Loading...
1998-08-25MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 25, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 25, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Planner Loren Gordon, and the following interested citizens:Rob & Mai Kimball, Scott Hoelscher, Keith Randklev, Pam Myers, John Nafus, Derek Miller, Raju Barrack, Josh Miller, Brian Berent, Toby Veit, Steve Allsen, Josh Winkler, Adam Palter, Tim Schoenhefen, Ron Lemmerman, Shawn Smith, Nick Schwalbe, Ben Maxwell, Jeff Winter, Jim Grube, Kristin Trepton, Lisa & Tom Whalen, Kristin Dunlap, and Gregg Robbins. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. The Mayor stated that the Council would like to suggest that the two Public Lands Permit Applications, as follows, be included in the Consent Agenda: DWIGHT A. GARDSTROM, 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE ROBERT KIMBALL, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Polston to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 11, 1998 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Polston, unanimously. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING, MOTION Hanus, Polston, unanimously. 413 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 1.12~ CASE 98-38: VARIANCE. NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE~ JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD. LOT 94. PHELP'S ISLAND PARK I~rDIVI$ION, PID # 19-117-23-24 0029. The City Planner explained that today Mr. Cook requested that this item be tabled until he can attend the meeting or allow him a one or two year extension to leave the garage on the property so that he can build a home on the property. The Planner reported that the Planning Commission heard this case at the first meeting in August and recommended denial for a one or two year extension to leave the garage on the property. The City Clerk explained that when Mr. Cook dropped his letter off today, he spoke to the Building Official and told him that he has another plan for the garage. A neighbor of Mr. Cook would like to move the garage to another lot where it would be conforming. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to table this item to the 2nd meeting in September. Staff to notify Mr. Cook that this is being tabled to September 22, 1998, to allow him to make arrangements for the plan to move the garage. The vote was 3 in favor with Hanus abstaining. Motion carried. The City Attorney suggested that the 60 day rule would also apply. The Council asked that Mr. Cook also be notified of the 60 day extension. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT, There were none. 1.13 PRESENTATION FROM JIM GRUBE, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, HENNEPIN COI, JNTY RE: COUNTY ROAD 110 IMPROVEMENT IN MINNETRISTA & INDEPENDENCE, The City Manager explained that the City of Mound has been notified by Jim Grube, Director of Transportation from Hennepin County, that the County Board took action some time ago to designate a portion of County Road 110 in Minnetrista as a Natural Preservation Route. The County Board wants to know what position the City of Mound has on this. Mr. Grube was present as well as Mr. & Mrs. Whalen who are residents of Minnetrista. Mr. Grube explained that the issue is the reconstruction of County Road 110 (CSAH 110) north of Three Points Blvd., in the City of Minnetrista to County Road 6 in the City of Independence. Hennepin County has been working with the Cities of Independence and Minnetrista to look at the proposed reconstruction of the road. During this process, the City of Independence passed a resolution supporting the concept of the road improvement in the City of Independence. In Minnetrista north of County Road 151 up to the north limits of Minnetrista, a question arose as to whether this area of 110 should be designated a Natural Preservation Route (NPR). This was presented to the County Board by the City of Minnetrista. The City Council of Minnetrista was neutral on the issue. Minnetrista asked the County Board to issue a finding on that. This is why the County Board is asking what all three communities, Mound, Minnetrista and Independence, think of the concept of the NPR. He explained a road construction project that would be 424 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 2,5, 1998 designated an NPR would be designed to try to keep the road where it is presently at and not move it to any great extent. However, the conflict on that is that regardless of how the road is designed it must be designed safely. At the direction of the County Board, Mr. Grube went before the Minnetrista City Council and asked if they felt the NPR designation was eligible or not. They remained neutral and said that was the responsibility of the County Board. He advised the City Council that if the County Board decides that the County 110 corridor is not eligible as an NPR, he would work with the neighbors and the community to try to make the impacts as little as possible. The Minnetrista Council then chose to seek a partnership where he and his staff would work with the neighbors to try to reduce thc impacts to the greatest extent possible and gave him 3 to 6 months to figure this out. If they cannot reach consensus on it, or they are not satisfied with the work that is done, then the Minnetrista Council would revisit the issue of an NPR. He has not yet advised the County Board. He further advised that the City of Independence is taking a the position that they want County Road 110 improved, and would not like to see it designated an NPR. Mr. Grube's charge from the County Board is to seek Mound's position on the issue of a NPR designation for County Road 110 from County 151 to County 6. He stated that Mound has any number of options available, which range from: 1. Supporting the concept of an NPR designation for County 110; 2. Rejecting the concept of an NPR designation for County 110; or 3. Remain neutral to the idea. Weycker asked what the difference would be between the NPR and what a normal improvement would be. Grube stated the a normal improvement would be less conservative than an NPR designated improvement. Grube stated he and his staff made an examination of County Road 110 and determined that it does not meet the criteria for an NPR designation. He stated Mr. & Mrs. Whalen do not agree with the determination. Minnetrista residents, Tom & Lisa Whalen encouraged the Council to support the NPR designation. The Council discussed the issue and decided they did not want to take a position on the NPR designation. No action was taken. 1.14 DISCUSSION; TERM OF REPRESENTATIVE ON LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, The City Manager stated that Councilmember Ahrens term on the LMCD expires October 28, 1998. The Council needs to recommend reappointment. Hanus moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: 425 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 RESOLUTION t/98-94 RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT COUNCILMEMBER ANDREA AHRENS AS MOUND'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE L.M.C.D. - 3 YEAR TERM BEGINNING OCTOBER 28, 1998, AND EXPIRING OCTOBER 28, 2001 The vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens abstaining. Motion carried. 1.15 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE DCAC The Mayor stated that because of his business, he is having a problem getting to the meetings. Councilmember Hanus stated he would take this position if the Council wished. Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #98-95 RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER MARK HANUS AS THE COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE DOCKS & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION The vote was 3 in favor with Hanus abstaining. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: 2. 3. 4. Financial Report for July 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of August 13, 1998. Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 16, 1998. REMINDER: The next WCCB meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. REMINDER: The next Building Committee meeting for the Westonka Community Center is Tuesday, September 1, 1998, 7 a.m. - 9 a.m., at the Westonka Community Center. The meeting following this one will be on Tuesday, September 22, 1998, 7 a.m. -9 a.m., Westonka Community Center. The WCCB is specifically invited to attend this Building Committee meeting to hear a presentation regarding the preliminary schematic design on the project because the 9/24/98 WCCB agenda already has a number of issues on it for discussion. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. vote was unanimously in favor. Atidst: -Ciiy Clerk The M(9~t~carried. ~ F_.x~ard J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager 426 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 19~8 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY '1.2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18. 1998 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE M E?IN( , MOTION Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.3 CASE 95-47; MINOR SUBDIVISION, 1642 HERON LANE, TO CREATE THREE (3) BUILDABLE LOTS. JOE LEMMERMAN. LOTS 12. 13. 14. 15 & 16, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-117-24 11 0093. RESOLUTION g98-87 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 1642 HERON LANE, TO CREATE THREE (3) BUILDABLE LOTS, LOTS 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13- 117-24 11 0093, P & Z CASE//98-47 Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.4 CASE 98-48: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, FRONT AND SIDE YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK, HOUSE SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO CONSTRUCT A LAKESIDE DECK, CRAIG A, ROSE. 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L.P. CREVIER'S SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID#13-117-24 42 0006, RESOLUTION g98-88 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT ~ARD AND TWO SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DECK WITH AN ENCLOSED PORCH, AT 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L.P. CREVIER'S SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID#13-117-24 42 0006, P & Z CASE//98-48 Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.5 CASE 98-49: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, ROBERT KIMBALL, 2573 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36. WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 42 0016. RESOLUTION g98-89 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING HOME FROM A ONE STORY TO A TWO STORY WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-117-24 42 0016, P & Z CASE //98-49 414 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.6 RESOLUTION APPROVING INCREASE IN PENSION BENEFIT FOR FIRI~. RELIEF ASSOCIATION EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1998, RESOLUTION 98-90 RESOLUTION APPROVING INCREASE IN PENSION BENEFIT FOR FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1998. Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.7 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO, 320 PUBLIC WORKS UNIT FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 199~ AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999, RESOLUTION 98-91 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320 PUBLIC WORKS UNIT FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1998 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999. Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.8 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.9 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS DWIGHT A, GARDSTROM, 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE. RESOLUTION//98-92 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO REPLACE RETAINING WALLS ON BRIGHTON COMMONS, DOCK SITE #51525,DWIGHT GARDSTROM, 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE Hanus, Polston, unanimously. 415 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 *1.10 ROBERT KIMBALL~ 2~73 (~AMBRIDQE LANE~ RESOLUTION #98-93 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO GRADE SLOPE TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE AND TO PLANT SHRUBS IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION FOR ROBERT KIMBALL, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, BRIGHTON COMMONS, DOCK SITE 51495 Hanus, Polston, unanimously. The Mayor stated that the Planner has suggested taking the next two items in the opposite order. The Council agreed. 1.11 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD,, I. JNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID//14-117-24 41 0011. The Planner stated this item was sent back to the Planning Commission at the last meeting for further review and study on the height variance for the antenna. The Planning Commission heard this last night and recommended approval on a 4-2 vote to allow the 30 foot height variance to the antenna support structure in the proposed site located at Hadorff Field. The Planning Commission previously recommended approval of the the Conditional Use Permit for the (4) four 70 foot lighting standards at Hadorff Field. The Planner stated that at the Planning Commission, U.S.West Wireless presented the variance case to prove its reasons for findings that they can afford relief to the height that the code stipulates for these accessory antennas to be located on a lighting standard. The material that was presented looked at test sites around the community in which U.S.West performed a test of simulated tower at a height of 90 feet in order to gain information about coverages they could get at different locations within the community. The locations tested were: 1. Southwest water tower, in Sorbo Park; 2. The old water tower on Fairview Lane; 3. Hadorff Field; and 4. Grandview Middle School. The first three were the ones being considered seriously. U.S. West found that the field tests were not desirable for their standards. They could not test the height they are asking for, 120 feet, due to some OSHA requirements. Therefore, they could not come to conclusive findings showing that 120 feet was better than 90 feet. Assumptions were made that 120 feet would be better, but they could not support that with findings on the data that was presented. There was also discussion about testing of multiple locations. U.S. West did not perform testing of any multiple sites to get the coverages to work. Based on the discussion at the Planning Commission last night, they voted 4-2 to grant approval of a height variance on one of he 4 light standards 416 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 for the location of this antenna tower. The Minutes from the Planning Commission were submitted tonight with 3 findings in their reasons for approval, as follows: Finding of Hardship: 1. The proposed site is the optimal location; 2. Reducing visual pollution; and There is not a place in the I-1 District where a 125 foot pole could be built under the current ordinance. The Planner further stated that Staff's position on this tower is that it is a very good proposal. He stated they like the integration of the antenna within the lighting standard. However, Staff feels that a 90 foot height is desirable rather than the 120 foot height that is asked for in the application. Staff feels the applicant has not gone to all means to prove that the system cannot work within the existing code requirements. That is evidenced by U.S. West Wireless not testing the multiple locations. Therefore, Staff feels that there still is a reason to find that there has been no hardship presented in this case, based on a lack of testing of the multiple location scenario. The Council asked the applicant to make their presentation. Scott Hoelscher, U.S. Wes Wireless, stated that last night the Planning Commission recommended approval of their request for the Hadorff Field site. Tonight he would like to show the reasons why the alternative sites in the City of Mound do not fit their coverage needs, and, therefore, are inadequate for their system. He reviewed the list of potential sites under the current Mound ordinance. There were four sites considered: e Old water tower near well//3 on Fairview Lane. Water tower at Sorbo Park. The industrial zoning district. It is a very long narrow site and the building occupies most of the land in this district. A requirement in the ordinance is to have a fall zone of 1 to 1. In that location there is not enough room to meet that requirement. The Business district areas. These are areas where an antenna mount is allowed if it does not extend 20 feet above the existing structure, be it a building, or a light standard. In these areas there are buildings that are two to three stories, primarily. Last night it was suggested that multiple sites be used in the business area (multiple shorter sites) instead of one tower site. That does not meet their needs. The public institution areas, which are similar to the business areas, where you can extend 20 feet above the height of the structure. There are three that are in question: Grandview Middle School. This site is much to low to provide any coverage. Shirley Hills Elementary School. Again, there is no mounting facility at that site that would be appropriate. 417 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 The Parks Garage at Island Park Hall. There are no light standards. There is a one story parldng garage on a small parcel which would not be suitable for an antenna site. Hoelscher then introduced Mr. Eugene Segal, Radio Frequency Engineer of U.S.West Wireless, who went through in more detail why the sites will not work. Mr. Segal maintained that there are technical reasons and key design issues that make the Hadorff Field site at 120 feet the only site that is acceptable. They look at the following with regard to a wireless system: 1. Location, the site is very important; 2. Anticipated wireless traffic that will be served by the site; 3. Appropriate spacing between sites in the system; and 4. The heights of the antennas on their sites. He related that it is a trade off between maximizing the height to increase their coverage and minimizing the height to control the interference on the system. The site at Hadorff Field meets their objectives at 120 feet, which is the minimum height they need to control their interference between it and adjacent sites and it provides the connection to their next site to the east. The Council asked why 120 feet? Mr. Segal explained the following: When considering the height for the site, specifically in the City of Mound, they have to look at the height of the trees in the City and the fact that it has rolling terrain as well. When designing its systems, U.S. West Wireless places antennas about 20 to 30 feet above the tree line. The trees in the City of Mound are 70 to 90 feet and it is not uncommon to find trees taller than that. He stated that some of the trees near Sorbo Park are almost 100 feet in height. In addition, the rolling terrain in the City of Mound adds the need for another approximately 20 feet in height. This is where they got the 120 feet in the application. Mr. Segal then showed an overhead of the drive test at 90 feet, which showed that they did not get the coverage they were looldng for. The Council asked how they know that 120 feet will give them the coverage and result they are looking for if they have not tested it. Mr. Segal explained that wireless service is not an exact science and sometimes they have to rely on the experience they have on the sites they have built and how the sites perform. A rule of thumb is that they have to keep their sites approximately 22 feet above the clutter (trees, hills, etc.) The City Attorney asked about power level setting on the transmitter. Could the power level setting be increased and obtain different results in terms of the distance that the signal could be received? Mr. Segal explained that this is a test intended to simulate the operation of an actual site and an actual site operates at a that specific power level. Doing a test at a higher power level would not give the proper results. 418 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 The Council discussed the height of the water tower at Sorbo Park. Mr. Segal explained that in wireless design it is a trade-off between interference and coverage. With all the foliage in Mound there is a limit to how much coverage they can accomplish by going higher because the trees absorb so much energy. Going higher does not remove that. It is still there, but what happens by going higher, especially with a system like this, that is a noise limited system which means that all their sites operate on the same frequency, which is not the way it works in analog, i.e., cellular where each site has different sets of frequency. The reason this is important to U.S. West Wireless is that if they go too high with their sites, they begin to interfere not just with adjacent sites, but sites several layers beyond that and this would cause serious problems with the system. In the case of the water tower at Sorbo Park, they did do a drive test on it and at first it showed even a mile and a quarter away, the trees are so dense that it decreases the signal strength to a point that there isn't enough there for them to provide service. In addition to that, it will cause serious interference problems on the rest of the system because it is so high. Councilmember Hanus stated that what is being asked for is a variance to the code and the Council charge is to make sure that all the other alternatives are exhausted before granting permission to someone to go outside the law, which is what is being asked for here. The onus is on the applicant to prove that there is no other alternative that will work. Councilmember Hanus then asked if going too high is no good, how about staying lower with multiple sites? Mr. Segal explained that if you place a height of the antenna at tree level or below tree level, so much energy is absorbed by the trees, you lose too much and actually shrink the coverage of the site. Mr. Segal stated that then you might need ten more sites to cover the same area as one. He explained that the you need to extend the antenna above the trees. Then the signal propagates the rest of the way above the tree line. Only near the receiver will the signal go through the trees and to the receiver. That is why they have to have the clearance above the trees. The Council explained that they are not arguing for or against any one site. They are just trying to look at the alternatives. U.S. West Wireless could use the Sorbo Park water tower and be 20 feet above the top of the water tower with no variances to the ordinance. Mr. Segal showed data where at the 90 foot drive test, in certain areas, they could get no signal. The Council asked what U.S. West Wireless would have done if the Hadorff Field site had not been available. Mr. Segal stated they would probably have looked for that would be acceptable to the City and works for U.S. West Wireless. U.S. West Wireless' contention is that Hadorff Field is the only site, at 120 feet, that will work for them. The Council encouraged U.S. West Wireless to look at and test the multiple site scenario. The Planner stated that with all the conversation at the last meeting left everything in a little bit of confusion. The determination by Staff was that the Lot 11 where the football field is located, which is independent of Lot 58 which has a use permit, needs to have some review authority on it. This is why we are considering this variance before the CUP. 419 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 Councilmcmber Hanus stated that after the Planning Commission Meeting last night, an issue was brought up, in conversation with U.S. West Wireless representatives, that had not been brought up before. That is, that these types of towers are engineered in such a way that if they fall, they will fall on themselves rather than toppling over like a tree. Hc stated that this is why we cannot have a tower of this height in our industrial zone which is where it is supposed to be allowed. There is no area large enough for an appropriate drop zone for a 120 foot tower. So if the tower fell in any direction, it would not fall on the property on which it was located. Another comment was brought up that towers can be engineered, and it has been proven in other areas, that they can be designed to fall upon themselves, which raises the question, If you use a tower that is engineered that way, do we truly need a drop zone in our industrial zone? That would be something to be discussed, as a Council and Planning Commission, because it affects the code as it is written. Councilmember Hanus stated that the Council sent this back to the Planning Commission to identify hardship and he completely disagrees with items one and two in the findings. Mayor Polston, stated that one of the real problems he has with the request, in fact, it hasn't been proven to him, that this is the only way and the only site that will work and he favors the towers that will fall upon themselves within the industrial zone. But if, in fact, this tower were to be allowed, by turning our back on the ordinance we have, and allowing this tower to go in place, there is no assurance to the City of Mound and our Code that there wouldn't be other telecommunication companies that follow who want to put other towers within that same zone. He thought this would be a proliferation of telecommunication towers within a zone where they are prohibited, so he could not support this option. However, he would support redefining the ordinance and directing the Planning Commission to look at allowing towers within the industrial zone, if they were designed to fall upon themselves. Councilmember Hanus agreed with redefining the code. Hanus further stated that this is a brand new ordinance, this is the first application that has come in against it. He felt that if this is granted in a residential zone, it would be impossible to deny an application for any zone in the City. Councilmember Weycker stated that she feels since there is no other place in Mound to put a tower, this seems to be hardship enough to grant the variance. Whether another company came in to place a tower in a similar location, would have to be looked at separately. Currently, it is already in the ordinance that they cannot put it in the industrial site because the industrial site is not large enough. So she felt it is still changing the ordinance. So, in other words, you are granting a variance in that sense by changing the ordinance. She stated she is in favor of it. Councilmember Hanus disagreed and stated that we would not be granting a variance to that situation, we would be changing the code to allow it in the area that it was identified as being appropriate in the first place. Under that scenario, we would not be granting a variance but, changing the code to correct an item that it appears can be engineered out of the situation. Councilmember Weycker, felt it could have been a similar situation with this because had they approached us in a different way, it would not have even required a variance. Weycker's feeling is that the ordinance that was adopted, does not cover enough or it does not cover adequately. The Council discussed the precedent that would be set by allowing this variance. Scott Hoelscher made the following comments concerning the ordinance and the proposal and whether or not it is consistent with the ordinance: 420 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 Section 350:1300., Subd. 2. 4. One of the purposes of the ordinance is to promote and encourage shared use and collocation of telecommunications towers and antenna support structures. 0 Section 350:1305. Subd. 2. "Antenna Support Structures" means a building, athletic field lighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Mr. Hoelscher feels that the application is consistent with the ordinance and that it meets the spirit of the ordinance. They are not proposing a new tower but an extension of the light pole. Hanus referred to Section 350:1305, Subd. 6 which reads "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. In other words, this is not supposed to look like an antenna tower, but it should look like a light tower. He felt this is problem because the application does not apply the stealth aspect of the code. It is very much contrary to that. The Council asked the City Attorney to explain what options are available at this point. The City Attorney stated there are 3 options: 1. Approve by adopting the proposed resolution as presented or amend it. Defer the matter to a future meeting. If that is the Council's choice, there should be an expression of some kind of a reason why that might be an appropriate thing to do, i.e., looking at possible amendments to the underlying ordinance which would obviate the need for a variance. There may be the need to obtain more engineering information the use of multiple sites. Deny the variance. The City Attorney stated if this is the City Council's desire, he strongly recommends that the Council not take action tonight to deny the variance. If that is their desire, they should direct Staff and the City Attorney's Office to prepare findings to be returned at the next City Council Meeting which would speak to the issue of denial of the variance. The City Attorney then advised that there is an additional issue which deals with a question of a potential Federal pre-emption of the City's land use regulations in this particular area. He stated he feels he is now in a better position to provide the Council with a better analysis of the pre-emption concern and whether there is or is not a significant risk of pre-emption in this particular case. The Mayor asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Council on this case. Steve Mangold, Regional Real Estate Manager for U.S.West Wireless. He commented that describing radio frequency is very difficult. He stated his job is to help get the real estate. They try to put together good reasonable business deals for everybody involved, U.S.West Wireless, the school district, and the citizens of Mound. Mr. Mangold stated that Minnesota Statutes allow for variances of local ordinances. These variances are strict enforcements that would cause undue hardship because of circumstances, unique to the individual property and if 421 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 granted, will not alter the essential character of that particular property. He considers this a unique piece of property. It has the light poles already. He stated they are always looking for collocations and reasonable ways to locate on existing structures. They really believe this is good business to do this with this location. He stated hc understood the Council needs some kind of hardship for a variance. To him the hardships are: U.S. West Wireless would be providing inferior service in the City of Mound. He considers this a hardship to U.S. West Wireless and the citizens of Mound. If we don't do this business transaction, and the School District doesn't find other funding, they are not going to have the lights at Hadorff Field. He considers that a hardship to the School District and ultimately the citizens of Mound. The Council explained that financial reasons cannot be considered as a hardship when granting a variance. Scott Hoelscher stated that even though the site is zoned residential, it is an institutional property. It is Zoned R-1. However, in the ordinance, it states that telecommunications facilities are a permitted accessory use on antenna support structures, owned or otherwise under the control of the City or School District. He further pointed out that this is the fourth hearing and there has not been negative reaction from the general public on this proposal. Pam Myers, Supt. of Westonka Schools. She stated even though this is a U.S. West application, the School District is very worded about the safety of the poles and the lights at Hadorff. The School District considers this a hardship. They also consider the fact that they will not be able to have activities at night a hardship. The Council asked about the 60 day clock on the applications. The City Attorney stated that both the variance and the CUP first 60 days will be up on Saturday, August 29th. The City does have the right to notify the applicants within the first 60 days of an additional 60 day extension to the time limit. The City needs to notify the applicants of the extension and state the reasons why they are extending it. MOTION made by Weycker to approve a 30 foot height variance as stated in the proposed resolution that was handed out tonight. The motion died for lack of a second. Ahrens stated that the proposed resolution does not list any hardships which was why it was sent back to the Planning Commission. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Poiston to direct the City Attorney and Staff to prepare a f'mding of facts and a resolution of denial to be considered at the next meeting, September 8. Councilmember Weycker stated that she thinks this is selling our residents short. Councilmember Hanus stated he feels it is upholding our ordinances. The vote was 3 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 422 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 It was the consensus of the Council that the City Planner notify the applicants of the 60 day extension on the variance and the Conditional Use Permit. 1.12 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD,, WFSTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/U$ WF-~T WIRELESS;, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID# 14-117-24 41 0011, The Mayor reopened the Public Hearing on the CUP. The following students and other persons spoke in favor of the CUP: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. John Nafus Jeff Winter Josh Winkler Adam Painter Josh Miller Brian Berent Shawn Smith Keith Randklev, Athletic Director Westonka Schools Gregg Robbins, Facility Coordinator for Westonka Schools Kristin Treptow, 5792 Lynwood Blvd. stated that she agreed with the Council that no hardship has been shown to allow the variance. The Mayor stated that there is no one on the Council who is against the new lights at Hadorff Field or granting the Conditional Use Permit for those lights. He further stated that the City Council is sworn to uphold the laws of the City of Mound. Councilmember Hanus agreed and stated that the Council is being asked to discard an ordinance so the school district can get some free lights or what is perceived as free lights. Hanus stated: "It is not the City's responsibility to fund those lights by any means, whether it be by discounting our ordinances or through financial contributions or whatever. The point is, that is the wrong reason to grant the variance. We are not allowed, by our own laws, to grant the variance based on those conditions. As long as he feels there may be alternatives, he is not allowed to vote for it." Councilmember Weycker, stated that she does not take granting variances lightly. She stated she did vote against this the first time because there was no hardship, but she felt a hardship was presented tonight. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to continue this public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit until the next meeting, September 8, 1998. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 423 BILLS AUGUST 25, 1998 BATCH 8082 265,140.48 .~ I . ., . .. . ..... . . .~:~. ~ · ~ ~:~ .: ~ -.:~:~. : .: = : > ~ ::~'.:::: ~: .~ .. , . ~.:. ::::::::::::::::::::: :~:: ~..~:~:.' . - :.: ...~..::::-":; :~ ? ...... ·: :: ....... ]:: i o I ~o oo oo ~ oc o " c o oc,oo ~ o o o o o o c o c ~ o I ., I .. I' L: ~ ~' I , I Z . "131 I LJ · . ~. ~.:~:: ~ : ~':.~:.- . i I THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.