HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 09-17-2001
'f;;..;~.,.,
.o""'-',
.. :;l,!-f
"';1;' .
-' it;f.'i~-
",~\[t." .
:'./
>}~ '>,
.,._<.-.,:,' .L;.
",'; , ';~f;;Y~t~~
. ~ _ ." '.' . -,'<0
F,ll.e.
,.')f'-.',"-,:
~~i.,i,""
t
,,"'.,;)., "f':
, ~'
,
)f ~
;, '. -<':~~,
AG"A:
Y', ~
/t:'.-~~..: _..
\>~;,;P ,: <,' ;}/
;.;,,",
, , .- .. ;;~'~.'
~.'. ,:_ . ':' :,:.:...:....:2~~~_,~::.';~;'t I ? L,
(';Ul"~W~.'()M..,. .
...... ...' . .... CI'O' HALL ". '.' ."
~~Y.S~11~.1.4145P.M.
'<-':'\ '
';'1--':<
'.*'..,
,'"
, ~. '!,
· .'/ '~'.~~~l;,.,:"
~:t~~, ~ ';: '
,,'.,
,~ '
-j4<<--';~
:. '
.,:.,;
4:451',.)d.
.4:4SP.M.
4:45 P.M.
I.- >'r;t=dtiJ~
1: .\ "'.e...rtems
'.
. .
i~i.g.QMte..~I."
Ii .' AldeftTower DisQussion .
. ... .
','0
5:15 P.M.
. b.
P1IbIl.l'w~&s.rety
. 'l..ake.' Johalma Ordimmce
~." '
.'.
. . . -,'
. ~;oo P.M.
.............tiOD
City _t:~PrOject
~'~'S".m.
". ~'Nami1lg
.' ..a'"u.U'.."..Usqe'\.
,~; ~JS~~~
",o'.,Pet'Jo.MelPoIiey ~~.
.p~ .' .....
..~oy.eeBeftefit Parity, "
.' ..!I.... ....1db'J)es;:lriptlOD_~~ '..
.';"~~~of~~JfJ"j"" .,'"
..~,. . ',h''';
....'
,
.1:15 P.M. 3,c.a..'C~ti;
7:30P;M. "4. A4.t~'"
~~~~.~'~lIp(lIl"'4Jf",~,
;:. .-,-,". .' ",+,."'". ., "', .-.-,~
'.
.
-;,',','-.:...-"-.~'.:':<",'
.......~
;;' > '. ."'~
?.., .. t, j'
TIn~1tv~ SiDtem~r MeetiDl! Schedule ·
Meeting dates, times and locations are subject to change.
Please contact City Hall for the most current schedule
Sept 3 Holiday
Sept. 5 (PlaJUling Worksession) 6:30 P.M.
Planning Commission 7:30 P.M.
Sept. 10 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M.
Sept. 17 Council WorksessioD 4:45 P.M.
Sept. 20 Operations & Finance 7:00 P.M.
Committee
Sept. 24 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M.
Sept. 25 Parks & Recreation 7:00 P.M.
Committee
Sept. 26 Communications 7:00 A.M.
Committee
.
f
Tentative October Meetinl! Schedule
Meeting dates, times and locations are subject to ~:
Please contact City Hall for th.emost current ~.
October 3
October 9
October 15
October ]8
October 23
October 25
October 29
October 3]
Planning Commission
7:30 P.M.
Council Meeting 7:30 P J\f.
Council Worksession 4:45 P.M.
OperatIons & Finance 1:00 P.M: .
Committee
Parks & Recreation 7:00P.M.
Committee
RCLLG Monthly
Meeting
. (Arden Hills Hosting)
Conncil.~
CommunicatioDs
Committee
.
7:30 P.M.
7:00A.M.
.
.
.:-"
.
HP Laser Jet
3200
(Ii)@
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
6516345137
SEp.14.2001 11:17AM
i n v e n t
Fax Call Report
Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result
210 9/14/2001 11: 05:38AM Send 9.6123701378 1: 01 2 OK
211 9/14/2001 11:06:44AM Send 9.7634219511 1:07 2 OK
212 9/14/2001 11 : 07 : 56AM Send 9.6516286833 1:00 2 OK
213 9/14/2001 11 :09:02AM Send 9.7637060891 1: 14 2 OK
214 9/14/2001 11: 10: 21AM Send 9.6516333846 1:53 2 OK
215 9/14/2001 11:12:19AM Send 9.6512282191 1:08 2 OK
216 9/14/2001 11: 13: 32AM Send 9.6512279371 0:51 2 OK
217 9/14/2001 11:14:29AM Send 9.6514821262 0:41 2 OK
218 9/14/2001 11: 15: 16AM Send 9.6512669301 0:55 2 OK
219 9/14/2001 11: 16: 16AM Send 9.6516461220 1:04 2 OK
.
e
~
~~ILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 17, 2001
Mayor and City Council
Joe Lynch, City Administrator
Aaron Parrish, City Planner
Arden Tower Discussion
BackQround
e
The property at 1777 Gateway Boulevard, commonly referred to as the tower property,
has a lengthy history of applications and interaction with the City. Please see the
Abbreviated Chronology contained in Attachment A for further details.
As Attachment A indicates, Arden Towers has contemplated several options to
reconstruct their tower. Unfortunately, all of the proposals advanced to date have been
deficient in some manner. Compounding matters, aside from the structural concerns
identified by the Building Official, it appears as if the tower is not in compliance with
provisions of the Special Use Permit issued in 1981. More specifically, it is estimated
that the number of antenna arrays that currently exist on the tower are in excess of those
originally approved. The following is illustrative:
ADDroved Existino
Elevation Antenna Number of Antenna Number of
Groupings Antennas Groupings Antennas
700 Feet 1 5 2 23
660 Feet 1 5 0 0
620 Feet 1 5 0 0
< 620 Feet N/A N/A 20 52
TOTAL 3 15 22 75
Incidentally, our records indicate that a large part of the existing antennas did not apply
for and receive building permits prior to their installation as required by state law, City
Code, and the Special Use Permit. As the Council may recall, a majority of the issues
associated with the tower were brought to light when U.S. West applied for a permit to
add antennas on the tower.
e
For reference, the other two communications towers within the City became non-
conforming when the zoning ordinance was changed in 1993 to limit the height of towers
City Arden Hills Memo
September 10, 2001
Page 2 of3
to 75 feet. Information regarding the other two towers in the City is provided below for tit
your reference:
Tower Location Heiaht Notes
MSI Tower County Road F / Hamline /1.694 240 Feet SUP - Case No. 72-24
MNDOT lake Valentine Road /1-694 350 Feet
Tower /1-35W
Most recently, the City received a letter from the tower owner indicating that the tower
could be brought into compliance if the tower height is reduced by 80 feet. However, no
documentation has been provided to substantiate that claim at this point. Unless an
assessment from an independent engineer validates the tower owner's claim, it will be
necessary to consider the options below.
ODtions
In light of the safely issues identified by the Building Official, the attempts made by the
applicant to resolve the situation, and the current provisions of the zoning code, the
following options are available to the Council:
1. Do nothing
As is the case in most situations, inaction is always an option. However, since the
structural integrity and safely of the tower has been called into question by the _
Building official, the potential exists that the city may be held liable for its inaction .-
should any personal or properly damage occur relative to the issues identified.
Previously, the Building Official, with the State's concurrence, has declared the
structure to be unsafe since it was not constructed in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the building code. Please see June 7'h, 2001 and May 11, 2001
memos contained in Attachment C for additional information.
2. Consider Revocation of the Special Use Permit
Since the properly is in violation of the Special Use Permit (SUP) granted by the Cily
in 1981, the Cily could take action to revoke the Special Use Permit. This would
involve a public hearing process in which the permit holder could provide additional
information documenting compliance with the SUP. In conjunction with the
revocation of the SUP, it would be necessary for the Cily to articulate specific
findings for the revocation. At this time, findings would relate to following two issues:
A. The number of antennas currently on the tower is in excess of the number
allowed by the Special Use Permit.
B. The tower was not constructed in accordance with the "applicable provisions
of the Arden Hills Code of Ordinances including specifically the Building Code
portion thereof."
More specific findings would be articulated if the Council elects to pursue this option.
e
City Arden Hills Memo
September 10, 2001
Page 3 of3
.
3. Amend the Zoning Code to Allow a Tower as a Special Use within the Gateway
Business Zoning Designation.
The only conceivable way reconstruction of a comparable tower could occur is if the
zoning code is amended. This option would include designating antennas, dishes,
and towers as special uses within the Gateway Business zoning district
Presently, towers are only allowed as special accessory uses within this district
For clarification, accessory uses are those uses that are incidental to the principal
use of the premises on which it is conducted. Accordingly, any tower constructed
must be interconnected with the principal/primary use of the properly. If the zoning
code were amended to allow towers as a special use in the Gateway Business
zoning district, it would also be necessary for the applicant to obtain a variance from
the 75 foot height limitation.
Staff and the City Attorney will be available at the meeting to address any questions
that may arise. Please feel free to contact me if you should have any questions.
.
e
.
.
.::
"
"
]
"
'"
'"
<t:
o
'0
c
o
....
J::.
U
'"
...
a>
~
l-
e
CIJ
"C
....
<(
"C
CIJ
-
<ll
0;;
CIJ
....
.0
.0
<(
'"
g g ~
6~~
0:a g
OOCll
$! 0;5
occ
0.I"c .2
>-ot::
.oNO
~",o.
0"" '"
$--0
000
N::U
","0>
....-~.~
'" "
~iE~
BuCO
c '" '"
,9 ~:S
rn .!& >.
.~ 00 ~
3~.g
E .-
E g, ~
ow 0.
U "'
_QlO>
ro :E .S
~ ."
(5 ~a
00"
- :.t:l.5
g:e<ll
r-"'"
ro 8 g
'" ~ '"
Cii Q.).s
li3="E
0.00
o ~o
"0",
~E""CI
~<(O
" U
.E~.!a
(/)3===
coJ:
8~c
'" '"
..9:i"E
"",<(
.s .~ (1)
ffi:B:E
~.lll-
0>",0
CL.s~
=> Ul.Q
00"''''
-.!::-:;
~3:O
E>.o.
z C5;::1 <D
o 0.. 0lJ5
;:: (1);2 (IJ
.. en "- (,)
0... => ro~ '6.
C2:mgg-
() (,).-"
(j) ID ~"C
W Co::J c:
o (j)..o ctl
z
o
f=
U
<(
f-
Z
W
>
W
W
f-
<l:
o
'" c
00:0
'" Ql
=>"
g'>
~ 0
roo.
'(3 c:
l:E ,9
Om
0>"
c '"
'6E
==;::1
ffig
"
:ri0).
;S:-E g>
~$~
C.!: ~
Q.) 01=
"c",
~w 8
62~
>-c"O
'" '" '"
t:::E>,
ctI ~ c
rn'S ro
c O't::
a3~g
eWCl.
",,, =>
ro8~
co>O
,2 c C
;g~~
":JO
"'.0 "
C '" ~
"'- '"
~.o"
~L~ .8
~o..Q}
~ g-=
o ~
""" '"
.s~:E
:!:::w-g
eg-ro
'" '" u
0.= :0
o>o.c
c E'-
~8~
=> Ql :J
.o~O'
ctI ~ 2?
~ C Ql
..E!<D.c
U).s~
.~ c:t:::
2::23=
co 19 5
..... c.-
(flQ)U
'" E "
:s: :J.;e,
rJ)" "
=>-88
"
Ql
1:
'"
i9
~
'E
Iii
a.
Ql
'"
::>
ro
'13
'"
0.
00
~
'E
~
'"
a.
~
.E
"
.91
0.
0.
<(
1;;
~
00
::>
;;;
'"
~
Ql
.2
(1)]1
""
8 ~
0>""
.5 g
"'C.- .
=s~-g
..cll.l~
~:E~
~q;~
u Ql Ql
=E>
2:",0
'" '" Ql
(J) .!::: .c
~,,>-
'" >- '"
'" => E
Eo>",
'" " ~
.affin
g Q.) 2
.=51n
"' 1j Ql
"'=>""
=t5::
rnQ)o
=:E~
Q) 15 ,Q
ro.ct::
.2 ~ 8.
"0.$_
.5 C'IJ en
.9:6=
"0.5.$
Ql '"
'ffi ~.2
_0"
(l) 0...5
fa 2:! 0
.J:Q).!Q
~.o'"
c ~ >-
~o1?
g~1-
~g~
=> oQl
rn~;!:
-gTI.s
::it+:: Q)
'E'13 E
.0 " '"
::J c...,,:::
'" "
ct) ~ li5
t:: 0 0.
&~ ~
~ui.e
g>c c
.- Q) Q)
Iii E E
'" " "
c.!:::.!:::
'51 g. g.
CB~2?
"
'"
'"
'E ~
.g "
w~
"'f-
t::c"
8.".0
(J.)"E g>
0:<('"
0>- >
Co"
--- (lJ
Q5roo
~~ I-
'om ~
c c "
woo
'"
'"
'"
~
t::.....~
Oo~
g-:o ~
~ " "
o>"'~
c","
.- _"0
Cii 'E en
" ~ ~
c " '"
-- Cl... Q.)
0> "
C 0).-
" <: 0>
c:Q g
" .-
,,-;::Ie
" .0 Ql
!t=c-c
"'C'm C
.5 E ~
",0'"
"0"
"(5"'" .5
c~"'C
'" => <:
0.= co
~~-
~~~
'-.0 -
"'C ---c
,,"'''
","'~
,,0",
=> c."
13 -0- 5-
c " '"
.- m....
~.~ Q5
~"''''
'" >-"
,,--
c '" "
oC.o
U"'f-
'"
,.:;; ch
"'_ c
" 0 0
.9~:e
0>"'''
co."
~(I)m
'" '" '"
'x d) 2
Q) .~ III
~roc
_._ m
.o"~
:!:::~o
::.c::
00 C)'-
E.!: E
~~~
c ~ Ql
0.E (I)
~(I):)
~6]!
.- +:: C)
Um",
Q) "5 0. .
.r:.C)(f)OO
~ro"E
r./)o.r:.2
~ (1)-'-
:;;-g.s-g
50236
.....5 :i5 +:l
~.9Ea5
~2::-gE
r./) ;::I Q) ~
:.c=Eo
~~ro'ro
.s
ro
'13
8
0>
C
:g
'S
CD "
E""
00>
~ =>
-'"
~>
'" "
'al",
...JO
,..:
'"
'"
'"
~
cO
'"
'"
~
Iii
.0
E
JIl{))
c.",
"'"
rJ)~
"
"
~ c
.~ <0
,,~
.- U
1) 2
0>"
.56
" "
~ ~
CD "
m .!:::
~ ~
E"
0'"
-: ~
2 gj
(j)~
O;~
'" "
'" c .
~.o'"
to-- C)-g
.....~C)
05 > g>
..c ,.:._
~::2:;g
.;:: -;::I
o..l!l .0
"''' '"
rJ),,'c
mE:;
"""'~
~'5 .~
:a g ~
'" ~ "
1Q{l~
=> 8 0.
~ E
'" g> 8
~:g.9
05'5_5
u.c ~
c " "
8:C ~
(I)~-
:S~~
'0 g. ~
>- Q) .!;
~:S..c
E"Q)32
"' " :J
~ E ~
~~
:ggro
rnc::5
.s~~
.23eQ)
o.~o.
E 13 e
",,,0.
:t=:';:'Q)
"''''J::
O5~~
"'~o
~Q)""
" u '"
.r:..5 ::
1-(1).8
.s
"
J::
0>
"
'"
>
c-
ro,m
~~
o
.)=0>
l.... .~
""
~=
" =>
...JCD
.,;
N
~
'"
.0
E
"''''
>",
0",
z~
'"
'"
"
c
=>
.&
'"
'"
<:
=>
"
5
t3
2
"
'"
,s
~
'"
Q
'"
"
.s
c
'"
""
.lll
'"
.0
'j<
<:
o
t5
'"
m
,s
"'
~
u
'6
,5
roO
._ 0
E~
005
o>N
,52:'
31 '"
'S 2
CO.o
'" '"
""u.
~>-
";.0
.glE
':;: 30
o~
5.",
c.o
.9 -;
00;
E"
0'"
'EE
.- '"
'" ro
,s",
" "
00
"0:';:;
'" ~
'" "
"'~
COro
.s
ro
'5
IE
o
0>
C
:s2
'S
CO c
E-E,
.g ffi
~>
'" c
'" '"
.30
~
~
Qj
.0
E
"''''
0",
"'"
O~
:i
"
.s
~
o
.E
o
o
r-
'"
1j
'"
"
"
8
.s
c
o
:;
.2
C-
o.
'"
~
'E
Iii
0.
0>
"
~
'S
.0
'"
.l!l
E
.0
=>
'"
~
~
o
f-
c
'"
'E
<(
c
.2
m
.2
C-
o.
<(
~
'E
~
Ql
a."
"'~
" .-
'6E
=.0
=> "
COW
r-
~
Qj
.0
E
"''''
"'"
"''''
o~
~ '0 0 ..c:
<0 c:- ro g
~~E as 00
EKl2 0 ~
.-uc 1ij ill
. U ro ~ C
00 <0 Q) :::I
~.~:5 1S -0
;::1...._ ill
~~;: (5 ~
oo.c c:_~
(I) - Ol - Q)
~ 0'0) ~ ..c
() m.c I/) -",
u "",
roc..c ....... ..c:
_0)- (/J
m __ c ai (/J
-0 C (lJ I/) en
Q)(lJ..c: ::l c
.~-55; ~:g
fr) (/):.a ~ >-. ~
t::,ro ro-€ ~ ~ l....
1i)~~ cl) >-5';:-
...,C CL .0"'..... .
~o2o CCQ)
Q)-cca.. -o~sgg
> CD (lJ ~o- ro
'+T3(1)>- 0 Oc
~_o';; c'" ....,~ Q) .-
.... 1i) ~ (I)"E
55ro'5.9 (I)_:J 0
;> ,_ "'C 0 CD (/)
Q) e.s:: ~ .r:.--
(/)(IJ3:t:::: 05.23-:5
o~.9m ~ffi.8o
_(I)Q)c Q)Een(/)
-&3(/)"0 as.~'~5
._o:J(I) ,c:J'::'-
(1)-_ 3: ." D"S.~
.s:: "0 mo.:::! ill .... ;>
('IJc:.Q.~ 0)....(1)0
-octlU c:(I)o.a
Q)(/)'2(1) :o:O:=:(I)
~ ro 0.:: = (lJ E..c:
x2roo ..5~Q)"(;
Q.lQ)Olc 0.0._
~c.~~ gg.Q5E
.s::. ro.~..c .r:. ....
(I).r:. ctI f./J 'E cl) _ 0
Q5.~'E~ 0;;01:
3-08(1) 1::508
0(1)>-3 o.~:t=o
::~-e.8 u E-
- c~....-o
OQ.lQ.l-o o._Q)Q.l
"'-o.c CEO.
crnectl en
C 0.00 ro.,E g'~
2~ro~ cg:ot:
"0 cccc Q)>u:g:ct1
Q) roCOCll Q)c.c'O
10 0Q)>-"E .- C
u Z"E -;;::....... (1) - 0 (tI
.- .............c o...z"O
".0'<(0..-:.. -(I) .Q)
.~_,-o-o c~""'c
C'\l (1)- ~ 0)
ro"'''"" -".-
'u ::"::=".9=1:*: ,-;.,-o:?~
8---- 32--0
- ('IJ:::;.. 0
c.oCC (1)<0 O'l 2~'~
cCoC C1i)COl
,9.Q'Q).Q ":.9 c.9 ~
t)ud5u~t58t);g
~~:5~.s~eJ5i5
;;
"
o
U
0>
C
'c
o
N
"
,;;
~
o
'"
c
o
15
'"
'"
0>
C
'j<
.Q
:g
'"
,s
"
o
"
'"
'"
'"
.0
'"
.0
~
o
"
"
:;
o
"
~
'E
~
'"
0.
0>
C
:2
'S
.0
'"
m
,s
0>
C
:2
'S
CO
'"
""
f-
. .
.
.s
ro
'13
IE
o
0>
.5
31
'S
COc
EJ::
eg
_'"
~>
~c
~t3
o
o
o
N
CD
2:'
'"
=>
c
'"
-,
Ql
,s
'"
"
'"
c-
~
.s
Qj
"
.s
o
.E
o
o
r-
m
~
.E
~
'E
~
'"
0.
0>
C
~
's
.0
'"
'"
=>
"'
.S'!
.s
o
<:
c
o
'1);
'5
'"
"
.'"
ro
'13
IE
o
0>
C
:s2
'S
CO
'"
,s
'0
ro
'"
0.
0.
'"
C
'"
0>
c::
~O5
'" "
5-.8
~o>
~ "
~~
'" X
...J'"
'"
ro
'13
IE
o
0>
C
:2
'5
co
'"
,s
'"
E
~
'13
c
:J
o
U
~
(3
"
,s
c:
o
'1);
'"
'E
E
o
U
0>
C
'c
C
'"
n:
'"
,s
E
e
-
c
o
~
"
"
'"
E
E
o
~ C
~ 0
'0:';:;
C '"
ro.~
"C-
-~ ~
[l:=:
~ E
'" ~
.9~
~'"
a5~
=>-
0'0
"'-
~'2
=> "
rJ)""
~
(3
.s
c
""
0>
:J
'"
>
C
'"
o
E
e ~
-Ql
~ <:
Ql <:
1E~
...Ja.
..
N
2:'
'"
20
.00
"'0
U.N
'"
"
c
'"
vi
'"
5
1j
2
"
0>
C
:;;:
ro
0.
<ii
>
"
-,
:0
o
~
vi
0>
<:
:s2
'S
.0
'"
u
0=
o
2:'
o
"
=>
.E
o
~
~ ..:
.EQl
- "
~.8
00>
2:~
<( 'x
0'"
::>'"
a.,s
'5.8
~sg
co.
0"
u~
",.s
tilE
~ "
O'.s
~ c
0.9
~~
i'~
'" E
g: E
U8
o>~
co
.c ..E
"0
.!!lo
a.r-
ro
'"
0.
0.
<(
'"
'"
'c
"
o
'13
<:
=>
o
U
~
(3
~
~
Iii
.0
E
110
",0
O~
JIl
~
c
~
0>
C
~
'"
:2:
<:
o
'1);
'"
'E
E
o
U
0>
C
'c
C
'"
n:
"
,s
'0
0.
Iii
"
x
'"
'"
.0
~
'"
'"
<Il
Ql
n:
ro
"'
o
0.
e
0.
'"
,;;
o
"
:5
@-c
.- 0
r/):O
~ro
"E
~.8
'S: .!;
0_
6.~
c 0
0:;:::;
'w:o
"'''''
'E ~
E.E
8"'
0>1:'
c '"
'c E
c.<:
JQ~
a.",
"'<<
~.~
o
::>
a.
c."
~m
go..
uE
",8
~"
.E",
r:::.~
,2 E
roill
u_
=(1)
&0
<t:.!1
0.
1l
<:
o
U
c
o
'1);
'"
'E
E
8~
0)'5
<: '"
'c ....
cO
.!!l::>
0.0.
~
o
o
N
'"
>-
'"
:2:
~
o
o
N
05
"
c
=>
-,
Attaehment B: Planninl: Commission Meetin!! Exeernt
.
PLANNING CASE #01-10 - ARDEN TOWERS. 1777 GATEWAY BOULEVARD.
CONCEPT PUD
Mr. Cronin explained the applicant was requesting the review of a concept planned unit
development for the property located at 1777 Gateway Boulevard.
Mr. Cronin presented the background information by explaining that the property at 1777
Gateway Boulevard, commonly referred to as the tower property, had a lengthy history of
applications.
Mr. Cronin summarized in Planning Case #81-05, a Special Use Permit was approved on this
property for the construction of a 700 foot antenna tower.
Mr. Cronin noted U.S. West made application to install an antenna array on the existing tower in
Planning Case #98-10. The application was approved with the condition that they comply with the
Ehresmann engineering report. After reviewing the Ehresmann report, the Building Official noted
that the report did not include calculations for 1/2" radial ice as required by the State Building
Code and requested it of the applicant. U.S. West submitted a new report, including this
information, stating that the tower did not meet the State requirement for 1/2" radial ice nor a 69
m.p.h. wind. In a letter to the applicant, dated November 5,1999, the Building Official found the
structure to be unsafe. The State of Minnesota agreed with the City's decision to declare the
tower an unsafe structure.
.
Mr. Cronin stated on December 17,1999, the applicant applied for a building permit to construct a
new 700 foot tower on the site, to be in compliance with the State Code. On January 6, 2000, The
Building Official denied the building permit application based on the following Sections of the
Zoning Ordinance:
. Section 6 (i) #3 (b). No antenna or tower shall exceed a height of seventy-five feet (75').
. Section 6 (I) #2. Antennas, satellite dish antennas and towers are allowed only as special
accessory uses. They are therefore allowed only on a property containing a principal use to
which the antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory.
. Section 6(1) #4 (d). Antennas and towers shall not be allowed nearer to any property line than
the height of the antenna or tower.
. Section 9 (J). In the event a nonconforming building is hereafter destroyed by any cause, it
shall not be restored or reconstructed except in conformity with the applicable requirements
of this ordinance.
. Section 11 (A) #1. No building permit or other permit pertaining to the use of land or buildings
shall be issued unless such building is designed and arranged to conform to the provisions of
this ordinance.
Mr. Cronin indicated applicant appealed the building permit denial to the Planning Commission in
November, 2000. In December, 2000, the Arden Hills City Council affirmed the decision of the
Building Official to deny a building permit for the reconstruction of a tower on this site.
Mr. Cronin explained at this time, the applicant had submitted an application for a concept PUD
for the construction of two office buildings, structured parking and the reconstruction of a 750 foot
tower. The applicant had submitted the following information a wetlands delineation and a booklet
of information and plans.
.
Mr. Cronin reviewed the PUD Concept Plan which the City had reviewed as detailed in the staff
report. Mr. Cronin noted a Concept PUD was a discussion process that allowed the applicant to
present preliminary ideas to the City and to receive feedback from the City. No public hearing
was heid on this portion of the application so the City can not take action. The Planning
Commission offered comments and suggestions to the applicant, which were then forwarded to
the City Council to do the same. No suggestions made by the Planning Commission or City
Council were binding to future stages of the PUD process.
Attachment B: Planning Commission Meetin!! Excerpt
Mr. Cronin explained if the applicant so chose, they may accept the comments of the City Council
and make formal application for a Master PUD, followed by a Final PUD before construction
occurs on the site.
.
Mr. Cronin stated special requirements for the Gateway Business District were outlined in Section
5 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cronin reviewed the allowable use by explaining in the Gateway Business District, "office"
was a permitted principal use. Section 5 (M) #3 outlines specific requirements for the District for
allowable uses. There was a stipulation by this Section that states that office uses cannot occupy
less than 25% or more than 50% of a project's total floor area. The Welsh Developments along
Gateway Boulevard were limited in their office component to 20% (warehouse for the remaining
area) so that more office use could be accommodated on the prominent corner property (1-694 &
1-35W). A Master PUD for that property, proposing 100% office build-out, was approved earlier
this year. This proposal also proposed 100% office, 50% above the maximum permitted in the G-
B District.
Mr. Cronin stated a 750-foot antenna tower was also proposed as a use on this property. The
antenna was not accessory to the office use on the property. It was considered a principal use
since it did not support or in any way related to the office use on the property. Section 6 (I) #2
stated that antennas were allowed only, "...on property containing a principal use to which the
antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory". Therefore, the proposed antenna was not a
permitted principal use in the G-B District.
Mr. Cronin presented the Development Standards, structure height, by explaining the District
Requirements Chart of the Zoning Ordinance stated a maximum structure height of 35 feet for the
District. However, Section 5 (M) #5 (b) contradicts this by stating that, "multi-story buildings will be
encouraged", "the use of stepped buildings in encouraged" and "the location of buildings relative
to their heights will consider views" within the Gateway Business District. The intent of the District
was to promote high quality, large-scale development and take full advantage of the site's
location. The proposed height of the two office buildings was 56 feet each, exceeding the 35-foot
maximum for the District. The proposed antenna was 750 feet in height where only a maximum of
75 feet was permitted, if it was accessory to the primary use on the property.
.
Mr. Cronin presented the structure setbacks by stating the building setback requirements for the
District were as follows: 50 feet from streets and exterior property lines; 20 feet from side and rear
property lines. The front yard was defined as the part of the lot that abuts a street. The proposed
bisects the site although the property lines did not. The proposed office buildings meet the
setback requirements from both the proposed street and 1-694, as shown on the plans. The
proposed accessory structure below the antenna did not meet the Ordinance requirements since
it had been placed in the front yard of the lot. Front yards in this proposal were considered that
property which abuts the proposed street (on both the North and South side) and the property
abutting 1-694. Any accessory structures on this property would have to be located in the side
yard of the office buildings.
Mr. Cronin presented the structure exteriors by explaining the Zoning Ordinance required that
exterior wall surfaces in the GB District be brick, stone, glass or any combination of these. The
exterior materials proposed for the office buildings and accessory structure are pre-finished
aluminum, brick and glass. Pre-finished aluminum was not a material permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant had supplied plans and elevations of the proposed office buildings.
Although the accessory structure had been described in the narrative, there were no plans
showing it in elevation, which have been submitted.
Mr. Cronin summarized the traffic study stating the traffic study for the District was completed by
BRW in 1998, analyzing potential development and still keeping Highway 96 and Round Lake
Road within design capacity. SEH completed another traffic study in 2000, analyzing BRW's
study and taking into consideration the potential development by Chesapeake Companies in the
.
Attachment B: Planninl! Commission Meetinl! Excerpt
e
northeast quadrant of 1-35W and 1.694. The applicant obtained another traffic analysis from Biko
and Associates, analyzing the traffic impact of the proposed development of the tower site.
Mr. Cronin explained the conclusions of the traffic study stated that the 96/W. Round Lake Road
intersection would operate at acceptable levels with the implementation of both the Chesapeake
and Arden Towers projects. There would aiso be less than desirable operations at the 96/1~35W
ramps and it was suggested that signalization should be reviewed for these areas. Biko
suggested that improvements be made to the 96/1-35W bridge and improvements be made at the
96/10 intersection. Both of these areas are under review with Ramsey County and the State
although they may not be scheduled for quite some time.
Mr. Cronin summarized the parking requirements by explaining by the Zoning Ordinance, the
parking requirement for an office development was 1 parking space for every 250 square feet.
There was 265,514 square feet of office space, requiring 1,062 parking spaces which was
satisfied by the proposal.
Mr. Cronin stated the parking area includes surface parking and two, two levei parking ramps.
There must be a 50-foot landscape setback from all public streets and 20 feet from other property
lines to surface parking areas. The parking ramps were not considered to be principal structures
so they were subject to the accessory structure or parking setback requirements, since the
Zoning Ordinance was unclear on this issue. The parking setbacks were more stringent and,
therefore, the ramps were evaluated accordingly. The setbacks were not met when measured
from the proposed street at 21 feet when 50 was required.
.
Mr. Cronin presented the site access information stating there was currently a 66' wide utility
easement that ran east to west across the middle of this property. This easement could not be
built upon by a structure so a road was being proposed over iL The City would need to maintain
access to this easement and it should be, therefore, a public street with a right of way of no less
than 60', as required for local streets. The proposed street was a width of 24 feet. The only public
street that could serve this site, Gateway Boulevard, does not connect to the west property line of
this property.
Mr. Cronin explained there was currently an unimproved road serving the tower site, for
maintenance of the tower. Staff was unaware if the applicant had an easement agreement with
other property owners to access the site as no easement was shown on the submitted plans. The
improved portion of the road stops on the west side of the pond for Apache. The land between
existing Gateway Boulevard and the applicant's property was previously owned by Morris
Communications and just recently acquired by Chesapeake Companies. Therefore, this site did
not currently have a connection to a public street, as was required for development.
Mr. Cronin summarized the public safety for this Planning Case by explaining the proposal
discusses the construction of a 750-foot antenna tower (although 700-feet was shown in the
plans). Due to the fact that the current antenna had been found unsafe, the applicant needed to
build another tower, although zoning prohibited it. The Building Official had stated that numerous
additional antennas had been added to the tower without building permits or staff approval,
creating this unsafe condition.
Mr. Cronin stated the new proposed tower would replace the existing tower. It would be
constructed along side of the existing tower, approximately 20 feet from the base. When fuily
constructed, the antennas would be transferred from the old tower to the new tower and the
existing tower would be taken down.
e
Mr. Cronin explained Ailied Tower had provided documentation in the submitted booklet on the
fail radius of guyed towers, including ice fail. The report stated that there have been a total of 14
incidents in the USA of tower coilapses from weather conditions. From the information obtained
by these fails, it's presumed that a tower of 750 feet in height would have a fail radius of 199 feet.
Towers do not fail over but coilapse on themselves. As for ice failing, the memorandum from
Attachment B: Plannin!! Commission Meeting Exeerot
Allied Towers stated that ice heavy enough to do damage would fall within a radius of no more
than 20 feet from the tower.
e
Mr. Cronin stated although the memorandums stated that it was safe to place office buildings and
parking structures beneath a tower of this magnitude, staff was still concerned about the safety
and well being of the residents and business people who would be on this property from day to
day. Falling ice from not only the tower but the guyed wires was of concern, even though the area
was proposed to be fenced. Additionally, long-range trail plans include a trail around Round Lake,
including a portion through this property. If deveiopment occurred on the property, a pedestrian
trail easement would be requested.
Mr. Cronin summarized the drainage, wetlands and ftoodplain requirements by explaining the
application proposed to enhance or restore the wetlands on the property back to their original state
since they had declined as a result of unimproved roads and the pasteurization of horses on the
property for some time. Three detention basins were provided to collect storm water runoff,
designed to NURP standards so that the storm water is treated prior to discharge. By this proposal,
the wetland on the west side of the property will be eliminated and mitigated at a ratio of 2:1. The
mitigation area would be provided on the east side of the larger wetland and within the three
retention basins constructed on the site. The larger wetland on the eastern portion of the site would
not be disturbed with development The applicant had prepared a wetland delineation report.
Approval of the plan, following City Council approval, would be required by Rice Creek Watershed
District.
Mr. Cronin advised the City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on May
9, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue the City must act on this request by July 8, 2001 (60
days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review
period. The additional review period would extend to August 7, 2001. The City may, with the
petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the August 7, 2001 date.
.
Mr. Cronin stated if the City denied the petitioner's request, "... it must state in writing the reason for
the denial at the time that it denies the request."
Mr. Cronin presented staff's preliminary comments on Planning Case #01-10 based on the
following:
1. It should be clarified if the proposed antenna tower is 700 feet (per the plans) or 750 feet in
height (per the narrative);
2. The antenna tower could not be reconstructed for the following reasons:
. The tower is currently a nonconforming structure that can not be rebuilt without conforming
with the Zoning Ordinance;
. The tower is not permitted as a principal use on the property;
. The tower exceeds the maximum allowable height of 75 feet;
. The tower is nearer to the property line than the height of the tower.
3. No more than 50% of a project's total ftoor area may be office;
4. The height of the proposed office buildings shall not exceed 35 feet;
5. The confticting Zoning Ordinance text regarding the maximum height requirement and
percentage of office within the District should be discussed and clarified by the City;
6. The accessory structure for the antenna must be located in the side or rear yard, not the front,
and additional elevation information is needed to properly evaluate the structure;
7. Exterior materials for the office buildings and accessory structure include pre-finished aluminum
which is not identified as a permitted material;
8. A pedestrian trail easement by Round Lake would be requested as part of this development;
9. Surface and ramped parking requires a setback of 50 feet from the proposed and existing
street which is not met;
10. The proposed street should be public with a required right-of-way width of no less than 60 feet .
for a local street, since it is located on an existing 66 foot public utility easement;
11. The development of the property requires direct access to Gateway Boulevard which it currently
does not have;
.
.
.
Attachment B: Planning Commission Meetinl! Excer{lt
12. Consideration should be made for improvements to the Hwy 96/10 and 96/1-35W intersections
as per the traffic study;
13. Reconstruction of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Round Lake Road should be
considered to accommodate development; and
14. The applicant must obtain all necessary reviews and permits from Rice Creek Watershed
District.
Chuck Habiger, HKS Associates, stated applicant's tower was no longer in compliance with State
guidelines and that was the reason they were requesting this proposal. Mr. Habiger summarized
applicant's proposal and presented site plans for the area.
Mr. Habiger clarified that all of the panels on the building would be glass with the pre-finished
aluminum being around the giass.
William Smith, Transportation Planner with Biko Associates, summarized the traffic study and the
development of Chesapeake Companies. He indicated two traffic studies had been prepared on
the site, one before the Chesapeake office development was developed and the other one
prepared in 2000. The results from the first study indicated the intersection could accept an
additional 1 , 1 00 cars during peak hours. He stated while the intersection could handle the
additional cars, there was concern regarding the ramp terminals on and off of 135W. He indicated
traffic signals would probably fix any problems with those ramp terminals. However, any
improvements with the ramps would probably not be made until 2003.
Commissioner Pakulski inquired about the lane width. Mr. Smith replied the lane width was chosen
for traffic calming purposes and there would be no parking allowed on the street.
Tom Stella, United Properties, summarized the market conditions for office space versus
office/warehouse space.
Mr. Habiger addressed the concerns regarding the tower including safety issues raised by staff.
Mr. Habiger stated applicant had a contractual obligation for the tower for the next 17 years and it
wouid be a financial hardship for applicant to take the tower down and redevelop the site. Mr.
Habiger restated that the current design of the tower did not meet the Code requirements.
Dan Vaughn, Arden Towers, stated the existing tower had been there for 20 years and the tower
they were talking about replacing it with would be a tower almost identical in appearance to the one
that was there now. The new tower would have solid steel legs, instead of tubular steel legs, which
would make it a stronger tower and therefore, it would hoid more antennas. He indicated the tower
served a large part of the community and it was a very important structure in the communication
industry in the City. He stated it would be very difficult to take it down and find a replacement.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked what dictated the height of the tower. Mr. Vaughn stated 700
feet was what the tower was now, and that was what the new tower would be. There was a
misprint in the application.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Vaughn had prepared a cost analysis as to building versus
not building the new tower. Mr. Vaughn replied he would have to buyout his contractual
obligations, and while he had not specifically looked at the financial end of this, he believed the
tower was an asset to the City.
Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if Mr. Vaughn was under a contractual obligation to provide a
safe tower. Mr. Vaughn replied that was correct.
Commissioner Galatowitsch stated by adding buildings to the property, the tower would be an
accessory use and the Code only allowed for a 75-foot tower under an accessory use. Mr. Vaughn
replied it was always intended there Would eventually be buildings on the property. However, the
PUD did not reflect this.
Attachment B: Planninl! Commission Meetinl! Excerpt
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Vaughn wanted feedback on the whole concept, or on
individual parts of the concept. Mr. Habiger replied before they went ahead with the office
development, they wanted to have the new tower constructed with the existing tower removed. He
stated they were looking for feedback on the overall concept to reconstruct the tower and the office
development proposal.
e
Acting Chair Sand asked for clarification on the March 20, 2001 ietter addressed to HKS from Allied
Tower regarding the "SO-foof' communications tower. Mr. Habiger replied he believed that was a
misprint. He stated it had always been proposed that the tower wouid be 700-feet.
Acting Chair Sand stated in terms of the Planning Commission's obligations, the tower seemed to
be non-conforming and therefore if a new tower was put in place of the oid tower, the Commission
would be approving a non-conforming structure and he indicated he had a concern about that. He
expressed concern that more than 50% of a project's totai floor area might be office space. He also
expressed concern regarding the building height. With respect to the traffic study, the facts would
be changing in the new few years, so the traffic study wouid be moot.
Commissioner Zimmerman expressed concern about the current traffic congestion and he believed
it was important the Planning Commission look at the traffic patterns and congestion.
Commissioner Gaiatowitsch asked if it was possible to have a traffic access off of Interstate 694
instead of off Highway 96. Mr. Habiger stated it was not permitted for a private development to
have access onto an Interstate.
Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if they had looked at working with the Federal authorities for the
possibility of adding some type of a frontage/service road aiong Interstate 694 and adding an
access to interstate 694 to the east. Mr. Habiger stated this would be the most desirable solution,
except the developments to the east were residential developments and most residents would .
object to this type of an access.
Mr. Habiger stated while there was no concern that the tower would fail at any time in the near
future, the tower did not meet today's safety standards.
Commissioner Pakulski expressed concern about the density of the office building. He stated he
did not have a specific opinion with the tower, and he did not believe he had any authority to make
a decision regarding the tower.
Commissioner Zimmerman also expressed concern about the office density. With respect to the
tower, he believed it would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and whether he agreed with it or
not, that was what the current Ordinances were. He suggested Mr. Vaughn prepare an economic
cost analysis.
Commissioner Galatowltsch stated she was empathetic to Mr. Vaughn's concerns about the tower
and believed the tower was an asset to the City. However, having the two uses on the property
was a concern for her. She also expressed concern about ice falling from the tower and asked for
further safety anaiysis regarding this.
Commissioner Duchene stated safety was a huge concern for her. The tower issue was beyond
her power to deal with. She expressed concerns with the proximity of the parking ramps to the
tower.
e
.
e
.
e
~.~
.
~
e
.~
e
\wi
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administratorf.k:.
SUBJECT: Arden Tower
1777 Gateway Blvd.
-
DATE:
June 7, 2001
ENC.:
Arden Tower Memo
Backl!ronnd
Enclosed within is a copy of a memorandum I received from Dave Scherbel, Building Official,
that the City Council needs to take action on the telecommunications tower located at 1777
Gateway Blvd. As previously discussed and determined the tower does not meet the technical
interpretation of the building code of the State of Minnesota for compliance with the lI," radial
ice provision. Mr. Dan Vaughn has previously approached the City for a building permit
application for reconstruction of the telecommunication's tower located at this address. The City
Council denied that building permit request. Subsequently Mr. Scherbel verified with the State
of Minnesota that they agree with his interpretation and the recommendation to the City Council
for denial based upon the State Building Code. But denial was based on a zoning issue because
the Gateway Business Zoning District does not allow telecommunications towers over 75' in
height in that district.
Mr. Vaughn has a development proposal which the planning commission will be reviewing at
their meeting on June 6, 2001. The development proposal includes reconstruction of the
telecommunications tower to height of750' along with the construction of two 4-story structures
located directly beneath the tower. This application is for a concept plan review only. The City
has a concept plan review, a preliminary plan review, and final plan review process. The
concept plan review allows an applicant to appear before the PI arming Commission to receive
either positive or negative comments about a proposed development. If positive comments are
received the applicant would be encouraged to begin the preliminary plan and final plan review.
Ifnegative comments are received the applicant should not proceed further with preliminary
plan or final plan review.
A conflict occurs because of the previous action taken by the City Council denying Mr.
Vaughn's building permit application for reconstruction of telecommunications tower. The
Planning Commission and the City Council cannot simultaneously deny a building permit for
Memo to Mayor and City Council
Regarding: Arden Tower
June 6, 2001
Page 2 of2
e"
-....)
reconstruction of tower while considering approval of redevelopment of the property. The
decisions need to be consistent with one another.
Denial of the concept plan approval does not resolve the situation, however. Mr. Vaughn will
continue to have a tower which does not technically meet the State Building Standards and
remains under staff's experience knowledge unsafe from a structure standpoint. I believe that
Mr. Vaughn is trying to seek all the administrative remedies he has at his disposal for
consideration of the reconstruction ofthe telecommunications tower. He has made application
for building permit which has been denied by the City Council. He has now made application
for a redevelopment proposal of this property which includes the reconstruction of the
telecommunications tower. It should be recommended for denial by the Planning Commission
and support by the City CouncIl. Upon receipt of negative feedb~(;k on the concept approval we
assume Mr. Vaughn will seek remedy through non-conforming rights language in the zoning
ordinance.
Staff has talked about the possibility about bringing forward a recommendation to the City
Council for "red tagging" the structure. This would not be wise at this time due to the fact that
the condemnation of such a structure would mean possible large financial reward for the property ...
owner based upon the replacement value of the telecommunications structure both from an ..
infrastructure standpoint and an income standpoint. However, based upon the fact that Mr. :..;
Vaughn has brought forward a proposal for redevelopment of the property we will be corning to
a conjunction point where the City Council needs to consider what action it is willing to take on
this property. The options for the Council are: 1) Amendment to the current z9ning ordinance to
allow telecommunications towers to be built in the Gateway Business District and including
language to allow Mr. Vaughn to rebuild his tower with or without any accompanying principle
structures; 2) To deny the development proposal by Mr. Vaughn to see ifhe seeks remedy
through non-conforming use issues contained within the zoning ordinance; 3) Allow Mr. Vaughn
to complete a preliminary and final development plan which would allow reconstruction of his
telecommunications tower; 4) Seek staff to have Mr. Vaughn remove the telecommunications
tower at the property with allowance of development ofthe property in conjunction with the
current provisions of the Gateway Business Zoning District.
Recommendations
The staff recommends that the City Council consider and discuss the options proposed here and
any others that are brought up during conversation, or modifications thereof. This is a separate
and distinct item from the concept plan approval that will be brought forward to the City Council
at your regularly scheduled meeting on June 25, 2001. It is the intention to continue discussion
and if there is need for more information bring this issue back to your work session on June 18,
2001. Mr. Filla will be in attendance at the meeting on June 11,2001, for clarification or
reference. Mr. Scherbel will also be in attendance at the June 18,2001, City Council work
session if you have any questions of him or need more background or information.
ej
.
.
.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 11, 2001
TO:
Joe Lyuch, City Administrator
FROM:
Dave Scherbel, Building Official
SUBJECT:
Arden Tower
Request
City Staff requests direction on how to proceed with the Arden Tower located at 1777
Gateway Blvd. (formerly 14th St.) The Building Official has declared the Tower an
unsafe structure according to the state building code. The Arden Tower was declared
unsafe in a letter to the Tower's owner, Mr. Dan Vaughan, on 12/13/99. Following is a
brief outline of how that determination was made.
Backl!round
U.S. West made application to the City in Planning Case #98-10, to install an antenna
array on the tower at 1777 Gateway Boulevard (formerly 14th Street) owned by Mr. Dan
Vaughan. The application was approved with the condition that they comply with the
Ehresmann Engineering report dated February 2, 1998.
After reviewing the report, staff noted that the report did not include calculations for y,"
radial ice as required by the State Building Code. Staff requested additional engineering
that included calculations for lI," radial ice.
Several reports were done, the first one was by Paul 1. Ford Company for U.S. West. The
report stated the tower does not meet the State requirement for y," radial ice and a 69
m.p.h. wind. In fact, it could only safely withstand a 25 m.p.h. wind, with y," radial ice.
Ehresmann Engineering, at the request of Mr. Vaughan, also did two additional reports.
The first report was done with calculations including lI," radial ice. This report indicated
the tower does not meet State Code. Another report was done without any calculations
for Y," radial ice. This report raised serious questions as to the tower's loading and still
failed in several areas.
I have enclosed (highlighted) copies of these reports for your review. Based upon these
reports received by U.S. West, and Ehresmann Engineering, staff concluded that the
tower was an unsafe structure as stated in a letter to Mr. Vaughan dated December 13th,
1999 (copy attached.)
.
.
Mr. Vaughan applied, on December 17, 1999, for a Building Permit to construct a new
tower on the site. On January 6,2000, staff denied the Building Permit application based
on zoning related issues. On December II, 2000 the City Council affirmed the Building
Official's denial of the building permit with the following findings;
I.) An application for a building permit was made by Dan Vaughan to reconstruct a new
700 foot antenna tower; and
2.) The proposed new tower is greater than 75 feet in height and serves as the principal
use on the property; and
3.) City staff denied the application based on staffs interpretation of City Ordinance 291;
and
4.) City staff correctly interpreted the Ordinance and the planning commission affirms
the denial.
Staff asked for and received confirmation from the State Building Codes & Standards
Division agreeing with the City's decision to declare the tower an unsafe structure (copy
enclosed.)
Snmmarv
Staff has declared the tower an unsafe structure based upon the following reasons;
1) The tower was originally designed without lI," radial ice and only three (3) antenna
groupings.
2) The safety ofthe tower has been compromised over the years with the addition of
numerous antenna groupings, (as many as 15), done without any of the required
amendments to the Special Use Permit or Building Permits. These additional
antennas have significantly decreased the safety of the tower.
3) The Tower, based upon engineering reports submitted from US West, and Mr.
Vaughan, shows that it does not meet the state building code.
4) Section 102 of the Uniform Building Code defines towers that are unable to sustain
the desigu loads that are specified in the UBe are hereby designated as unsafe.
Staff has denied the building permit application to build a 700-foot tower based upon the
following;
1) Ord.291-Sec.VI-3a. No antenna or tower shall exceed a height of seventy five ft.(75)
2) Ord.29l-Sec.VI-2. Antennas, satellite dish antennas and towers are allowed only as
special accessory uses. They are therefore allowed only on property containing a
principal use to which the antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory.
3) Ord.291-Sec.XI-A.1. No building permit or other permit pertaining to the use ofland
or buildings shall be issued unless such building is designed and arranged to conform
to the provisions of this ordinance.
Conclusion
As staff sees the issue, the following options remain;
. I) Bring the Tower into compliance with City code, or if not possible, remove the
Tower. Staff understands the Tower cannot be reinforced, as this would only
.
.
.
compound the loading problem. However, the Tower may be able to be reduced to a
height ofless than 300 feet to be compliant.
2) Bring the Tower back into compliance with the original SUP which allowed for only
three antenna groupings, all over the 600 foot level. (This still may not bring the
Tower into compliance with the current code when calculating for lI," radial ice.)
3) Alter or change the City zoning code (the Tower as a primary use, and for over
seventy five feet in height) allowing for the Tower to be rebuilt to the current building
code.
Staff seeks direction on how to proceed to bring resolution to the Arden Tower by June
29th, 2001.
! ~ ;
I
,
I
",
.,
-tKU' L-
ARDEN TOWERS, INC.
3440 BA YSIDE ROAD
ORONO, MINNESOTA 55356
612-41),.)660 FAX is\2-4'7J.)880
RECE\\1EO
St.? '2. '2. 1998
c<<i t}i- ~\OO\ \\\\.\S
September 21, 1998
Mr. Dave Scherbel
Building Official
City of Arden Hills
4364 West Round Lake Road
Arden Hills. Minnesota 55104
Dear Mr. Scheibel:
Mr. Steve Mangold of U.S. West Wireless, LLC has contacted me regarding the release or an
engineers report by Paul J. Ford and Company. It has come to my attention that the report was prepared
using information that is now obsolete. J do not believe that the engineers who prepared the report were
able to actUally observe the tower in order to prepare an accurate analysis which 1 personally would
require.
ton~r wa::u;: ~:d:et::::d::::'~~:t;n::~ t::~~mn;;ei:s::~::;~: ::;::(€e~::::e
designCd lonithstand % inch of ice under 6.0 mile per hour winds conditio~ Hon~ver, the lon~r as it
now stands, has wilhstood Y, inch ice under lhe most severe n;nler conditiodin Minnesota during its
existence. The exact dates are nol ",..i1able to me n;thout some research, but I do recall those occurrences
when we had electrical power outages due to ice stonns. There is a considerable safe!)' factor built into
the engineers analysis to avoid liabili!)'.
No one is more concerned about the structural integrity of the lower than the owner. We ha\~
been endeavoring to mainlain the tower at its optimum safe capad!)' in accordance nith our engineers
recommendations.
Sincerely,
D. R. Vaughan
.
,
"
'.
.
rn
PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
~so East ElrC:ld 5Irf~( , ~ui(C ~oo . Colum\;JI"i$. Ohio "32 1S
July 16, 1998
U.S. \"lest Wir~less L.LC.
426 Nertn Fairview Ave. Roem 101
St. Paul, MN 55104
AnN: Mr. DaleT~ 1~I7-q8
~EO
SEP 2." '998
c<<i ~ ~\\ftU",US
.
RE: E:<isling 700 ft. guyed lower
Located in ^rd~n Hills, Minneseta
(PJF No. T98-028)
.
Dear Mr. Therne,
(~~~r::~::.~;,:~:k=;~~7:f~:!~;J~:f.:: :~:..;~:=;~.\.~.d E::~~1~e )
R5-222-Cslandard. Ice accumulatien was tiQI considered inlhe.origini!1 tower d~i8n. .
The purpose of our ana.lysis was to' determine if lne existing strl'cture ceuld meet the requirements ef
tne Minneseta Stale Building Code while supperting the revised antenna and ceax loading as shewn
on page one ef the enclosed sketches. The Minnesota State Building Cede is medeled aiter the
Uniform Building Code,(UBC , 994) and new requires that ice accumulatien be censidered. lhe
Minnesota State Building Code dees not list design wind loads for structures ever 400 It tall and
recognizes the Electronics Industry Associalio.n standard ^NSllEIA.222-E as an acceptable national
design standard. '
.
Our analysis was performed in accerdance with the recommendatiens ef the ^~SI/H"'-222-E standard.
The Minr.eset<l St.lte Building Code requires a minimum design wind velocity ef 80 mph and also.
r.e.....q.....U........i...r....e...s.........I....."......'.t........a....'.:..'..t..r.u..ct.......u.r...e.....S......i....n..........I.h....e ........s....'.....a.... .I..e.......b......e......d.e..s..'s....n....e.....d............f....a.......r....~....... ....e.f..r...a...?.......'..a....I...i...c.e..........T...h..e....E..I.^...sta......n.......d.....a.r..d.....a.I..I..aw..s..I.h. ..e.. ........~...
basic des.gn w.~d velocllyto be decreased to' 69 mph when rad,al.ce accumulallan IS censldered. Th~
(eXistintl t~....'e~haS Jhecap~ily Ie safely withstand,pnly 79m~~ "::ing~.w~nsl:'gp,S~t1&,\h~aolen~-lts.t!1d
e'J,pagt_t:<)f~,.lln~lasedskel~~s. :!c;!lJ will nate Ihanhe eX1stiligtower ver)" nearlyt'ill!e'-~~e
requirementswnen Ice is not consider~. .
(Whe!! ..~.in,ch ,,~c:li~UCll.l1,CCH~H~tioni~tP/'lsidereclllle lQV{er:has.~bl! C'~"acity to safely '\"'i.thlt~donl>'<)
2.5 ~p.lI,~in~".I~~;~~ out 0(the709.~. PfI9,\",.eJ.Jhj! 19"'e.r.le&Sa{~:@f,ffst;~.~l[l,.~M~~!-~J~/
duel()tHll.~~.that .he.lower hagvel'Y sever!ily.bent shape.n Ihe ~!f1~tI'iL.. .... lne guy ables.and all
,f.,N",;#~""'.'''''''. ~.","",,~h~ .. _~!,'~ i'~.";.!ji W. .1" ,.",""ho. .
tower with larger guy cables at sOme elevations in an attempt Ie control the deflected shape (a stralght-
line deflection reduces lower 5hah stresses) of lhe tower shaft. This helped CQr1siderablybut a large ,
portion of the tower {560 lineal (1) waS sti II severely everstremd. >>'e~e n()lfeellhat.jti~r"asi~t~ 10.). . ,
(reinforce this tower to. m,eetlhe ie-e leading requirement> of the Minnesota Stal! &r:i1t1tngCcXIe.
.
COLUMBUS, OHIO
614-221-6679
/"" 61<.221.2140
. AT~NTA. GEORGIA .
404-266-2407
F.AX A04-Il69--4&O!
. www.pjfweb.com ·
ORLANDO, fLOP.ID^
407~91,'019
fAX 007~",)"'2
t
110-11 .....~_tl.P~_.ol.."""".....h""'^'..........
: .. ~ J .
'. .
.
I
I
I
. .
.
July 16. 1998
U.S. West Wireless U:.c.
Page 2 of 2 -
ATTN; Mr. Oale Thorn,e
RE: Existing 700 it,;guyed lower
Located in Arden Hills, Minnesota
(P)F No. T98.026)
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 1998
OW OI-AkUW Htl.!S
We did not 'have complete information regarding the existing foundations. Only the base foundation
and inner anchor infor~aljon was provided. ,!l~~.~. ~pe~.\!!~)9&lsoils repoI'lPlOYided.~oth.t~se )
foundatiorl.f~rei9~dequate 10 support the tow*r.f~dl"'.i~~wereprovidedt'" existing middle and
(OUtera:IIChO~S~'~UY~ods:sizes. They are insufrid.eni 10 support I~e n!w reactions attne ancho,rs. his
prooablethal'llie mIddle and outer anchors are Incapable of supporting the new anchor reactions.
Please call if you halle any questions or require further informalion.
I hereby cerMy that this plan, spec:tl'
cation, or reporl WIlS prepared by me or'
under my direct supervision a nd that I
am ~ duly Registered Professional
Engineer under the laws ot the State 01
Minn
A
Sincere lv,
PAUL). FORD AND CpMPANY
PaulS. Patterson
Engineering Technician
E-mail: ppallerson@pjfy.reb.com
o Ie
,
.,.-:;'
Regisl,ator. No. 61i..
" .
.
.1....
.e)(~. 5.
~ :
. . 1~t
aJ::'lv Ehresmann
....It Englnee~ing Ine.
ancI ,Assoaat:es
....-......
....~~.....
'~i1iJl>.....:,
4400 West 31st Street - Yankton, SD 57078 f ..~ If' \
Phone: (605) 665-7532 Fax: (605) 665-9780 \..~\~~ lj j
.... .....'l.?....
E-Mail: eet@byelecmc.com ......:::.....
Web Address: http://sidibLnorthem.edulehresmannlee_home.htm
November 15, 1999
Mr. Dan Vaughan
Arden T~wers, Inc.
3440 Bayside Road
Orono, MN 55356
Ph: 612-473-3660
Fax: .612-473-3880
Subject: 700' Rohn 80 Guyed Tower
Site: Arden Hills, MN
EEl JO: 27366-99 (Revision 7)
Dear Mr. Vaughan,
.
We have completed our revised structural stress analysis of
the above described tower per your request. All information
required to complete our structural analysis was furnished
to EEl by your office.
Antenna and feedline loading were included per meeting with
you at our office dated 10/12/99.
Our revised analysis was completed per TIA/EIA-222-F, 80 mph
wind velocity and 1/2" ice with reduction allowed per your
instructions. Our analysis included the following loading:
"\oIJ..t- ru't!,f,.1I 7
Existinq Loading .
, ITEM
ELEVATION
REMARK
------------------------------------------------------------
.
Beacon & Strobe
PD458' on 6' SA
PDll10 on 6' SA
Preamp
7' Stabilizer
PD1l32 on 6' SA
PDlll0 on 6' SA
7' Stabilizer
PD458 on 6' SA
PDlll0 on 6 I SA
PD458 on 6' SA
~~6~1.;~
TD60740n.6' SA
Side Lights
TDE6073 on 6' SA
700'
700'
700'
698'
680'
660'
655'
600'
570'
570'
555'
55'S'
540'
540'
535'
520'
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
f::X; !~t;.j,..llg ,
,~~J.t~;'f~"~''''
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
, Ll.rl'....,"';;~.
,-~<.~;-._..
. '," ." ~
:.'-J\:.
Antenna Support Structures. Guyed and Self-Supporting Towers and Monopoles. Steel Fabrication
Structural AnalysiS. Inspection. Specijicationi1- Project Managment . Detailing. P.E. Certijication
'.'
"
.
Existinq Loadinq
ITEM
ELEVATION
REMARK
------------------------------------------------------------
470'
415'
400'
387'
300'
300'
280'
250'
250'
240'
200'
140',.'
130'_
70'
62'
50'
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
, Existing
Existing
Existing
EXisting
'Existing
Existing
lit e. tJe.
Strobe Lights
Side Lights
DB-222E on Side Mount
DB-224E on Side Mount
Scala OGP9-93K on 6' SA
DB-5S9 on 6' SA
Beacon
TDC6060A on 6' SA
DBB09 on 6' SA
Strobe Lights
ASP952 on 6' SA
Side Li9htSPlt~1
DB230-E
(3) SP9014-DIN on T-Frame
(3) SP9014-DIN on T-Frame
(3) SP9014-DIN on T-Frame
-
.
ResultS, Ootion 1. = ~i~n~w~~"E~t~An~:~~~~10r
Callowed. Analvsis RiU: TIA/EIA-222-F. ,
l:!ast:
Leqs: The maximum combined stress ratio in the
vertical members is 1.95 at elevation, 440'
which is greater than the maximum allowable
value of 1.33.
Approximately the lowe~ 500' of the
legs have combined stress ratios that
tbe maxlmua'allowable value of 1.33.
See cOllllllents.
tower)
exceed
Diaq: The maximum combined stress ratios in the
bracing members is 0.97 at elevation 240'
which is less than the maximum allowable
value of 1.33. See comments.
~The min.1111~g~ S~~(;)t:.l/'f8ptqr 1s 1.95 ~t )
elevatfgns60'0' and .680 I which 1s less than
the minimum required value of 2.00. See
comments.
.
2
"
".
.
.
-.
Foundation:
Due to the lack of information regarding the
existing foundations for the anchors and tower
base, we are not able to comment on their capacity
at this time, Further subgrade inspection is
required to determine their capacity. It is
the tower owners option and responsibility to
complete this sUbgrade inspection.
~omments
The 700' Rohn 80 guyed tower located at Arden Hills, MN does
not meet the speCifications of TIA/EIA-222-F considering 80
mph wind and 1/2" ice with reduction allowed. This is based
on all information as supplied to EEl being correct and
current. If tower loading is changed or altered in any way,
we SUggest an additional analysis be completed.
Some of the stress rations outlined in this report are large
enough that permanent deformation to some of the tower
members could occur if the analysis conditions were encoun-)
teredo Due to' the large degree af averstressing we feel
( madifications .are nQt feasible nar recammended to' accamma-
da~~ th~ ice laading. '
It is our opinion that if the subject tower must have ice
included in the analysis, we suggest the tower either, be
replaced af shortened to' a height where it can safety sup-
port the antenna loading and have ice included.
~ QQ recommend 1hA1 ~ tower owner excavate adiacent ~
~ existinq anchor shafts 1Q inspect ~ excessive rust.
Please ~ ~ shafts should ~ inspected All 1D& HAY ~
the point ~ ~ enters ~ concrete. Caution 12 ~
disturb ihg shaft Kith mechanical equipment ~ ~ A
~ Hg would ~ ~ reiterate the importance 1bAi
shafts should ~ the first ~ 21 concern before SDY Q!
modifications ~ completed QI the oroposed antennas ~
installed.
~
1M
1M
~
There are some criteria we feel you should be aware of when
reviewing our analysiS and report. Due to' the tub~lar)
(c.O.,Jl15.'...t....ru.ctia.n,..a.,.f tl1is. tawer, it, is difficult to'. tell the
iI'iIlIJUDt.af .rl111tor deteriaration that may have developed in
tW.. tower members. '
The tubular tower members can be ultrasonically tested to
3
", ....
.
.
.
determine the area of steel remaining. However to be abso-
lutelY sure that no rusting is taking place, each tower leg
would have to be tested every square inch, which is not
economically feasible.
We are not implying that you do have rusting problems in the
subject tower, we are simply stating that we cannot guaran-
tee that no rusting is taking place and you should be aware
of this. Ourstrefis rati.t:l.s as, shown1n our analysis and in)
(the, resultssecfion'of thi~ reportar~bued an steel " being
i~~~~ew condition with no rusting or deterioration.
Upon request Ehresmann Engineering Inc. will visit the
previously described tower site and inspect tower, lines,
and antennas for compliance to this engineering analysis in
its entirety upon completion of project. Cost will be
quoted at time of request.
We would like to,point out the fact that we considered this
towel' to be in neatnewcClJ)dftion:when completing our' s,truc-
turalanalysis ..!'Io.a:,lfp.:waricewas made for missing, corrod-
ing6'# deteriorating tower members.
This report is based on the following:
1. Tower properly installed and maintained.
2. All members in good condition.
3. All members in place.
4. All bolts in place and properly tightened.
5. Weep holes on tube and pipe members open.
6. Tower being in plumb condition with proper guy tension
installed.
7. All tower members being properlY designed, detailed,
fabricated, installed and maintained over the years.
Ehresmann Engineering Inc. is not responsible for
fications completed prior to or hereafter which
Engineering Inc. is not or was not directly
Modifications to include but are not limited to:
any modi-
Ehresmann
involved.
1. Replacing or strengthening bracing members.
2. Reinforcing vertical members in any manner.
3. Adding or relocating stabilizers.
4. Installing antenna mounting gates or side arms.
5. Changing guy sizes and related hardware.
6. Installing new anchors and anchor shafts.
7. Extending tower.
Ehresmann Engineering, Inc., hereby states that this docu-
ment represents the entire report and that it assumes no
4
.
.
.
, "
,',
,
liability for any factual changes that may occur after the
date of this report. All representations and recom-
mendations and conclusions are based upon the information
contained and set forth herein. If you are aware of any
information which is contrary to that which is contained
herein, or you are aware of any defects arising from the
original design, material, fabrication and erection defi-
ciencies, you should disregard this report and immediately
contact Ehresmann Engineering Inc. Ehresmann Engineering
Inc., disclaims all liability for any representation, recom-
mendation or conclusion not expressly stated herein.
Thank you, if you have any questions please do not hesitate
to call.
Enclosures: Standard Terms and Conditions - Tower Analysis
Stress analysis, Option #1 - dated 11/12/99
file: 2736-10.dat
5
.' -.
"
.
.
.
.
-2-) ~
.4
(" 'J(~. 1.
diJ
t,lEhresmann
Ell Engineering Inc.
and Associates
4400 Wesl31 st SI. - Yankton, so 57078
Phone: (605) 665-7532 Fax: (605) 665-9780
E-Mail: eei@byelectric.com
Web Address: hllp:llsdibi.northern.eduJehresmann
November 23, 1999
Mr. Dan Vaughan
Arden Towers, Inc.
3440 Bayside Road
Orono, MN 55356
Ph: 612-473-3660
Fax: 612-473-3880
subject: 700' Rohn 80 Guyed Tower
Site: Arden Hills, MN
EE! JOi 27366-99 (Revision B)
Dear Mr. Vaughan,
We have completed our revised structural stress analysis of
the above described tower per your request. All information
required to complete our structural analysis was furnished
to EE! by your office.
~~h8!l"r!-~!!~~!fU~~::9~j!.~!t~f~~ '.'~~~e4~~~;~~b'!.{nfi~~
l~,~.~.' . t~j:~~pX9~e~~~~fl!.~swere calculate,Q in accord-
an9,~,,;;,.~1 ~!:I"~",,Jl,;1!:..frQ~,;,,:r()~f&l.~ f ~p,.~,. d~ ted 1 0/12/9 81ndlci1t,~Ag
,~~~t~~.:P"'~~~f9J:;!i,~~S are btindledand eveIily distributed ont'he
(.../ 'tower ' aces.
HOW~Yer, ,":pel;l>.h.()~oS dated 10/19/99 furnished to our office
tlie!eedHiI'eg.oa:pp'earto not be bUndled as you had indicated.
For the subj ect tower to, Iilgr~e ,with our analysis
considerations and results, tile, Ieed)..ines must be installed
as shown on our attached drawing 27366A1-1.
As stated in previous reports, at the time this tower was
erected it was rated for installation up to BOO ft depending
on member sizes and tower loading. 'l'~'_Ubje9t..~N.IS)
( t~ep~(ore.....a.~'IlJ:;~..a,chi,ng, t., h. e Ii.mi. t. i.. ng.. he" 1....9. tit 'and '66'irS'''''IiIW'"ibr'e
. ltoJ~-:!1i8;ti~!Ila!.~!~Origil1a_llY_d~Signed for.
Therefore, it is our opinion that even though the stress
ratios indicate additional loading can be installed on the
subject tower, we suggest all criteria outlined in this
Antenna Support Structuru - Guyed and Self-Bfpyorti"if 7bwe,.. and Monopala - Stell FobriaIticm
Structural AnGly.itJ .]nopecticn . Specifi=ticno . Pro.;.ct Manog~ment . lktaili"if - P.E. c-tifi=tion
, , ~ J
I' . 'J
.
.
.
report is considered and keep in mind that stress ratios and
allowable tower loads are based on new material with no
defects, rusting or problem areas.
(Our f.evise~ analYSi<~,\W,~.'~c,....._.9P.,.~J;l1,..~t~d . per TIA/EIA-222-F,
wind velOClty and noice~.p-er youf lnstructions. Our
sis included the following loading:
80 mph \
analy- )
Existinq Loadinq
ITEM
-------------------~----------------------------------------
ELEVATION
REMARK
BeacOn & Strobe
PD458 on 6' SA
PDlll00n 6' SA
Preamp
7' Stabilizer
PD1132 on 6' SA
PDll10 on 6' SA
7' Stabilizer
PD458 on 6' SA
PD1110 on 6' SA
PD458 on 6' SA
'PD458 on 6' SA
TD6074 on 6' SA
Side Lights
TDE6073 on 6' SA
Strobe Lights
Side Lights
DB-222E on Side Mount
DB-224E on Side Mount
Scala OGP9-93K on 6' SA
DB-589 on 6' SA
Beacon
TDC6060A on 6' SA
DB809 on 6' SA
strobe Lights
ASP952 on 6' SA
DB806Y on 6' SA
Side Lights
DB230-E
(3) SP9014-DIN on T-Frame
(3) SP9014-DIN on T-Frame
(3) SP9014-DIN on T-Frame
2
700'
700'
700'
698'
680'
660'
655'
600'
570'
570'
555'
540'
540'
535'
520'
470'
415'
400'
387'
300'
300'
280'
250'
250'
240'
200'
180'
140'
130'
70'
62'
50'
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
EXisting
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
EXisting
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
EXisting
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
" "
.' "
.
.
.
Results, Option 1
dExistinq Tower ti1h Existinq Antennas)
\;80 MfJi wind and!lQ'.li;L Analvsis'Der
TIA/EIA-222-F.
Mast:
Leas: The maximum combined stress ratio in the
vertical members is 1.21 at elevation 180'
which is less than the maximum allowable
value of 1.33. See comments.
Diaq: The maximum combined stress ratios in the
braCing members is 0.95 at elevation 400'
which is less than the maximum allowable
value of 1.33. See comments.
GUvs: The minimum guy safety factor is 2.42 at
elevation 520' which is greater than the
minimum required value of 2.00. See comments.
Foundation:
Ba
Actual axial load at b~se of tower per our analy-
sis is 232,300 Rips. This results in a net bear-
ing ,pressure of 3337 PSF based on foundation
drawing numberc810975 llY Unarco-Rohn. Allowable
net bearing pressure is 3000 PSF based on drawing
number C810975 by Unarco-Rohn and soils report by
Subterranean Engineering, Inc. date July, 1981.
EEl cannot comment on nor account for the existing
soils under the base foundation to safely support
this increased net bearing pressure. We suggest
the vertical load at the base of the tower is
forwarded., to Subterranean Engineering, Inc. to
review the base ,design and their soils report to
determine if soils are adequate. Modifications
may be required.
Inn Anc: Actual vertical uplift load of 14.53 Kips and an
actual horizontal load of 18.79 Kips per our
analysis. Per the original reactions furnished to
Subterranean Engineering, Inc. by Unarco-Rohn, the
inner anchors were design for an uplift load of
17.10 kips and a horizontal load of 21.80 kips.
Due to the lack of information regarding the
existing anchor shaft, EEl cannot comment on nor
account for the capacity of the existing anchor
shaft to develop reactions per our current
analysis.
3
.
Due to the reactions per our current analysis
being less than those originally designed for,
inner anchors are considered to be adequate.
Please note, this consideration is accurate
providing foundations and anchor shafts were
properly designed per the site specific soils.
~ comments.
Mid
c' Actual vertical uplift load of 22.45 Kips and an
actual horizontal load of 24.32 Kips per our
analysis. Per the original reactions furnished to
Subterranean Engineering, Inc. by Unarco-Rohn, the
middle anchors were design for an uplift load of
22.40 kips and a horizontal load of 23.30 kips.
.
Due to the lack of information regarding the
existing anchor shaft, EEl cannot comment on nor
account for the capacity of the existing anchor
shaft to develop reactions per our current
analysis.
(As previously outlined, the reactions per our )
current analysis are slightly greater than those
originally designed for. EEl cannot comment on '
nor account for the existing soils to develop
these increased reactions. We suggest these reac-
tions are forwarded to subterranean Engineering,
Inc. to review the middle anchor design to deter-
mine if soils are adequate. Modifications may be
required.
Actual vertical uplift load of 69.75 Kips and an
actual horizontal load of 64.86 Kips per our
analysis. Per the: original reactions furnished to
Subterranean Engineering, Inc. by Unarco-Rohn, the
outer anchors were design for an uplift load of
61.50 kips and a horizontal load of 52.10 kips.
.
Due to the lack of information regarding the
existing anchor shaft, EEl cannot comment on nor
account for the capacity of the existing anchor
shaft to develop' reactions per our current
analysis.
As previously outlined, the reactions per our "
(current analysis are greater than those original I!)
deslgnea Tor. --EEl' ca-nnot -- comm-ent on nor account
. for the existing soils to develop these increased
reactions. We suggest these reactions are for-
4
.
.
.
..'
warded to
the outer
adequate.
Subterranean Engineering,Inc. to review
anchor design to determine if soils are
Modifications may be required.
Comments
The 700' Rohn 80 guyed tower located at Arden Hills, MN does
meet the specifications of TIA/EIA-222-F considering 80 mph
wind and no ice providing all information as supplied to EEl
being correct and current, feedlines are bundled and evenly
distributed as shown on our attached drawing 27366Al-l and
foundations are determined to be adequate by Subterranean
Engineering, Inc. for the increased reactions. If tower
loading is changed or altered in any way, we suggest an
additional analysis be completed.
We QQ recommend that the tower owner excavate adiacent 12
the existinQ anchor shafts'1Q inspect ~ excessive rust.
please ~ the shafts should ~ inspected all ~ ~ 12
the point when it enters the concrete. Caution 1Q n21
disturb the shaft with mechanical eauipment ~ ~ A ~
hoe. We would ~ to reiterate the importance ~ the
shafts should be the, first i1gm Qf concern before ~ Qf the
modifications are completed QL ~ proposed antennas ~ be
installed.
There are some criteria we feel you should be aware of when
reviewing our analysis and report. Due to the tubular
construction of this tower, it is difficult to tell the
amount of rust or deterioration that may have developed in
the tower members.
The tubular tower members can be ultrasonically 'tested to
determine the area of steel remaining. However to be abso-
lutely sure that no rusting is taking place, each tower leg
would have to be tested every square inch, which is not
economically feasible.
We are not implying that you do have rusting problems in the
SUbject tower, we are simply stating that we cannot guaran-
tee that no rusting is taking place and you should be aware
of this. Our stress ratios as shown in our analysis and in
the results section of this report are based on steel being
in new condition with no rusting or deterioration.
upon request Ehresmann Engineering Inc. will visit the
previouslY described tower site and inspect tower, lines,
and antennas for, compliance to this engineering analysis in
its entirety upon completion of project. Cost will be
quoted at time of request.
5
. '.,
.
If you elect to not have Ehresmann Engineering complete this
final inspection, Ehresmann Engineering can not be held
responsible for installation of antennas, antenna mounts,
feedlines and/or modification materials in accordance with
our analysis and specification.
We would like to point out the fact that we considered this
tower to be in near new condition when completing our struc-
tural analysis. No allowance was made for missing, corrod-
ing or deteriorating tower members. '
This report is based on the following:
.
1. Tower properly installed and maintained.
2. All members in good condition.
3. All members in place. '
4. All bolts in place and properly tightened.
5. Weep holes on tube and pipe members open.
6. Tower being in plumb condition with proper guy tension
ins talled.
7. All tower members being properly designed, detailed,
fabricated, installed and maintained over the years.
Ehresmann Engineering Inc. is not responsible for
fications completed prior to or hereafter which
Engineering Inc. is not or was not directly
Modifications to include but are not limited to:
any modi-
Ehresmann
involved.
1. Replacing or strengthening bracing members.
2. Reinforcing vertical members in any manner.
3. Adding or relocating stabilizers.
4. Installing antenna mounting gates or side arms.
5. Changing guy sizes and related hardware.
6. Installing new anchors and anchor shafts.
7. Extending tower.
.
Ehresmann Engineering, Inc., hereby states that this docu-
ment represents the entire report and that it assumes no
liability for any factual, changes that may occur after" the
date of this report. All representations and recom-
mendations and conclusions are based upon the information
contained and set forth herein. If you are aware of any
information which is contrary to that which is contained
herein, or you are aware of any defects arising from the
original design, material, fabrication and erection defi-
ciencies, you should disregard this report and immediately
contact Ehresmann Engineering Inc. Ehresmann Engineering
Inc., disclaims all liability for any representation, recom-
mendation or conclusion not expressly stated herein.
6
,,'
.
Thank you, if you have any questions please do not hesitate
to call.
()cere1 ~
'ft5
r~ Ehresmann
Enclosures; Standard Terms and Conditions - Tower Analysis
Stress analysis, Option #1 - dated 11/23/99
file: 2736-11.dat
.
.
7
.
" '
.
.
l-EGEND
o 1 5/8'
EB 1 1/4' COND
e 1 1/4'
. 7/8'
~ 1/2'
~DTE'
1. THE ABOVE VIE'w' lNDICATES THE LlNE POSlTIDNING
USED TO CALCULATE PROJECTED AREA FOR OPTION #L
REVISON #8,
2, SOME lTEMS LEFT OUT OF VIE'w' FOR CLARITY REASONS,
.
SITE' ARDEN HILLS, MN
ANTENNA FEEDLINE PLACEMENT
OPTION *'1. REVISION *'8
BY' JDGITSP
CHECKED'
.'oIl; t27366Al-l SM'l
EHRESMANN ENGINEERING. INC.
CONSUL TlNG ENGlNE~RS
4400 WEST 31s'l STREET
YANKTON. S.D, :17078
<60:1) 66:1-7:132
(60:1) 66:1- 9780
.J.l), 27366
'DATE, 11/22/99
or
..
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDmONS - TOWER ANALYSES
Ehresmann Engineering, Inc. - 4400 W. 31st Street- Yankton, SO 57078
.
Engineering consultations and rower analyses provided by Du~smann
Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter ca lied EEl) are subject to the following terms and
conditions with respect ro responsibilities of all parties (EEl, CLIENT, and/or
tower OWNER). Professional Engineering $erYices performed by EEl, as
represenmd by EEl report, include analysis of the tower(s) in accordance with
applicable codes, EIA. ANSI, UBC, considering the latest revisions, or as
indicated on the report, and compilation of a report based on the results of engi.
neering analysis specifying areas of com:em with recommendations to correct,
modify, or repair any discrepancies found at the site. NaIe: "tower has never
been modffied or no antennas added/remOVEd, governing codes will have been
those which were applitable at the time of tower erection unless otherwise
requestell by CliENT/OWNER; Modffied or newly designed towers are analyzed
to current codes.
Prior to tower analysis, CUENT /OWNER will make available to EEl all known
inturmation regarding existing and proposed requirements whith affect the work
to be performed. Information will include, but nat be limited to specffications,
contracts. recommendations, plans, change orders, photographs, $Oil1est reports
and recommendationS, local codes, ell:.-
SpecifIC information required for \DWef stnJctural analysis shall indude 1be
tower 1ocati0ll (stale and coun1J); \DWef model, height, and orienlatiOll on '-'
site; as-bum drawings; tower leg, diagonal, and girt size with IYpe and grade of
Mf!A and quantity/size 01 bolts; accurate antenna loading (show configuration
.. .r, azimuth of microwave dishes, etc.); $Oil analysis; location, size and
grade of all guy strand; location and sizes of feed lines, plallorms. ladders and
other appurterlance; location and size of stabilizers; guy anellor radii; tower base
type (piwl or fixed); and foundation desi91 for tower and anchors. '
CliENT will immediately transmU to EEl any new information which becomes
availablt to it 01 its subcOntractJllS, so lhat recommended actions, designs and
drawings can be revitMed and new recommendations by EEl made, if needed.
CLIENT will provide a representative to answer questions about 1be project when
required by EEl upon 24 houB notice. if possible.
If CLIENT/OWNER is unable or unwilling to provide the information specified
above, EEl will, upon wrillen req~ of the CliENT/OWNER, perform or cause
to be performed an on.site inspectiOll 01 1be tower to obtain the necessary
information.
ClIENT/OWNER accepts that IICll 01 any information outlined above shall
cause the to_ to be ana!y1ed or advice providecl based on certain
assumption Iud! as narmalsoll ~itilllll, manuflClurw'1 specifications,
and prolesliOllllI envi.-i1lQ upenenc:e .nd judgment.
Written analysis provided by EEl represents conditiOllS as furnished above. EEl
assumes no liability lor any tac1lial changes that may occur alIer the dam of the
report. All represefrtations. recommendations and conclusions of said report
were based upon the information containlld and set turth in the report.
.~,iai~:: .~ :=o:r ~~d:'~ an:n:::
designed, detailed, fabriuled, erected, and maintained throughoullhe life
01 the tower.
The report assumes also that the tower members and hardware are in place and
ill good condition; bolts are properly tightened; weep holes on tube and pipe
members are open; tower is in plumb condition with proper guy tension; and all
membeB are galvanized or free of corrosion.
EEl assumes no liability tOl any damage or failuR of the tower or any tower
componentll sud1 failure was due to inadequacies in envi~ng design
detailing, fabricating, erecting, materials, or maintenance. '
Recommended modifications outline the scope of work only and are not intended
to imply sequence of work or construction procedures. Persons performing
modification work will use safe and acceptable industry practices to eIfecI
modifications, and will be responsible for compliance with all fedenl~ stale, and
local safely codes. '
EEl will nOl be liable for any incorrect advice, judgment, or decision based on
any inaccurate information furnished by WENT, and CUENT will indemnify EEl
against all liability arising out of or c:ontribulI!IIlIl by such information.
, If CLIENT/OWNER becomes aware of any information which is contrary III lIlat
contained in the report; or if CLIENT/OWNER becomes aware of any detects
arising from the original design, materia~ fabrication, and erection deficiencies,
, CUENT/OWNER shall disregard said report and immediately notify EEl.
0IIl1n EEl is retained to provide partial engineering services for a project and is
not liable for portions of the project EEl is not retained III provide services for.
Please refeI III EEl's project consultant proposal-llllreement-allllract with the
CUENT for scope at work.
EEl's liability to CliENT and all COntraclDB and subconlIacIDrs on the project,
for damages due III professional negligence, or breach 01 any ather obligation lD
CUENT or others, will be IimilEd to the amount 01 EE1's fee receMld on the
project unless other specific arrangements are made in writing. III the MIlt
CLIENT does not wish to limit EEl's amount oIliabllitr on the project. EEl will
consider waiving this limitation on written notice fnlm CUENT receMld within
10 days after an agreement is fully I!lecutedor before EE1's work anlbe project
begins, whichever is earlier. The CLIENT may request the size 01 insurance
policy limits and time period 01 coverage, and CUENT will pay additional
consideration equal III EEl's lOlal insurance premium fee (when a policy is
arranged with an insurance carrier) plus 25% as a cbarve for a WaMr 01
limitation on liability. This 25% ebarve is a cbarve for insurance and an
increase in consideration for the greater risk involwd where worll is .... klldleCl
with no limitation oIliabilitr.
a.IENT will notify the OWNER and any contractor or subcontracIDr who perfonnl
work in connection with any work done by EEl 01 the limitation 01 liability tor de,
sign defecIs. errors, omissions or professional negligence, and to require as I
condition precedent to their performing their IlOlk, a like .lCIelnni9 ...
limiiation of liability on three part as against EEl. In 1he Mnlthe a.IENT fait
III obtain a like Iimitalion, CUENT will indemnify EEl for any liabililr \II any thin
parlJ .
, .
. "
EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
4400 wrsr 3' sl sTRrIT
YANKTON, SOUTH DAKOTA 57078
PH: 60S-66S-7S32 OR 665-9780
.
REV. 18
J.O. 27366
STRESS # NAVY-E'
DATE 11/22/99
PAGE 1
WIND 80 MPH
ICE NO 1 CE
SITE ARDEN HILLS, MN
MODEL RDHN 80 GT
HEIGHT 700'
BY: JDG/TSP
700'
680'
600'
.
520'
440'
360'
300'
240'
180'
120'
60'
.
OPTION #1 - EXISTING TOWER WITH
- EXISTING ANTENNAS
- ANALYSIS PER TIA/EIA-222-F
- 80 MPH WIND & NO ICE
- REVISION /8
!::l
160'
0' ---1 340'
I 520'
-20'~
PIVOT BASE
SEE PLOT PLAN I- I
SEE PLOT PLAN----1
SEE PLOT PLAN
-30'
PlOT
IF THIi, ~O~~ ~~ ~~gN'?;i,~gl~fc ~~RJ. N~r r;::ICAr;,~D INSTALLFD OR MAINTAIN[~ I~ Ajj.~O~o;;NCE
W;~~ ~;:;s AN':) i?;s AT 0 R IGN /OR CFRTlF.CATION IS INVALID AND EFI
D I PONSIBILITY FOR THIe; STRUCTURE IN ITS FNTlRFTY.
.
.
.
" .
[HR[SMANN [NG I N[[R I NG, INC.
CONSULTING ENGIN[[RS
4400 WrST 31.t STRrrr
YANKTON, SOUTH DAKOTA 57078
PH: 605-665-7532 OR 665-9780
OPTION #1 - EXISTING TOWER WITH
- EXISTING ANTENNAS
C- ANALYSIS PER TIA/ElA-22)F
- 80 MPH WIND .t NO ICE
- REVISION #8
LOADS'
(Lev.
ITEN
RAD.
AI.
LINE
700' BEACON ANO STROBE I 1/
700' P04S8 ON 6' SA 1/2'
700' POlliO ON 6' SA - COMBI
698' PREAMP - -
680' 7' STABILIZER
660' POl132 ON 6' SA ' "fl
655' POllIO ON 6' SA COMB I
600' 7' S1ABILlZER - -
570' P04S8 ON 6' SA I 5/
570' POlliO ON 6' SA COMBI
555' P04S8 ON 6' SA - I 5/
540' P04S8 DH 6' SA . - I 5/
540' T06074 ON 6' SA COMB
535' SIIlE L1GH1S
520' TOE6073 ON 6' SA - 7/8.
470' STROBE LIGHTS
415' SIDE LIGHTS -
400' OB-222r ON SIDE MOUNT - 7IS'
387' OB-224E ON SIDE MOUNT 7fA'
300' SCAlA DGP9-93K ON 6' SA I 1/
300' OB-SS9 ON 6' SA - I 5/
280' BEACON -
250' TDC6060A ON 6' SA - , "',
250' OBS09 ON 6' SA 7""
240' STROBE LIGHTS -
200' ASP952 ON 6' SA I 5/
180' OBS06T ON 6' SA - COMB
140' SIDE LIGHTS -
130' OB230-E - 1/2'
70' (3) SP9014-01N ON T-rRAME (3)
62' (3) SP9C14-0IN ON T-rRAME - (~,
50 (3) SP9014-01N ON T-rRAME 0)
REV. /8
J.O. 27366
STRESS # NAVY-E
DATE 11/22/99
PAGE 1
WIND 80 MPH
ICE NO ICE
SITE ARDEN HILLS, MN
MODEL ROHN 80 GT
HEIGHT 700'.
BY: P
4' COND
NED WITH ABOVE:-.J
~ED WITH ABOVE--1
S'
NE:D WITH ABOVE:--1
S'
S'
INED WITH ABOVE.J
4'
S'
B"
INE:D WITH ABOVE:
7IS'
7/S'
7/S'
IF THIS TOWER AND FOUNDATIONS WERE NOT FABRICATED. INSTALLED OR MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE
WITI-! THIS "ANAL ;;S'C; AND SPFCIFlCATlON OUR DFC;IGN AND/OR CFRTIFlCAT/(JN IS INVAliD AND EEl
Di~r.1 AIMS ANY RFC;PONSIBllITY FOR THIS STRUCTlJRF IN ITS ENTlRF7Y.
.
.
.
. '
.
. ,10. ~'"
~'t.h. U
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794
December 13, 1999
Dan Vaughan
Arden Towers, Inc.
3440 Bayside Road
Orono, MN 55356
Dear Dan,
The City of Arden Hills (City) wishes to Thank You for your engineering reports submitted
on 11/29/99 from EEl (Ehresmann Engineering Inc.) dated 11/15/99 and 11/23/99, regarding
the safety of your tower and its compliance with the State Building Code.
Summarizing the first report dated 11/15/99 by EEl Engineering, the Tower does not meet
State Code for Y:z" radial ice and 80 mph winds, with reduction allowed. Further, the report
indicates that conditions may be worse than the report states if the Tower has suffered any
damage or corrosion and if a sub grade inspection reveals that it does not meet the required
minimum capacity.
The second engineering report submitted by EEl engineering, dated 11/23/99, was done
without any calculations for Y:z" radial ice.
Sununarizing the engineering report dated 11/23/99 (analysis with out radial ice) many
questions remain as to the current safety of the Tower even without including y," radial ice.
It also appears not all information given to EEl engineering has been correct, (i.e. feedlines)
and the Tower has more loading on it than originally designed, plus a foundation that is
overloaded from what it was originally designed for.
In conclusion, based upon all of the information that has been submitted by you to the City,
Staff believes there is sufficient information to deem the Tower an unsafe structure
according to the State Building Code. Without question, the Tower does not meet State Code
when including y," radial ice. It appears the Tower was never designed to be able to
withstand y," radial ice even though it was a requirement at the time the Tower was built.
The Tower was built in 1981, and the requirement to include y," radial ice went into effect in
September of 1980.
There also have been many additions / alterations to the Tower over the years that have been
done without Building Permits or amendments to the Special Use Permit (attached) as
required by State and Local laws. These additions have substantially increased the loading
over what the Tower was originally designed for, which in turn has made the Tower even
less safe with each and every addition.
PHONE: (651) 633-5676 . FAX (651) 633-7839
. ,
. ~
.
.
.
. .
" ~.-
.
The original design of the Tower showed only 3 antenna groupings, all over the 600-foot
elevation. Today, as the engineering reports show, there are 20 antennas mounted at various
heights through out the Towers entire height.
Staff will commence proceedings to declare the Tower an unsafe structure according to the
State Building Code, on February 28,2000; unless you are able to make alterations to the
Tower complying with the State Building Code.
We would like to meet with you to discuss your options with this tower at your earliest
possible convenience. Please contact me to arrange a time to meet. Thank you for your
cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
Dave Scherbel
Building Official
Attachment r. C! . tr g' I, ~
cc: Joe Lynch, City Administrator
Jerry Filla, City Attorney
Patricia A. Conlin, US West
(~k. vJ
.
~,.
Department of Administration
October 18,2000
Mr. Dave Scherbe1
Arden Hills Building Official
4364 West Round Lake Road
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794
Subject:
Our response to your request of September 28, 2000 regarding our review of your
decision declaring a 700 foot high tower in the city of Arden Hills unsafe
Dear Mr. Scherbel,
Based on the information you forwarded to us for review, we have concluded that you are correct
in declaring the tower unsafe. Both our structural engineer and I reviewed the materials and
agree with your action. Ifit appears that legal action may jeopardize your order, the city should
consider hiring their own consultant to personally evaluate the structure on site. To this point,
your conclusions are only based on the information supplied by the owner. In fact, an on-site
. inspection could reveal additional issues as alluded to in one of the reports regarding corrosion.
If you would like to discuss this further with us, don't hesitate to contact me at 651.297.1658 or
Dan Kelsey our Structural Engineer at 651.205.4210.
BUILDILNG CODES & STANDARDS DMSION
Sincerely,
)Pic/it;
Scott D. McLellan, Supervisor
Plan Review & Regional Services
Cc: Dan Kelsey, MBCSD
.
Building Codes and Standards Division, 408 Metro Square Building, 121 7th Place 'East, SCPou!, MN5510i-218!
Voice: 651.296.4639; Fax: 651.297,t973; 1TY: 1.800.627.3529 and ask for 296.9929
Lynch.Joe
_From:
. Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kim Elverum [kim,elverum@dnr,state,mn,usj
Tuesday, September 04,2001 1 :54 PM
i oe ,Iynch@ci,arden-hills,mn.us
RE: Lake Johanna
Joe:
My apologies for the confusion. The Assistant AG's opinion was that the
DNR surface use rules require that any ordinance originating prior to
1975 needs to be brought into compliance with the standards adopted in
those 1980 rules, unless a variance is requested. The 100 or 1501 from
shore slow-no wake portion was what he was pointing out. If there is a
variance frornthat (IE the 250' that you folks have) - he thought a
request for variance should be made by the City to cover that portion.
If that were done - it appears that we have no problem in approving the . f _
ordinance amendment as proposed. 1,4!MI/flh fi)_...k.~ LAJ ~ ~~.
Hope that helps I '-'I""'{ '-'V"1' -I 0 1'(1'7
Kim
>>> <joe.1ynch@ci.arden-hi11s.mn.us> 09/04/01 01:42PM >>>
Kim:
I have passed along your e-mail to our Council to get feedback on the
_~eq~est for variance. I would again like to ask why it is that we need
.varlance whne we are not changing that portion of our Ordinance having
to do
with the setback area? I though I understood from you that we would not
have to make changes to other parts of our Ordinance, which is legal and
adopted before DNR regulations, if we were not changing those portions
of
the Ordinance.
Joe Lynch
City Administrator
City of Arden Hills
65)-634-5127
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Elverurn [mailto:kim.elverurn@dnr.state.rnn.us]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 2:33 PM
To: joe.lynch@ci.arden-hills.mn.us
Subject: Lake Johanna
Our Assistant AG feels that the City should request some sort of
variance
from our standard
According to him,
counties to bring
were
_enacted prior to 1975.
.If you could fax or mail me something to the following, I think that
would
cover the variance request:
100 or 150 foot
our surface use
ordinances into
for shoreline slow-no wake zones.
rules appear to require cities and
line with the rules standards if they
1
,
e
e
-
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
J UthSh
Joe Lynch, City Administrator (Joe
FROM:
SUBJECT: City Hall building usage
DATE: September 12, 2001
CC: Policy File
Backl:round
With the completion ofthe new City Hall, the City of Arden Hills will have a public building
that is capable of being used in ways that it was not possible to use either the previously existing
City Hall or the current leased facilities. The City will have two conference rooms, a Community
room, and a Council Chambers, available for either Arden Hills related activities and/or
individual or group activities not directly related to the City of Arden Hills. To my knowledge
the City has not adopted a building use policy, nor outlined the guidelines regarding the
prioritization of use of the public spaces available, and fees charged, if any.
The second story conference room is capable of seating up to 20 around a conference table. This
room will be equipped with teleconferencing and a white board. This area will only be available
through the staff area or to those individuals or groups given a special security key used to gain
access using the elevator. This area will be limited to general public use due to the fact that the
rear stair gains access to the City of Arden Hills staff area.
The first floor conference room is next to the City Council Chambers on the main floor. This
room is capable of seating up to 10 around a conference table. This room will be equipped with a
white board and a small area for storage of food and beverages. This area will be secured the
same as the City Council Chambers.
The community room on the lower level is capable of seating up to 125-150 classroom style, and
possibly up to 75 around tables. The Recreation Department will utilize this room to hold some
~
City Hall building use
September 12, 2001
Page 2
.
classes. Until the new City Hall is available, we have short-term use of the Army Reserve Center
for these classes. Access to the community room can be gained by the elevator or the stairwell,
which only has access between the first and lower levels. Window treatments will allow
darkening ofthe room for videoconferencing or audio visual demonstration. The room does not
have partitioning capability and will not be available for simultaneous multiple group use. Next
to the community room is a full kitchen which can be available for functions. The lower level has
separate restroom facilities and two exits to the outside.
Council needs to determine what policies to have in regard to use of the facilities, after normal
business hours and on weekends. The Council will need to consider prioritization of the use of
the facilities.
One thing the Council may want to consider is aligning these meetings so all City meetings occur
on consecutive days, leaving Wednesdays through Sundays open. The City Council meets on the
second, third, and last Mondays of each month. The Planning Commission meets on the first
Wednesday of each month. The Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee meets on the fourth
Tuesday of each month. The Communications Committee meets on the last Wednesday of each
month. The Operations and Finance Committee meets on the third Thursday of each month. If ...
these meetings could be held on Mondays and Tuesdays we could schedule use for outside ..
groups or individuals on those days not desiguated for City or City related use.
Our Joint Powers Agreement with the Army National Guard allows them to be the first to
schedule a meeting room with six weeks notice. If less than six weeks notice they will be subj ect
to room availability. The use of the meetings rooms will be at no charge to the Army National
Guard. The agreement specifies that they are responsible for cleaning procedures.
While considering the potential use of the building, the City Council needs to keep in mind that
along with multiple use, there is an added need for maintenance and janitorial services. Ifwe
utilize the space seven days a week we will have to deal with normal "wear and tear" items that
occur. These occurrences would have to be dealt with promptly. In addition, the use of the
facility would necessitate a higher level of cleaning. For example, carpets and floors would need
to be done daily, instead of weekly. Maintenance would also need to be done on a frequent basis.
This would be in addition to the cleaning and maintenance needs of the general staff area.
At this time there has been no decision made regarding how this will be handled. Two ideas are
considering hiring two part-time personnel to staff the building late afternoon and evening for
maintenance and cleaning needs. Staff could complete the cleaning process later in the evening
when the building is empty. While the building is occupied staff would also be able to act as
security for the building. The other option is to contract for both maintenance and janitorial
services. Maintenance would be an on-call situation with a specified time frame for arrival. ...
Janitorial services would be provided on a daily basis but paid for through a contract. ..
I
.
.
.
City Hall building use
September 12,2001
Page 3
Current cleaning services occur once per week and are limited to emptying trash, vacuuming,
and cleaning restrooms. They have indicated that they are not interested in continuing service
with us in the new building. In our new facility we would need to upgrade the service to add
cleaning windows and glass, cleaning reception area, as well as regularly scheduled maintenance
items such as cleaning carpet, waxing floors, cleaning walls, etc.
I would like to propose the following for your consideration and discussion:
. Realigu all City related meetings to occur on Mondays and Tuesdays.
. City Council will continue to meet on the second, third, and last Mondays of each month.
. Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee should be polled to determine if they would like
to move their meetings to the first Tuesday of each month.
. The Planning Commission should also be polled to determine if they would like to move
their meetings to the last Tuesday of each month.
. The Newsletter Committee, Operations and Finance Committee, Newsletter Committee,
and any other Special Task Force should be asked to schedule their meetings on
remaining Mondays Of Tuesdays.
. Wednesdays through Sundays would be available to other groups or individuals on the
following priority basis:
. Arden Hills City government.
. Any Arden Hills group or individual.
. Army National Guard,
. Any other not-for-profit group not directly related to the City of Arden Hills.
. Any other for profit group not directly related to the City of Arden Hills.
We should consider a building use time frame that is consistent with Ramsey County curfew.
This is also consistent with the City Council's desire to end meetings by 10:00 p.m. It is
preferable to decide on specific hours of operation regarding use of the facilities to limit the need
for maintenance and/or janitorial services, We will have the ability to program the electronic
doors to lock at certain times. This would allow for exiting the building but not re-entry. In
addition, we will also have the ability to secure areas that are offlimits.
Recommendation
At this time staff would recommend that the City Council adopt policies regarding the following:
. Use offacilities on weekdays and weekends,
. Prioritized list of users.
. Time frame for use of the building,
. Fees to be charged to Arden Hills related activities, non-profit organizations, and for profit
organizations, etc. for use of City Hall.
e
e
e
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council JJIII//1/ ...-
Joe Lynch, City Administrat~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Employee benefit parity proposal
DATE:
September 12,2001
cc:
Personnel benefits file
Backl!round
Previously I had presented you with a proposal brought to me by Terry Post on the equalization
of benefits within the City of Arden Hills for City of Arden Hills employees. Basically, the
proposal was to allow those employees who do not take advantage of the family health care
coverage through the City of Arden Hills to gain the same dollar benefit by allowing them to
increase their deferred compensation through the International City Managers Association, with
the difference between single health and dental insurance coverage and the maximum amount of
benefit provided by the City of Arden Hills.
One of the things I was charged with when I was brought on board was to help with the concern
over the working envirornnent ofthe City staff. One concern was that there may not be enough
administrative support personnel to assist administrative staff in accomplishing all the things that
needed to be done. The second concern was the working envirornnent which included physical
space but also the perception that the City of Arden Hills needed to take a look at who we were
attracting to our positions, why they were attracted, and why they stayed or left. One of the
concerns that has been expressed to me has been the fact that the City has always seen itself as a
"training ground" for employees. The acceptance of the fact that employees stay with us from a
few years to less than ten, only to move on to bigger and better jobs, has been found to be status
quo.
1 believe that you have an opportunity in the form ofthis benefit parity proposal to begin to make
another correction to that perception. Combined with the reorganization and the process we are
Employee benefit parity proposal
September 12,2001
Page 2
currently undergoing in evaluating all of our jobs, the compensation system, and the pay equity
system, benefit parity would enable the City to attract different kinds of candidates and perhaps
hold on to them for a longer period of time or enable employees to make a decision to stay with a
small city.
I would like to have discussion at your September 17 worksession on this and either prepare for
your decision at your September 24 meeting on consent agenda for acceptance of this proposal,
be directed to make changes in the proposal, or not to consider the proposal at all.
RECOMMENDATION
Again, staff recommends that the City Council accept the benefit parity proposal as previously
presented enabling those employees who do not take advantage of the family health insurance
and dental insurance coverage through the City of Arden Hills to gain benefit parity by providing
them with the sum difference between the maximum benefit amount provided by the City for
those coverages and allow them to place the difference in deferred compensation through the
International City Managers Association benefit provided to employees.
.
e
e
~
"
e
e
.
~
~~HILLS
'II.t eg"
September 6, 2001
Dave Schreier, Fire Chief
Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department
1140 West County Road I
Shoreview, MN 55126
Dear Dave,
Enclosed within is a copy ofa memorandum of understanding proposed between the City of Arden Hills
and Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department, for the provision of fire inspection services as we had
previously discussed. The City of Arden Hills would like to hire Eric Nordeen full time and continue to
have Eric assist Dave Scherbel in providing support and assistance in code enforcement, inspection, and
nuisance ordinance enforcement, and at the same time allow you to continue to provide the public safety
and services he provides for Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department for the cities of Arden Hills,
Shoreview and North Oaks,
The fonnat is taken from a similar memorandum of understanding between the City of Arden Hills and
Shoreview, when the City of Shoreview provided part time building inspection services to the City of
Arden Hills. Compensation reimbursement is based on the job classification rate for the City of Arden
Hills, including benefits, paid by the City of Arden Hills to Mr. Nordeen.
Please read through the memorandum. If you are in agreement, please sign the copy and return it to us
and we will make a copy and return one to you. If you have comments, please either make them in writing
to me or contact me by telephone.
JPLljb
cc:
Terry Schwenn, City Manager, Shoreview
Dave Scherbel
Eric Nordeen
City Council
Terry Post
Tom Moore
Lake Johanna Fire Department file
City of Arden Hills . 4364 'Vest Round Lake Road
Arden Hills, MN . 55112-5794
Phone (651) 634-5]20
Fax: (65]) 634.5137
www.ci.arden.hills.mn.us
\\-.c.!re... L l)el:e~so!-
j<2!orr:e :J FilL::
Daniel \\'ill Frarn
CIEnl1 ,"'. Bcr2man
John 1\1ichae(-I\~iller
._MiChael T Oberle
Steven 1-1. Bruns~
Pclul \\'. FJhnin2
Esther E. rVIcGi~nis
Icffrcv L Cohen
DE.'T'ERC::. (\T\ 1.
1 ,1 '-L-' '"J1 ~,
FRAMi "BE1~GMAN
~JljJJR:lfl~):'EI;~JK~'h.~i:~1?}mill!]l;fi,
~' III
.:J L ~'"
-r/;'P +-
.,
,,--
Suite 300
'50 East Fifth Street
St_ Paul, 1'v1N '5'5101-11C)7
10511291-80')';
1651! 228.1753 fa"'mile
Direct Dial #(651) 290-6907
jfilla@pfb-pa,com
August 23,2001
Joe Lynch
City Administrator
City of Arden Hills
4364 West Round Lake Road
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794
, ,~" !,. 2801
_~J _
RE: Memorandum of Understanding
Fire Inspection Services
Our File No.: 10450/920001
Dear Joe:
.
Enclosed is a revised draft of the Memorandum of Understanding for the fire inspection service
agreement with the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department. If you have any questions,
please contact me.
.
Very truly yours,
JPF:bab
enc.
.
e
1,,,I!li-'I:j
~
.
.
.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
C'
r-.,""
;)'j
1.00 Parties. This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by and
between the City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota statutory city ("City"), and the Lake
Johanna Volunteer Fire Department, a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Fire
Department").
2.00 Recitals. The City and the Fire Department desire to share the services of
an individual who will provide backup building inspection services and fire inspection
services for the City and who will provide fire inspection and fire inspection suppression
services for the Fire Department. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the terms
and conditions of the shared services.
3.00 Terms and Conditions. In consideration of the mutual undertakings
herein expressed, the parties agree as follows:
A.
City Services. The Fire Inspector shall be a regular employee ofthe City
and shall be subject to its employment policies and regulations.
1. When providing services to the City, the Fire Inspector shall be
under the direct supervision ofthe City's Building Inspector.
2. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Fire Department
against claims for damages of whatever kind resulting from the Fire
Inspector's actions or failure to act while providing services as a
Building Inspector or Fire Inspector for the City.
3. The use of City vehicles and equipment and reimbursement for
mileage while engaged in City services shall be subject to the City's
policies.
B. Fire Department Services. For approximately twenty (20) hours per
week, on the average, the Fire Inspector shall provide fire inspection and
fire inspection suppression services for the Fire Department.
1.
While providing services to the Fire Department, the Fire Inspector
shall be under the direct supervision of the Fire Chief.
1
.
2.
The Fire Department agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City
as against all claims for damages, of whatever kind, resulting from
the Fire Inspector's actions or failure to act while engaged as a Fire
Inspector or Fire Suppression Inspector for the Fire Department.
----..,..
e
3. The use of Fire Department vehicles and equipment and
reimbursement for mileage while engaged in Fire Department
services shall be subject to the Fire Department's policies.
C. Schedulinl!:. The City and Fire Department will coordinate the scheduling
of the Fire Inspector so that the Fire Inspector is available to provide
backup services to the City's Building Inspector due to vacations, illness,
or continuing education classes.
D. Training. The City and Fire Department shall agree upon the scope of
professional development for the Fire Inspector (including but not limited
to, training, licensing, and equipping) and shall mutually agree upon the
cost sharing for such professional development.
E.
Compensation/Reimbursement. The City shall bill the Fire Department
for the services of the Fire Inspector on a monthly basis. The Fire
Department shall tender payment of the invoiced amount within thirty (30)
days of receipt of the invoice.
e
.
The billing rates for the Fire Inspector shall be based upon the Arden Hills
Job Classification Plan. The hourly rates will be automatically increased
on January 1 of each year based upon the cost of living adjustment and the
pay step system ofthe Arden Hills Job Classification Plan. The proposed
pay grade at the time of the execution of this Memorandum of
Understanding is as follows:
Step 1 (starting rate) is $23 per hour.
Step 2 at 6 months is a 2.5% increase ($23.58 per hour).
Step 3 at 12 months is a 2.5% increase ($24.16 per hour).
Step 4 at 2 years is a 4% increase ($25.13 per hour).
.
2
e
~
e
~
.
Step 5 at 3 years is a 4% increase ($26.14 per hour).
F.
Termination of Agreement. Either party may terminate this
Memorandum of Understanding by providing the other party with ninety
(90) days' written notice.
G.
Revisions to Memorandum. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or
waivers of provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding will only be
valid when they have been reduced to writing, properly executed, and
attached to the original of this Memorandum of Understanding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
Pursuant to Council authorization
granted on the _ day of By:
,2001.
Its:
LAKE JOHANNA FIRE
DEPARTMENT
Pursuant to authorization granted
by the Fire Department Board of
Directors on the _ day of
,2001.
By:
Its:
F:\users\BARBER\JERRY\AH-memo of understanding. wpd
3