The URL can be used to link to this page

2019.11.18 - Packet 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov Crystal Planning Commission Agenda Summary Monday, November 18, 2019 7 p.m. Crystal City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes* a. Monday, August 12, 2019 meeting minutes 3. Public Hearing* a. Conditional use permit and variance request from Verizon for a new telecommunications tower at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue North (Application Number 2019-08) 4. Old Business - None 5. New Business - None 6. General Information a. City Council actions on previous Planning Commission items: – Miscellaneous amendments to the city’s unified development code b. Update from Council liaison c. Staff preview of likely agenda items for Monday, December 9, 2019 meeting: – Meeting is cancelled as no applications were received 7. Open Forum 8. Adjournment * Items for which supporting materials are included in the meeting packet Page 1 of 2 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION DETAILED AGENDA Monday, November 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Crystal City Hall Commissioners, please call 763.531.1142 or email dan.olson@crystalmn.gov if unable to attend * Items for which supporting materials are included in the meeting packet 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at ______ p.m. with the following members present:  Commissioner (Ward 1) Sears  Commissioner (Ward 2) Selton [Chair]  Commissioner (Ward 4) Einfeldt-Brown [Vice Chair]  Commissioner (Ward 1) Heigel  Commissioner (Ward 3) Maristany [Sec. Vice Chair]  Commissioner (Ward 4) Johnson  Commissioner (Ward 2) Strand  Commissioner (Ward 3) Buck  Commissioner (At- Large) Seffren 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * Moved by _______________ and seconded by _______________ to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2019 regular meeting with the following exceptions: Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARING* a. Conditional use permit and variance request from Verizon for a new telecommunications tower at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue North (Application Number 2019-08): Staff presented the following: Page 2 of 2 The following were heard: Planning Commission discussion: Moved by _______________ and seconded by _______________ to recommend ______ to the City Council of the CUP and variance for the proposed telecommunication tower at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue North. 4. OLD BUSINESS - None 5. NEW BUSINESS - None 6. GENERAL INFORMATION a. City Council actions on previous Planning Commission items: - Miscellaneous amendments to the city’s unified development code b. Update from Council Liaison c. Staff preview of likely agenda items for Monday, December 9, 2019 meeting: - Meeting is cancelled as no applications were received 7. OPEN FORUM 8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by _____ and seconded by ______ to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at ______ p.m. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2019 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, August 12, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Crystal City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present:  Commissioner (Ward 1) Sears X Commissioner (Ward 2) Selton [Chair] X Commissioner (Ward 4) Einfeldt-Brown [Vice Chair] X Commissioner (Ward 1) Heigel X Commissioner (Ward 3) Maristany [Sec. Vice Chair] X Commissioner (Ward 4) Johnson X Commissioner (Ward 2) Strand  Commissioner (Ward 3) Buck X Commissioner (At-Large) Seffren Other attendees: City planner Dan Olson and other interested persons. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Strand and seconded by Heigel to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2019 regular meeting with one change: On page three, the sentence “Commission member Strand again stated that the application should be continued” should be changed to “….Sears again stated…” Ayes all. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARING a. Miscellaneous amendments to the Unified Development Code, including the Town Center districts (Application Number 2019-07): Planner Olson presented a summary of the staff report and stated he is recommending approval of the UDC amendments. Commission member Maristany said she still has concerns that the homes on Brentwood Avenue will be negatively impacted by shadows from any new buildings facing Bass Lake Road. She also believes that storm drainage into residential areas will be increased by redevelopment of this area. If a lot of new apartment buildings are built in the town center area, that will negatively impact the surrounding low density residential area since renters typically aren’t as invested in the community as property owners. Maristany said she understands why drive-through facilities should be located in side or rear yards, but that location may negatively impact residential areas. Olson stated the Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2019 intent here is to locate them to be as unobtrusive as possible, but he can change the wording so that those residential areas are not negatively impacted. Maristany asked for clarification of various town center regulations, including sidewalks, new streets, balconies, satellite dishes, and solar energy systems. Olson clarified the meaning of those regulations. Commission member Seffren asked if there is a minimum size for a loading space. If not, then he suggests that the language be clarified so that a small space used for deliveries in front of the building, for example, would not be considered a loading space. Olson said he can add language to make that clarification. Commission member Strand said she was in favor of limiting the size of specialized care facility buildings, rather than limiting them by the number of residents. Olson said that the Planning Commission could recommend that these facilities have size limitations. Olson stated that according to state statute there are many different types of these facilities, and the state regulations are consistently changing. More recently these facilities have been subject to legal challenges to city zoning regulations. With all of that complexity, the city attorney advised that the best route was to regulate them by number of residents. In some areas of Crystal, these facilities would be subject to a conditional use permit, which gives the city the ability to review impacts to adjacent properties. Commission member Heigel asked about possibly limiting the height of rooftop mechanical equipment. Olson said that staff looked into it, but concluded that the potential buildings in this area would not have unusually large rooftop equipment. Chair Selton opened the public hearing. Hearing no one who wished to speak, Selton closed the public hearing. Moved by Johnson and seconded by Einfeldt-Brown to recommend approval of the UDC amendments with staff addressing the following two issues:  Staff will develop a definition for loading spaces to make it clear that the regulations do not apply to a small loading area.  In the requirements for drive-through facilities, staff will make it clear that drive- through elements may be located in a side or rear yard, but should not create negative impacts to residential areas. Ayes: Heigel, Strand, Selton, Einfeldt-Brown, Johnson, and Seffren Nay: Maristany Motion carried. 4. OLD BUSINESS - None 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan – Sale of property at 5417 – 35th Avenue North Planner Olson presented a summary of the staff report and stated staff is recommending that the Commission determine the sale of the lot is in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2019 Moved by Strand and seconded by Heigel to determine that the sale of the lot is in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. Ayes: All Motion carried. b. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan – Sale of surplus property Planner Olson presented a summary of the staff report and stated staff is recommending that the Commission determine the sale of the surplus property is in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. Moved by Strand and seconded by Maristany to determine that the sale of surplus property is in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. Ayes: All Motion carried. 6. GENERAL INFORMATION  City Council actions on previous Planning Commission items: Planner Olson provided information about the following previously reviewed development review applications:  Rezoning to C-PD for a specialized care facility at 3501 Douglas Dr N – Applicant withdrew their application prior to City Council action  Conditional use permit for a child day care facility at 7200 – 56th Ave N – Approved by the City Council  Subdivision of three residential lots for Iron Horse Addition – Approved by the City Council  Update from Council Liaison: Mr. Budziszewski was not present at the meeting.  Staff preview of likely agenda items for Monday, September 9, 2019 meeting. Mr. Olson indicated that he has not received any applications yet, but the application deadline is not until tomorrow. 7. OPEN FORUM Commission member Einfeldt-Brown asked what is moving into 4835 West Broadway. Olson said a specialized care facility is moving there, which is a permitted use in the Commercial zoning district. Olson informed the Commission that Met Council has deemed the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan as “complete”. It will be going before the Met Council on September 25th. 8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Heigel and seconded by Strand to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. 3200 VERA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH –TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATION PAGE 1 OF 8 ___________________________________________________________________________ FROM: Dan Olson, City Planner ___________________________________________________________________________ TO: Planning Commission (for November 18 Meeting) DATE: November 13, 2019 RE: PUBLIC HEARING – Conditional use permit and variance request to allow Verizon to construct a telecommunication tower at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue North (Application Number 2019-08) A. INTRODUCTION Verizon is proposing to construct a telecommunication tower on city-owned property at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue North. The property is zoned Low Density Residential (R-1) and telecommunication towers are a conditional use within that zoning district. The applicant is also requesting variances from zoning requirements to construct the tower. Notice of the November 18 public hearing was published in the Sun Post on November 7 and mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet (see attachment A). A hearing notice was also sent to the City of Golden Valley since many properties in the notification area lie within Golden Valley. Attachments: A. Site location map showing public hearing notification area B. Existing zoning map C. Site photos D. Owl Engineering report E. Documents submitted by applicant: 1. Project narrative for use-specific standards and CUP/variance criteria 2. Existing and proposed coverage maps 3. Aerial photos showing tower distance from residential properties 4. Letter confirming non-interference with public or private telecommunications 5. Letter from Sabre Industries relating to tower’s ability to withstand wind speeds F. Site plan (15 sheets) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Telecommunication Tower 3200 VERA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH –TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATION PAGE 2 OF 8 Staff Report Organization Section Page Number(s) Information Provided B. Background Pages 2 - 4  Neighborhood meeting  Existing use  Adjacent uses  Proposed use C. Conditional Use Permit Pages 5 - 6  Demonstrated need for tower  CUP criteria D. Variance Pages 6 - 8  Variance criteria E. Requested Action Page 8  Planning Commission action B. BACKGROUND Neighborhood meeting The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 23, 2019, which was attended by three area residents, five Planning Commissioners, two City Council members, the Mayor and the city planner. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information on the proposed project to property owners near the site. Attendees asked questions about the site plan layout and timing of tower construction. Existing use The 3,827 square foot property is owned by the city, and the property contains a city- owned sanitary sewer lift station, with a utility pole that provides power to the lift station. Adjacent uses The following are the existing land uses and zoning districts surrounding this property:  North – Excess right-of-way owned by MnDOT  East – Highway 100  West – Single family homes zoned R-1  South – Excess right-of-way owned by MnDOT Proposed use The applicant is proposing to construct a telecommunications tower on the site to improve cell phone reception in the area. The following use-specific standards in the UDC for telecommunications towers are addressed in information submitted by the applicant (attachments E and F). The city has retained Owl Engineering to assist in verifying that the proposed tower meets the city’s requirements (attachment D). A representative from Owl Engineering will attend the November 18, 2019 Planning Commission meeting to answer questions from the Commission and the public. 3200 VERA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH –TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATION PAGE 3 OF 8 Use-specific standards for telecommunication towers:  Size of parcel.  Requirement: The property cannot be less than 5 acres, and must be large enough that if the tower collapses, it falls completely within the property.  Findings: The property is 3,827 square feet (0.09 acres) in size. The applicant has requested a variance to this requirement (see section E, below). Owl Engineering has verified Verizon’s assertion that if the tower collapses, it will fall completely within the property.  Tower setbacks and buffers.  Requirement: The tower cannot be located within 660’ from another tower.  Findings: The nearest tower is at 2055 Lilac Drive North, Golden Valley, which is approximately 4,500’ from the proposed tower.  Requirement: The tower cannot be located within 165’ from a single-family dwelling.  Findings: The nearest dwelling to the proposed tower is at 3160 Welcome Avenue North, which is 278’ from the tower.  Requirement: The tower cannot be located within 82.5’ from any lot line.  Findings: The proposed tower is approximately 17’ to the closest property line for the property at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue North. The applicant has requested a variance to this requirement (see section E, below).  Tower height.  Requirement: The tower cannot exceed 100’ or 50% of the distance from the tower to the nearest property line of a single-family dwelling, whichever is less.  Findings: The tower is 191’ to the nearest residential property line. Therefore the tower cannot exceed 96’ in height. The proposed tower is 91’ in height, with a 9’ tall lighting rod to bring the height of the structure to 100’.  Co-location.  Requirement: The tower must be able to accommodate at least one other telecommunication facility.  Findings: The tower will be able to accommodate two other wireless providers in the future.  Illumination.  Requirement: Towers cannot be artificially illuminated unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  Findings: The tower will not be illuminated.  Exterior finish.  Requirement: Exterior tower finish is to be approved by the City Council.  Findings: Staff recommends that the tower be painted a forest green color to match the city’s traffic light poles. This has been made a condition of approval for this tower. 3200 VERA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH –TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 8  Landscaping.  Requirement: Ground-mounted equipment must be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non-vegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood.  Findings: The ground-mounted equipment is screened with a combination of cedar fencing surrounding the equipment and new trees facing the residential neighborhood. The new trees are “black hills spruce”, “autumn splendor buckeye”, and “eastern white pine”.  Security.  Requirement: Towers must be reasonably posted and secured to protect against trespass.  Findings: An 8’ tall cedar fence with a locked gate will surround the tower and ground – mounted equipment.  Access/parking.  Requirement: Access shall be provided to the tower during normal business hours and have at least one paved parking space.  Findings: Access to the tower will be available during normal business hours. The property currently has a paved parking space.  Stealth design.  Requirement: To the extent practical, towers must be of stealth design to make the tower less visible.  Findings: In this particular situation, a non-stealth design is acceptable because it enables additional providers to co-locate on the tower, thus reducing the need for additional towers to be built in the area.  Interference with public safety and lift station equipment.  Requirement: The construction and placement of the tower will not interfere with public safety communications and the usual and customary transmission or reception of radio, television, or other communication services enjoyed by adjacent properties.  Findings: The applicant has provided a letter verifying that the tower will not interfere with public or private communications (attachment E). This information has been verified by Owl Engineering (attachment D).  Stormwater management and erosion control measures.  Requirement: The applicant shall provide erosion control techniques during tower construction.  Findings: The city does not require a stormwater management plan for properties under one acre in size. During tower construction, the city will require erosion control techniques to be used on-site including wattle logs and inlet protection. 3200 VERA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH –TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATION PAGE 5 OF 8 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Demonstrated Need for Tower According to section 515.19, Subd. 6 of the UDC the City Council may approve a CUP to allow a telecommunication tower in the R-1 district if it “reasonably addresses an identified significant gap in the provider’s service”, subject to the following requirements:  The City Council makes a finding that the provider has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that there is a significant gap in the provider’s service, and:  There is no co-location option that would reasonably address the demonstrated significant gap in the provider’s service; or  There is no other alternative tower site that would reasonably address the demonstrated significant gap in the provider’s service. The applicant has submitted information in attachment E in which they have determined that a tower is needed at this location in order to close a significant gap in their cell phone service, and that there is not an option to co-locate an antenna on another tower. Owl Engineering has reviewed this information and has concluded that Verizon is correct in their assessment (attachment D). CUP criteria In addition to the CUP criteria listed above, the following are the relevant criteria in city code section 510.19 for approval of CUPs. The applicant has also provided their own response to these criteria in attachment E. (a) The proposed use has been approved as a conditional use in the zoning district for which it is proposed. Findings: Telecommunication towers are a conditional use in the Low Density Residential (R-1) zoning district if the applicant can demonstrate that the tower addresses a significant gap in coverage that cannot be corrected by co-locating an antenna on an existing tower (see above). (b) The conditional use will be in accordance with the general objectives, or with any specific objective, of the city’s comprehensive plan and this UDC. Findings: On the 2040 Planned Land Use map, the property is guided as Institutional. As a utility use, the proposed telecommunication tower is in conformance with this land use designation. (c) The conditional use will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. Findings: Currently the property contains a utility use – a sanitary sewer lift station - that is proposed to continue. The addition of another utility use on this property – a telecommunications tower – is not expected to change the 3200 VERA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH –TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATION PAGE 6 OF 8 character of the area. The proposed tower will be located near Highway 100 at a distance of approximately 190’ from the property line of the nearest residential property. (d) Impacts such as noise, hours of activity, and exterior lighting have been sufficiently addressed to mitigate negative impacts on nearby uses. Findings: The proposed tower will not generate unusual noise impacts. (e) Parking is adequately provided for the proposed conditional use. Findings: As described in section B, above, parking is adequately provided for the proposed tower. (f) In the approval of a conditional use permit, the City Council may impose such conditions as it determines is necessary to make the use compatible with other uses allowed in the same district zone or vicinity. Findings: The proposed conditions of approval for the CUP are found in section F of this staff report. E. VARIANCE The applicant is applying for two variances to construct the proposed tower:  Lot size requirement for tower: The UDC requires a minimum 5-acre lot size. The property is only 3,827 sq. ft. (0.09 acres) in size.  Setback from property lines: The UDC requires a minimum setback of 82.5’ from the closest property line. Due to the small size of the parcel, the tower is proposed to be approximately 17’ from the closest property line. Variance criteria The following are the relevant approval criteria for this variance as outlined in city code sections 510.33 and 515.19, followed by staff response: a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control and when the terms of the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Response: The intent of the city’s zoning ordinance is to provide for regulations to promote orderly development that allows for adequate access to light, air, and convenient access to property. The approval of a telecommunications tower that is on a small property in which the tower is close to the property lines will not impede access to adequate light or air for adjacent properties because it is surrounded by public land. If the variance is approved, the utility use on the property will continue to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan’s Institutional planned land use designation. 3200 VERA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH –TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATION PAGE 7 OF 8 b) Variances shall only be permitted when the City Council finds that strict enforcement of specific provisions of this section would create practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to a particular property under consideration. Practical difficulties, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner: 1) proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; and 2) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and 3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The use of the subject property to include a new telecommunications tower for a property that already contains a utility use is a reasonable use permitted by the city’s zoning regulations. The property was purchased in 2000 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to accommodate a small utility use. Because of the small size of the property, the tower cannot be constructed in any location on the property where it will meet the 82.5’ required setback. The lot area and setback variance is necessary to ensure that the tower can correct an identified gap in telecommunications coverage without negatively impacting other properties. The essential character of this area will not change if the variance is approved since the proposed tower will be located adjacent to Highway 100 and set back approximately 191’ from the nearest residential property line. c) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Response: The applicant has indicated that a telecommunications tower is needed in this area to correct a physical gap in cell phone coverage. Therefore economic considerations alone are not the sole reason for requesting this variance. (d) The location, shape, appearance or nature of use of the proposed tower will neither substantially detract from the aesthetics of the area nor change the character of the neighborhood in which the tower is proposed to be located. Response: The property already contains a utility use and the variance will allow an additional utility use on the property. Since the tower will be located near Highway 100 and is substantially distant from residential uses, the appearance and character of the neighborhood is not expected to change. (e) The variance will not create any threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. 3200 VERA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH –TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER APPLICATION PAGE 8 OF 8 Response: The city’s consultant engineer for this proposed tower, Owl Engineering, has reviewed the information submitted by the applicant and has confirmed that the tower will not create any threats to the public health, safety, or welfare. (f) In the case of a requested modification to the setback requirement, that the size of parcel upon which the tower is proposed to be located makes compliance impossible, and the only alternative for the applicant is to locate the tower at another site that poses a greater threat to the public health, safety or welfare or is closer in proximity to lands used for residential purposes. Response: The identified gap in coverage is in south Crystal which is predominantly residential. The property at 3200 Vera Cruz Ave N is a good location for the proposed tower since it is close to Highway 100 and substantially distant from residential properties. F. REQUESTED ACTION The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council to either deny or approve the CUP and variance request to construct a telecommunications tower at 3200 Vera Cruz Avenue North. This recommendation should include findings of fact either for or against the proposal. The Commission may reference the findings for approval in sections B, C and D above. Staff recommends approval of the CUP and variance application with the following conditions: 1. Site Plan. The development shall be constructed according to the site plan in attachment F. Prior to disturbing the site, the applicant shall: a) Sign a site improvement agreement with the city to guarantee installation of the landscaping plan and fence. 2. Exterior finish. The tower shall be painted forest green to match the city’s traffic signal poles. City Council action is anticipated on December 3, 2019. Site Location and Public Hearing Notice Mailing Map 3200 Vera Cruz Ave. N 4141 Douglas Dr. N. Crystal MN 55422 Attachment A Zoning Map 3200 Vera Cruz Ave. N 4141 Douglas Dr. N. Crystal MN 55422 Attachment B Attachment C REPORT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A 100-FOOT COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 3200 VERA CRUZ AVE NORTH CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA FOR VERIZON WIRELESS PREPARED BY: GARRETT G. LYSIAK, P.E. OCTOBER 28,2019 Attachment D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Crystal Ordinance for wireless telecommunications towers requires the demonstration of a need (gap in coverage) or a showing of need for the proposal. This analysis demonstrates the proof of need requirement is satisfied. This new tower will eliminate both coverage and capacity problems. It would provide the required Personal Communication System (“PCS”) coverage to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area for the expanded service. There are no existing towers identified that could provide the required coverage and eliminate the predicted coverage gap. All towers in the nearby area were examined and none were found that could be used. Due to the lack of any existing towers or support structures in the vicinity, the new site would need to locate very near to the proposed location in order to fill the coverage gap. There is no evidence to show this new tower will cause interference to the present frequencies and any Public Safety or City communications systems. There is no demonstrated RF Radiation hazard to the public, even when other additional PCS systems are added to the study. As required by the ordinance, this tower will accommodate additional communications systems, and it complies with all the structural requirements of the ordinance. Review of the failure analysis condition shows that the fall zone of this tower is predicted to be 15% of the total height. I do agree with this statement on the failure mode. TABLE OF CONTENTS ENGINEERING STATEMENT FIGURE 1 SITE MAP FIGURE 2 AERIAL VIEW FIGURE 3 AIRSPACE MAP FIGURE 4 FAA TOWER STUDY DETERMINATION FIGURE 5 ANTENNA STRUCTURE SEARCH FIGURE 6 PREDICTED COVERAGE FIGURE 7 EXISTING COVERAGE 1 Engineering Statement The documents submitted by Verizon Wireless to The City of Crystal for a new 100-foot tower were reviewed for compliance with the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance. The site is located at 3200 Vera Cruz Ave North, Crystal, MN. The site location was plotted on a USGS 7.5-minute map (Figure 1 “Site Map”)1. In addition, an aerial photograph is included to show the proposed site location and the surrounding area (Figure 2 “Aerial Site Map”). Airspace Study Figure 3 shows the proximity to the Crystal Airport. The proposed tower site was examined for any impact on the local airspace and airports. The tower height is proposed to be under 200-feet and is therefore not usually required to get Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval, unless it is located near an airport. The proposed tower is approximately three miles from Crystal Airport runways but is on the approach path of the runways. A tower/airspace study was performed (Figure 4) and the results show that the proposal will not have an impact on any of the Crystal Airport runway approaches. There are no private airport facilities in the search area. Existing Tower Sites A search of both FCC and FAA databases was performed to determine the location of any potential alternate locations for the proposed monopole. A state-owned tower was identified but this tower is not structurally capable of supporting the antennas and is not within the Verizon search area and was not considered. Figure 5 shows the results of this search. Site Construction The site construction plans show the tower that is planned for this project. The tower drawings supplied show compliance with the requirements of ANSI2/TIA3-222-G standard which requires loading for: 1. Exposure C to the standard. 2. 90 mph basic wind, with no radial ice. 3. 50 mph basic wind with 1/2” of radial ice. (ice is considered to increase in thickness with height) 4. The tower is designed to withstand the Ultimate Wind Speed for this area of 115 mph 1 Site Location N 45° 00’ 52.38” W 93° 20’ 59.43 2 American National Standards Institute 3 Telecommunications Industry Association 2 The proposal shows that the tower is currently designed to accommodate two additional antenna systems antennas. This will eliminate the need for an additional new tower in the vicinity for some time. The structural data submitted (Sabre Industries) states that the fall zone of this proposed tower is predicted to be 15% of the height is was designed with a safety factor of more than a 25% loading factor. I do agree with the analysis that the tower is predicted to fall within the property area. Coverage Study In reviewing the submitted data it was determined that (Verizon) has designed its communications facilities in the Crystal area with several surrounding sites providing area wide coverage. During my initial inspection of the application, it was determined that several keys pieces of information were missing and were required to analyze the predicted and existing coverage of the Verizon system. The information was provided and I was able to complete my analysis of the application. Figure 6 shows the predicted coverage area with the new monopole. Figure 7 shows the area with the proposed monopole removed from the analysis and the predicted coverage gap is identified. Interference Study A search was performed using the FCC frequency database4 to determine the frequency and location of any city or county public safety facilities within one-mile from the proposed tower location. Using all the identified frequencies either utilized by the city or county, an intermodulation (interference) study was performed to determine if any predicted interference products would be generated by the proposed Verizon Wireless facility. The results of the study indicate that there are no interference products predicted to be generated that would cause interference to any of the identified protected frequencies. Verizon states that they do perform an interference study on their towers. However, they only consider other carriers on the tower and my analysis includes city and county frequencies. The study shows that there are no predicted (low order) interference intermodulation products generated from combinations of existing and proposed channels at this site. When the proposed communications facility is constructed, antenna separation, antenna pattern directionality properties and equipment filtering will further reduce the potential of intermodulation induced interference. This analysis is a mathematical study and will not account for interference mitigation that will occur due to the differences in technologies 4 Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau –“Universal Licensing System” 3 and equipment configurations and filtering. This study assumes a worst-case scenario using as many as four transmitters operating simultaneously (which is a rare occurrence). Additionally, due to the high frequencies used on this new facility there is no predicted interference to occur on any other communication devices such as televisions, personal computers, telephones, garage door openers, security systems, and other electronic equipment. In summary, the use of good engineering and installation practices should mitigate any interference to any nearby existing communications systems or any additional future systems on the tower and it is my opinion that the Verizon Wireless system frequencies should not cause any harmful interference problems to any of the existing City or County communications systems and is in compliance with the ordinance. RF Radiation Analysis Using the data submitted by Verizon Wireless we performed a “Worst-Case” radiation analysis to determine the amount of RF energy that would be present at the base of the tower. In making our calculations, we assumed that all of the RF energy generated by the facility would be directed downward and three separate antennas at maximum power levels were used for the calculations. This is not the real-world situation since the antennas used by PCS systems are designed to radiate towards the horizon. Additionally, calculations were performed including any future antenna systems on the tower and added to the total RF exposure level. However, using this analysis method I was able to determine that the maximum level of RF radiation reaching the ground (head height) at the tower base is less than 20 percent of the ANSI standard value for the general public exposure limit and as such is not classified as an RF radiation hazard. This proposal satisfies the current Federal guidelines for RF Exposure5. Summary The review of the proposed Verizon tower indicates that: • It would provide the required wireless system coverage to eliminate the present existing poor coverage area and provide enhanced existing coverage. 5 FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin OET-65 Edition 97-01 4 • The site is not predicted to cause any interference products to any protected frequency in the area and is not predicted to be an RF radiation hazard. • The tower is designed to accommodate two additional communications systems. • The proposal complies with the structural requirements of the ordinance. • Due to the lack of any existing towers or adequate support structures in the vicinity, the site would need to locate very near to the proposed location to fill the coverage gap. Respectfully submitted, Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E. SITE (C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited (OSSEO) CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FT [BASE MAP VERTICAL DATUM] SCALE 1:24000 0 1 Mile 0 1000 Yards 0 1 Kilometer Declination MN 0° 12' EGN 0° 15' W MNGN MINNEAPOLIS NORTH, MN JAN 1, 1993 MINNEAPOLIS NORTH QUADRANGLE MINNESOTA TOPOGRAPHIC SERIES 200 ft N➤➤N © 2018 Google = Pending Application(s) ASR Registration Search Registration Search Results Displayed Results Specified Search Latitude='45-00-52.4 N', Longitude='93-20-59.4 W', Radius=1.6 Kilometers Registration Number Status File Number Owner Name Latitude/Longitude Structure City/State Overall Height Above Ground (AGL) 1 1014621 Constructed A0498027 MINNESOTA, STATE OF 45-00-01.0N 093-21-14.0W GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 67.1 TOWAIR Determination Results A routine check of the coordinates, heights, and structure type you provided indicates that this structure does not require registration. *** NOTICE *** TOWAIR's findings are not definitive or binding, and we cannot guarantee that the data in TOWAIR are fully current and accurate. In some instances, TOWAIR may yield results that differ from application of the criteria set out in 47 C.F.R. Section 17.7 and 14 C.F.R. Section 77.13. A positive finding by TOWAIR recommending notification should be given considerable weight. On the other hand, a finding by TOWAIR recommending either for or against notification is not conclusive. It is the responsibility of each ASR participant to exercise due diligence to determine if it must coordinate its structure with the FAA. TOWAIR is only one tool designed to assist ASR participants in exercising this due diligence, and further investigation may be necessary to determine if FAA coordination is appropriate. DETERMINATION Results PASS SLOPE(100:1)NO FAA REQ - 5252.0 Meters (17230.7 Feet)away & below slope by 23.0 Meters (75.4599 Feet) Type C/R Latitude Longitude Name Address Lowest Elevation (m) Runway Length (m) AIRP R 45-03- 41.00N 093-21- 32.00W CRYSTAL HENNEPIN MINNEAPOLIS, MN 264.2 996.10000000000002 PASS SLOPE(100:1)NO FAA REQ - 5180.0 Meters (16994.5 Feet)away & below slope by 23.0 Meters (75.4599 Feet) Type C/R Latitude Longitude Name Address Lowest Elevation (m) Runway Length (m) AIRP R 45-03- 39.00N 093-21- 28.00W CRYSTAL HENNEPIN MINNEAPOLIS, MN 264.2 996.10000000000002 PASS SLOPE(100:1)NO FAA REQ - 4803.0 Meters (15757.6 Feet)away & below slope by 19.0 Meters (62.3400 Feet) Type C/R Latitude Longitude Name Address Lowest Elevation (m) Runway Length (m) AIRP R 45-03- 28.00N 093-20- 57.00W CRYSTAL HENNEPIN MINNEAPOLIS, MN 264.2 996.10000000000002 PASS SLOPE(100:1)NO FAA REQ - 4741.0 Meters (15554.2 Feet)away & below slope by 18.0 Meters (59.0499 Feet) Type C/R Latitude Longitude Name Address Lowest Elevation (m)Runway Length (m) AIRP R 45-03- 26.00N 093- 21-0.00W CRYSTAL HENNEPIN MINNEAPOLIS, MN 264.2 996.10000000000002 Your Specifications NAD83 Coordinates Latitude 45-00-52.4 north Longitude 093-20-59.4 west Measurements (Meters) Overall Structure Height (AGL) 30.5 Support Structure Height (AGL) 0 Site Elevation (AMSL) 263 Structure Type MTOWER - Monopole Tower Construction Notifications Notify Tribes and Historic Preservation Officers of your plans to build a tower. SIGNAL COVERAGE Received power at best base = IN BUILDING = OUTDOORS < Display threshold level: -120.0 dBmWRX Antenna - Type: ISOTROPICHeight: 4.0 ft AGL Gain: -2.15 dBd MILES -0.3 0 1 SIGNAL COVERAGE Received power at best base = INDOOR = OUTDOOR < Display threshold level: -120.0 dBmWRX Antenna - Type: ISOTROPICHeight: 4.0 ft AGL Gain: -2.15 dBd MILES -0.3 0 1 (3): Development of towers: (4): An application to develop a tower should include: (i): There are no other towers w/in ½ mile of this proposed tower. Enclosed is a document from the FCC website confirming that there are no existing towers w/in 1 km of Verizon’s proposed tower location (ii): NA (ii): NA (iv): Non-interference letter signed by Verizon’s RF Engineer is enclosed with this application. (v): A structural engineering letter (UDC) will be provided when the tower is ordered and signed by a state licensed engineer and submitted to the city duringt the building permit process. (vi): Enclosed is a signal propagation depiction as well as a description of Verizon’s objective and need for this new tower location signed by Verizon’s RF Engineer. (5)(iii) (A): NA (B): Verizon is applying for a variance. (C): Please see the attached site plan. (D): NA (iv): There isn’t another tower w/in 1/8 of a mile of this proposed tower as evidenced by the FCC/ASR document provided within this application. (v): NA; this property is owned by the city and used as a lift station. (vi): See enclosed aerial w/ measurements to nearest, residential properties. (vii)Adjacent property is ROW and Highway 100. (viii): Proposed tower location is located on city-owned property. (ix): Tower will be constructed to structurally accommodate at least 2 other, future wireless providers. (6) Setbacks: (i): See enclosed letter from tower manufacturer, Sabre, confrming that, upon failure, the tower will collapse well within the property lines of the subject parcel. (ii): Noted. (iii): NA. This requirement doesn’t apply to towers are approved via CUP. (7) Structural Requirements: Noted. Documents will be submitted by a certified engineer to the building official during the building permit application process. Attachment E (8) Height: Tower will not exceed 100’ (9)Separation or buffer requirements: NA as the nearest residential property lines are over 1.5X the height of the tower and this tower is subject to a CUP process. (10) Method os determining tower height: Noted. (11) Illumination: This tower is well under the FAA threshold that would require illumination. Tower will not be lit. (12) Exterior Finish: As proposed, this tower will have a silver, galvanized steel finish. (13) Fencing: A cedar wood fence is proposed to encompass the tower/equipment. See enclosed plans. (14) Landscaping: Please see the enclosed plans which depict landscaping around the lease area. (15) Security: A fence will encompass the lease area/tower; also, climbing pegs will not be located on the first 12’ of the tower to further limit the chance of unauthorized climbing. (16) Access: There’s a parking spot located on a paved surface right near the proposed monopole location. (17) Stealth: A stealth pole isn’t practical as we’re building a monopole to accommodate multiple carriers on one pole. A stealth pole (that is, antennas internal to the pole) that accommodates multiple carriers looks more like a silo as it needs to be designed to accommodate dozens of coax line, antennas, and ancillary equipment. A standard monopole in this location is warranted and practical. (18) Other telecommunications facilities: NA (19) Existing towers: NA (20) Abandoned or unused towers or portions of towers: Verizon wil abide by this provision. This is also covered in the lease agreement between Verizon and the City of Crystal. (21) Additional criteria for variances for towers: Enclosed is a separate document: Variance Narrative. (22) Maintenance: Noted. Verizon will abide by these city requirements. (23) Additional requirements: (i): Inspections: Noted. (ii): Excavation/Monitoring: Noted. Conditional Use Permit Narrative: 1. a): R1 b): Undeveloped land used for city purposes (lift station/generator) c): Verizon Wireless is proposing to construct a 91’ (100’ w/ a 9’ lightning rod) wireless communications monopole along w/ a platform that will contain operating/ancillary equipment in order to improve coverage/capacity to this area of Crystal. This monopole will be constructed to structurally accomoodate 2 other, future wireless providers. d): Yes, this proposed use is allowed via a CUP. e): Wireless communications have become a fixture in every day life. Less than ½ the population even utilizes land-line communications. Wireless phones are now used for watching television, streaming movies, downloading/uploading music, business activities, apps, video games, texting, Google Earth; the list goes on and on. Because of these reasons, more and more wireless antennas/sites are necessary to keep up with the demand and increase coverage and capacity. This location for the monopole was selected as it’s right near a major highway (100), is blocked well from the east by the sound wall on the west side of Hwy 100, is on an undeveloped city parcel not conducive to much else, is screened well from view by tall trees/vegetation from the residential area to the west, and meets all of Verizon’s objectives to provide the best possible wireless network to the residentts/visitors of Crystal. Furthermore, this structure will be built to structurally accommodate 2 other wireless providers which will alleviate the need for additional structures to be built in Crystal. 500.03 (a): Monopole will be located off a ROW in an area away from residences and screened well from view by a sound buffer wall and existing, tall vegetation near the residences. Light and air won’t be compromised as this is a relatively narrow structure, congestion won’t be increased (after construction) as only a technician will be visiting the site once/month to maintain the system, and there’ll be non-impeded access to the city property via an establish, paved access road. (b): As mentioned previously, the monopole will be located away from residences, off of a ROW, amongst 50’+ utility poles, adjacent to a sound buffer wall along Hwy 100, and can be painted any color the city chooses to better blend into the surrounding environment. Frankly, this structure will be a benefit to the area as it’ll provide enhanced wireless communication to Verizon customers and other wireless users as their providers utilize the monopole in the future. (c): Development will not be impeded by the construction of this wireless communications monopole. No public utilities will be utilized for this project. (d) and (e): Noted. f): Currently, the parcel includes a lift station/generator, overhead electrical poles, and a wall adjacent to the east to buffer the noise of traffic traveling north and south down Highway 100. The only residential dwellings are to the west and those are screened from view very well by tall, mature vegetation. Verizon is proposing to encompass the lease area/tower with a cedar fence and additional landscaping to further disguise the ground equipment. Furthermore, the monopole can be painted a dark brown/green to further blend in with the 50’+ wood, overhead power lines that run thru the property to the south. g): The wireless communications site will emit no noise, will only be visited by a technician for emergency purposes or general maintenance once/month, and there’ll be no exterior lighting installed at the site. h): There’s an existing, paved road that leads right to the proposed monopole with a parking spot for a maintenance vehicle. If need be, additional parking could be added for future maintenance vehicles if other wireless companies add equipment/antennas to the site. i): Please find enclosed a narrative addressing all aspects of the (3) Development of towers section of the Crystal City Code. j): No, this property is not within a flood plain. 2. a): Drawings are included with this application and are signed by a state-licensed architect. b): 24” x 36” plans aren’t to scale and were not submitted. 2, 11” x 17” plans are included as well as a digital version sent via email (pdf) to Dan Olson. c): a. Site Plan = included w/in drawings. b. Utility Plan = included w/in drawings. c. Stormwater/Erosion Control Plans = included w/in drawings. d. Landscape Plan = included w/in drawings. e. Exterior Lighting Plan = NA. f. Building Architectural Plans = NA. d): Included w/in drawings. Utility Plan: A survey’s included as the last page of the drawings that includes existing and proposed utility routes. Stormwater management/Erosion Control Plan: Included within drawings (pages 2-5) Landscape Plan: Included on page A-2.1 of the drawings. Exterior Lighting Plan: Not applicable. Building Architectural Plan: No building’s being proposed; however, the drawings of the wireless structure are signed/stamped by a state-licensed architect. Variance Narrative: a): R1 b): Undeveloped land used for city purposes (lift station, generator) c): Verizon Wireless is proposing to construct a 91’ (100’ w/ a 9’ lightning rod) wireless communications monopole along w/ a platform that will contain operating/ancillary equipment in order to improve coverage/capacity to this area of Crystal. This monopole will be constructed to structurally accomoodate 2 other, future wireless providers. d): Subdivision 6 (b) (5) (iii) (B) – “If zoned residential then the site shall contain no less than five acres.” e): The subject parcel is a small parcel (less than 1/10th of an acre) the city acquired from the county off of the ROW for a lift station/generator that’s too small for additional development. 500.03 (a): Monopole will be located off a ROW in an area away from residences and screened well from view by a sound buffer wall and existing, tall vegetation near the residences. Light and air won’t be compromised as this is a relatively narrow structure, congestion won’t be increased (after construction) as only a technician will be visiting the site once/month to maintain the system, and there’ll be non-impeded access to the city property via an establish, paved access road. (b): As mentioned previously, the monopole will be located away from residences, off of a ROW, amongst 50’+ utility poles, adjacent to a sound buffer wall along Hwy 100, and can be painted any color the city chooses to better blend into the surrounding environment. Frankly, this structure will be a benefit to the area as it’ll provide enhanced wireless communication to Verizon customers and other wireless users as their providers utilize the monopole in the future. (c): Development will not be impeded by the construction of this wireless communications monopole. No public utilities will be utilized for this project. (d) and (e): Noted. f): The area near this parcel is relatively dense with residences, close to a park, and right off of Hwy 100; this equates to heavy wireless usage and the need for enhanced coverage/capacity. Currently, the cell site that serves this area is near capacity and will continue to get worse. Hence, this area needs its own cell site to serve Verizon customers in order to maintain a first- class wireless system with seamless calls/texts, fast uploads/downloads, uninterrupted streaming, and expeditious web-surfing/browsing. There’s noting planned for this parcel as it’s too small to be utilized for anything other than the city’s current use. However, as conveyed previously, it’s very conducive to a wireless communications monopole and accessory equipment that will greatly benefit Verizon’s customers in this area of Crystal. g): The parcel is quite small (1/10th of an acre) and can’t be utilized for much other than the city’s current use. However, it’s large enough to accommodate a wireless communication monopole and accessory ground equipment for a number of wireless providers. The parcel’s off the ROW, away from residences, abuts a major thoroughfare (Hwy 100), is immediately adjacent to a sound buffer wall along Hwy 100, and is an ideal location for Verizon to build a communications monopole in order to improve coverage to this area of Crystal. Though the parcel’s small, the monopole can be engineered, upon failure, to collapse upon itself within the property lines. h): As explained previously, the monopole ground equipment will be screened from view by a cedar fence, a good portion of the monopole will be screened from view to the east by the sound buffer wall on the west side of Hwy 100, the residences to the west are screened from view by existing, tall vegetations/trees, and there are existing 50’+ overhead electrical poles/lines running along the southern end of this parcel. Furthermore, Verizon’s monopole can be painted any color the city chooses to further blend into the surrounding environment. RF Coverage Maps for Proposed Site in Crystal, MN 9-16-2019 Nithya Jaipuriyar, RF Engineer, Verizon Wireless The following maps demonstrate the need for a new site near Bassett Creek Park, Crystal, MN 55422. The measurements considered in this study will be the Coverage and the Best Server Coverage Distribution - a map showing the geographic areas served by a site’s sector. A new site such as the one proposed in this document will be designed with the goal of improving coverage in an area, especially in target areas such as neighborhoods, shopping areas or busy highways/roads. Another design goal for a new site is to balance the load between the existing sites in the area and the proposed site. This way if a proposed site experiences a large amount of traffic, that traffic will be divided among existing and proposed sites resulting in an increased speed and connection reliability for customers. First case: Coverage In general, at analysis we can identify three levels of coverage: - Good (Red) – at this level customers will be able to establish and maintain reliable connections both indoors and outdoors; - Fair (Yellow) – at this level customers will be able to establish a reliable connection outdoors but performance will most probably suffer indoors. Reliable connections will still be possible in vehicle; - Poor (Green) – at this level, connections can only be established outdoors. Reliable connections indoors or in vehicle are highly unlikely. If the coverage is below poor level, it is generally considered that the signal is ‘non-existing’, meaning that no reliable connection will likely be possible. The following maps show the existing and expected coverage in the area surrounding the proposed site. Figure 1. Existing Coverage (Without the Simulated Effect of the Proposed Site) The above map shows the existing coverage in the area surrounding the proposed site Quail. Areas with Good coverage levels are shown in red; areas with Fair coverage are shown in yellow, and areas with Poor coverage levels are shown in green. Areas shown with no color have a coverage level below Poor which is considered to be unreliable signal. The expected coverage impact of the proposed site is not simulated in this case. As can be seen in the above coverage map, the area surrounding the proposed site, Quail has mostly Fair to Poor level of coverage. Fair to Poor coverage will experience connection reliability issues especially for customers in indoor locations or in vehicles. Figure 2. Expected Coverage (With the Simulated Effect of the Proposed Site) The above map shows the existing coverage in the area surrounding the proposed site Quail. Areas with Good coverage levels are shown in red; areas with Fair coverage are shown in yellow, and areas with Poor coverage levels are shown in green. Areas shown with no color have a coverage level below Poor which is considered to be unreliable signal. The expected coverage impact of the proposed site is simulated in this case. As can be seen in the above map, the coverage with the proposed site, Quail, is expected to be significantly improved. To be noted that the areas that are currently being served at fair to poor coverage level are expected to be eliminated on MN-100 and in the residential neighborhood east of MN-100. Second Case: Best Server Distribution The following maps will show the server coverage distribution with and without a new site near Bassett Creek Park, Crystal, MN 55422. At Verizon, a lot of effort is being placed to ensure that all sites in our network are balanced in terms of the amount of traffic they are managing. In other words, if a site is experiencing too much traffic, a new site would be needed to offload a portion of that traffic. The new site would make it possible to deliver a better network experience to our customers and increased speeds in the area that is currently being served by the existing overloading site. This is especially true in the commercial, residential neigborhoods and well-travelled highways (i.e. MN-100). A new build site would help offload the high amount of traffic served by the existing site located Northwest (Memory Park) of Quail, which will translate into increased speeds for our customers. To gauge the amount of traffic that will be offloaded by a new site, the Best Server Coverage Distribution is analyzed. The Best Server Coverage Distribution is a measure used to display the different sectors of a site and identify the geographical areas served by those sectors. In this type of simulation, several colors will be present on the map, each color identifying a site, and more specifically, identifying a sector of a site, that is serving in a geographical area. The identified sector has the best coverage level in that area. The following two maps display the existing and expected Best Server Coverage Distribution. Figure 3. Existing Coverage (Without the Simulated Effect of the Proposed Site) The above map shows the existing best server coverage distribution of the area surrounding the proposed site (Quail). The expected effect of the proposed site is not simulated in this case. Each color on the map represents the area currently being served by individual sectors of existing sites. For example, if we consider the existing site (Memory Park) located Northwest of Quail, in brown we can identify the area covered by the west-facing sector of the site. In blue we can identify the area covered by the site’s north-facing sector. Similarly, green identifies the area served by the site’s southeast-facing sector. In the above map we can see that the southeast-facing sector (displayed in green) of the existing Verizon site (Memory Park) is currently serving a large residential neighborhood and MN-100 between Duluth St and 36th Ave. Analysis has shown that these sectors need an additional site to balance the traffic, thus the need for the proposed new site. Figure 4. Existing Coverage (Including the Simulated Effect of the Proposed Site) The above map shows the existing best server coverage distribution of the area surrounding the proposed site (Quail). The expected effect of the proposed site is simulated in this case. Each color on the map represents the area currently being served by individual sectors of existing sites. For example, if we consider the existing site (Memory Park) located Northwest of Quail, in brown we can identify the area covered by the west-facing sector of the site. In blue we can identify the area covered by the site’s north-facing sector. Similarly, green identifies the area served by the site’s southeast-facing sector. As can be seen in the above map, the northwest-facing and southwest-facing sectors of the proposed site (Quail) would take over some of the traffic in the residential neighborhood and MN-100 between Duluth St and 36th Ave. This reduction in the amount of traffic served by the existing site Memory Park translates into an enhanced user network experience and increased speeds on MN-100 and users in the residential neighborhoods. Analysis of Alternate Locations The location of a capacity site such as the one proposed herein is very important and chosen only after careful analysis of both existing and future predicted capacity demands. Several alternatives in the area are considered before identifying a specific location that would meet the radio frequency engineering objectives. Verizon Wireless intention is to meet the needs of the public in the area without adding to the number of tower but in this area, there were no colocation opportunities for us to consider. Analysis of current and future traffic demands have identified that the existing Verizon Wireless site (Memory Park) will exhaust its capacity in the very near future. Because of the high traffic demand in this area, the existing Verizon Wireless sites near this area are reaching its capacity limitations and, thus, a new site is needed in order to balance some of the existing site’s traffic with the new proposed site. By offloading a portion of that traffic, an increased network experience and increased speeds can be provided to our customers in this area. Your approval of this project will enable Verizon Wireless to continue to maintain the best, most reliable wireless service in your area for all of Crystal’s citizens and visitors. Sincerely, Nithya Jaipuriyar Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Email: Nithyakalyani.Jaipuriyar@vzw.com Mobile: 612-720-9030 Letter to Dan Olson – City of Crystal - 9/16/2019 Page 1 of 2 September 16, 2019 Dan Olson City of Crystal Planning Department Crystal, MN RE: Non-Interference with Public Safety or Private Telecommunications, pursuant to the City of Crystal Code (Re. Verizon Wireless Project Name “MIN Quail”, installation of antennas on existing tower located at Crystal, MN 55422 proposed for construction on Hennepin County – City of Crystal Property @ 3200 Vera Cruz Ave, Crystal, MN Dear City of Crystal: This letter serves to confirm that the proposed telecommunications equipment to be operated on the Verizon Wireless “MIN QUAIL” tower will not interfere with public safety or private telecommunications. Verizon Wireless provides Commercial Mobile Radio Services (“CMRS”) under licenses granted by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Pursuant to these licenses, Verizon Wireless is authorized to provide CMRS and operate a CMRS network in many geographic areas throughout the nation, including Columbus, Minnesota. The FCC exclusively regulates all technical aspects of Verizon Wireless’ operations and network and preempts all state and local regulation of radiofrequency transmissions. The FCC rules protect co- channel and adjacent licensees against harmful interference. The above noted proposed Verizon Wireless facility is in compliance with all applicable FCC requirements. The following points cover Verizon Wireless’ practices pertinent to complying with the FCC requirements: 1. Verizon Wireless locates its transmitting antenna(s) in order to maximize vertical and horizontal separation from other operator’s systems to minimize interference potential. Letter to Dan Olson – City of Crystal - 9/16/2019 Page 2 of 2 2. All operating hardware at the site is type-accepted by the FCC as far as emission levels within our licensed frequency band in addition to spurious emissions outside of our frequency band. 3. The power levels generated by the base station hardware and corresponding effective radiated power (ERP) from the transmit antenna(s) are within the limitations specified by Part 22 (for cellular), Part 24 (for PCS), or Part 101 (for microwave) of the Commission’s Rules. 4. Intermodulation studies are prepared and analyzed considering all carriers on our tower to ensure no mixing of frequencies will create harmful interference to / from our wireless system. Verizon Wireless is committed to providing state of the art wireless services that benefit your community. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Nithya Jaipuriyar RF Engineer Mobile (612)-720-9030 Verizon Wireless Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019Attachment F STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN -NARRATIVE:Applicant:Project Name: MIN QUAILApplication date:Nature of construction activity description:The proposed project area is located on a maintained pedestriangrassed area in Crystal, MN. Soils on the site consist of Udorthents,wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The soil does not belong to aHydrologic Soil Group but according to Hennepin County, it is welldrained. Runoff from the site currently drains to an existing area inletlocated south of an existing bituminous driveway. Under proposedconditions, drainage patterns will follow historic drainage patterns andwill continue to flow to the existing area inlet at rates not exceedinghistoric as ground roughness coefficients and flow paths will remain thesame. Improvements will be made near the existing inlet that willinclude a rock access easement to the west and cell compound to thesouth. A minimum of a 5' grass buffer will surround the existing inlet toprovide a level of quality for runoff prior to entering the stormsewer.The area inlet discharges to the east. The proposed project includesconstruction of clean rock access easement roads, site grading, andconstruction of a cell tower compound. The project will disturb existingvegetation and soils with the potential for erosion and sediment ladenstorm runoff during construction. The project will be started as soon assite conditions allow.Name of person with BMP experience who will oversee SWPPPimplementation and coordinate with contractor:Person, organization, or entity responsible for long termmaintenance of permanent stormwater treatment system:No permanent stormwater treatment system will be constructed on site.Documentation of all trained individuals:SWPPP preparer:Company: Widseth Smith Nolting and AssociatesName Laura HagstromTraining organization/sponsor University of MNAddress 610 Fillmore StreetTraining date(s) 1/30/2018City, State Zip Alexandria, MN 56308Training activity/content Design of Construction SWPPPEmail laura.hagstrom@wsn.us.comInstructor(s) name(s) John ChapmanPhone 320-335-5037Individual overseeing implementation of, revising and/oramending the SWPPP that are available for an onsite inspectionas needed:Company: _____________________________________Name _________________________________________Training organization/sponsor ______________________Address _______________________________________Training date(s) _________________________________City, State Zip __________________________________Training activity/content ___________________________Email _________________________________________Instructor(s) name(s) _____________________________Phone _________________________________________Individual overseeing implementation of, revising and/oramending the SWPPP:Company: _____________________________________Name _________________________________________Training organization/sponsor ______________________Address _______________________________________Training date(s) _________________________________City, State Zip __________________________________Training activity/content ___________________________Email _________________________________________Instructor(s) name(s) _____________________________Phone _________________________________________Individual performing or supervising the installation, maintenanceand repair of BMPs:Company: _____________________________________Name _________________________________________Training organization/sponsor ______________________Address _______________________________________Training date(s) _________________________________City, State Zip __________________________________Training activity/content ___________________________Email _________________________________________Instructor(s) name(s) _____________________________Phone _________________________________________Installation Timing of Erosion Prevention and Sediment ControlBMPs:Erosion and sediment control BMP's must be installed as necessary tominimize erosion from disturbed surfaces and capture sediment onsite.All BMP's must conform to MNR100001 Permit 2018 reference 7, 8 and9 of the NPDES Permit.Temporary Erosion Control BMPs.The General Contractor is responsible for the Erosion PreventionPractices contained in MNR100001 Permit 2018 reference 8 of theNPDES Permit. The General Contractor must plan for andimplement appropriate construction phasing, vegetative bufferstrips, horizontal slope grading and other construction practicesthat minimize erosion. The location of areas not to be disturbedmust be delineated (marked) on the development site before workbegins.·Poly Cover Stockpile or Slope·Construction PhasingPhasing must be implemented to ensure that more land thancan be effectively inspected and maintained in accordancewith the MNR100001 permit is not disturbed.·Disc Anchored StrawØDisc anchoring shall be done as appropriate according tothe plan included in this SWPPP.ØDisk anchor Type 1 mulch with a disk anchoring tool asrequired by the contract immediately after placementunless otherwise approved by the Engineer.ØDisk anchoring shall be installed as per MnDOT spec.2575.3.D.·Wood Chips·VegetationØProtect and preserve vegetation per the requirements ofMnDOT spec. 2572.3.A.ØBefore work begins, permittees must delineate thelocation of areas not to be disturbed.·MulchAll disturbed soil areas shall be temporarily mulched withType 1 mulch within 7 days if the area is not being activelyworked. Temporary seed mix 21-111 at a rate of 100 lbs/acof Pure Live Seed will be used only in cases wheredisturbed soil areas are anticipated to remain unworked inexcess of 14 days prior to placement of Type 1 mulch.ØMulch shall be placed in the areas as shown on the planincluded in this SWPPP.ØMulch shall be Type 1, according to plan. Materials shallmeet the requirements of MnDOT spec. 3882.ØMulch shall be applied as per MnDOT spec. 2575.3.C.Additional Temporary Erosion Control BMPs·Rolled Erosion Control ProductsThe contractor must minimize the need for disturbance ofportions of the project that have steep slopes (3:1 orsteeper). For those sloped areas which must be disturbed,the contractor must use techniques such as phasing andstabilization practices designed for steep slopes, such asdraining and terracing. Slopes 3:1 and steeper must beprotected by erosion control blankets.ØRolled erosion control products shall be Erosion ControlBlankets. Materials shall meet the requirements ofMnDOT spec. 3885.ØRolled erosion control products shall be placed as perMnDOT spec. 2575.3.G.Temporary Sediment Control BMPsThe General Contractor is responsible for the Sediment ControlPractices contained in MNR100001 Permit 2018 reference 9 ofthe NPDES Permit. Sediment Control Practices must be installedon all down gradient perimeters before any upgradient landdisturbing activities begin. These practices must remain in placeuntil Permit Termination Conditions have been established inaccordance with MNR100001 Permit 2018 reference 13 of theNPDES Permit.·Storm Drain Inlet ProtectionØStorm drain inlet protection shall be placed in the areasas shown on the plan included in this SWPPP.ØAdditional storm drain inlet protection devices shall beplaced on inlets located on Vera Cruz Avenue north ofthe project site.ØStorm drain inlet protection shall be installed as perMnDOT spec. 2573.3.M.·Stabilized Construction ExitA stabilized construction exit is not called out on the plan.If the contractor chooses to access the site from a locationother than the paved bituminous driveway or sidewalk, aconstruction exit control shall be placed at that location. Ifsediment tracking is discovered on adjacent streets, thesediment shall be removed with a street sweeper or otherapproved method within one calendar day of discovery.This shall be done throughout the duration of the project.The sediment may be returned to the exposed areas of thesite or disposed of offsite as per MPCA requirements.ØStabilized Construction exit controls shall be constructedwith slash mulch, crushed rock, reinforced geotextile,sheet pads, or rumble pad.ØConstruction exit controls shall be installed as perMnDOT spec. 2573.3.K.Additional Temporary Sediment Control BMPs·Silt FenceØSilt fence shall be machine sliced. Materials shall meetthe requirements of MnDOT spec. 3886.ØSilt fence shall be installed as per MnDOT spec.2573.3.B.·Culvert End ControlsØCulvert End Controls shall be installed as per MnDOTspec. 2573.3.L.·Sediment Control LogsØSediment control logs shall be Type Straw, Wood Fiber,Coir, Wood Chip, Compost, Rock, or Wood Fiber andBlanket Systems and meet the requirements of MnDOTspec. 3897.ØSediment control logs shall be installed as per MnDOTspec. 2573.3.F.·Filter BermsØFilter berms shall be Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Materials shallmeet the requirements of MnDOT spec. 3874.ØFilter berms shall be installed as per MnDOT spec.2573.3.E·Bale BarriersØBale Barriers shall be installed as per MnDOT spec.2573.3.C.·Sand Bag BarriersØSandbag Barriers shall be installed as per MnDOT spec.2573.3.D.·Temporary Sediment BasinsContractor may construct temporary sedimentation basinsin accordance with MNR100001 Permit 2018 reference 14of the NPDES Permit.·Temporary Diversion DitchMeasures should be taken to ensure that “clean” runofffrom off site is diverted around disturbed areas on site.Care should be taken that re-routing off site runoff does notresult in flooding or other issues on adjacent propertiesPermanent Erosion Cover Methods for all exposed soil areas:Permanent erosion control and cover will be realized with a rock accessroad, cell tower compound, and perennial cover with a density of 70%of the native background vegetation.Perennial cover, referred to as Turf Establishment on the plans, will berealized by using Seed Mixture 25-151 at a rate of 120 lbs/ac of PureLive Seed and Type 3 Fertilizer with a composition of 22-5-10 at a rateof 350 lbs/ac on all disturbed soil areas. Seed and fertilizer shall becovered by Hydraulic Matrix, Type Hydraulic Mulch at a rate of 2,500lbs/ac.Stormwater Mitigation Measures proposed as part ofenvironmental, endangered species, archaeological or otherrequired local, state or federal reviews conducted by the project.N/ADischarges to any U.S. EPA approved TMDL for thepollutants/stressors described in MNR100001 Permit 2018reference item 23.7No TMDL Implementation Plans currently exist for the receiving waterson this project.Bassett Creek is within one mile of the project site will receivestormwater runoff. Bassett Creek is a river segment that has anEPA-approved impairment for Chloride; Fecal Coliform; Fishesbioassessments. These impairments are construction relatedparameters and additional best management practices have beenimplemented in this SWPPP.Permanent Stormwater Treatment System:No permanent stormwater treatment system will be constructed on site,however, a grassed buffer will provide treatment prior to runoff enteringthe existing area inlet.Procedures to Amend SWPPP:The General Contractor must amend the SWPPP as necessary toinclude additional requirements, such as additional or modified BMP's,designed to correct problems or address situations in accordance withMNR100001 Permit 2018 reference 6 of the NPDES Permit.************************************************************************Amendments to the SWPPP:Date:1.2.3.4.5.Methods to Minimize Soil Compaction and to Preserve Topsoil:As shown on the plan, the General Contractor shall delineate areas thatare not to be disturbed on the site. This may be done with flags, stakes,signs, silt fence, etc., and shall be completed prior to the start of anygrading operations. Regardless of the delineation method the GeneralContractor chooses to use, the General Contractor must communicateto his/her personnel and subcontractors that these areas are not to bedisturbed and construction equipment (including trucks and personalvehicles) shall not be allowed in these areas.The General Contractor shall minimize compaction and preserve topsoilas much as possible at the site. In pervious “green” areas that are notessential to the construction of the project, the General Contractor shallavoid construction traffic and maintain the existing condition of theseareas.Chemical Treatment Systems to Enhance Sedimentation:No chemical treatment shall be used to enhance sedimentation.Infeasibility Documentation Requirements:N/ASite Assessments for Groundwater or Soil Contamination:N/APayment:Cost for permanent and temporary erosion and sediment controlmeasures shown on the plans shall be considered in the project cost.The costs to maintain and remove these devices shall be incidental tothe bid items.CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS:Erosion Prevention MeasuresvExposed soils (including stockpiles) shall have erosionprotection/cover initiated immediately and completed within 7 days.vThe wetted perimeter of the last 200 linear feet of ditches must bestabilized within 24 hours of connecting to a surface water orproperty line.vTemporary or permanent ditches or swales that are being used asa sediment containment system during construction must bestabilized within 24 hours after no longer being used as a sedimentcontainment system.vPipe outlets must have energy dissipation within 24 hours ofconnecting to a surface water or permanent stormwater treatmentsystem.vMulch, hydromulch, tackifier, polyacrylamide, or similar erosionprevention practices cannot be used within the normal wettedperimeter of drainage ditches or swale sections with a continuousslope greater than 2%.Sediment Control MeasuresvSediment control practices shall be established on downgradientperimeters and upgradient of any buffer zones.vSediment control practices shall be established at the base ofstockpiles on the downgradient perimeter.vStockpiles shall be located outside of natural buffers or surfacewaters, including stormwater conveyances (e.g., curb and guttersystems) unless there is a bypass.vInlet protection BMPs shall be installed per plan.vVehicle tracking BMPs shall be established where vehicles areexiting the site to minimize street tracking.vMust have plans to preserve topsoil (unless infeasible).vMust have plans to minimize soil compaction.vDischarges from BMPs shall be directed to vegetated areas, unlessinfeasible.vA 50-foot natural buffers shall be preserved or (if maintaining bufferis infeasible) redundant sediment controls shall be provided when asurface water is located within 50 feet of the project's earthdisturbances and drains to the surface water.Dewatering and Basin Draining:vIf dewatering is required on the site, there must be a plan in placeto prevent nuisance conditions, erosion, and inundation ofwetlands.vDewatering related to the construction activity must comply withMNR100001 Permit 2018 reference 10 of the NPDES Permit.Dewatering discharge that may have turbid or sediment ladendischarge must be discharged to a temporary or permanentsedimentation basin on the project site whenever possible andBMP's must be implemented to prevent water containing sedimentor other pollutants from being discharged to surface waters ordownstream properties.vIf using filters with backwash water, backwash water must behauled away for disposal, returned to the beginning of thetreatment process, or incorporated into the site in a manner thatdoes not erode into runoff.vDewatering to facilitate construction shall be incidental.Inspection Requirements:vThe SWPPP may identify the trained person (as identified in item21.2.b) who will conduct inspections.vInspections must be performed as needed.vInspections are recommended to be performed within 24 hours of arain event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours.vRecommended Inspection and Maintenance records shall include:1.Date and time of inspection.2.Name of person(s) conducting inspections.3.Findings of inspections, including the specific location wherecorrective actions are needed.4.Corrective actions taken (including dates, times, and partycompleting maintenance activities).5.Date and amount of rainfall events greater than 0.5 inch in 24hours.6.Rainfall amounts must be obtained by a properly maintainedrain gauge installed onsite, or by a weather station that iswithin one mile or by a weather reporting system.7.Requirements to observe any discharge that may be occurringduring the inspection. Discharge should also be described andphotographed.Maintenance Requirements:vAll nonfunctional BMPs must be repaired, replaced, orsupplemented with functional BMPs by the end of the nextbusiness day after discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow.vPerimeter control devices must be repaired, replaced, orsupplemented when nonfunctional or sediment reaches one-halfthe height of the device.vTemporary and permanent sediment basins must be drained, andsediment removed when the depth of sediment collected reachesone-half storage volume.vAll sediment deposits and deltas must be removed from surfacewaters (including drainage ways, catch basins, and other drainagesystems) and the removal areas restabilized within seven days.vSediment on paved surfaces (e.g., sediment tracked from vehicles)must be removed within one calendar day of discovery.vPermanent stormwater treatment BMPs must be inspected andmaintained.Pollution Prevention Management Measures:vProper storage, handling, and disposal of construction products,materials, and wastes is required.vCollected solid waste, sediment, asphalt and concrete millings,floating debris, paper, plastic, fabric, construction and demolitiondebris and other wastes must be disposed of properly and mustcomply with MPCA disposal requirements.vFertilizers must be stored in covered locations.vOil, gasoline, paint and any hazardous substances must beproperly stored, including secondary containment, to prevent spills,leaks or other discharge.vStorage and disposal of hazardous waste must be in compliancewith MPCA regulations.vVehicles must be monitored for leaks and preventativemaintenance scheduled.vEach contractor on site is individually responsible for maintaining aclean and safe work site. The person responsible shall dispose ofall solid waste properly and in compliance with the MPCA disposalrequirements. Solid waste includes but is not limited to: collectedsediment, asphalt and concrete millings, floating debris, paper,plastic, fabric, construction and demolition debris. The personresponsible shall be responsible for all hazardous materials duringconstruction. Oil, gasoline, grease, paint and other hazardoussubstances must be properly stored, including secondarycontainment, to prevent spills, leaks and unwanted discharges.Storage and disposal of hazardous waste must be in accordancewith the MPCA regulations. External washing of trucks and otherconstruction equipment is prohibited on this project site.vHazardous materials and toxic waste (including oil, diesel fuel,gasoline, hydraulic fluids, paint solvents, petroleum-basedproducts, wood preservatives, additives, curing compounds, andacids) must be stored in waterproof containers with secondarycontainment, and their location(s) must be noted on the SWPPPmap. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste must be incompliance with MPCA regulations. Runoff containing suchmaterial must be collected, removed from the site, treated, anddisposed at an approved solid waste or chemical disposal facility.Building products that have the potential to leach pollutants andpesticides, fertilizers, treatment chemicals and landscape materialsmust be under cover by plastic sheeting or temporary roofs toprevent discharge or protected by similar effective means toprevent contact with stormwater.vAddress fueling and maintenance of equipment or vehicles andspill prevention and response.vThe General Contractor shall have a petroleum release plan andshall have all necessary materials on hand to implement the plan.All employees shall be trained in implementation of the plan. TheMPCA State Duty Officer shall be informed of any petroleum spillsgreater than 5 gallons.vSpill kits must be available during equipment fueling andmaintenance operations.vGeneral Contractor must make a spill response plan before theapplication of any chemical that may be harmful to theenvironment.vSpill cleanup materials must be available on site. Material shallinclude but not limited to brooms, mops, rags, gloves, absorbentmaterial, sand plastic and metal containers. Spills that reach stormwater conveyance systems connected to a Water of the State mustbe immediately reported to the MPCA State Duty Officer..vLimit exterior vehicle and equipment washing to a defined area ofthe site.vExternal washing of trucks and other construction vehicles must belimited to a defined area of the site. Runoff must be contained, andwaste properly disposed of. No engine degreasing is allowed onsite.vDescribe of the containment for concrete and other washoutwastes.vConcrete washout site: all liquid and solid wastes generated byconcrete washout operations must be contained in a leak proofcontainment facility or impermeable liner. The liquid and solidwastes must not contact the ground, and there must not be runofffrom the concrete washout operations or areas. Liquid and solidwastes must be disposed of properly and in compliance with theMPCA regulations. A sign must be installed adjacent to eachwashout facility to inform concrete equipment operators to utilizethe proper facilities.vPortable toilets must be positioned so that they are secure.vLicensed sanitary waste management handler must dispose ofsanitary waste.Permit Termination Conditions:vPermanent uniform perennial vegetative cover must be establishedat 70% density of its expected final growth.vThe permanent stormwater treatment system is constructed, meetsall requirements, and is operating as designed.vAll temporary synthetic erosion prevention and sediment controlBMPs must be removed and surrounding area improved to designconditions.vClean out sediment from conveyance systems and permanentstormwater treatment systems (return to design capacity).vSubmit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the MPCA.© 2019 WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGJ:\Design 1-33869\2019-12793\CADD\C ivil\cd-2019-12793-swppp narrative.dwg Plotted by:Amanda Stumpf 9/18/2019 2:44:36 PMSHEET CONTENTS:9973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGN10801 BUSH LAKE ROADBLOOMINGTON, MN 55438(612) 720-0052WWW.DESIGN1EP.COMPROJECT DRAWN BY:DATE:CHECKED BY:SWPPP-1WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGEngineering | Architecture | Surveying | EnvironmentalLEH09/18/2019ALSSWPPP NARRATIVEMINQUAILVERA CRUZ AVE NCRYSTAL, MN 55422LOC. CODE: 45728520171617666LIC. NO.DATE:5106109/18/2019 LAURA E. HAGSTROM09/18/2019I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THATI AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.NAME FMFMF M F M F MOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEHYD SEFMFMF M F M F MOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEHYD SE865 8 6 4 86 5 866 867 868 869 871 872876875 874873872871870868867 866865864865869868865 867866866UGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGFOUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGE © 2019 WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGJ:\Design 1-33869\2019-12793\CADD\Civil\cd-2019-12793-site p lan.dwg Plotted by:Amanda Stumpf 11/1/2019 8:53:44 AMSHEET CONTENTS:9973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGN10801 BUSH LAKE ROADBLOOMINGTON, MN 55438(612) 720-0052WWW.DESIGN1EP.COMPROJECT DRAWN BY:DATE:CHECKED BY:SWPPP-2WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGEngineering | Architecture | Surveying | EnvironmentalLEH09/18/2019ALSSWPPP PLAN & NOTESMINQUAILVERA CRUZ AVE NCRYSTAL, MN 55422LOC. CODE: 45728520171617666LIC. NO.DATE:5106109/18/2019 LAURA E. HAGSTROM09/18/2019I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THATI AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.NAMENOTES1.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT.2.TEMPORARY SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND BEST PRACTICES FORSTORM WATER MANAGEMENT MUST BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.3.REFER TO SWPPP SHEETS 1, 3 & 4 FOR NOTES AND DETAILS.4.STABILIZE ALL EXPOSED SOILS IMMEDIATELY IF NOT ACTIVELY WORKED WITHIN 7 DAYS.5.STREET SWEEPING WITH COLLECTION MUST BE USED WITHIN 24 HOURS IF SEDIMENT ISTRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADS.6.STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXITS SHALL BE INSTALLED IF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES EXIT THESITE IN LOCATIONS OTHER THAN PAVED DRIVEWAY OR SIDEWALK.7.ADDITIONAL INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED ON INLETS LOCATED IN VERA CRUZ AVE NNORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE.8.A 5' MINIMUM GRASS BUFFER SHALL REMAIN AROUND AREA INLETS ON SITE.SURFACE DRAINAGE ARROWINLET PROTECTIONEXISTING CONTOURLEGENDLESSEE 10' WIDEACCESS EASEMENTLESSEE 15' WIDEACCESS EASEMENTPROPOSEDCOMPOUNDEXISTING BITUMINOUS WALKING PATHEXISTINGPROPERTYLINEEXISTING LOT LINE10' WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTEXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALKEXISTINGHIGHWAY WALLEXISTING PUBLICRIGHT OF WAYINLET PROTECTION (TYP.)VE R A C R U Z A V E N STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100 22'24'EXISTINGBITUMINOUSDRIVEWAY0SCALE ( IN FEET )2010NORTH EXISTINGGENERATOREXISTING RETAINING WALLEXISTING LIFT STATION10' WIDE PUBLIC STREETS EASEMENTDO NOT DISTURBAREA. GRASSSHALL REMAIN.MNDOT CONTROL ACCESSEXISTING SIGNEXISTING TREEPROPOSED TREEEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICALOHEEXISTING TRAFFIC FENCEEXISTING BITUMINOUSEXISTING CONCRETEPROPOSED CLEAN ROCKLESSEE 20' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT EROSION CONTROL PLANEROSION CONTROL TABULATIONUNITQUANTITYLAND FEATURE CHANGESAREA (ACRE)INLET PROTECTIONEA3TOTAL AREA DISTURBED0.06EXISTING IMPERVIOUS0.00PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS0.03REVISED:10/30/2019EXISTING SANITARYSEWER FORCEMAIN VALVEEXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAINFM © 2019 WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGJ:\Design 1-33869\2019-12793\CADD\Civil\cd-2019-12793-details.dwg Plotted by:Amanda Stumpf 9/18/2019 2:45:06 PMSHEET CONTENTS:9973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGN10801 BUSH LAKE ROADBLOOMINGTON, MN 55438(612) 720-0052WWW.DESIGN1EP.COMPROJECT DRAWN BY:DATE:CHECKED BY:SWPPP-3WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGEngineering | Architecture | Surveying | EnvironmentalLEH09/18/2019ALSSWPPP DETAILSMINQUAILVERA CRUZ AVE NCRYSTAL, MN 55422LOC. CODE: 45728520171617666LIC. NO.DATE:5106109/18/2019 LAURA E. HAGSTROM09/18/2019I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THATI AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.NAME © 2019 WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGJ:\Design 1-33869\2019-12793\CADD\Civil\cd-2019-12793-details.dwg Plotted by:Amanda Stumpf 9/18/2019 2:45:08 PMSHEET CONTENTS:9973 VALLEY VIEW RD.EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344(952) 903-9299DESIGN10801 BUSH LAKE ROADBLOOMINGTON, MN 55438(612) 720-0052WWW.DESIGN1EP.COMPROJECT DRAWN BY:DATE:CHECKED BY:SWPPP-4WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGEngineering | Architecture | Surveying | EnvironmentalLEH09/18/2019ALSSWPPP DETAILSMINQUAILVERA CRUZ AVE NCRYSTAL, MN 55422LOC. CODE: 45728520171617666LIC. NO.DATE:5106109/18/2019 LAURA E. HAGSTROM09/18/2019I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THATI AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.NAME Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019 F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F MUGEUGEUGE UGEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHESTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100 WWSEW V E R A C R U Z A V E N U E N .96864 86386386386486 5 866 867 868 865 864PID NO: 2111821240128CITY OF CRYSTALPREMISESMIN QUAILHennepin County, MN0494A2466.000No.DateREVISIONSByCHKAPP'DSMKAS/JMBFIELD WORK: 11/9/2017CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:© 2019 WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGHALF SCALE ON 11"x17"FULL SCALE ON 22"x34"SITE NAME: DESIGNSITE SURVEYI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYORUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGEngineering | Architecture | Surveying | EnvironmentalPROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 6&+('8/(³%´(;+,%,76 SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETSDETAIL0SCALE ( IN FEET )510NORTH PREMISES DESCRIPTION:ACCESS EASEMENT DESCRIPTION:TOGETHER WITHUTILITIES EASEMENT DESCRIPTION: N. 32ND AVENUESTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100 N. 36TH AVENUEDOUGLAS DRIVE N. ZANE AVENUE N.FMF M OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEN. 32ND AVENUESTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100OHE SWWWHYD WWSEWW WELCOME AVENUE N.WELCOME AVENUE N. VERA CRUZ AVENUE N.96SEE DETAILNORTH VICINITY MAP1"=400'SITEMIN QUAILHennepin County, MN0494A2466.000No.DateREVISIONSByCHKAPP'DSMKAS/JMBFIELD WORK: 11/9/2017CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:0SCALE ( IN FEET )3060© 2019 WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGLEGENDHALF SCALE ON 11"x17"FULL SCALE ON 22"x34"SITE NAME: NORTH SURVEYOR NOTES:ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM ISBASED ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTYCOORDINATE SYSTEM NAD83 (1986)DESIGNBOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAY LINE= DENOTES A FOUND SECTION CORNERMONUMENTSECTION LINEQUARTER LINESITE SURVEYI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYORUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.SIXTEENTH LINEGRIDNORTHGEODETICNORTH= DENOTES A FOUND IRON MONUMENTCONCRETE SURFACEDEED/LOT LINESIGNWIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGEngineering | Architecture | Surveying | EnvironmentalEASEMENT LINEWATER VALVEWATER HYDRANTELEC MANHOLEHYD WSTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLESESANITARY SEWERELEC POLETREE DECIDUOUSOHEOVERHEAD ELECTRICGUARDRAILSHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETSUGEUNDERGROUND ELECTRICFMFORCE MAINSTORM SEWERPREMISESCENTERLINEMNDOT CONTROLLED ACCESSDate:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/01/2019