Petitioner Project Description Letter
Original/Revised Site Plans
Elevations
Exhibit A - Photo of Site
Exhibit B -Letter re: 911 Service
Exhibit C- Letter re: Property Values
Exhibit D - Letter re: Interference
Rental Amounts for Antennas on Public Property
Plan for Cell Sites
Photo of Minneapolis Monopole
Victory Park Map
Staff Exhibits A & B
R.O
I.!
8.4
1.3
R,!
56~'0
SCIENCE
INDUSTRY
'~PA R K
PUBLIC
WORKS
- GARAGE
SAINT[ ..MARl[
5'700
$50O
NOR,H R'DGE
CARE
~-.q., $o ,2ENTER
54
b~$°°
6'100
IIAILIIOAO
HOSTERIdAI
JR HIGH SCHC
5~TH AVE
~',- ?s'- 77
8 August 1991
New Hope Planning Commission Members
c/o Kirk McDonald
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Proposed Cellular Telephone Antenna at Victory Park
Dear Planning Commission Members:
This letter accompanies an application for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a cellular
telephone antenna at Victory Park. The application is in the name of U S WEST
NewVector Group, Inc. (USWNVG). USWNVG is part of U S WEST, Inc., one of the
regional holding companies formed as a result of the break up of AT&T. Dahlgren,
Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. has been authorized by USWNVG to act as its representative
for planning and zoning matters.
Specifically, we proposed to construct a 95 foot self support antenna and a 12' x 36'
equipment building. The site will be accessed from International Parkway.
The Cellular Phone System
The primary users of cellular telephone service are members of the business community
and the public sector. The phone becomes a useful tool leading to increased
productivity. Doctors, builders, salespersons, business owners and executives all benefit
by using cellular phones. Additionally, cellular is extensively 'used in the public sector
principally by fire and police departments. Cellular allows police and others to conduct
discreet communication in the field. Citizens can contact "911"to report accidents, fires
or other emergencies. The cellular phone system interfaces fully with the "911"
emergency reporting system. Mr. James R. Beutelspacher, 911 Project Manager for
Minnesota recently wrote, "the unimpeded growth of cellular service is an important
adjunct to 9-1-1- emergency reporting". His letter is attached for your information as
Exhibit B.
New Hope Planning Commission Members
2
Cellular Grid System
Cellular service provides subscribers with office quality phone service by developing a
grid of antennas arranged in a geographically hexagonal pattern. Each hexagon is a
"cell" created by an antenna and serves as the link between the customer and the system
while the customer is within that particular cell. Each cell can only handle a certain
number of calls simultaneously. As the number of customers increase, the grid must be
changed to handle the appropriate number of simultaneous calls. This.usually means
that more cells need to be created within the same area resulting in a new grid pattern
of smaller cells. A new antenna must be constructed each time a new cell is created.
As the grid matures and more cells are added, antennas are made shorter because of
each cell's smaller coverage area. Antennas are also constructed to expand the grid of
coverage into new areas. The antenna at Victory Park is being proposed to increase the
capacity of the system in New Hope and the surrounding area.
Search Area Criteria
We have working for several months to locate an antenna site in New Hope to solve
cellular phone service coverage needs. Many factors go into the selection of a location
for an antenna site. These include market factors, technical considerations, cellular grid,
zoning and land use compatibility, landowner willingness to sell or lease, land forms of
the surrounding area, existing buildings and other obstructions, and accessibility to roads.
All of these factors taken together create a narrow site search area for location of the
antenna.
The technical aspects of fitting a new cell site into the grid pattern dictates a small
search area for new antenna sites. The search area is further refined by topographical
features and a sophisticated computer modeling that takes into account existing antenna
sites, predicted coverage of the new cell and FCC service area requirements. Federal
Aviation Administration regulations must also be followed in locating and constructing
antennas.
Once the search area has been defined by these technical constraints, zoning and land
use factors can be addressed. We have discussed the regulations with respect to
telephone and radio antenna towers with City staff at the planning office. From these
discussions and our review of the City Zoning Code, it was apparent that since we are
proposing to locate an antenna in an Industrial District, we would need to pursue a
Conditional Use Permit because of the height of the antenna.
Local Zoning Requirements
Section 4.142provides for the installation of antennas within the I-1 District subject to
the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
New Hope Planning Commission Members
Conditional Use Permit Criteria
Section 4.21 in the New Hope Zoning Code addresses the criteria which must be met
before a Conditional Use Permit is granted. Each finding is addressed below:
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.
The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to implement the comprehensive plan.
According to City staff, the zoning ordinance allows cellular antenna towers as a
conditional use in the I-1 Limited Industrial District.
The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses.
An antenna is a compatible use in an industrial district and would not adversely affect
the future development of the surrounding properties.
The proposed use conforms with aH applicable performance standards contained
in the City's Code.
The site plan included with this application illustrates the proposed location and
appearance of the antenna structure. The location of the building and self support
antenna meet'the required performance standards of the City's ordinance.
The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
The existence of cellular telephone antennas have been shown not to appreciably affect
the property values even in residential arms. An investigation of properties near towers
was conducted by Patchin and Associates, Inc., a real estate appraisal firm. In a letter
from Mr. Patchin, he states that he found no measurable impact to property values lying
in close proximity to towers. Mr. Patchin studied antennas in both industrial and
residential settings.
The proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts.
This use meets all of the other zoning regulations in the I-1 District.
New Hope Planning Commission Members
4
I hope this letter will serve to better explain our application and answer some of your
questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me at 339-3300. We will be
in attendance at your meeting on September 3, 1991 to make a full presentation and
fully address any questions that you may have. We appreciate your assistance and look
forward to working with you to improve cellular phone service in the New Hope area.
Sincerely,
DAHLGRE[q, SHAPoDLOW, AND UBAN, INC.
C. John Uban, ASLA
President
Attachments:
Check for Application and Filing Fee and Deposit in the Amount of $450
Completed Conditional Use Permit Application Form
Site Plan
Exhibit A - Color Xerox Copy of Photo of Site
Exhibit B -Letter from James R. Beutelspacher, Re: 911
Exhibit C -Letter from Peter J. Patchin, Appraiser
Exhibit D- Letter from Albert S. Jarratt, Jr., Re: Interference
NOTES
I
~,- AMJ
' t
ERNATIONAL PKWY
VICINITY
LANDSCAPE PLAN ANDSITE
MAP
PLAN
/
/
t
VICINITY MAP
LANDSCAPE PLAN ANDSITE
PLAN
~ ~-s,~ P,~HI MNRANDOMI LI)
· I/.1_~ v,c, ~^, i..w HOPE MN L_----
NORTH
WVECTOR GROUP, /NC.
t' -gT NEWVEC'rr~R GROUP. INC.
ELEVATIONS
WEST
EXHIBIT A
Department of
Administration
lnterTechnologies
Group
Y~qO Centennml Office Buttdmg
(6[2) 296- 6,990
EXHIBIT B
November 1, 1989
Mr. Ron Sanders
Regional General Manager
U.S. West Cellular
Opus Gateway, Suite 410
9800 Brenn Road East
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Dear Mr. Sanders:
I am writing to thank you for your continued cooperation in providing the best possible 9-1-1 service
to your subscribers and to express my support for further cellular growth.
As you know, the public safety community began receiving 9-111 emergency calls from cellular
users from the start of cellular service. The 9-1-1 system improves the level of public safety
service to the community by allowing faster and easier emergency reporting. Cellular service
enhances that capability by allowing 9-1-1 'calls from the scene, regardless of landline telephone
availability. It provides the opportunity for on-the-spot emergency reporting.
Your effort to help route cellular 9-1-1 calls to the proper public safety answering point and advise
your subscribers about 9-1-1 availability has been a significant help to public safety. In 1986, the
Golden Valley State Patrol dispatch center answered about 300 cellular 9-1-1 calls per month. This
year, well over 2,000 calls a month are responded to. That increase indicates both your success
in selling cellular telephones, and your help in educating your subscribers about 9-1-1. Many of
those 9-1-1 calls reported emergendes located away from conventional telephones, so cellular
saved predous time. The mobility of cellular service complements the universality of the 9-1-1
system to provide a real benetit to the community.
It has been a pleasure working with you tO bdng the benefits of 9-1-1 and cellular service to the
communities of Minnesota. Minnesota is proud of our accomplishment of statewide 9-1-1. Your
efforts at eventual statewide cellular service is appreciated and encouraged. The unimpeded
growth of cellular service is an important adjunct to 9-1-1 emergency reporting. We look forward
to further joint efforts to provide this service to more Minnesotans.
SinCerely,
.,,Ja"mes'"R; Beutelsp-ach~r -"'---'
"State 9-1-1 Project Manager
Business Technologies Division
mf
cc:John Shardlow
DSU Incorperated
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Peter J.
Patchin
& Associates, Inc.
Valuation Consultants
EXHIBIT C
14300 Nicollet Court. Suite 240. Bumsville. Minnesota 55337 (612) 435-5999
April 19, 1988
U.S. West New Vector Group, Inc.
3350 !515t Avenue S.E.
P.O. Rox 7329
Bellevue, WA 98008
MIN - B, Bi
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota
X '~: H.E. King:
Gentlemen:
At your request I have investigated the potential market value
impact of the proposed cellular communication tower which is to be
located on the Minneapolis Gun Club site on Judicial Road.
The proposed tower is to be 350 ft. tall, single pole, with guy
wire supports. The specific purpose of this study was to estimate
the market value impact, of the proposed tower, upon properties in
the surrounding neighborhood.
The surrounding neighborhood is of a predominantly rural character
with scattered single family dwellings and small farms located on
large acreage lots.
The presen~ Scott County zoning is A-2 Agricultural District. This
zoning is intended for current use as agricultural, but with a
gradual transition to single family residential. The minimum lot
size under this zoning is 10 acres.
The investigation as to market value impact included the inspection
of sites with the same type of tower as is proposed. Those sites
were:
12666 Dakota Ave. So. Savage, Minnesota
Industrial area with single family bluff top homes,
immediately to south.
1929 Eagle Creek Blvd., Shakopee, Minnesota
Light industrial area between Canterbury Downs
and the Hayer Addition, a single family residential
area overlooking tower site.
14950 Chippendale Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota
Located next to City of Rosemount water tower
in a predominantly residential area.
A review of market data in these neighborhoods revealed no
measureable value impacts.
Contacts with well informed real estate brokers and assessors
familiar with these neighborhoods revealed no value impact.
Further, I reviewed appraisals I have made of properties lying in
close proximity to towers and found no value impact.
My conclusion is that given the subject location, there should be
no measureable value impact upon neighborhood properties,
PETER J. PATCHIN & ASSOCIATES
Sincerely,
Peter J. Patchin, MAI, CRE, ASA
President
Enc: Appraisal Qualifications of Peter J. Patchin
Peter J. Patchin & Assocmte~. Inc.
CERTIFICATION
(Real Estate)
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and
correct.
The .reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited
only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and
are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and
conclusions.
I have no present or prospective interest in the property
that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal
interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
My compensation is not contingent on an action or event
resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or
the use of, this report.
My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and
this report has been prepared, in conformity with the
requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the
Standards of Professional Practice of the American Institute
of Real Estate Appraisers.
The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers relating to
review by its duly authorized representatives.
The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a
voluntary program of continuing education for its designated
members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of
this program are awarded periodic educational certification.
Mr. Patchin is certified under this program through
September 15, 1990.
I have made a personal inspection of the property that .is
the subject of this report. Other appraisers, signing this
report, who made a personal inspection of the property were as
follows: none.
No one provided significant professional assistance to the
persons signing this report, except as noted herein.
Date
Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc.
QUALIFICATIONS OF
PETER J. PATCHIN, AS APPRAISER
EARLY HISTORY
Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1934.
tion in Edina, Minnesota public schools.
Elementary and secondary educa-
BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
Cargill, Inc., Production Trainee, 1956-57.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Topographic Mapping, 1957-59.
General Mills, Inc., Staff Engineer, 1959-61.
Patchin Appraisals, Inc., Staff Appraiser, 1961-65. Vice President,
1965-81.
Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc., President, March, 1981 to present.
EDUCATIONAL WORK
Kansas State University, B.S. Degree, with honors, 1956.
William Mitchell College of Law, 1977-78
AIP. EA Courses 1A-l, lA-2, 1B-l, lB-2, lB-3, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 7, all
passed during 1980, Litigation Course in 1985.
Original AIREA course work passed 1964 through 1968.
Currently attends two to three appraisal seminars per year, one to
three days duration each.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Member, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (MAI)
Senior Member, American Society of Appraisers
Real Property & Business Enterprise - Intangible Property Designa-
tions (ASA)
Member, American society of Real Estate Counselors (CRE)
Affiliate Member, Minneapolis Board of Realtors
Certified Business Appraiser (CBA) - Institute of Business Appraisers
1979
Licensed Real Estate Appraiser - State of NebraSka
PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
"Gross Multiplier vs. Capitalization Rates" - Valuation, November,
1971, Pages 88 - 95.
"Depreciation Methods and Market Experience" - The Appraisal Journal,
October, 1980, Pages 503 - 510
"Grain Elevators, Three Approaches To Value" - The Appraisal Journal,
July, 1983, Pages 392 - 400
"Common Sense A~out Cash Equivalency" - The Appraisal Journal,
July, 1985, Pages 340 - 346
"Valuation of Contaminated Properties" - The Appraisal Journal,
January, 1988, Pages 7 - 16
COURT EXPERIENCE
Qualified in District Courts in Minnesota, Michigan, Montana, and
New York
Qualified in U.S. Tax Court, State of Minnesota Tax Court, Federal Court,
District of Wisconsin
Peter J. Patchin & A~sociates, Inc.
QUALIFICATIONS OF
PETER J. PATCHIN (Continued)
APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE
Specializing in the appraisal of industrial, commercial and special
purpose properties, primarily to estimate market value on land,
buildings, machinery and equipment and intangible assets. Appraisal
experience on various types of properties include the following:
development lands, park lands, industrial river channel lands, utility
easements, office buildings, warehouses, factory lofts, shopping
centers, hotels, restaurants, service stations, apartment buildings,
grain elevators, flour and feed mills, breweries, malt plants, food
canneries, bakeries, dairies, bottling plants, schools, churches,
hospitals, machine tools, graphic arts plants, iron foundries.
Intangible asset experience includes leasehold interests, patents,
trademarks, copyrights, mailing lists, goodwill, as well as the valua-
tion of the entire business enterprise.
APPRAISAL CLIENTS INCLUDE
Aetna Life & Casualty Co.
Bay State Milling Co.
Burlington Northern, Inc.
Cargill, Inc.
Certain-teed, Corp.
Control Data Corporation
Farmland Industries, Inc.
Garnac Grain Co.
General Mills, Inc.
International Multifoods, Inc.
Jefferson Company
K Mart Corporation
Krause - Anderson Companies
Louisana Highway Commission
Medtronics, Inc.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis Community Development Agency
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
Mennel Milling Company
North Dakota State Tax Commission
Northern States Power Company
Pillsbury Company
Ralston Purina Company
Soo Line Railroad
3M Corporation
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
University of Minnesota
*The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a voluntary
program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and
RM's who meet the minimum standards of this'program are awarded periodic
educational certification. I am certified under this program through
September 15, 1990.
Peter J. Patchin & Associates, Inc.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
FIELD OPERATIONS BUREAU
EXHIBIT D
October 29, 1990
REPLY TO:
693 Federal Building
316 N. Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Timothy G. Malloy
Dahlgreen Shardlow and Uban Inc.
300 First Avenue North
Suite 210
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Dear Mr. Malloy:
I am writing in response to your inquiry regarding FCC monitoring of cellu-
lar phone operations and the incidence of reports or complaints of inter-
ference with home electronic entertainment equipment.
The St. Paul Field Office, Field Operations Bureau (FOB) is the Bureau of
the Federal Communications Commission which is responsible for insuring
compliance with most of the techinal rules that the Commission administers.
We also provide a variety of services and special assistance to FCC
licensees and to the public. Generally, if there is a complaint regarding a
television, radio or other FCC licensed broadcasting entity in this region,
it would be registered with our office. The jurisdiction of the St. Paul
Field Office covers all of Minnesota and North Dakota and portions of South
Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Complaints can be registered with us either
by telephone or by writing our office at the above address.
We have received no complaints of interference with home electronic enter-
tainment equipment in the Twin City area or anywhere within the jurisdiction
of our office as a result of cellular phone transmissions. This is not
surprising since the frequencies on which the cellular system is licensed to
operate are located in the ultra high frequency (UHF) band which is signi-
ficantly higher than radio and television frequencies. There are relatively
few other channels in this frequency range which broadcast programming
intended for the general public.
I hope this anwers your questions. If you need any further information
contact me at (612) 290-3819.
Sincerely, ~
Albert'6. Jarratt, r.
Engineer In Charge
P~t~/cj
TO: KIRK McDONALD
FRC~: BF/~NIF. NSNG
JULY, 15 1991
RENTAL AMOUNTS FOR ANTENNA SITES ON PUBLIC PROPERPY
Cellular One and U S West Ne~!ect~r both cellular telephcme ccmpanies have
entered into lease agreements which allc~ th~n to use city water to%~rs and
or public property for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating
antenna facilities.
Both cc~panies include the plac~rent of antennas near or on the top of the
water tower itself or on a self support or mono pole, with a small building
structure to be ccrmtructed very near the base of tb~ tower. The building will
house ~ds of $500,000.00 of cellular c~m~micatic~ equipment on site.
U S West NewVector's facility operation will not interfere with the function
of tb~ water to~_r or impede city use of the property.
As the ~twork of cellular ph~e cells develop over the seven county area and
expand into the outstate areas, the utilization of ~unicipal water to~ers and
public property bec~m~ more and more o~m~. Listed below for your information
are a n~t~er of recent c~a~.~tlnity lease agre~nents and their respective rental
a~ounts. Also enclosed is a plan for cell sites. Note the red dot for New Hope.
~ U S ~ $216.76/mo 1984
~ U S ~ 262.50/mo 1989
~%YZATA c~xI~ARCNE 345.00/mo 1985
SPRING LAKE PARK c";~xzriAR(YNE 500.00/mo 1987
~. ~S P~ ~x;~~' 575.00/~ 1988
~ ~ ~x~~ 600.00/~ 1989
~~ ~r;~~ 600.00/~ 1989
~ ~~ U S ~ 666.00/~ 1989
~G~~~ ~;~~ 700.00/~ 1990
~ U S~ 750.00/~ 1990
B~~R U S ~ 750.00/~ 1990
~S ~C ~~ U S~ 700.00/~ 1990
~~~ U S~ 800.00~ 199i
P~OR~ U S~ 750.00/~ 1991
P~OR~ ~;~~ 750.00/~ 1991
~ ~. P~ U S~ 750.00/~ 1991
~~ ~~~ 750.00/~ ~91
7128 Bristol Blvd. · Edina, Minnesota 55435 · 612-927-O089
~ 'R YSTAL., '
Ii
o
i
i
i
IW~ST I~SF..A.q'cJ.I ~'MT[llt ROAO
C~.NTER RO
I /
r
,A
I
/
/
/
/ I
~~~~-I N-T ER NATI 0 NA L
PKWY
LANDSCAPE PLAN ANDSITE
PLAN'
80'
--~.~ .... 374.25-
,-~.,.
~'~.~ SNAP-ON TOOL
'o
PROPOSED TOIiIER
199'
DE. SCRIPTI ON"
PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT FOR UTILITY
PURPOSES OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THE
SOUTH 20' of the NORTH 199' of the WEST 520'
LOT I, BLOCK 2; SCIENCE INDUSTRY PARK
NE W HOPE, MI N N ESOTA
BONESTROQ, ROSENE, AN~RLIK & ASSOC., lNG. i,,
I~I.~ILTBI~ [3t~qiEll$ SCALE = I00'
283.65
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 25, 1994
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Community Development Coordinator
Miscellaneous Issues
August 8th City Council Meeting - At the August 8th Council meeting, the City
Council took the following action on planning cases and other related issues:
Planning Case 94-14, Request for Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site
and Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Expansion of School Uses in an R-1
Zoning District, 8230 47th Avenue North. This request was tabled until October
10th for further review of traffic and property value issues. If you did not watch
this meeting on cable TV and are interested in reviewing a tape of the meeting,
please contact Valerie Leone, City Clerk, at 531-5117 and we will make
arrangements for you to borrow the tape.
Planning Case 94-20, Request for Final Plat Approval and Development/Final
Stage Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Building Addition, 3920
Winnetka, 3941/3961 Quebec. The Council approved the request subject to the
conditions recommended by the Commission. The Council agreed with the
petitioner that the sidewalk along Quebec Avenue did not need to be installed at
this time, however, the Council required the grading for the sidewalk to be
completed now, along with the other improvements to the property. The enclosed
Development Agreement has been sent to the petitioner for execution.
2. August 22nd City Council Meeting -
Ao
Lakeside Ltd. Performance Bond - The performance bond for Lakeside Ltd.
was released, as all required improvements have been completed.
Bo
City Hall Interior Remodeling - Phase II -The City Council awarded the
contract for the City Hall Remodeling Project - Phase II at their meeting on
August 22nd. There were eleven bidders on the project and the Council awarded
the contract to Mikkelson-Wulff Construction, Inc., the low bidder, in the amount
of $409,777 (base bid). The Engineer's base bid estimate was $456,000, so the
low bid came in more than $45,000 under the estimate. The project will provide
for an improved reception area in the Police Department, provide police locker
rooms that will provide an adequate number of lockers and space for Police
Officers, bring jail cells up to State requirements, realign work areas in the
administration area on a departmental basis, and utilize the space vacated by the
Park & Rec Department to provide additional space for the Inspections
Department. Department Heads)~id other City staff will be meeting with the
engineer, contractor and other~ to develop a schedule of what will be
taking place over the next 4 - 5 months, from packing and moving to temporary
quarters (the Park & Rec Department or the Fire Station) ... to final completion
of the project.
Vacant Property at 4400 Quebec Avenue North - The City Council directed
staff to work with the owner of the vacant property at 4400 Quebec Avenue to
possibly acquire the property for future storm water needs and possibly selling the
north 60 feet to attach to 4500 Quebe6 in an effort to resolve truck maneuvering
problems and to get a vacant industrial building occupied. Please refer to the
attached Council request.
Retaining Wall Reconstruction Project - The City Council also awarded the
contract for the City-wide retaining wall reconstruction project at the August 22nd
meeting. A total of 28 walls within the City will be replaced this fall, with
adjacent property owners being assessed 25 % of the cost. Please refer to the
attachment for more specifics.
Kimball Addition Performance Bond - The appropriate performance bond has been
submitted to the City in conjunction with the Kimball Addition plat and development.
CUP Amendment to Allow Educational Classes at Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church
- The City has been notified that no agreement has yet been reached on the sale of
Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church to Hope Alliance Chapel and it is dOubtful that School
District No. 287 will be conducting classes at the site this fall. The CUP Agreement also
has not yet been executed with the City.
Planning Commission Interviews - The City Council will conduct interviews to fill the
vacancy on the Planning Commission prior to the September 12th City Council meeting,
so there may be a new member present at the October Planning Commission meeting.
Four applications were submitted indicating an interest in serving on the Commission.
Code Study Re: Minimum Area Requirement for Maintaining Animals or Birds -
A resident who raises pheasants appeared at the August 22nd Council meeting after
receiving a violation/ticket and indicated he felt the City's ordinance requirements for the
minimum area for the keeping of animals and birds was too restrictive. The Council
referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review. In anticipation that you will
direct this issue to the Codes & Standards Committee for review, staff has sent the
enclosed letter requesting ordinance information from other metro-area communities.
Please see attachments.
Codes & Standards Committee - The Codes & Standards Committee will be meeting
on September 22nd to discuss the following four code issues:
o
mo
B°
C.
D.
Front Yard Parking in the I-1 Zone
Outdoor Storage in the I-1 Zone
Furniture and Appliance Sales in the I-1 Zone
Minimum Area Requirements for the Keeping of Animals and Birds
The Planning Consultant and Building Official have prepared previous reports on items
A and B, which have been distributed. A report was recently prepared on item C and
is enclosed for your information. Staff will be gathering information on item D prior to
the meeting and a packet will be sent out to committee members on Friday, September
16th.
Wetland Conservation Act Notices for City of Plymouth Projects - The City of New
Hope has received the two enclosed Wetland Conservation Act Notices for Plymouth
development/construction projects and I have enclosed them for your information, if you
are interested.
Attachments:
Harvey PUD Agreement
Lakeside Bond
City Hall Remodeling Plans
Quebec Property
Retaining Walls
Keeping of Animals/Birds
A.C. Carlson Report
Plymouth Wetland Conservation Act
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
CORRICK & SONDRALL, P.A.-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671
FAX (612) 425-5867
August 16, 1994
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Revision to PUD Agreement/Don Harvey 2nd Addition
Our File No: 99.15030
Dear Kirk:
In follow up to your August 15, 1994 telephone conversation please
find enclosed a revised PUD Agreement for the Don Harvey 2nd
Addition subdivision.
The only change made, other than numbering the pages, is the amount
of the financial guarantee in paragraph 7. The amount was reduced
$16,800 to $215,200.00 to account for the sidewalk elimination on
the north side of Quebec Avenue. This is accounted for in
paragraph 3 (f) of the agreement.
Also, Val wanted another copy of the signature page.
attached to Val's copy of this letter.
That copy is
Contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slt
Enclosure
cc:. Valerie Leone (w/enc)
4401 Xk!on ,avenue Nor~,~
New mo~e 'vfmne$cta 554£8-4~,98
Tetesmone'
TDD L/ne'
S~2-531-5100
6!2-531-5~09
Au~m.tst 17, 1994
Mr. Don Harvey
Winnetka Properties
7145 Sandburg Road
Minneapolis, MN 55427
Subject:
Request for Final Plat Approval and DeveloPment/Final Stage Planned Unit
Development to Allow Building Addition
Dear Mr. Harvey:
On August 8, 1994, the New Hope City Council approved the request for Final Plat approval
and development/final stage Planned Unit Development to allow building addition subject to
specific conditions. One of the conditions was that a Development Agreement and suitable bond
concerning site improvements be executed with the City. You were notified that the City would
draft these documents and forward them to you for review/execution and that we would also
notify you regarding the appropriate security to be posted.
Enclosed .please find three copies of the Planned Unit Development Agreement and Conditional
Use Permit. The City Engineer and Building Official have estimated the costs of the
improvements, including new and rehabilitated bituminous surface, concrete curb, storm sewer,
pond excavation, landscaping and retaining wall, at approximately $143,466 and the total bond
to be posted is 150% of the cost of the work, or $215,200. The original bond amount was
reduced due toti~ fact that the sidewalk on Quebec Avenue was eliminated from the project.
On pages 3 a~ 4 of the agreement the various types of financial guarantees that are acceptable
to the City are outlin~ under//7, "Financial Guarantee." The performance bond or other type
of guarantee is released upon completion and acceptance of all site improvement work by the
City. Please review the enclosed agreements and sign all three copies in the appropriate place
on page 7 and have signatures notarized. Please return the three executed copies of the
agreement to the City with the appropriate type of financial guarantee. I will have the
appropriate City officials sign the agreements and will return one fully executed copy to you for
your fries.
Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living-
Mr. Don Harvey
August 17, 1994
Page 2
Please feel free to contact me at 531-5119 if you have any comments or questions on the above
issues.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Donahue
City Manager
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
KM/prs
C¢:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Jim Kellison, Kellison Company
Property File (3941/3961 Quebec Avenue North)
Planning Case File 94-20
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
3920 Winnetka Avenue North and
3941/3961 Quebec Avenue North
o
Parties to Agreement. This Agreement dated the day of
August, 1994 is between the City of New Hope, a Minnesota
Municipal Corporation (hereafter City) and Winnetka
Properties, a Minnesota General Partnership (hereafter
Developers).
Subject Property. That the Developers are the owners of the
following described property which is the subject of this
Agreement:
See attached Exhibit A.
Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development Approval. The
Developers have asked the City to approve a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the subject property consisting of the
following uses: two principal industrial buildings on one lot,
with an expansion of one of the buildings, all as set forth in
Planning Case 94-20. The City hereby approves the PUD
conditional use permit on the condition that the Developers
enter into this Agreement and comply with its terms, and upon
the following conditions:
Removal of existing drive on Winnetka Avenue and Quebec
Avenue shall be done in accordance with Hennepin County
and City standards. The integrity of the existing
sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue shall be maintained by
reconstruction of the sidewalk after remova3 of the
existing drive.
b. Appropriate Hennepin County permits be obtained.
c. Final Plat be revised to include Minnegasco easement.
Approval of the plans by the Shingle Creek Watershed
Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The pond shall be designed to satisfy all quantity and
quality requirements in accordance with the Watershed and
City. An outlet skimmer structure is required. The pond
and lot shall be sized to provide maximum storage while
the storm sewer shall be located 10' behind the existing
concrete curb.
The new concrete curb construction along the existing
south pavement shall be located to comply with the
required setback from Quebec Avenue. The curb along the
existing east pavement may warrant storm sewer and a
catch basin to collect and convey storm water to the
pond. The pavement restoration shall account for traffic
loading, subgrade conditions and the existing section,
Total reconstruction is warranted in certain areas·
Boulevard grading along Quebec Avenue and irrigation
constructed as part of the site improvements shall
account for a sidewalk being constructed in the future.
The retaining wall in the northwest corner of the new
parking area shall be properly designed and comply with
setback requirements· Retaining wall details must be
submitted to City for approval.
Delete the "one-way" parking layout at north·
Correct the dimension errors at north setback between the
lot line and the building·
Submit traffic signage for all three .driveways and the
north end of the trucking driveway·
Provide exterior lighting details, NOT shown on plans·
'East oak tree protection (fence) to extend to the tree
crown (drip line).
Signed architectural plans for the PUD must be provided.
Submit tenant leasehold plan for both buildings,
including areas and "uses"·
Clarify building interior use in building code terms·
Continuous concrete curbing be provided around the entire
parking lot.
Elimination of all outdoor storage from the site.
Submission of detailed signage plan which complies with
City sign regulations.
Developer must enter into a PUD Development Agreement
with the City, to be prepared by the City Attorney, and
submit the appropriate bond with amount to be determined
by City Engineer and Building Official·
2
t o
Development Agreement must be executed and bond submitted
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Development Exhibits. The Developer shall develop the
property described above in accordance with the plans shown on
the following exhibits· If the exhibits vary from the written
terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The
exhibits are:
Exhibit B--
Exhibit C--
Exhibit D--
Site Plan
Landscaping Plan
Grading and Drainage
Shared Ingress and Egress. The Developers further acknowledge
that that all uses on the subject property may utilize the
curb cuts and driveways shown on Exhibit B for ingress and
egress.
The Work. The work shall consist of the improvements
described in the attached Exhibits, includin9 any approved
subsequent amendments, which shall be performed by the
Developers to the City's satisfaction in compliance with all
applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and policies of the
City. The work includes all on-site exterior amenities as
shown on the plans including, but not limited to, landscaping,
private drives, parking areas, storm drainage systems, water
mains, sanitary sewers, hydrants, curbing, lightin9, fences,
fire'lanes, sidewalks, and trash disposal enclosures.
The work shall expressly include the removal of the existing
driveway onto Winnetka Avenue North located approximately 220
feet north of Quebec Avenue North. The Developers further
agree that all signage on the property will comply with the
New Hope Sign Code.
Financial Guarantee. To secure performance of the work under
this Contract, and payment of all administrative expenses to
the City, the Developers shall furnish the City with a bond in
the amount of $215,200.00 before any work is started or
building permits issued. The bond may take any of the
following forms:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Cash deposit at no interest;
Assigned Saving Certificate - interest to Developer;
Corporate Surety Bond;
Two year Letter of Credit.
3
Developer agrees to reimburse the City for, and the financial
guarantee shall also secure payment to the City of, all
administrative expenses, including legal and engineering fees,
associated with this PUD and Agreement, Developer further
agrees to pay, and the financial guarantee shall also secure
payment of, all costs to the City to enforce this Agreement,
including engineerin.g and legal fees.
Completion of Work. The undersigned Developer agrees that
the work shall be completed in its entirety on or before the
31st day of July, 1995, and no extension of time shall be
valid unless the same shall be approved in writing by the
City. An extension of time shall be valid whether approved by
the City before or after the completion date, and failure of
the City to extend the time for completion or to exercise
other remedies shall not cause a forfeiture of the City's
rights hereunder, nor shall any extension of time granted by
,the City cause any forfeiture of the City's rights. It shall
be the duty of the Developer to notify the City of the
completion of the work in writing and to request a final
inspection of the work by employees of the City.
The financial guarantee furnished to the City, shall remain in
full force and effect after installation of the work, to
determine that the useful life of all work performed hereunder
meets the average standards for the particular industry,
profession, or material used in the completion of the work.
Landscaping improvements consisting of trees, shrubs, and
other living material, shall be considered complete for
purposes of this agreement upon determination of the City
following inspection by the City that said materials have
survived one full winter season after the actual installation
of the materials. The period October 31 through April 30
shall constitute a winter season. Any work failing to meet
such standards shall not be deemed complete hereunder.
Notice of the City's acceptance of the work shall be given the
Developers following inspection and a determination that the
work has been properly completed. Any such completion notice
shall not release the financial guarantee. The financial
guarantee may be released only upon motion of the City
Council.
Remedies for Breach. The City shall give prior notice to the
Developer and a corporate surety that has provided & bond as
financial guarantee of any default before proceeding to
enforce such financial guarantee or before the City undertakes
to complete any of the improvements (the "work") for which the
City will be reimbursed through the financial guarantee.
4
Notice shall be sent by certified mail. If with ten (10) days
after such notice to it, the Developer or the surety has not
notified the City in writing of its intention to enforce any
rights it may have under this performance agreement or any
performance bond or guarantee by stating in writing the manner
in which the defaulI will be cured and the time within such
default will be cured, the City will proceed with the remedy
it deems appropriate.
At any time after the completion date and any extensions
thereof, if any, of the work deemed incomplete, the City may
proceed in any one or more of the following ways to enforce
the undertakings herein set forth, and to collect any and all
overhead expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith
including, but not limited to, engineering, legal, planning
and litigation expenses; but the enumeration of the remedies
hereunder shall be in addition to any other remedies available
to the City.
i)
Specific Performance. The City may in writing
direct a corporate bond surety or the Developer to
cause the work to be undertaken and completed
within a specified reasonable time. If the surety
and/or the Developer fail to cause the work to be
done and completed in a manner and time acceptable
to the City, the City may proceed in an action for
specific performance to require work to be
undertaken.
ii)
Completion by the City. The City, after notice,
may enter the premises and proceed to have the work
done either by contract, by day labor or by regular
City forces, and neither the Developer nor the
corporate surety may question the manner of doing
such work or the letting of any such contracts.
Upon completion of such work, the surety and/or the
Developer shall promptly pay the City the full cost
thereof as aforesaid. In the event that the
financial guarantee is in the form of a performance
bond, it shall be no defense by the surety that the
City has not first made demand upon the Developer,
nor pursued its ri9hts against the Developer,
iii)
Deposit of Financial Guarantee, In the event that
the financial guarantee has been submitted in the
form of a performance bond, the City may demand
that the surety deposit with the City a sum equal
to the City's estimated cost of completing the
5
work, plus the City's estimated overhead expenses
as defined herein, including any other costs and
damages for which the surety may be liable
hereunder, but not exceeding the amount set forth
on the face of the performance bond which money
shall be deemed to be held by the City for the
purpose of reimbursing the City for any costs
incurred in completing the work as herein before
specified, and the balance shall be returned to the
surety. The money shall be deposited with the City
within ten (10) days after written demand therefor,
and if the surety fails to make the required
deposit within ten days, the City shall have the
right to proceed against the surety with whatever
legal action is required to obtain the deposit of
such sum.
iv)
Funds of Deposit. In the event that the financial
guarantee is in the form of cash, certified check,
irrevocable letter of credit, or other arrangement
making the financial guarantee immediately
accessible to the City, the City may, after notice
to the Developer, deposit the financial guarantee
in its general account. The City may then proceed
to complete the work, reimburse itself for the cost
of completion as defined hereunder, and return the
balance to the Developer.
Green Area Requirement. Developer acknowledges that the New
Hope Zoning Code § 4.145(3) requires that not less than 20% of
the subject property remain as green area as that term is
defined by said section. Developer further agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless the City for any costs the City
may incur, including attorney's fees, in connection with any
legal action or proceeding relative to the enforcement of §
4.145(3) or any other paragraph of this Planned Unit
Development Agreement.
10. Miscellaneous.
i)
This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties,
their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may
be.
ii)
Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the
Developer shall be grounds for denial of building
permits.
11.
iii)
If any portion, section, subsection, sentence,
clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is
for any reason held invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of
this Agreement.
iv)
The action or inaction of the City shall not
constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions
of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or
waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties
and approved by written resolution of the City
Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal
action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a
waiver or release.
Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in
writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer
by certified or registered mail at the following address:
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either
hand delivered to the City Cl'erk, or mailed to the City by
certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at
the following address: 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope,
Minnesota 55428, Attention: City Clerk.
Dated:
Dated:
DEVELOPERS
By
Its General Partner
By
Its
CITY OF NEW HOPE
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of
personally appeared Edw. J. Erickson and Daniel ~ 1994, before me
· Donahue, to me
known to be the persons described in the foregoing instrument and
who did say they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the
municipal corporation named therein and that the seal affixed to
said instrument is the corporate seal of said municipal
corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in
behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and said Edw. d. Erickson and Daniel J. Donahue
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
municipal corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 1994, before me
personally appeared and
to me known to be the
persons described in the foregoin9 instrument and who did say that
they are respectively the and
of Winnetka Properties, a Minnesota
General. Partnershipship, and that said instrument was signed on
behalf of said general partnership.
c: \ N D51 \chh\ pud. ~tn
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
That part of the North 48 rods of the Northwest 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, Township 118 North, Range 21,
West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying West of West line
of the Railroad right of way and lying North of the South 440
feet thereof.
Which lies westerly and northwesterly of the following
described line:
Beginning at the southwest corner of DEJARLAIS ADDITION,
according to the recorded plat thereof; thence southerly
along the southerly extension of the west line of said
plat a distance of 81.21 feet; thence southerly and
southwesterly a distance of 335.91 feet along a
tangential curve concave to west having a radius of
300.00 feet and a central angle of 64 degrees 09 minutes
55 seconds to the north line of said south 440 feet and
said line there terminating.
Except that part which lies West of a line drawn parallel with
and distant 40 feet East of the West line of said Southwest
1/4 and North of a line drawn East at right angles to said
West line from a point thereon distant 99.37 feet South of the
Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 and except that part
lying West of the centerline of Winnetka Avenue.
EXHIBIT B
27'
EXHIBIT D - GRADING & DRAINAC
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager Consent
Kirk McDonald 8-22-94 Item No.
By: Management Assistant By:. 6. I0
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND FOR LAKESIDE
LTD. BUILDING ADDITION/SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 5001 BOONE AVENUE NORTH
IN THE AMOUNT OF $123,600
The City has held a performance bond in the amount of $123,600 on the Lakeside Ltd.
development at 5501 Boone Avenue North for the installation of on-site exterior amenities.
This amount was held to insure that specific improvements were made, including concrete curb,
bituminous parking, storm sewer ponding, retaining wall, sod and grading. The General
Inspector inspected this property for completion of all work covered by the bond and
recommends release of the bond. The enclosed resolution authorizes the release of the
performance bond for Lakeside Ltd.
Staff recommends approval of a motion to release the performance bond in the amount of
$123,600.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: ~,4ml~ll.~tion: Flrl~lce:
RFA-O01 ~
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND
FOR LAKESIDE LTD. DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS.
certain work under the Development Contract for property known as Lakeside
Ltd. was secured by Performance Bond No. 019003008, issued by Amwest
Surety Insurance Company on behalf of Lakeside Ltd.; and
WHEREAS, all work under the Development Contract and secured by the Performance Bond
has been completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of New Hope as follows:
The Performance Bond No. 019003008, issued by Amwest Surety
Insurance Company on behalf of Lakeside Ltd., is hereby released in full
by the City of New Hope.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 22nd
day of August, 1994.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
PLAT BOND
REVIEW
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BOND AMOUNT:
TOTAL NLrMB~ OF LOTS:
Ci:y Maria&er
Jean Coone
~u~ust 18, 1994
Lakeside Ltd. Performance 8ond
$123,600
1
FACILITIES/LANDSCAPING REQUIRED:
Curbin& $ 16,000
so4 4,000 ,0~ ~ ~
Retaining Wall 15,000 ~;' ~..i~''~
Driveway/Parki ng $4,000 ~
Store Sewer 5.~00 ~
Gradin& 8 ~000
Total 82 ;400
Othe: + 50% 41 ;200 Describe:
TOT~ ~O $123,600
I have, on :his 4a7 Auau~ 18, 1994 , inspected the plat "~or
comple:ion of all work =~ve~:ed by ohm bond we retain. Ic Il appropriate to
~Z~./~E ALL HOM) r~tm ~mou~:: $123,600
have cotmulced with the Cic7 E~&itmer on chin.
CC:
Ci=y Engineer
City Clerk
File
005 8/91
August 17,1994
Mr. Kirk McDonald
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428-4898
Subject: Performance Bond
Dear Kirk:
I'm writing in regard to the Performance Bond that was provided on August
25,1993 covering the site improvement work' being done at 5001 Boone Avenue
North.
It is my understanding that the site improvement work is complete and we are
requesting a release of the Performance Bond prior to the renewal date of
August 25, 1994.
If you have any questions or require additional information please give me a
call.
Sincerely,
Bruce E. Hilden
Vice President & Controller
BEH/ps
EAKESIDE ltd.
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
July 2. 1993
City of New Hope
4401 Xyion Avenue North
New Hope. Minnesota 55428
Attn: Kirk McDonald
Re: Letter of Credit - 5001 Boone Avenue (Lakeside LTD)
Our File No. 34-Bond
Dear Kirk:
We have reviewed the letter of credit amount for the above project and recommend the
following:
Lump Sum
2,000 LF
4,300 SY
1,500 SY,
Lump Sum
2,000 SY
Grading @ $8,000/LS
Concrete Curb @ $8/LF
Bituminous Parking @ $8/SY
Retaining Wall @ $10/SF
Storm Sewer/Ponding @ $5,000/LS
Sodding @ $2/SY
+50% Increase
The recommended letter of credit amount is S123,600.
contact me at tllis ol~fice.
Yours truly,
$ 8,000
16,000
34,400
15,000
5,000
4,000
$82,400
41,200
$123,600
If you have any questions ~lease
Ma~CA. Han~BONI~~~" ROSEN~..._.ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CC: Doug Sandstad
Many Malecha, City Attorney
2335 ~Y/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600
-a~'~,~ s~cO]ems and verify employee count.
**c '~ucks" s~gnage to De ~nstal!ed at nort~ entrance.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ~E:ES'¢ AGREED as follows:
1. iNCORDORAT]ON OF qECITALS.
incorporated nerein by reference,
conditions of the Variance.
The recitals aoove
specifically ~nclud~ng
2. THE WORK. The Work shall consist of the s~te
~mprovements described in the Plans, including the Secured Work as
described below, and including any amendments to the Plans which
are approved by the City Council. The Work shall be performed by
the Oeveloper to the City's satisfaction and in compliance with all
applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and policies of the City.
3. THE SECURED WORK. The Secured Work includes atl on-site
exterior amenities s~own on the Plans that are listed be]ow.
Quantity
Lump Sum
2,000 LF
4,300 SY
1,500 SY
Lum~ SMm
2,000'~
Item
Grading · $8,000/LS
Concrete Curb · $8/LF
Bituminous Parking · $8/SY
Retaining Wall · $10/SF
Storm Sewer/Ponding · $5,000/LS
Sodding · $2/SY
+ 50~ Increase
$ 8,000 00
16,000 00
34,400 00
15,000 00
5,000 00
41000 00
$82,400.00
41~200.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE:
$123,600.00
2
COLWC[L
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Approved ErAgenda Agenda Section
Leve]oDmen: ~
August 22, 1994 Item No.
By:
Originating Department
Finance/Administration
Larr' Watts
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CITY HALL INTERIOR RENOVATION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 502
The City received eleven bids for the City Hall Interior Renovation, Improvement
No. 502. Milt Powell from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates will review
these bids and make a presentation at the Council Meeting.
Council is requested to make a determination as to awarding the contract, based
on the information submitted at the Council meeting.
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
Administration:
Finance:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
CITY HALL INTERIOR RENOVATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 502
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows:
That bids for City Hall Interior Renovation, Improvement Project No.
502 were duly opened at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue
North,' at 2:00 o'clock p.m. on the 17th Day of August, as heretofore
authorized by this Council.
That advertisement for bids for the construction of said improvement
was published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post, the official
newspaper of the City, on the 20th Day of July, 1994, and in the
Construction Bulletin on the llth and 18th days of July, 1994.
It is hereby found and determined by this Council that the bid of
Mikkleson-Wulff Construction, Inc., for the construction of said
project, including Alternates No. 1 and 2, in the amount of $ ,
is the lowest responsible bid submitted for the construction of said
improvement; that Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc.,
Architects for the City have recommended to this Council the said
low bid for the award of the contract for the construction to the
designated lowest responsible bid.
4e
The Mayor and Manager are authorized and directed to enter into an
improvement contract for the construction of said improvement in the
name of the City with the lowest responsible bidder, subject to the
said contractor furnishing a public contractor's surety bond,
conditioned as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
this 22nd day of August, 1994.
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor
C,¢JU.aIC, IL
REQUF. T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Finance/Administration June 27, 1994 PI ann1 ng and
Development
,~ Item No.
By: Larry Watts By: 8.5
RESOLUTION APPROVING DRAWINGS F(~ CITY HALL PHASE II REMODELING - AUTHORIZATION
FOR THE PREPARATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 502)
City Staff has been working with Milt Powell from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc.
to develop a remodeling plan for City Hall that will provide the following:
1. Better reception area in the Police Department.
2. Police locker rooms that will provide adequate number of lockers, and space for Police
Officers.
3. Bring jail cells up to State requirements.
4. Realign work areas in administration on a departmental basis.
5. To utilize the space vacated by the Department of Parks and Recreation, and provide
additional space for the Inspections Department.
Milt Powell will review the drawings that reflect the required remodeling changes to provide the above
goals, along with estimated costs.
The resolution is requesting the following:
1. Approval of the drawings.
2. Authorizing Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. to prepare plans and
Sl~cifications.
// /)
Review: Administration: Finance:
I RFA-O01 ~
Request For Action
Page 2
3. Authorizing Staff to approve the plans and specifications prepared by Bonestroo,
Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, inc.
4. Ordering the City Clerk to advertise for bids.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
·
0
0
.I
·
0
0
E~
·
0
0
xanzs DNINNY'Id ::::lOYdS
'i'lVH Ail::) =ldOH
~= L. ,an&s ~)NINNV*Id ~lOVd$
COUNCIl
REQUF_~T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda De~el~ri¥Ctlon
City Manager & Planning
Kirk McDonald 8-22-94' Item No.
By: Management Assistant By: 8. ¢
DISCUSSION REGARDING VACANT PROPERTY AT 4400 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH
In June, a company known as Conductive Containers, Incorporated contacted the City and indicated that
they were negotiating to purchase the vacant industrial building located at 4500 Quebec Avenue North.
CCI cm'rently has a facility in Illinois and 15,000 square feet in Brooklyn Park and the Quebec Avenue
building would accommodate the expansion of their manufacturing and office space. CCI is prepared
to purchase the building and do significant interior/exterior remodeling. However, a problem exists
because the existing site cannot accommodate the maneuvering of full-sized semi-trucks with access
to the loading docks without utilizing a portion of the vacant lot to the south at 4400 Queb~. Although
a number of parking lot redesign ideas have been submitted to the City, none were deemed acceptable.
The property at 4400 Qllebe¢ Avenue is for sale, but CCI indicates they cannot afford to purchase the
entire parcel to accommodate their tracking n~da. CCI has come to the conclusion that unless they
can meet the City Code requirements in all real--ets, including track acceas, it makes no sense for them
to purchase the 4500 Queb~ Avenue building.
The vacant property in question at 4400 Queb~ Avenue is identified in the City's preliminary, Surface
Water Management Plan aa a pouible futur~ ponding site. The City Engineer met with staff and
developed the attached sketch whereby a futm~, pond could be develop~ on the property to
accommodate the City'a storm ~ ~ and tl~ north 60 f~zt of the prOlm'ty could be split
off/sold/combined with the proper~ to tl~ north to addreaa tim U'ucking issues.
Staff requests to discuss with the Council if there is any interest in pursuing the purchase of the vacant
property at 4400 Quebec, wi~ fl~e imem of selling the northern portion to CCI and retaining the
southern portion f~' ~ ~'m;~ needs.
Brad Bjorklund ~ BCL Appraisals haa estimated that an appraisal of the property could be
completed for ~ly $1,000.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Admmlstratlon: Finance:
June 22. 1994
City of New Hope
44.01 Xylon Ave No.
New Hope. MN 55428
Dan Donahue:
Dan,
Our company has been, for several months, negotiating to buy the
vacant 4500 Quebec building. CCI currently has a facility in Northbrook,
Illinois and 15,000 square feet in Brooklyn Park. The Quebec building
would accommodate expansion of our manufacturing and office space, and
allow us to bring some of our service group to the New Hope site.
We were prepared to buy the building and do significant remodeling
of the interior and exterior. We estimate the cost of remodeling to be
$150,000 or more. Our plans included bringing the building up to code for
handicap accessibility by eliminating the mezzanine office set-up. The
site would be a showcase for our static-protective packaging products
which we sell nationally to electronics manufacturers. To sum it up, it is
our intention to clean up and beautify a currently dilapidated building.
Unfortunately, we have run into a major problem. According to your
engineer, Doug Sanstad, full sized semi-trucks cannot access the loading
docks without some street maneuvering. Doug has been patient enough to
listen to numerous parking lot redesign ideas we have had, but none were
deemed acceptable. There is property available next to the building, but
the asking ~ is high $140,000. Even considering the possibility that it
could be ~ht for $100,000 or so, (as the property needs soil
correction) that would be a lot more money than we could spend to
accommodate trucking.
We have come to the conclusion, that unless we can meet code in all
respects - including truck access, it makes no sense to buy this building.
For this reason, I am writing you to determine if there is any way that the
city can help us solve our problem. Is there TIF money available that can
help us buy the adjacent land? Doug suggested the possibility of some use
CONDUCTIVE CONTAINERS INCORPORATED
HIGH PERFORMANCE STATIC CONTROL PRODI. JCTS
of the land for ponding. I have no previous experience with buying a
building such as this, so I am new to the process. But it would seem
beneficial to the city to have a company, such as ours, clean up a property
that is vacant and deteriorating.
In recent months it has been vandalized more than once. It is not
likely that another company will have a remodeling plan that is as
extensive as ours. Also, it is doubtful that a building of this size will sell
anytime soon without truck access.
Dan, I would appreciate any feedback you might have on this issue.
Thank you-for your time and interest.
Sincerely,
Brad Ahlm
President
(612) 537-2090
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
July 28. 1994
Citv of New Hope
4401 Xvlon Avenue N.
New Hope. MN 55428
Attn: Kirk McDonald
Re:
4500 Quebec Avenue
File No. 34GEN
Dear Kirk:
Attached is a 1" = 50' sketch for the property south of 4500 Quebec Avenue North. As
discussed at our meeting it was felt 60' (.42 Ac.) of the 240' width would be combined with
4500 Quebec Avenue. The remaining 180' (1.28 Ac.) would be developed as a ponding area
as shown on the attached sketch. The proposed pond provides 4.4 acre feet of storage
compared to 11.8 acre feet recommended in New Hope's Comprehensive Surface Water
Management Plan.
Listed below are the estimated quantities and cost to construct the proposed ponding area
and modifications to the existing storm sewer systems. A new storm sewer is also included
to collect drainage from the expanded parking lot. Curb and paving for the new parking
lot is not included or upgrading the existing pavement at 4500 Quebec Avenue. Also
identified but not included is a new storm sewer along the east line of 4500 Quebec Avenue
to 4550 Quebec Avenue. This storm sewer was considered at the time 4550 expanded,
however, it was not constructed.
COST ESTIMATE
Lump Sum Clear Grub @ $4,000/!s 4,000
10,000 CY Excavation ~ $6/cu yd 60.000
240 LF 33" RCP @ $50/If 12,000
60 LF 18" RCP @ $30/!f 1,800
2 EA Std 4' din MH ~ $1,500 ea 3,000
1 EA Std CB ~ $1,000 ea 1,000
1 EA 33" RCP Apron ~ $1,000 ea 1,000
1 EA 18" RCP Apron @ $700 ea 700
1 EA Outlet Structure @ $7,000 ea 7,000
2.0 AC Seed @ $1,500/Ac. 3,000
Total $93.500
Cit~' ,~t' .Vevv Hope
July '~
_?~. !994
Re: 47~) Quebec ,4venue
The estimated cost not including land acquisition, pavement improvements, and storm sewer
extension to 4550 Quebec Avenue is $93.500.00. As noted the major cost is pond
excavation (10.000 cubic yards) estimated at $60,000.00 ($6.00/cubic, yard). In the event the
excavated material can be utilized on another site or disposed of on a nearby site
(Sunnyside Park), the cost for pond excavation could be reduced by as much as 5(~ck or
$30.000.00.
If you have any questions, or require additional information please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark A. Hanson
~x~M-t:jlm
'98z' ' 8'
00~ ~- OOG
890.7.
R.O
R.4
I-1
R.4
11~.4
I-1
AVE.
I
wo ~
F
42 NO J~/E. N.
OFFICE
SCHOOL
0
"i
4. ii& .
:
:
I
GHPas .sm & h s, P, A.
&ITOIN&T8 &T LAW
SUITE 400
~ Vl3~O~ &~ SO~TN
July 22, 1994
Mr. Doug SandsCed
Inspections Department
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. N.
New Hoge, MN 55428
4400
Dear Mr. SandeCed:
It was a pleasure to meet with you the o~herday regardingRon
Van Esaen and 4400 Quebec. For you~ information, Mr. Van Essen is
£nterested in selling his property loc&ted at 4400 Quebec and would
be willing to sell ~his proper~y to ~he City of Hew Hope.
If ~he City of New Hope t8 £nCeFested in purchasing 4400
Quebec, please oon~ao~ me.
V~7 Y. ruly yours,
P.A.
cc: Roe Villi
eM at L~v
, t
24'
--TO UEUOR¥
LANE POND
0 65O
S~ole in feet
SC-P51 g
.... SC5:
SC-P$.21
SI::-P$. 14
SCS. 21
TO MEMORY
'LANE POND
0 650 t 300
Scale in feet
The common surface drainage feature m the district ~s the open channel that tra,,els Mona
the east-~,.est raIlroad line This channel continues into Crystal and eventualb,, outlets into
the south end of L pper T,.,.m Lake.
The onl? problem area ~dentified for District SC-A4 is a channel erosion problem ,ahere the
r, ao major railroad trees meet. This problem was identified in the 1993 Shingle Creek
V','ater Management Commission Report.
Water Quantity Improvements do not appear to be a major issue in this district aside from
the channel erosion. The series of water quality, ponds discussed below will also provide
attenuation of peak flows into Crystal. The channel erosion should be corrected by
riprapping the affected areas.
Water Quality Improvements in SC-A4 include several 2-cell treatment ponds to reduce the
outflow contaminant loads from this large industrial corridor along the railroad lines.
Several of the proposed ponds require use of undeveloped areas within the industrial park
or unused portions of lots already developed. The overall removal efficiency for this district
with improvements in place is 63% with phosphorus concentrations slightly above ecoregion
values. Note that Pond SC-P4.10 can be configured in such a way to protect the apparent
wetland along the railroad tracks.
ted in the east central part of the city just below SC-A4 generally east
ot tsoone Avenue and roughly between 48th Avenue North and 40th Avenue North. Only
a small amount of the district is in Crystal. Only those areas in Crystal that contributed
directly to ponds or analyzed trunks within New Hope were included in the analysis for this
report. There are 22 subdistricts in SC-AS. The land use is mixed with the important types
being SFR, medium and high density residential, industrial, and commercial.
The drainage from ~is area converges on Fred Sims Park in several trunk systems. From
Fred Sims Park, the stormwater passes through a 72" under Louisiana Avenue into Memory
Lane Pond in Crystal. Memory Lane Pond is recognized as a sensitive area for stormwater
management by the cities of Crystal and New Hope. The proposed improvements are
intended to benefit Memory Lane Pond as well as local drainage issues in New Hope.
$.48 System Ana~s~
The Cit,. of Ne,a Hope tdenufied four problem areas inside the cit',,, in district SC-AS. One
problem area ~s street t-looding on X~ton .Avenue be~'een 45th and 46th Avenues North
The second problem area ts on -,t2nd A~enue North where it crosses the railroad line. The
thtrdproblem site ts on 42nd Avenue North just east of XvlonAvenue The fourth is Fred
Sims Park itself due to flooding .problems in the park due to flooding in downstream
Memory Lane Pond.
Water Ouanrity Improvements in SC-A5 address the various local drainage problems along
with the regional problem at Memory Lane Pond for the portion in New Hope contributing
to this area. The propose expansion of Ponds SC-P5. t2, SC-P5.21, SC-P~.$, and SC-P5.20
as well as creation of Ponds SC-P5.I9 and SC-P$.14 are designed to reduce flooding
problems ~it the three local problem areas as well as address the regional problem as Fred
II
Sims Parlc'Memory Lane Pond.
Pond SC-P5.12 should ideally have its present control structure removed and replaced with
a 21" orifice at the invert elevation of 895.5'. The change to Pond SC-P5.12 along with
other improvements will have a beneficial impact on Crystal's flooding problems. The Ci~
of Crystal should be informed of the proposed improvements. Proposed Pond SC-P5.19
must be designed with an overland route at the HWL elevation to prevent local damage.
Appendix C shows the detailed improvements for the above mentioned ponds.
Along with the pond improvements, some storm sewers must be upgraded to relieve Iow
capacity segments between ponds. The line on 4$th Avenue east of Xylon Avenue will be
upgraded to 36" and then 42" pipes to allow 5-year storms to reach Pond SC-P5.12 without
flooding. In addition, the trunk on Winnetka Avenue will be blocked at 42nd Avenue
North to relieve flows in the 45th Avenue North trunk since the 36" trunk going to the
southeast has the capacity for these flows with the upgrade of the small segment of 30" pipe
at the 42nd Avcom North/Winnetka Avenue intersection. The proposed pipe changes along
with existing ~ capacities are given in Appendix B.
The Oregon Avenue improvement will require a 27" upgrade. With additional inlet capacity
from more catch basins on 42nd Avenue North under the railroad tracks and the 27" on
Oregon Avenue upgrade, the stormwater traveling in the streets to the 42nd Avenue North
Iow spot will be minimized and thus lessen sweet flooding problems here. Some flooding
will continue to occur at this intersection, but its frequency and duration should be
somewhat less. To bring this area up to design standards would require replacing almost
System Anal. sis 5-49
1-00 feet o~ 4.'i ptpe up to Fred Sims Park. This upgrade ~tould be ,,err costly and ~,touid
require cc~)rd~natien ',t~th the Ci~ of C~stal. L'ntil the Memory Lane Pond flooding
?roblem F,,~s been addressed, no upgrades to the 4.2" line are proposed. The proposed pipe
changes along v.~th e'<~stmg trunk capacities are given in Appendix B.
Water Quality Improvements in SC-A5 are designed to protect the water qualit?' of the
district and .Memory Lane Pond as well as the small lakes south of Twin Lakes. Rvan Creek.
and eventually Shingle Creek. Ponds SC-PS. 12. SC-P5.5. and SC-P5.20 will have their pond
area and wet volume expanded for increased stormwater treatment. Ponds SC-P5.19. SC-
PS. 14. and SC-PS. 15 include proposed wet volume excavation to coml~lete treatment of the
unponded areas.
The high degree of treatment in this district is fortunate since much of the land use is
industrial. The proposed 2-cell pond at Fred Sims Park is very important in attaining the
desired contaminant removals since several areas, namely Subdistricts SC-A5.17, SC-AS.
SC-A5.22, SC-A5.15, SC-A5.9, SC-A5.10, SC-A5.4, SC-A5.7, and SC-A5.8 totaling 182.5
acres, cannot be treated prior to Fred Sims Park. With the water quality pond at the park
the removal efficiency for the district is expected to be 60% and only slightly higher than
ecoregion phosphorus concentrations (20% higher). If the pond were not provided, the
outflow phosphorus concentration could expect to be 50% higher than with the proposed
pond. The data on the water quality ponds is presented in Appendix D.
!
District SC-A6 is located in the northwestern central part of the city west of Wisconsin
Avenue in the southern portion and west of Boone Avenue in the northern portion of the
district. It lies roughly between West Research Road and 42nd Avenue North. There are
19 subdistricts in SC-A6. The land use is basically two types, SFR and industrial. There
is slightly more acreage in SFR than industrial. Two major wetlands exist in this district
totaling about ~ a~-res.
The drainage from this area includes 324 acres that comes from Plymouth. Approximately
257 acres of the Plymouth drainage enters in the south of the district and eventually flows
out of New Hope and back into Plymouth from the northern portion of the district along
with the other 67 acres from Plymouth and the runoff generated in New Hope. From the
exit point in New Hope at the intersection of State Highway 169 and Bass Lake Road the
5-50 System Anal. sis
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5.10A - Ranking of Shingle Creek Improvements for Water Quantity
Pnonry E~.scnption SI~c Ra~g
1 /r~$C-,-X5 P,~nd & Pipe '~ I. 42nd Ave. & Winnetka Ave.
, ~mrr '~cm~nts Block N.30" & upgrd. S.E. to 36"
2. Expand SC-P5.12 & Upgrade 45th A~¢.
trunk from Xvlon to pond
3. Upgrade Oregon Ave. 18" to 27"& add
CB's on 42nd Ave. & RR tracks
4. Expand SC-P5.12 ,~_Create SC-P5.14
5. Create SC-P5.19
2 SC-A7 Boone Ave. flooding 1. Overland from Boone to wetland
2. New 42":54" pipe south of Rd & CBs
3 SC-A6 Flag47th Ave. flooding 1. Overland from Flag Ave. to node SC6.3
2. Create SC-P6.3
4 SC-A3 Pond improvements 1. Restrict SC-P3.16 outlet
2. Expand SC-P3.4
3. Create SC-P3.15
4. Create SC-P3.3
5 SC-A2 Pond improvements 1. Expand pond
2. Upgrade outlet pice to 24"27"
6 SCOA5 S. Pond improvements 1. Expand SC-P5.$
7 SC-A3 1. Upgrade Bass Lake Rd. 42" to 48"
2. Create SC-P3.9
5-56
System Analysis
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
!
I
!
II
!
!
Table 5.10B - Ranking of Shingle Creek Improvements for Water Quality.
Priorityt# ~ripuon
'3
SC-A4 Sones or' 2-Cell ponds
SC-A6 Nutrient & Sediment
Traps
SC-A,5 various Ix~nds in N.
SC-A3 various ponds
Spcci~c Raa~n~
SC-A3 pond in Elm Grove Park
l Expand SC-Pl.& make ' t
. _-ce,l. large
~utlet
2. Golf Course BMPs
3. Berm E overland outlet
Create SC-P4.10A. P4.4A, B, P4.$A.B.
and P4.9A.B
1. Create SC-P6.7A,:B/C & divert pipes
2. Create sedim, traps - SC-P6.14, P6.16.
P6.19
3. Create SC-P6.12
4. Create SC-P6.10
Create SC-P5.15A/B
Expand SC-P5.12
1. Restrict SC-P3.16 outlet
2. Expand SC-P3.4
3. Create Sc-P3.15
4. Create SC-P3.3
6 SC-A7 Protect wetland 1. Create SC-P7.8
2. Create SC-P.6 & P7.7
7 SC-A6 Protect wetland 1. Create SC-P6.6A/B/C
8 SC-A3 Protect DNR water 1. Expand SC-P5.5
9 SC-A2 treatment pond 1. Expand SC-P2.6
10 1. Create SC-P3.9
5.5.2 Basse~~k
District BC-.~AI is located in the southwest corner of~~ty generally west of Boone
Avenue and roughly between 27th Avenue North a~venue North. There are 8
subdistricts in BC-A1. The land use is predominantly SFR with some high density
residential.
System Analysis 5-57
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~ment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
w-evelopmen[
City Xlanager & Planning
Kirk McDonald g-22-94 item No.
By: Management Assistant By: $. 2
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
IMPROVEMENT NO. 469 (1994 RETAINING WALL IM-PROVEMENTS)
At the June 27th Council meeting the City. Council conducted a public hearing on the 1994
Retaining Wall Improvement Project and ordered preparation of final plans and specifications.
At the July 25th Council meeting the City Council passed a resolution approving the plans and
specifications and ordering advertisement of bids. At that time 27 of the 28 property owners
with retaining walls on their property had signed the Temporary Construction Release, which
grants the City the right to enter upon their property for retaining wall construction purposes.
Bids for this project will be opened on August 19th and staff is requesting that the
Council consider the award of the bid at the August 22nd Council meeting.
Per the attached letter form Hennepin County Department of Public Works, the County would
contribute $9,400 to the project. The remaining costs would be paid by property, owner
assessments (25%), MSA funds and City funds.
The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed sample RESOLUTION AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT NO. 469 (1994
RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS). The final resolution with the low bid and
contracWr will be presented at the meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
RESOLUTZON NO $~-
RESOLUTION AWARDZNG CONTRACT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTZON OF
IMPROVEMENT NO. 469
(1994 Retaining Wall Improvements)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as
lows;
1. That bide for the construction~of 1994 Retaining Wall
Zmprovement No. 459 were duly opened at the New Hope City Hall,
4401Xylon Avenue North, at 11:30 o'clock a.m, on the 19th day of
August, 1994, ae heretofore authorized by this Council.
2. That advertisement for bids fo~ ~ ~e conetruct~on of said
improvement w&e publiehed in the New Hope-I~olden Valley Sun-Pos~,
the official newspaper of the City, on the 27th day of July, 1994,
and in The Construction Bulletin on the 29t
on the Bth day of August, t994.
3. It is hereby found and determin~
the bid of for thl
projeot in the amount of $
day of July, 1994, and
by this Council that
construction of said
is the lowest
responsible Oid subaitted for the construction of aa~d improvement;
that Bonestroo, Rosario, Anderllk & Aaeoc~a~as~ Ino,, Engineers for
the C{ty, have recommended to thts Council ~he sa~d low bid for the
award of the contract for the construction ~o the d®s~gnated 3oweat
responsible bid.
4. T~e aayor and Manager are authorized and directed to
enter ~to an ~m~oveaent contract for the eonet~ruct~on of said
~agrovement in the name' of the C~t¥ w~th the lowest responsible
bidder~ sabJec~ to t~e Sale co~tracto~ famishing a ~ublic
contractor's surety bond, conditioned as required by
Adopt~l b~ the Counctl this 22n¢1 ~lay If August, 1994.
!
Edw, J Erioke~n, Mayo~
Attest:
ValenCe Leona~ City Clerk
Hennep !n County
August g, 1994
Hr. Mark A. Hanson
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc.
2335 West Highway 36
St. Paul, MN 6Sl13
Re:
1994 Retaining Walls
Now Hope, MN
City Project No. 469
Our File No. 34153
Dear Mark:
In accordance with my.B/9/94 inspection with yourself and Brian Langseth,
Hennepin County District Maintenance Supervisor, I have determined that the walls
at 7609 Bass Lake Road and 7643 Bass Lake Road are in bad shape and in need of
replacement. The remaining 12 walls are in various stages of disrepair and will
be repaired on an as-needed basis.
6ased on $18 per square foot, the two replacement walls will cost $3,240, with
the County's share to be Sl,620.
As we discussed, there is rationale for the County to participate in this project
to a greater extent than the S1,620 but not to the extent suggested in your
7/12/94 letter.
Assuming the City goos ahead with the entire project as proposed, the County will
be willing to contribute Sg,4OO.to this project.
Forwarded her~lth is the plan cover sheet with the County Engineer's signature.
No pemtt will be required although all traffic control and trafftc control
devices shall conform to the Ntnnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(I~IUTCO).
If this P~sll_ts a~ceptable, notify ntyself~hen ~ork is to begin and send an
invotce ~lll~ork on County roads ts completed.
e~o~oee~S t ncr re ly, ,~
I Operations Eng~~eat o~Pubik Works
TJH/ama
320 ~X/aahink, tun Avenue Sou~
Hopld~s, Mi~mcsota 55343-8468
(612)930-2~00 PAX:(612)930-2S
APPENDLX B
PI~Llbl:INARY ASSgSSM~NT ROLL
1994 ~T~G WAIJ~ ~RO~~
PRO~ NO. ~9
Emmnttd
Total
Wall Retalnln~ Wall Wall Coat ment (25%
No.i Address Owner (sq. ft.) ~$15.00/sq. ft.) Wall Coat)
I 1 6140 UtahAv¢. Skorpak 485 $7,275 $1,818
2 6132 Utah Ave. Nail 14.0 2,100 525
3 7900 - 61~t Ave. Hubbard 4.20 6,300 1,575
4 7900. 60¼th Ave. White 350 5,250 1,313
5 7901 - 60~th Ave. Hudson ,tOO 6,000 1,500
6 6001 Winnet~ Ave. Mills 330 4,950 1.238
7 7900.59V~th Ave. Myers 220 3,300 825
8 7900.59th Ave. Brmdt 240 3,600 900
9 7615 Bass I. aka Rd. (1) Almo Group 90 1,350 338
10 7605 Bass I.aka Rd. (1) I-Iilg~rs 60 900 225
11 7609 Barn Lake Rd. (1) I-Iuebner 90 1,350 332
12 7643 Barn Laim Rd. ¢1) Dolm 90 1,350 338
13 5546 Smn~- Ave. (O Petm'son 190 2,850 712
14 5212 W'umetim Ave. (1) Vorasmle 70 1,050 263
15 484,0 Dee. amre Ava. Format 80 1,200 300
16 4627 Winnetim Ave. O) Piomk 150 2,250 562
17 4625 W'mng,,fira Av~. ¢1) ~ 310 4,650 2,175
18 7900 - 46th Av~. (1) Joimtmm 260 3,900 975
19 4322 W'mnatlm Art (!} k4t~lurI 270 4,050 1,013
20 4320 W'mmmlm Ave. {I} Almm 70 1,050 263
21 442A lqmmla Art ]0fieaea 180 2,700 675
22 442~l~mMm Ave,. Otmtafmm 170 2,550 6311
23 8810- 42~ Av~ (1) ~ 2~0 3,900 97S
25 9109- 2nd Av . 120 1. 00 4S0
2~ ~ St. Lind Dept. 370 S,$50
27 3601 OeayMmrl Ave. Kramm, 210 3,150 788
28 3600 Jordan Avq~T Baker ~Q 750 188
$,B35 SgT,~2~ $21.qll
Retaining wails o~x Coun~ roads.
Assessngnt assumes 25% tm' ~ (220 sq. ti.) and 10(P/, along north mdg drivmvay ~.90 sq.
Report
for
1994 Retaining Wall Improvements
City Project No. 469
New Hope, Minnesota
,June 1994
File No. 34153
r
CITT OF NEW HOPE
1994 RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 469
Scope
This project provides for the reconstruction of 28 existing retaining walls throughout the
City of New Hope. Figure No. I shows in general the location of the 28 retaining walls
proposed to be reconstructed. Many of the existing retaining walls were constructed
between 1965 and 1975 using lannon stone or limestone. Many of the retaining walls were
constructed to satisfy concerns OF the abutting homeowners. For the most part the
retaining walls are located along collector type roads which include sidewalk. Therefore.
many of the walls were constructed as part of street or sidewalk improvement projects by
the City. of New Hope and Hennepin County. It's proposed the existing retaining walls be
removed and be reconstructed as a modular block retaining wall system.
Feasibili~ and Recommendation
The project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with standards
for retaining wall type projects. City Staff evaluated whether a specific policy needed to be
in place to proceed with this type of project. However, it was felt because only 70 walls
exist in the City.. as shown on Figure No. 2, the reconstruction of existing walls should be
done on a project basis. Many retaining walls exist in part on public right-of-way and
private property: therefore, the abutting homeowner must be cooperative in allowing the
retaining wall reconstruction. It should be noted existing retaining walls do satisfy
homeowners' co~cerns by maintaining an acceptable grade in their yard and protecting
established tre~,. To proceed with this type of project and the issues associated with it. an
understanding m~t exist between the property owner and the City. Listed below are
recommendations which must be considered to proceed with a retaining wall reconstruction
project:
The property owner always has the option to finance and reconstruct the
retaining wall in accordance with City requirements based on their
schedule. However, in the event it's determined the retaining wall is in
total disrepair, the City may force its reconstruct/on through the legal
process.
3~t 153\re po rt 3
NEW HOPE,
----~.RET. WALLS
1 Thru 8
MINNESOTA
IL_u:
I~::~
I'i::':.~ ....
I
RET. WAL
9 Thru
RET.
RET. WALL
23
19 &
RI-ET. WALLS
24 Thru 26
'RET.
21 &
R~'-I'. WALLS
2 7 &
LOCATION OF RETNNING WALLS
PROPOSED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED
NEW HOPE. MINNESOTA FIGURE 1
1994. RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJ. No, 4.69.
.",z. 15.SF99.DWG JUNE 1994 COMM. 54155
CITY BOUNDARY COUNTY ROAD
Ex RETAINING WALLS ~
TO BE RECONSTRUCTED~
RET. WALLS_./'
28 &: 29
Anderlik &&
Aaeociates
NEW
CIT~ OF
EXISTING RETAINING WALLS
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
1994 R~AINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
,~',l-~V DD~'~ I I~IA
FIGURE 2
crrY BOUNDARY ....
COUNTY ROAD
RETAINING WALL ~
Bonestroo
Roeene
Anderlik &&
Associates
The retaining wall reconstruction based on square footage be assessed
25% to the abutting property, owner. All other costs, including the
remaining 75%. sidewalk removal/replacement, sodding, grading, and
indixect costs (legal. engineering, administration, and construction
interest) would be a City cost and would not be assessed.
The Cit~ of New Hope and Hennepin County would prefer not to have
any retaining walls located along public right-of-way. Therefore, if the
property, owner is agreeable to having the retain/ng wall removed, the
costs associated with its removal, grading, and restoration would be a City
cost. No cost would be assessed to the property owner.
The property owner must grant temporary easements and th.e necessary
rights-of-entry at no cost to the City. In the event the property owner is
not agreeable to grant the easement, the City will not construct a new
retaining wall at this time. The City would only consider the retaining
wall reconstruction in a future project of similar size as this project and
when the City feels it is able to finance the City portion.
In the event a property owner is not included in this project, they may be
included if a written request is submitted to the City in a timely manner
indicating they will comply with the requirements of the project and sign
a waiver agreeing to the assessment.
The County has agreed to finance 50% of the cost for retaining wall
reconstruction on County roads, if they feel reconstruction is warranted.
Therefore, the City shall negotiate with Hennepin County to encourage
the~ participation for those walls proposed to be reconstructed on County
ro~ls. Due to budget requirements Hennepin County may not be able
to l~rticipate in a 1994 project. Therefore. the City would have to either
temporarily finance the County's portion or delay the project until 1995.
The City may collect Municipal State Aid Funds for retaining wall
reconstruction on Municipal and County State Aid roads. Therefore, the
reconstruction plans will be prepared in accordance with State Aid
Standards to encumber New Hope's State Aid Funds.
34153 ,report 4
Retaining walls on City. property., such as the wall adjacent to the baseball
field on 49th Avenue, may be included if requested by Ci~ Staff based on
similar construction proposed herein. The estimated cost for this wall is
not identified in this report.
Discussion
The proposed retaining wall reconstruction on each of the 28 properties is shown on Figure
Nos. 4-14. The approximate location of each wall and the estimated square footage of wall
on each property is also shown. It's proposed the retaining walls be constructed as a
modular block wall system as shown on Figure No. 3. The different types of modular block
walls are also shown. It's expected a Keystone Wall will be specified in the base bid and
other wall materials can be included as alternate bids providing either an add or deduct bid
from the base bid. Retaining walls constructed higher than 4' will require a geo grid fabric
constructed behind the wall for reinforcement, ff the wall is constructed in a terrace
manner and is less than 4' high, the geo grid fabric could be eliminated. However,
additional easement may be required to construct a terraced wall. It's hoped the retaining
wall reconstruction can be minimized by working with each property owner to satisfy their
concerns and meet their expectations. Removal of the existing retaining wall, sidewalk
removal/replacement, tree removal if required, sodding, and restoration is also included.
The retaining wall reconstruction will include only the wall located adjacent to public right-
of-way. If the homeowner desires additional retaining wall reconstruction on their property,
they must negotiate with the contractor privately to complete work as desired.
Cost Estimat~
A detailed co~ estimate is presented in Appendix A located at the back of this report. The
total estimal~l project cost is $201,510, which includes contingency and indirect costs.
Indirect costs are estimated at 25% and include legal, engineering, administration, and
construction interest. Due to the complexity of this project, the 25% estimated for indirect
cost may be iow.
34153 ,re po r~. 5
Easements
Temporary. easements and rights-of-entry are requited from each property owner to
construct this project. It's expected a standard written agreement will be developed between
each property, owner and the City.. Special issues can be included in each agreement to
satisfy, each property owner's concerns. It's not proposed to acquire any additional
permanent easements to construct this project to minimize easement costs.
Area to be Included
Peterson's Hazel Hill 2nd Addition
Lots 1, 2 Block 1 (Wall Nos. 1, 2)
Hubbard Addition
Lot 4 Block I (Wall No. 3)
Moen's 3rd Addition
Lot 5 Block 1 (Wall No. 4)
Lot 5 Block 2 (Wall No. 5)
Moen's 2nd Addition
Lot 1 Block I (Wall No. 6)
Sullivan's Hillcrest
Lot I Block 1 (Wall No. 7)
Lot 10 Block 3 (Wall No. 8)
Section 5
Parcel Nos. 5-118-21-33-0023, 0025, 0028, 0088, 0089 (Wall Nos. 9-13)
St. Raphael Addition
Lot 8 Block 7 (Wall No. 14)
Zubeck's ~olli~ Hills Addition
Lat 3 Bio~ 1 (Wall No. 15)
Section ?
Parcel Nos. 7-118-21-44-0002 (Wall No. 16)
Del Heizhts
Lots 15, 16 Block I (Wall Nos. 17, 18)
Van's Terrace
Lots 1, 2 Block I (Wall Nos. 19, 20)
Section 17
Parcel Nos. 17-118-21-21-0022, 0024 (Wall Nos. 21, 22)
34153'areport 6
4arcel No. 18-118-21-21-0005 (Wall No. 23)
Hipp's Hopewood Hills
Lot 1 Block 1 (Wall No. 25)
Lot 30 Block 2 (Wall No. 24}
New Hope Highlands
Outlot A (Wall No. 26)
Northwood Terrace 3rd Addition
Lots 6, 7 Block 2 (Wall Nos. 28, 27)
Assessments
Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefitted property. It's proposed to
assess 25% of the cost to construct the retaining wall based on square footage. A
preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix B located at the back of this repori.
It's recommended the $15.00/square foot cost estimated herein be fixed, while the square
footage of wall would vary dependent on the square footage of wall constructed on each
property.. All remaining costs would not be assessed.
Revenue
Revenue to finance the cost of this project is listed below:
Retaining Wall Project
Assessment
Hennepin County
MSA Funds
City of New Hope
Project
Cost Revenue Balance
$201,510
$ 21,511
21,840
150,019
8,140
$201.~10 $201310 -0-
Hennepin County's participation assumes 50% of the project cost identified in Appendix A
for removal and reconstruction of retaining wall, sodding, and tree removal for retaining
walls located on County roads. Sidewalk removal/replacement and indirect costs are not
34153'~report 7
II
included. Hennepin County typically.' does not participate in sidewalk construction. The
only retaining walls not eligible for Municipal State Aid Funds are Retaining Wall Nos. 21
and 22. Their cost is identified as City of New Hope, which assumes 25% is assessed to the
abutting propert3*~ owners for the wall construction. It should be noted that to show a -0-
balance the MSA Fund portion is $150, 019. However, as previously, stated, it is expected
the entire project cost, excluding the cost for Wall Nos. 21 and 22, will be eligible for MSA
Funds. The estimated cost eligible for MSA Funds is $172,670. MSA Funding will finance
up to 18% for engineering and will not finance legal, administration, and construction
interest. In addition, it is assumed all retaining walls will be reconstructed. If properS,
owners allow them to be removed, the assessment amount will be reduced, but the project
cost will also be reduced because the cost to construct a new wall is not required.
Project Schedule
Present Feasibility Report
Public Hearing
Approve Plans/Specifications
Award Contract
Complete Construction
June 13, 1994
June 27, 1994
July 25, 1994
August 22, 1994
October 31, 1994
The above schedule assumes temporary easements and rights-of-entry can be secured in a
timely manner. In addition, it's assumed Hennepin County's participation can be
determined and secured in accordance with Hennepin County and the City of New Hope.
34153',repo rt 8
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
August 19, 1994
New Hope City Council
Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Agenda Items for August 22, 1994
Open Forum
This past summer, Boy Scout//542 worked in cooperation with the New Hope Public
Works Department to prepare and paint the street name sign posts that were in need
of refinishing throughout the City. The scouts assumed full responsibility for the
project, with Public Works only supplying the needed materials, maps, and safety
equipment to complete the project. The Project began on June 30th and was
completed on Saturday prior to the 4th of July. Approximately 200 posts were
refinished. The troop members did a commendable job and staff is recommending that
the Council recognize the Scout efforts. There will be approximately 12 members
from the Scout Troop in attendance at the meeting and staff would appreciate it if the
Council would recognize their efforts under the Open Forum section of the agenda.
You might have a homeowner coming to Open Forum asking the Council to change
its ordinanCe that regulates the raising and keeping of birds and fowl. The
homeowner, Ben Thompson, 8317 33rd Place has been cited by the Inspection
Department because of his raising wild pheasants on his property. Inspections got
involved through neighborhood complaints regarding the birds and after repeated
discussions with Inspections over the past two years, Mr. Thompson was eventually
cited. He went to Court and the Judge advised Mr. Thompson to try and work with
the City about getting the ordinance changed. The current ordinance requires that if
any property owner wishes to raise wild pheasants or such, he needs a minimum lot
size of 54,450 square feet. This equates to 1 1/4 acre which is considerably more
than the avet~.age New Hope single family lot size of around 10,000 - 12,000 square
feet. Mr. Thel~tpson will probably be coming to this meeting asking Council to change
the ordinance. Since there is a considerable difference between what the code says
and what the average property size is, I don't see how staff could advise you to
change the ordinance. Also, it appears that many of Mr. Thompson's neighbors are
not happy with his pheasant raising hobby and would not be inclined to support his
petition.
-1-
TO:
iiTY
~2. M. .~ST.
gEt'J.".-. T.-.~., . ]lT- 33rd ?_ACE
During the summer of 1993 the animal warden responded to complaints about the
owner of above address, Benjamin Thompson, raising pheasants.and other fowl cn
this residential lot. She advised him of the lot size requirement for such
activity (54,450 sq. ft.for the Ist six) and the fact that his lot is too small.
Hennepin county has his lot size as 10,200 sq. ft.,(Doug had figured 9,930
and I had figured 11,625) She ordered hLm to get rid of the birds.
He had indicated to Robbie that he would not comply, but by the end of last
s~r~mer the birds were gone.
~h May 18 of this year I was asked by the city clerk to respond to a phone
co=plaint she had received about this same property. Robbie had copied us last
s,,mmer, so after reading her reports I asked her to meet me at the site. We
were admitted to the rear yard by Mr. Thompson. He has two "pens" or "cages"
at the rear of his lot. One was empty of birds (Rohbie said the pheasants had
been in there last year~ but the other larger pen had several quail along with
habitat material, food & water. It is screened on all sides and across the
top.
I advised Mr, Thompson to remove the enclosures, Remove and refrain from having
any more Birds and also that there is only one shed permitted per lot, and he has
two in his rear yard. (Also note here the pens appear to be in the drainage
and utility easement, although I'm not sure where the lot lines are)
I didn't have m~ tq book with me,' but advised Mr. Thompson that I would be issuing
a citation ~ud would brin~ formal complaint charges ~ainst him if he did not
He said he had spoken with
comply. Ke re~9onde~that he would not comply.
the city an~feels it is an unjust, antiquated ordinance.
I issued~~&~°m-the nex~ day.
I was a~~Bill Strait on June 14 that I should appear in court against
-Mr. Th~~n June'22. Bill called me to discuss and stated that somehow
the citation I issued got filed as a petit misdemeanor rather than a misdemeanor.
~e asked if I ha~ a problem with this. M~ response was that so long as he compli~s
we would not Be concerne~ if the fine was less.
We appeared in court yesterday Before JUDGE CRUMP. Ne advised Mr. Thompson tc
bring the matter Before the City Council in an attempt to get the lot size r~ .... ~ ....
changed or to get an "exception" in his case. He would, no~. order Mr. Thompson ~o
co~ply with the or~inance. ~E FINED HIM $5.00 Th~ judge did not give him a ~ime
limit as to when he shm~tld Be doing this, But B'ill 5trait and I agree if be doesn't
address council with~he next two meetings, I will file a formal compla£nt, c~::ug
all of the above problems and we will try again.
had ~= ~- court ar.d ~ was '~i-~d cn!y ~5 ~0'
August 24, 1994
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE INFORMATION REGARDING
MINIMUM AREA FOR MAINTAINING ANIMALS OR BIRDS
Dear 2-
The City of New Hope is in the process of reviewing the portion of the City Code regarding the minimum
area necessary for maintaining animals or birds, as there is a resident in New Hope currently raising
pheasants in violation of the City's existing ordinance. The existing New Hope ordinance'states:
Minimum Area for Maintaining Animals or Birds. No person shall keep or maintain any
horse, cow, goat, mink, fox, chicken, turkey (or any other fowl), except in conformity with
the minimum lot or parcel area limitation specified below.
1. One Animal or Six Fowl or Birds. For the first of any such animal, or the
first six of such fowl or bird, a minimum lot area of not less than 54,450
square feet.
2. Additional Animals, Birds or Fowl. For each additional such animal or bird,
or fowl, not less than 10,890 square feet.
I am interested in obtaining copies of other metro-area city ordinances on this subject for study and
comparison purposes ~ would appreciate it if you would mail or fax me a copy of your current regulations
on this matter. Please mail or fax to the address listed above, and thank.~ for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
9.118
g.117
g,118
1.111
matntltn on &ny property under htl Control, W~lthlr ow~ld ~ i~c~ ~erlOn or
ClrClll Or en~ o~he~ u~w~olesom4 or o~e~etve SU~ltence, l~utd or
for ~he nejg~or~ood.
~haalthv or O¢~enetYe Subetancfl. No person ehal] permit, deplete, or
matnta~n on any real property under hte control, whether owned by luc~ pe~eon
or no~, any deed entmall, o~ &n~mll, Yege~a~le, eXC~lmint or O~hlr lUbltlnCl
W~C~ ~1 ~OM1, ~IMIIOMI, Or unheel~hy, or whtc~ ~y dlcc~olt~ton i~111 becofl)e
offensive, unleII the eem~ be 0urted It leee~ three ~ee~ under ~he iur~ece o~
~he Ground, excep~ &~ pro¥tded for tn Subsection 9.116.
horlee, c&&~le, Iw¶no, sheep, go&el, ~tnK, ~OXll, mUlkra&l, rico·ill, Doul%ry,
con~rol, whether o~ned Oy loch ~erlOfl or no~, shall permJ% or m~ln~etn the
Hor~e~ on Publt~ Itreeta. NO ~erlOn Ihlll ride, hlr~ or dr~vo hOrlll on the
~uOlt~ i~rel~o of ~hl C~Y, tf ea~d e~ret~ hal · ~ermanen~ wearing co~ree tn
~l·co, ouch II bt%um~nou~ &epha1%~c eurfectflt, exce~ by ~orut~ ~ee~d ~y ~he
C~y Hlfligor.
fllnl~ Ares for Naln~atnlna AnJmalm or B~rde. NO person shill kelD or
ml~fl&atn' &ny horse, ~o~, go·&, mink, fox~ chicken, &urkey (or ·ny other
fo~l), ·x¢lo~ tn confor~&y wl&h eh® mlnlmue lo~ or parcel ·ri&
ep~clfted below.
(2) Addttton~l AflJmlll. Btrdl or Fowl. For ··Gh iddJtJOnll luch intM1 or
btrd, or fo~l, no~ lei· ~hln 10,&$0 iquir· feo~o
(Code 07~184) '
deft~-~tJltOCOOeOh~11 ~epi, atttedebovo er·uno tn &Goner·lied itel per
the d-st--..4-- --.I.~tMI ·110~th0 for %he ~t~lon of the
~tmo ·hell oal~ce&tnt arlene · hl·lth hizird or · nuisance ~o id]lining
prooer~teo.
(t~) ..ll~ .N0 4. fee~ ~n
~ae~o·~ My exceed 2S equate fee% tn itl& or
·
9-11
072~
we ssociat Consultan s, Inc.
P L N G D E S N M A R K E T R S E A R C H ~-~
PLANNENG REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Dan Licht/Alan Brixius
23 August 1994
New Hope I-1 Furniture and Appliance
Sales
131.00 - 94.05
S~Y
A.C. Carlson, a furniture and appliance retailer and long term New
Hope business, has outgrown its current facilities at Bass Lake
Road. A.C. Carlson is seeking to relocate, preferably in New Hope
to maintain its established customer base. To this end, a
potential site has been located. It is a 1.3 acre lot located at
the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue,
approximately 6 blocks from A.C. Carlson's present location. The
property is identified for use as an office/warehouse in the City's
1989 Vacant Land Study. The property is located along the
periphery of an I-1 District. This zoning district does not
especially address the use proposed by A.C. Carlson. However, A.C.
Carlson's operation is similar in character to light industrial
uses and is similar to existing uses in the area.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Proposed Site
Exhibit C - Concept Plan
Exhibit D - Current Site
Exhibit E - Neighboring Uses
The City must determine if a relocation of A.C. Carlson would be a
compatible use and a good utilization of the site. If the City
determines that A.C. Carlson would be a good fit for the site,
there are several options for accommodating the relocation that
could be pursued. These options are as follows:
5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636. Fax. 595-9837
o
o
Add furniture and appliance retail sales as a permitted use by
defining "building materials" to include furniture and
appliances.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow furniture and appliance
sales as a conditional use in an I-1 Zoning District.
Rezone the property or general area B-4, Community Business
District.
Our office suggests that these options be discussed at the next
meeting of the Codes and Standards Committee where these options
may be thoroughly explored and reviewed for determining the most
appropriate course of action to pursue.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
S.R. Harris Buildinq. The S.R. Harris case provides an example of
an undesirable use that could develop if the City does not proceed
with caution. The S.R. Harris building was a multiple occupancy
building located in an industrial district. The site became over-
utilized as a result of occupancy of a retail operation. There was
not enough off-street parking to accommodate the traffic generated.
An on-street parking situation resulted, increasing traffic and
congestion within the district.
If the City determines A.C. Carlson is a good fit for the proposed
site, it Will want to proceed with care to limit exposure to
creating an undesirable situation such as S.R. Harris. In order to
limit this exposure, the City will need to maintain control and
authority over location and lot/building performance standards.
Use Chara~teristics. In deciding on whether to accommodate A.C.
Carlson, the City should consider the characteristics associated
with A.C. Carlson's operation. A.C. Carlson's operation involves
a large showroom/warehouse for displaying products for site and a
significant amount of car and truck traffic. A.C. Carlson's
building use characteristics, large building, shipping and
receiving by large trucks, appear quite similar with those of a
light industrial use.
Site Cb. aracteristi~s. The proposed relocation site is currently
zoned I-l, where furniture and appliance retail sales are not an
allowed use. The site is currently vacant and was identified in
the City's 1989 Vacant Land Study. There has been little interest
in developing this property.
2
Assuming a 40 percent coverage factor, the 1.3 acre site could
accommodate a 22,000 square foot building. The 1989 Vacant Land
Study envisioned a 6,000 square foot office/warehouse building.
The site has excellent visibility and accessibility due to its
location at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg
Avenue. The site would be an ideal location for a retail operation
needing a large building-because of the combination of lot size,
visibility, and accessibility.
Zoninq. As mentioned previously, the site is zoned I-l, Light
Industrial, where furniture and appliance retail is not an allowed
use. However, A.C. Carlson's operations are similar to those
allowed as permitted or conditional uses within the district.
Building materials sales are a permitted use within the district.
This category includes businesses such as Knox or Menard's, where
products range from raw lumber to finished products. The printing
operations located to the east and west of the proposed site appear
to have commercial retail sales associated with their operation.
The printing operations are a permitted use within the I-1 District
and also a B-4 District.
ODtions to Accommodate. If the City determines that A.C. Carlson
offers an appropriate use and good utilization of the site, there
are three options to pursue to accommodate the relocation. Each of
these options involves changes to the Zoning Ordinance as it now
exists. These options are as follows:
Add furniture and appliance sales as a permitted use by
defining "building materials" to include furniture and
appliances.
The benefits of this option include the accor~odation of A.C.
Carlson's relocation and also the possibility of similar uses
entering the area. Negatives associated with this option
focus on the potential creation of an undesirable situation,
as similar operations could locate anywhere within an I-1
District without restriction. As demonstrated by the S.R.
Harris case, retail operations are not always compatible with
industrial uses.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow furniture and appliance
retail sales as a conditional use in the I-1 Zoning District.
The benefits associated with this option are the accommodation
of A.C. Carlson's relocation and the City's limited exposure
to an undesirable situation through control over location and
building/lot performance standards. Such controls might
include limiting access to points along a collector street.
,~Drawbacks may include facilitating increased retail operations
within an I-1 District.
Rezone the property or general area B-4, Community Business
District.
The benefits of this option are the accommodation of A.C.
Carlson's relocation, the creation of a more appropriate
district for A.C. Carlson and existing similar uses and the
limited potential for an undesirable situation through the
application of B-4 performance standards. In reviewing this
option, the City may want to consider including the printing
operation east of the proposed site, as they are permitted use
within the B~4 District.
Each of these options offers unique benefits and drawbacks. Our
office believes that each of these options should be fully explored
at the next Codes and Standards meeting. Through review and
discussion, the City will be able to determine the most appropriate
course of action.
CONCLUSION
The determination of whether A.C. Carlson is an appropriate use for
the vacant site is a policy matter to bedecided by City Officials.
Based on the limited size, good accessibility, and visibility and
general compatibility of A.C. Carlson's operations with existing
uses near the site, our office believes that the City should
consider A.C. Carlson a good fit. In order to accommodate A.C.
Carlson's relocation, our office suggests pursuing one of the three
options outlined in this report.
pc:
Doug Sandstad
Dan Donahue
4
City
of
New. Hope
' 'Assodated
Consultants, inc.
~" .... " EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
LOOKING SOUTHEAST
LOOKING WEST
EXHIBIT B - PROPOSED SITE
EXHIBIT C - CONCEPT PLA!',
EXHIBIT D - CURRENT SITE
COMMERCIAL PRINTING - ADJOINING PROPERTY TO EAST
COMMERCIAL PRINTING - ACCROSS GETTYSBURG TO WEST
EXHIBIT E - NEIGHBORING USES
August 11, 1994
CITY
PL¥1'rlOUTH-
SUBJECT:
WETLAND MITIGATION
THE PONDS AT BASS CI~F. lZtK (93106)
To Whom It May Concern:
With the platting of The Ponds at Bass Creek and Harrison Place on Bass Creek the
developers propose to fill 1.1 acres of wetland for the construction of streets and single
family and multifamily lots. The site contains 41.2 acres of wetland, a portion of
which are under DNR jurisdiction.
The disturbed wetlands are protected by the 1991 Wetland Act or the Department of
Natural Resources and will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio within the site.
Sincerely,
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
enclosure
cc: Fred O. Moore, Director of Public Works
We Listen · We Solve . We Care
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD · PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 · TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
NOTICE
for Project Application
City of Plymouth
Local Govemment Unit
Daniel L. Faulkner
LGU Official
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Address ( Street, Box Number, Etc.)
Plymouth MN 55447
City State Zip Code
August 10, 1994
Date
(612) 550-5070
Area Code, Telephone'
PROJECT DESCRIIqlON
Applicant Name: Daniel Hunt
4150 Colfax Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN 55409
Project Location: Sec. 01 Twp. 118 Rng. 22 Otr/Otr 31 & 34
County: HENNEPIN
Watershed name: Shingle Creek
Description of Activity: A single-family residential development and three commercial lots
are proposed on the Ponds at Bass Creek Harrison Place on Bass Creek is a proposed
multifamily residential development. Both projects will require filling a total of 1.1 acres of
wetland for construction of the streets and lot development. The areas filled will be replaced
at a 2:1 ratio adjacent to existing wetlands.
A copy of the complete application can be viewed at the LGU office listed above. Persons
interested in receiving mailed notice of each project within the jurisdiction of the above
mentioned LGU can be put on a mailing list by contacting the LGU at the address listed above.
COMMF. NTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY September 15, 1994 .
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT- SEQUENCENG
LGU's FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Hunt, Daniel (Daniel Development Company)
(612)
884-1926
Proposer's Name (Last, First, M.I.)
Area Code Telephone
4150 Colfax Ave. South
Address (Street, RFD, Box Number, City, State, Zip Code)
El/2 of the SW1/4 section 01 Tl18 R22
Project Location
Harrison Place on Bass Creek File No. (94051)
The Ponds At Bass Creek . File No. (93106)
Subdivision
Greg Frank and Kelly Bopray, McCombs Frank Roos Assoc. Inc., 15050 23rd Ave N., Plymouth
MN 55447
Authorized Agent, if any
GoV. Lot(s) Quarter Section(s) 31 & 34 Section(s) 01 Township No. 118 Range No. 22
I. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT AVOIDANCE
1) Is project wetland dependent
(If yes, may skip item 2)
yes ~ no
2)
Has applicant provided at least 2 alternatives in addition to the proposed project such as:
Alternate sites ~ yes ~ no
Alternative project configurations no
no
Ixl
yes
No build alternative yes
a) Are the 2 alternatives considered good faith efforts
Why or why not? See Attachment 1
(If no, proposal must be denied)
b)
Have all feasible and prudent alternatives available that ~
yes
would avoid impacts to wetlands been considered?
(If no, proposal must be denied, if yea,. proceed to items H-IV)
no
no
ri. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT MINIMIZATION
1) Has the applicant demonstrated an effort to minimize impacts to wetlands by considering
modification of the project? o
2)
Size
Scope
Configuration
Density
If any are answered no, explain objections
yes no not feasible
yes no not feasible
yes no
(Applicant has 30 days to modify proposal if warranted, or it is denied)
11I. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT RECTIFICATION
1) An activity may qualify for a no-loss determination if all of the questio'ns below are answered
yes.
a) Will all of the physical characteristics of the affected ~ yes ~-~ no
wetland be restored to pre-project conditions??
b) Will the physical characteristics of the wetland be [~ yes ~ no
restored within 6 months?
c) Has the applicant proyided a performance bond [-~ yes * ~ no
sufficient to cover costs of restoring the wetland?
IV. DETERMINATION OF Rg. DUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF IMPACTS OVER TIME
1) Will additional wetland impacts be reduced or eliminated ~ yes
through sound project operation and maintenance?
2) Will best management practices be used to protect [-~ yes
wetland functions and values?
no
V. UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
1) Will unavoidable wetland impacts that remain be ~-] yes
replaced?
-~ no
If all of the above questions are answered yes, then sequencing has been adequately addressed.
Sequencing Adequately Addressed
Sequencing NOT Adequately Addressed
Authorized LGU Official
* A financial guarantee will be required for the construction of the mitigation ponds
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT SEQUENCING
LGU'S FINDINGS OF FACTS
ATrACHMENT 1
The Preliminary Plat of The Ponds at Bass Creek received approval for the filling of wetlands
under the Interim Rule of the 1991 Wetland Act on December 20, 1993, Resolution No. 93-823.
The resubmittal of the application under the permanent rules of the 1991 Wetland Act is due to
the realignment of residential streets within the multifamily portion of the site south of County
Road 10 and west of Trenton Lane. This is identified on the Wetland Delineations and
Mitigation Report prepared by McCombs Frank Roos and Associates, Inc. dated May 26, 1994
as No. 3 which requires an additional 0.08 acres of filling and the requirement of the City
Council that the mitigation must be at 2 to 1, Condition No. 29, Resolution No. 94-264.
Since the original approval for wetland filling under Resolution No. 93-823 the following
information on issues that relate to the wetland impacts are documented in the following sources:
1. An EAW dated February 7, 1994
o
Resolution No. 94-204 declaring finding of no need for an Environmental
Impact Statement based upon the review of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet.
Resolution No. 94-263 approving mixed planned unit development Concept
Plan for Daniel Development for property located on the south side of County
Road 10 at Trenton Lane.
4. Resolution No. 94-264 approving mixed planned unit development
Preliminary Plan/Plat The Ponds at Bass Creek.
5. Minutes from City Council meetings during the resolution process.
Determination of impact avoidance
Two alternatives were submitted for lot locations and street alignment. Alternate No. 2 was
approved by the City Council under Resolution No. 94-264 deleting Trenton Lane between 56th
and 57th Avenue and 56th Avenue from the east plat line and the west right of way line of
Nathan Lane along with the redesign of Block 2 to lessen the impact on the wetland and trees (see
attached).
8lIE LOCATION MAP
Mc~mb, Frank ~oo, ~c~,~,=. ~. r'-~" D A N I E L D E V E L O P M E N T
1~ 23~ Ave. N
Pl~u~. MN 5~47 PIinn~
August 11, 1994
C TV O¢
PLYrYIOUTH-
SUBJECT:
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
NOTICE FOR PROJECT DECISION
SCI-IM T LAKE ROAD (FERNBROOK WOODS 2ND ADDITON)
To Whom it May Concern:
The City Council P roved the filling of wetlands and mitigation plan for the
construction of Sc~ailiot Lake Road (Fernbrook Woods 2nd Addition) on August 1,
1994.
The record of the decision can be viewed at the LGU office, City of Plymouth, 3400
Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447.
Sincerely,
Daniel L. Faullcner, P.E.
City Engineer
enclosure
cc: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
Wi Listen . We Solve o We Care
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD · PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 · TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
WETI. AND CONSERVATION ACT
EQB MONITOR NOTICE
for Project Decision
City of Plymouth
Local Government Unit
August 11, 1994
Date
Daniel L. Faulkner
LGU Official
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Address ( Street, Box Number, Etc.)
(612) 550-5071
Area Code, Telephone'
Plymouth MN
City State
55447
Zip Code
PROJECT DESCRIFrION
Applicant Name: Marlin Grant (Marvin H Anderson Construction Company) File No.
(94018)
Project Location: Sec. 9 Twp. 118 Rng. 22
County: HENNEPIN
14 &41 0004 & 0047
Watershed Name: Shingle Creek,
DECISION on Application:
Approved ~ Denied ~ Postponed ~
Comments: That the Mayor is authorized to execute the LGU'S Findings of Facts, approving the
filling of wetlands and th6 Replact~ment Plan for wetland restoratinn for the Construction of Schmidt
Lake Road. (Fembrook Woods 2nd Additon)
1. This decision is not effective for 30 days from the date of this notice and is stayed if appealed.
A record of the decision can be viewed at the LGU office listed above. Persons interested in
receiving mailed notice of each project within the jurisdiction of the above mentioned LGU can be
put on a mailing list by contacting the LGU at the address listed above.
Authorized LGU Official
Date
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT- SEQUENCING/REPLACEMENT PLAN
LGU's FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Grant, Marlin (Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company)
('612)
884-1926
Proposer's Name (Last, First, M.I.)
Area Code Telephone
8901 Lyndale Ave. S., Suite 203, Bloomington, MN 55420
Address (Street, RFD, Box Number, City, State, Zip Code)
SE1/4 NE1/4 and NE1/4 SE1/4 Section 9, Tl18, R22W
Project Location
Fernbrook Woods 2nd Add.
Subdivision
File No. (94018)
Hedlund Engineering Services
Authorized Agent, if any
Gov. Lot(s) Quarter Section(s) 14 & 41 Section(s) 09 Township No. 118 Range No. 22 Lot Block
I. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT AVOIDANCE
1)
2)
Is project wetland dependent yes
no
(If yes, may skip item 2)
Has applicant provided at least 2 alternatives in addition to the proposed project such as:
Alternate sites ~ yes no
Alternative project configulations yes no
No build alternative yes no
a) Are the 2 alternatives considered good faith efforts -- ~ yes no
Why or why not? See Attachment 1
b)
(If no, proposal must be denied)
Have all feasible and prudent alternatives available that ~ yes
would avoid impacts to wetlands been considered?
(If no, proposal must be denied, if yes, proceed to items II-IV)
no
II. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT MINIMIZATION
1) Has the ~t demonstrated an effort to minimi?e impacts to wetlands by considering
modification of the project?
Size ~ yes ~ no ~ not feasible
Scope yes no not feasible
Configuration yes no not feasible
Density yes no
2) If any are answered no, explain objections
(Applicant has 30 days to modify proposal if warranted, or it is denied)
m. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT RECTIFICATION
1) An activity may qualify for a no-loss determination if all of the questions, below are answered
yes.
a) Will all of the physical characteristics of the affected ~
yes
wetland be restored to pre-project conditions??
b) Will the physical characteristics of the wetland be yes
restored within 6 months?
c) Has the applicant provided a performance bond ~ yes
sufficient to cover costs of restoring the wetland?
no
no See
Attachment 1
IV. DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION OR ~IJMINATION OF IMPACTS OVER TIME
1) Will additional wetland impacts be reduced or eliminated ~-~ yes , ,~
no
through sound project operation and maintenance?
2) Will best management practices be used to protect ~-~ yes , ,~
no
wetland functions and values?
V. UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
1) Will unavoidable wetlahd impacts that remain be [-~ yes ~
no
replaced?
If all of the above questions are answered yes, then sequencing has been adequately addressed.
Sequencing Adequately Add[essed
Sequencing NOT Adequately Addressed
VI. REPLACF_aMF_aNT PLAN
The Replacement Plan as proposed in the application from Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company
along with supporting reports and documents:
Approved
Denied
The approval is subject to the conditions established in Resolution 94-/~-2~--ff as adopted by the LGU.
Authorized LGU Official ¢/'7D 0t ~-~ t~~~te .-,-,~
~ scq£of.£or !BWSI~JJ
WETLAND CONSER VA T/ON ACT - SEQUENCING
LGU's FINDINGS OF FACT
Attachment I
The proposed single family housing project, Fernbrook Woods Phase 2 and Phase 3, satisfies the "Impact
Avoidance" portion of the sequencing because no wetland impact is associated with the housing development.
The only portion of this proposed project that has wetland impact is for a city street (Schmidt Lake Road) as it
passes through the project. The applicant has agreed to do the grading and proposed wetland mitigation for this
City project.
The original approved alignment of Schmidi Lake Road as shown on plats for the approved and completed
subdivisions immediately south and west of the project area had lesser impact to the wetland. The original
alignment, however, was changed to the current proposed alignment by action of the City Council: Resolution
92-109B (adopted February 3, 1992) after public input, an EAW and an Alignment Study. Resolution 92-109
(adopted February 3, 1992) found that an EIS was not required for the road development to proceed. The
alignment was changed to reduce the amount of substantial tree removal in the area immediately adjacent to the
wetland.
Since the Schmidt Lake Road alignment has been studied, discussed and approved, detailed information on
environmental issues that relate to the wetland impact are well doctunented in the following sources:
1) An EAW dated November 22, 1991 was prepared by Bonestroo and Associates (Dan Edgerton lead
the project).
2) Alignment Study prepare~ by Bonestroo and Associates (Dan Edgerton lead the project).
3) Minutes from City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meetings during resolution process.
The single family housing subdivision is designed in such a way as to avoid wetland impacts.
I. Determination of Impact Avoidance
There was considerable public input and formal study of the issues that relate to ali?ment of the road
as described above.
Alternatives:
1) An alternative location of Schmidt Lake Road from the proposed plan would be a route through the
already collstnicted single family residential area south of the basin. Unfortunately, this would require
the removal of newly built homes and a reconfiguration of the existing streets along with rezoning the
area.
2a) One alternative project configuration that was examined was to route the road directly across the
wetland. This, however, would cause a greater amount of wetland impact than the proposed alignment.
2b) The other alternative project configuration that was examined was to route the road south of the
wetland so that there was no wetland impact. This was found to be unacceptable by the adjacent
landowners during the public review process because of substantial tree removal.
3) The no build alternative would cause the minor arterial city street (Schmidt Lake Road) to end on
the east side of this subdivision and start up again west of the subdivision. If this were the case, streets
designed for residential use would need to carry a heavier traffic load than specifications allow. Public
health, safety and welfare considerations would also need to be addressed.
During the Schmidt Lake Road alignment approval process mentioned above, the approved alignment
is the best compromise for all the issues that were studied and discussed.
III.Determination of Impact Rectification
Since Schmidt Lake Road is a City street, the mitigation is proposed to be done on City property. Also,
because this is a City project and a bond is not necessary according to an LGU representative.
V. Unavoidable Impacts
The above mentioned proposed impacts from Schmidt Lake Road construction are planned to be replaced
according to the WCA Wetland Replacement Plan Application. The applicant has agreed to do the road
grading for this street during development of the single family housing project for Fernbrook Woods
Phases 2 and 3. An agreement was made between the City and the applicant to mitigate for the wetland
impacts of Schmidt Lake Road on City property west of the subdivision adjacent to the impacted
wetland.