Loading...
1998-09-08 ~L~ AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1998, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *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. 1. 3. 4. o OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO WAYNE TERWILLIGER, FOR HIS 50 YEARS OF INVOLVEMENT IN BASEBALL ................... 3446-3448 APPROVE AGENDA. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 25, 1998 REGULAR MEETING. 3449-3462 *B. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT REGARDING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANT .............................. 3463 *C. REQUEST FOR A QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL .......................... 3464-3465 *D. APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST FOR 1998 SEALCOAT PROJECT .... 3466-3468 *E. PAYMENT OF BILLS ....................................... 3469-3483 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID#14-117-24 41 0011 ............................................ 3484-3575 RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION OF DENIAL REGARDING A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID #14-117-24 41 0011. REQUEST TO BE HEARD FROM DENNIS AND CAROLYN LEININGER, 3065 DUNDEE LANE RE: PREVIOUS VARIANCE REQUEST ......................... 3576-3615 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 3444 11. 12. RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS ACTION RE: RELOCATION ............................... 3616-3620 OF DOCK SITE #41866 ............ APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL LEVY FOR THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA) ........ 3621-3622 PRESENTATION OF 1999 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES ........................ 3623-3625 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for August 1998 .................... 3626-3649 Notice from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) regarding the 1998 Joint Metro Regional Meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998 at the Sheraton Metrodome Hotel. Please contact Fran ASAP if you are interested in attending ......................... 3650-3652 C. Letter from GTE regarding the proposed merger of GTE with Bell Atlantic ..... 3653-3654 Do REMINDER: Due to the fact that the Primary Election is scheduled for Tuesday, September 15, I am recommending that the Committee of the Whole meeting be canceled. Use of the Council Chambers and Conference Room will be taken up by the election. In addition, public meetings are not to be held on election day. Eo REMINDER: The next WCCB meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. F° REMINDER: The next Building Committee meeting for the Westonka Community Center is scheduled for 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. Go I was contacted recently by a member of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding the possible reorganization of the MCWD into upper and lower watershed districts. There appears to be some interest in doing this based upon the size and complexity that has been created in recent years. Two members on the MCWD, both upper watershed members, are supporting such a change (Tom Maple and Tom La Bounty). Enclosed is some background information about this idea. It looks like a Mayor's meeting will be held later this month to discuss it further. In addition, I have enclosed the MCWD proposed budget for 1999. It is in draft form and will be discussed on Thursday, September 10,1998, 6:30 p.m., Minnetonka City Council Chambers, Minnetonka Community Center ..................... 3655-3673 H. REMINDER: HRA MEETING, 7:00 P.M. SEPT. 8, 1998. 3445 ~ ~ 8 -o o -~ ~ '~. ,.. 0 ~0 .~ O~  ~ ~0~ ~ ~ 00~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ _ ~o ~co ~ ~ o Mr. Ed Shukle, City M~ager City OfMound 5341 Ma~ood Road M°~d, .~r 55364 Dear Mr. Shale: Th~ You for a~eei The Wa~e Te~,,.~ng to help us pay ~',- ,roger day **, .-- 2 ,mUte to a great baseball m~, Wa~e . . ~ "' wuaWay Stadium ~ill be :;,l;;~ md, v, duals ~own t~ ,_ °~'e Mack .. on Friday, Au .... Te~illiger ~[' ~e~.lhger joins baseball ~eets C · ~ust 7, 1998. both -~ ~.or a cOach. Mr *- ~ nave been in Coach ~ oenes Ch .... ~cnea first b~- ~ -o~oall for 5n -- -~r as the ' ~"P~Onshins ~. ~e tot the Mi r ~uu z me ~t. Paui s_. · , U~ng amts first base We Would like to t~e you up on o ~ special for Mr T ....... Y ~ offer ~-- ~ow what You -- k Y~ w~lhger ~d ...... mr a Ci~ Co ueea ~om us ~e m~ you for ,,~j.~cu Resolution. This Will be · 2~ generous offer. Please let me Wm~est Reg~ds, Jody Beaulieu C°~uni~ Relations Director 50 years of Twig Wayne Terwilliger was on the Brooklyn Dodgers' bench the day that Bobby Thomson hit his famous homer at the Polo Grounds to give the New York Giants the 1951 National League pennant and was on the field the night Kirby Puckett hit his famous homer to force a 7th game in the 1991 World Series. it's all part of a professional baseball career that has spanned five decades. In his 50th season in a professional baseball uniform, "Twig" is in his second run with the Saints. Back in 1952, he was a Brooklyn Dodger farmhand, Terwilliger had the best statistical season of his 14-year playing career. The second baseman batted .312 that year for the American Association Saints. (Later, he would cross the river and play for the rival Minneapolis Millers.) Twig, whose professional baseball career started at Des Moines in 1948, played 666 games in the majors with the Cubs, Dodgers, Senators, Giants and A's in a ten-year period. After his playing days ended in 1960, Twig turned his hand to managing in the minor leagues. He spent 15 years there, winning two titles in that time and recording a 1,062-969 won-loss record. He served as a coach for the Washington Senators and Texas Rangers (where he worked for baseball great Ted Williams). In 1985, he joined the Twins and coached first base through the team's two World Series crowns in 1987 and 1991. He joined the Saints in 1995. In all, Twig has been in uniform for over 5,000 professional baseball games. Only 3 other men are known to have played or coached in professional baseball for 50 years or more consecutively, Connie Mack, Jimmy Reese, And Don Zimmer. In addition to coaching first base, Twig pitches batting practice and also works with the infielders. But numbers don't tell the value of the 71-year old native of Clare, MI. As former Twins' manager Gene Mauch said about Terwilliger, "Twig is as good a baseball man as there is, period. End of discussion." MINUTES - 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 Paiter, 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 M'EETING, MOTION Hanus, Polston, unanimously. *1.2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18, 1998 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION Hanus, Polston, unanimously. *1.3 CASE 98-47: 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) BUH~ABLE LOTS, LOTS 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13- 11%24 11 0093, P & Z CASE//98-47 Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.4 CASE 98-48: VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE, FRONT AND SIDE YARD, SInE 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 #98-88 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT HARD 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#13-11%24 42 0006, P & Z CASE t/98-48 Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.5 CASE 98-49: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, ROBERT KIMBALL, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 36, WYCHWOOD, PID #24-11%24 42 0016. RESOLUTION #98-89 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 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, 1998 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 PAYlVIE~ OF BILLS MOTION Hanus, Polston, unanimously. '1.9 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION,q DWIGHT A. GARDSTROM, 2867 CAMBRIDGE LANE, RESOLUTION g98-92 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. 3 $1 3 *1.10 hi ,I, ,,l& ,, ,iii & ,~ ,, MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 ROBERT KIMBALL, 2873 CAMBRIDGE LANE, RESOLUTION g98-93 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., UNPLATTED 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 Falrview 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 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: 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: ao 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. The Parks Garage at Island Park Hall. There are no light standards. There is a one story parking garage on a small parcel ,i ~ , ,,Ill [& ~, ,, ii, MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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 looking 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. 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 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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. Councilmember 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. He stated that this is why 3q$5' 7 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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.9 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: 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. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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 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 he understood the Council needs some 9 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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 worried 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. 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. $ 5'g 1.12 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOI.E AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD,, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELF. qS, UNPLATTE1} 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. 1.12 CASE 98-38: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHEI.P'S ISLAND PARK I~rDIVISION, 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 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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 Ahren~, 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 thc 60 day extension. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.13 PRESENTATION FROM JIM GRUBE, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, HENNEPIN COUNTY 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 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 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- AUGUST 25, 1998 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 the 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 N-PR 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: RESOLUTION #98-94 RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT COUNCILMEMBER ANDREA AHRENS AS MOUND'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE L.M.C.D. - 1 YEAR ~ BEGINNING 111199 AND EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 1999 The vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens abstaining. Motion carried. 13 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 1.15 APPO~ F COUN IL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE DCA 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 COUNCH34EMBER 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. 1. Financial Report for July 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. 2. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of August 13, 1998. 3. Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 16, 1998. 4. REMINDER: The next WCCB meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. e 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. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Attest: City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager 14 September 8, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 95- RF~OL~ION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has been given a grant by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has applied in good faith for HMEP monies for activities of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency Preparedness Planning and Review Committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute the agreement and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City of Mound all of the contractual obligations contained herein. $%3 September 8, 1998 ADD-ON CONSENT RESOLUTION//98- RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 & NOVEMBER 3, 1998 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the following list of election judges for the the Primary Election September 15, 1998, and the General Election November 3, 1998: Adams, Eugene Anderson, Becky Anderson, Gunhild Bostrom, Ron Bostrom, Holly Botko, Bev Brown, Lois Bryce, Judy Ann Byrnes, Marilyn Charon, Karol Coleman, Chris Cooper, Leatrice Davis, Karin Efickson, Elta Gilmore, Arlene Hall, Richard Hanson, Robert Hasse, Cklair Hawley, Irene Jensen, Dallas Jensen, Liz Jessen, Lee Jessen, Phyllis Koenig, Edythe Leisinger, Duane Miller, Sara Mueller, Mike Nelson, Joyce Niesen, Jim O'Brien, Dorothy Om, Phyllis Rahn, Jodi Rasmussen, Tom Regan, Margie Regan, James Richter, Edward Richter, Ella Ries, Marjorie Schmidt, Susan Schwingler, Allen Schwingler, Ann Sidders, Barbara Strong, Betty Sundberg, Mary Lou Werner, Charlotte Weycker, Leah Wilsey, Sandra Wilson, Clifford SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBETC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 4,.. Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. (If more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper) NUMBER OF SIGNS: TYPE OF SIGN: SIZE OF SIGN: DATES OF USE: /banner wall mount temporary permanent ~ feet high x Y feet wide-- free standing square feet ///////////////////////?/1'~/7////////7//////////~//////////////////////////// APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: The sign will be held up by a crane, owned by Bernie Hanson of Rocket Crane Service. The crane is mounted on a track (about the size of a garbage truck), and the boom can be raised anywhere from a 30 foot minimum, to 110 feet. The truck will be positioned in an enclosed area, by the pastor's garage. The only access is from the street. The truck will be locked, and will be secure. If bad weather - high winds or storms- appear, the boom will be lowered. We would like the truck here to advertise to passer-by's that a carnival is going on in the back of our property. It will be put up on Friday, Sept. 11th, and taken down on Sunday, Sept. 13~. If there are any questions about the crane, Mr. Hanson would be glad to answer them. I could answer any other questions you may have. Rhonda Eurich Administrator Our Lady of the Lake Church 472-1284 Sep, 3, 1998- 2:00PM ' M~COM~ P'RAN'Bi ROOS-~-----'' Engineering l, ~o, 6623-:-[~, 2/4.'" Planning · Surveying' September 3, 1998 Mx. Edward $. Shulde, .Ir., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota '55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 1998 Seal Coat Program Final Payment Request MFRA #6173 De~ Ed: Enclosed is Astech's Final Payrnem Request in the mount of $24,919.40 for the 1998 Seal Coat Program. The contract, price for the project was $28,767.50. Because this work is fully completed, we do not recommend that any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with Greg Skinner, your Street Superintendent, and find that the work was completed in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. ' Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosure cc: Greg Skinner, Street Superintendent, City of Mound e:~taln:\617Jk~uklc'9-.~ 15050 23rd Avenue North . Plymouth, Minnesota , 55447 phone 612/476.6010 . fax 612/476-8532 e.mail: mfra~mfra, com : ~i "' I' I ,. , ~ll, ~= ~ ~ I ~l~ ~ ~ L [ I ~ I ! BILLS September 8, 1998 BATCH 8083 BATCH 8084 68,655.83 105,704.29 TOTAL BILLS 174,360.12 ,I, 0 Z t ,I, [3 o.o. U ~ oc ~ I ,1, Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design August 26, 1998 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Steven Mangold US West Wireless, L.L.C. 426 North Fairview - Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 RECENED SEP- I 'i99B RE: Wireless antenna variance application - Case ff98-45 Dear Mr. Mangold: Please accept this letter as notice from the City of Mound that the review period for your wireless antenna variance application will be extended an additional 60 days as prescribed by Minnesota Statute 15.99. The initial 60 day time window will expire on August 29, 1998 and because a decision has not been reached, the City feels it is in the best interest of all parties involved to extend the review period another 60 days to allow ample time for the matter to be resolved. At the August 25, 1998 Council meeting, a motion was made to direct Staff to prepare a resolution with findings to deny the requested variance. That resolution will be brought back to the City Council at the September 8, 1998 regular meeting at which time the Council will have the oppommity to entertain a motion to approve or deny the request. The proceedings leading up to this meeting will be available to the public. At this time however, we will not be acting on any additional information related to the case. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner Cc: Ed Shulde, City of Mound Jon Sutherland, City of Mound John Dean, Kennedy and Graven Greg Robbins, Westonka Public Schools 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design August 26, 1998 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Greg Robbins Westonka Public Schools #277 5600 Lynwood Blvck Mound, MN 55364 RECEIVED S EP- 1 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. RE: Lighting Standards Conditional Use Permit - Case #98-46 Dear Mr. Robbins: Please accept this letter as notice from the City of Mound that the review period for the athletic lighting standard conditional use permit proposed for Memorial Field will be extended an additional 60 days as prescribed by Minnesota Statute 15.99. The initial 60 day time window will expire on September 12, 1998 and the potential exists that a decision may not be reached by the end of this time period. Therefore, the City feels it is in the best interest of all parties involved to extend the review period another 60 days to allow ample time for the matter to be resolved. At the August 25, 1998 Council meeting, a motion was made to direct Staff to prepare a resolution with findings to deny the related wireless antenna variance request. That resolution will be brought back to the City Council at the September 8, 1998 regular meeting at which time the Council will have the oppommity to entertain a motion to approve or deny the request. The conditional use permit hearing will be reopened for comment and consideration for approval as well. As stated at the Council meeting, it may be premature to act on the lighting standards prior to a decision on the wireless antenna variance request. If you have any questions, please call me. Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner Cc: Ed Shulde, City of Mound Jon Sutherland, City of Mound John Dean, Kennedy and Graven Steven Mangold, US West Wireless, L.L.C. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, M2q 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 ,I, iL .... li~ ,i MINUTES - 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 Paiter, 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. 1.11 CONTINU-FJD DISCUSSION: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLATTED 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 Hadofff Field. The Planning Commission previously recommended approval of the the Conditional Use Permit for the (4) four 70 foot lighting standards at Hadofff 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 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: 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. Ce The Parks Garage at Island Park Hall. There are no light standards. There is a one story parking garage on a small parcel MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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 looking 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. 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 3qR8 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 happens by going higher, especially with a system like this, that is a noise limited system which means that ail their sites operate on the same frequency, which is not the way it works in anaiog, 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 fa'st 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 ail the other aiternatives 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 aiternative that will work. Councilmember Hanus then asked if going too high is no good, how about staying lower with multiple sites? Mr. Segai 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. Segai 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 signai 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 aiternatives. 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. Segai showed data where at the 90 foot drive test, in certain areas, they could get no signai. The Council asked what U.S. West Wireless would have done if the Hadorff Field site had not been available. Mr. Segai 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 ail 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. Councilmember 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 fail, they will fail on themselves rather than toppling over like a tree. He stated that this is why MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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: 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. 8 3q o MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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 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 he understood the Council needs some MOUND CITY COUNCE, MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 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 heating 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 worried 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 CLIP first 60 days will be up on Saturday, August 29th. The City does have the right to notify the applicants within the fn'st 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 Polston to direct the City Attorney and Staff to prepare a trmding 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. 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. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 1.12 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDmONAL USE PERMIT_ LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELI*$$, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID# 14-117-24 41 0011. The Mayor reopened the Public Heating 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 Hadofff 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. August 25, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO APPROVE A 30 FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE TO A LIGHTING STANDARD FOR THE INCORPORATION OF A WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA EQUIPMENT WHICH WOULD EXTEND TO A HEIGHT OF 120 FEET, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21, LYNWOOD PARK, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 PZ CASE #98-45 WHEREAS, the owner, Westonka School District # 277, and applicant, US West Wireless Communications have applied for a height variance to locate a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field; and, WHEREAS, wireless telephone antenna facilities are permitted as non-tower facilities on publicly owned structures including lighting standards when stealth design is used to blend the antenna into the structure and surrounding environment; and, WHEREAS, the wireless telephone antenna would be located at the top of the proposed 120 feet lighting standard. A 30 foot height variance above the 70 foot lighting standard height is needed to accommodate the antenna. An additional 20 feet of height would be allowed for antenna support structure without a variance which would bring the total lighting structure height to 120 feet; and, WHEREAS, US West and the School District are jointly involved in the project which includes three other lighting standards which will be 70 feet in height. US West will retain use of northeast lighting standard for a wireless antenna to be placed at 120 feet; and, WHEREAS, staff recommended denial of the request and the Planning Commission recommended approval 4-2; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves a 30 foot height variance to a lighting standard for purposes of accommodating a wireless telecommunication antenna. August 25, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF 8 EXISTING LIGHT POLES AT MEMORIAL FIELD WITH FOUR (4) 70 FOOT LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21, LYNWOOD PARK, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 PZ CASE #98-46 WHEREAS, the owner, Westonka School District # 277, has applied for a conditional use permit to replace the lighting standards at Memorial Field; and, WHEREAS, the proposal is to replace the existing 8 lighting standards with 4 new lighting standards. The new lighting standards will be 70 feet in height, and increase of 10 feet above the existing 60 feet light standards; and, WHEREAS, two lighting standards will be located on each side of the football field, placed at approximately the 15 yard line; and, WHEREAS, the proposed lighting plan conforms to code lighting requirements and will improve the overall field lighting while reducing spill and glare into adjacent properties; and, WHEREAS, the proposed lighting standards are a substantial improvement to the field as the existing lighting is outdated and has safety concerns; and, WHEREAS, staff recommended approval of the 70 feet lighting standards and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approve a conditional use permit for four (4) 70 foot lighting standards. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 DRAFT MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, Jerry Clapsaddle, Orr Burma, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Building Official Jon Sutherland. Public Present: Keith Randlev - Dist #277, Greg Robbins - Dist # 277, Eugene Sigal - US WEST Wireless, Khursheed Khan- US WEST Wireless, Scott Hoeschler - US WEST Wireless, John Gibbs - Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi/US WEST, Todd G Hartman - Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi/US WEST. Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 10, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No corrections were made. MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Mueller to approve the Minutes of the August 10, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE# 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #2771US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. This case was heard at the August 11, 1998 City Council meeting where the motion was made to send it back to the Planning Commission for further study and review. The Council determined that there was no clear evidence presented by US West indicating this site was the only feasible location for a wireless telephone antenna. US West was directed to provide technical data showing how this facility integrates into their system and look at other potential locations in the City. US West will present its case at Monday night's meeting. Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 DRAFT A couple points to consider when hearing the testimony. If this site is determined to be the only location an antenna could be located then the Commission should work with the proposal. The 1996 Telecommunications Act stipulates that the City cannot deprive a communications company from locating an antenna if it would cause a gap in coverage. If there are other alternatives that are feasible and reasonable, then there would be reason to deny the proposal on the grounds that it doesn't meet the code requirements and other alternative are available. In deciding the case, financial hardship will not stand as a reason for a variance. Only if other locations are proven to be technically infeasible should this proposal be considered for a variance. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned whether the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was applicable to these light standards. Gordon stated that City Attorney, the City Administrator and himself determined that the application that was first submitted for the light standards and the variance that is front of you tonight is the correct approach to address this case. The school site operates under individual CUPs for each of the 4 parcels. Gordon stated that in 1995 parcel 58 received a CUP to allow the skating rink warming house and lighting. The community center would operate under a CUP but currently there is not one in place. Parcel 1 '1 which is what is being discussed tonight will have a CUP for the proposed lighting standards. Mueller questioned the City Attorney's wording at the City Council meeting was in error. Gordon stated that the City Attorney thought that were the warming house site and the football field were on one site. The football field is a separate parcel. The City Attorney's approach is to take each parcel one at a time. Mueller questioned the use of the Community Center building. Gordon stated that building is considered a quasi-public structure and the CUP would change when physical alterations are made. Mueller asked what zoning district these parcels are in. Gordon stated that 3 were zoned Business One (B-l) and the one that were the football field is located is zoned Residential One (R-l). Hanus asked for clarification if the football field site zoned Residential. Gordon stated that was correct. Mueller asked if there was a site right now where the monopole could be placed. Gordon stated that the I-1 or PlA would allow a monopole but probably not at full height. Mueller stated that the commission passed a law where it could not accommodate a monopole. He feels that the commission may have made a mistake when writing the ordinance. Scott Hoeschler, US WEST Wireless, passed out two handout. He stated that their company did studies on the various other sites. Memorial Field site, City of Mound Water Tower: Well #3, Chateau Lane, City Water Tower: Sorbo Park, I-1 and PlA Zoning District, B-l, B-2, and B-3 Zoning Districts, and Existing Antenna Support Structures: Public/Institutional Property. He said that these sites were not feasible for the antenna. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Khursheed Khan, RF Design Engineer, US WEST Wireless. He pointed out the site at Memorial Field is a necessary site for continuous service from Orono to the west. He stated that us WEST has a tower on the water tower at Shoreline Drive in Orono. He stated that if a tower would be needed at the intersection of County Road 110 and County Road 15 to obtain optima~ coverage. He explained the tests that they performed. Hanus asked why the test could not be put on top of the water tower at Sorbo Park. Khan stated that they could not properly conduct a safe test environment on top of the water tower so they had to put up temporary tower that did not extend to the top of the water tower. Michael asked what difference would an extra 30 feet make. Khan explained that it would enhance the service a little bit but would not extend the service from the Orono tower. He then proceeded to explain why the Chateau Lane water tower site would not work. He stated that the Chateau Lane site is one mile closer to the Orono tower and would be jeopardizing the quality of service provided. The closer the tower are together the more interference there is in the service. Hanus asked if there was a drive test done on the Chateau Tower. Khan stated that one was not needed since there were tests done on the memorial field and the tower at Sorbo park. Mueller asked if the signals are somewhat directed. Khan responded yes they are more directed toward the southwest from the Orono site. Mueller asked Khan to show where the Orono site ends going west. Khan explained that there would have to be a overlap zone. The signal varies from Summer to Winter. Mueller questioned the difference from 90 feet to 120 feet. Khan stated that 90 feet would provide sufficient coverage to meet the US WEST Wireless service. Michael asked what kind of coverage would benefit by having a 120 foot tower at the memorial field. Khan stated he did not know what the results would be. Burma asked if US WEST had modeling software that they could put the information into to predict what 120 feet would provide. Khan said that they do but he feels that the data from a drive test is more accurate. Mueller asked if it made a difference if the tower was at different heights above sea-level. Khan stated that with the frequency that is used the clutter such as trees, buildings, etc. have a determining factor in the coverage. Hanus asked if there was a target distance that US WEST was trying to reach or are they just trying to get as far as they can go. Khan stated that they would like to go as far as they can go within certain technologies. As far as going to the North and Northwest, he has not been informed of any particular sites. Khan stated that there will be potential sites at a later date to the south and southwest going out Highway 7 and Highway 5. Michael asked if the objective wasn't to extend the service to the east. Khan stated that by putting the site at Memorial field, US WEST ensured that the coverage would be meet. DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Glister asked if the other sites would be adequate to meet the needs of the service. Khan stated that possibly a mile to the north of the proposed site would be adequate. The Sorbo site would not meet the minimum requirements. Gordon asked that at the test at a 90 feet would other sites be required. Khan stated at 90 feet the coverage would not be desirable. Hanus asked about smaller multiple site coverage. Possibly one at the Chateau Lane site and then another one at the Sorbo Park site. Khan stated that if you look at the proposed site at coverage of 90 feet it does not have extensive coverage. He did not know by having two sites if that would meet the coverage requirements. Hanus asked if the tower was moved to County Road 110 would that increase the line of site coverage. Khan stated that he felt it would not meet the requirements they need. Hanus asked the height the water tower at Sorbo Park. Gordon estimated at between 70 and 80 feet. Mueller requested a 5 minute break. Hanus asked if the proposed site would be moved over to County Road 110 and the height of the tower stayed at 90 feet would that get the coverage to the North better. Khan stated yes when channeling energies around corridors like rivers and lakes it does have a different characteristic. Without a analysis from an engineering standpoint, however, it would not meet the requirements needed by US WEST. There was some more discussion on the water tower at Sorbo Park. Hanus asked a hypothetical question, on average what would your best guess be to transmit a signal under a line of sight conditions. Khan stated that it depends on the strength of the signal and the height of the tower. Glister asked if they get the tower at the proposed site where is the existing site to the north. Khan stated that it could vary from ¼ mile to 7 miles. Glister asked if there is an existing tower. Khan stated that there is not a tower in place right now. Hanus asked if Shirley Hills or Grandview sites were looked at. Hoeschler stated they stopped looking at these sites since they did not have the desirable facilities. Khan stated that the proposed site is the desirable site since they feel that one site will do the job instead of having two sites. He stated they did not do a feasibility study involving two sites. Hanus stated that directly west to the proposed site is heavily wooded and housed. Is the reason why they need the tower to be 120 feet. Khan stated that they are concerned with the immediate area. Hanus asked why the tower could be shorter and have the power boosted ult. 4 DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Khan explained by using a diagram. He stated that the signal does not go up it will stop at the barrier. Mueller asked if the optimal site for Mound would be a 120 foot above the football at the Memorial field site. Khan stated yes. Scott Hoeschler, US WEST, made some comments regard looking at all the potential sites as alternatives. He feels that by not granting this variance would create a hardship for US WEST in not being able to provide optimal coverage to their customers. He said there has been positive response for the general public. He expressed that they would be using an existing support structure. Mueller asked if US WEST would be opposed to having the tower be collocation. Hoeschler stated that US WEST would not be opposed to collocation. Hanus stated that he has heard negative comments regarding the antenna. Gordon stated that it has to be called an antenna support structure. A tower could not be allowed within this district. Collocation would not be allowed. Collocation can only be on a tower in a Industrial area. Staff feels that it is a great concept even though it doesn't meet code. Staff is, however, optimistic that something will work with this site and other options that would meet the code. A 90 foot tower will transmit and a 120 foot tower will transmit, because 120 foot appears to be more optimal is not reason enough for a variance. We don't know what optimal means. John Gibbs, Attorney for US WEST, reinforced what the engineer presented to the Planning Commission. He stated that he feels that US WEST has demonstrated that a 90 foot antenna would not meet the requirement and the120 foot antenna would. Mueller restated his earlier comments regarding the Tower in an Industrial site. Hanus stated that it could be met with two antennas. Mueller commented that the optimal location is the Memorial field site with a one foot tower of 120 feet. Hanus stated that the within the ordinance it states having potential multiple sites. He said that US WEST briefly considered multiple sites and thrown out without reason. He would like to know why and would like to see studies reflecting multiple sites. Mueller stated that US WEST has presented that the optimal site would be a 120 foot antenna at the Memorial Field site. Gordon stated in a B-ldistrict a monopole would not be allowed. Gordon stated the Planning Commission is reviewing the case to determine hardship or practical difficulty not to establish individual values that are subjective in nature. 5 3500 DRAFT Mound Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 John Gibbs, stated that there is no evidence that a multiple site would work. US WEST has not demonstrated this. He stated that it would create a hardship if multiple sites would have to be created and that there is no evidence that a multiple site situation would work. Hardship would be created with time, cost, workable sites. Hanus stated that we are trying to find a hardship. He explained the grounds for hardship. Chair Michael asked Gibbs to sit down so the Planning Commission could continue their discussion. Mueller commented that he feels that there is a hardship since a tower cannot be built in the Industrial District. There was discussion on the way the ordinance was written. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to allow the 30 foot height variance to the antenna support structure in the proposed site located at Memorial Field. Finding of Hardship: 1. The proposed site is the optimal location 2. Reducing visual pollution 3. There is not a place in the I-1 district where a 125 foot pole could be built under the current ordinance. MOTION carried 4-2. Opposed Glister and Hanus. This case will go to City Council on August 25, 1998 INFORMATIONAL There were no questions of Hanus. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Burma to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:57 p.m. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: August 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Updated report OWNER: Westonka Public Schools APPLICANT: US West Wireless and Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-45 and 98-46 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5mm and 98-5nn LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: This case was heard at the August 11, 1998 City Council meeting where the motion was made to send it back to the Planning Commission for further study and review. The Council determined that there was no clear evidence presented by US West indicating this site was the only feasible location for a wireless telephone antenna. US West was directed to provide technical data showing how this facility integrates into their system and look at other potential locations in the City. US West will present its case at Monday night's meeting. A couple points to consider when hearing the testimony. If this site is determined to be the only location an antenna could be located then the Commission should work with the proposal. The 1996 Telecommunications Act stipulates that the City cannot deprive a communications company from locating an antenna if it would cause a gap in coverage. If there are other alternatives that are feasible and reasonable, then there would be reason to deny the proposal on the grounds that it doesn't meet the code requirements and other alternative are available. In deciding the case, fmancial hardship will not stand as a reason for a variance. Only if other locations are proven to be technically infeasible should this proposal be considered for a variance. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 1.6 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID 14-117-24 41 0011. 1.7 CASE 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIREIJFSS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID//14-117-24 41 0011 The Planner explained that Westonka School District #277 and U.S. West Wireless Telecommunications are requesting two items. New lighting standards at Hadorf Field. As well as a telecommunications antenna which is associated with the new lighting standards. The Planner explained that he would address these two requests together and then he would break them apart because they are somewhat independent of each other. The Planner presented a hand drawn sketch that he had done showing essentially what is being asked for. He did this because there was confusion at the Planning Commission with all the information that was submitted. The Planner reviewed the requests individually. The Planner reported that what is being requested is to replace 8 existing light poles at Hadorf Field (4 on each side) with 4 poles (2 on each side). The existing poles are approximately 60 feet in height and would be replaced with poles that are approximately 70 feet in height. The new lighting would be an improvement to the existing lighting. In addition to the 4 lighting standards, there is a telecommunications antenna which would be located on top of one of the new poles in the northwest comer of the field. The request has some elements that do not meet the code. Lighting standards are just like a structure in the school district site. They require a Conditional Use Permit. There is no permit history on the previous poles. They estimated the height of the existing poles of 60 feet. The new poles at 70 feet would be an increase of approximately 10 feet. Also required with the lighting standards is a lighting plan to show how the lights would effect neighboring property. That has been submitted and meets the code. The second request is for a telecommunications antenna. Approximately 2 months ago the Planning Commission recommended and the Council adopted a telecommunications ordinance to address these type of situations, because we knew they would come to Mound eventually. The ordinance was adopted to prepare for there location and how they could operate within the City. This request did not meet the intent of that ordinance so the telecommunications company U.S. WEST is asking for a variance to allow this tower to exist at this location. When the ordinance was reviewed, the City identified two industrial areas where tower facilities could be located. The Planner reported that ,I ~i~ , ~ MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 essentially what is being requested is a monopole tower which would only be allowed in the industrial (I-l) district. The company has asked for integration of the antenna onto this lighting standard. They are asking for a height variance to what height they could locate this antenna at on the lighting structure. Although it looks like a monopole tower, the request is to attach it to the lighting standard. The Planner explained that antennas are allowed to be located on lighting standards, utility poles, electric voltage lines, buildings, if the height does not reach above the height of the structure by more than 20 feet. They are asking for a variance of 30 feet which would allow this antenna to reach up to a height of about 120 feet. This assumes that the Conditional Use Permit for the lighting standards at 70 feet is approved. The Planner stated that essentially this is a monopole tower with lights attached to it. He stated that in reviewing this request, it was felt that this did not meet the intent of where the ordinance was going. This was a monopole and we wanted some integration of this tower to make it look more like a lighting standard than a tower because it seems to skirt the intent of the code. The recommendation that was made to the Planning Commission was to look at a height of approximately 90 feet for this antenna which would allow 20 feet above the top of the lighting standard. That would be in conformance with the code. U.S. West did not agree with this approach and stayed with their original application. The Planning Commission recommended a 30 foot height variance which passed on a 3-2-1 vote. The Conditional Use Permit for the 70 foot lighting standards was approved unanimously. The Planner reported that since the Planning Commission Meeting, the City Attorney, City Manager and himself have discussed the intent of the ordinance and how the lighting standards were addressed. Initially there were several approaches to address the lighting standards: 1. Because there was no permit history, should a permit be required? It was determined that we should require a permit. 2. Since we are going to permit it, how should we look at the height? The Planner recommended looking at it as a CUP encompassing everything that was being asked for. Since then, it has been determined that it is in the best interests of all the parties (school district, U.S. West, and the City) involved that we go back and ask for a variance for the light standard height from 45 feet to 70 feet so all interests are protected. For those reasons, he wanted to lay this out for the Council to consider possibly sending this back to the Planning Commission for the light standard portion of the request so that there can be further review, study and findings of fact determined. This would be a height variance showing practical difficulty and hardship to be included in the CUP. The City Attorney pointed out that 3 of the 4 light standards are 70 feet tall each and the ordinance permits, as a Conditional Use, light standards in that district, but no taller than 45 feet. This requires a variance for the 70 foot tall standards. That variance was not part of the application process that went before the Planning Commission. The variance that was considered was for the standard with the antennas. The City Attorney then stated that there is another provision in the ordinance that states that an antenna can extend only 20 feet above the antenna support structure. This proposed variance is for 50 feet above the antenna support structure. The other variance from 45 feet to 70 feet has not been requested. Basically, they need a Conditional Use Permit and a variance for the light poles. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 The Planner stated the replacement of the light poles is one request. The other request is for the telecommunications antenna. The height of the light poles is covered in the Zoning Code. The Planner then stated that what should have been done at the Planning Commission is to consider the following separately: 1. A CUP for the 4 lighting standards; 2. A variance in the height of the 4 standards; and 3. A variance for the height of the antenna tower.. The Planner recommended that this be returned to the Planning Commission for their review. He suggested opening the public hearing, hear comments, close the hearing, and have the Planning Commission review the variances at their August 24th Meeting. It could then come back to the City Council on August 25th. The Council asked the applicants if this would work for the applicants. Gregg Robbins, facility coordinator for Westonka Schools encouraged the Council to approve the CUP and variances. He stated they would like to have the project done by the first football game, September 1 lth and first soccer game September 8th. He stated the School District needs new lights and poles, reducing the number from 8 to 4 will create more light on the field and less spill and glare on neighboring properties. He also stated the poles are in poor condition and need to be replaced. U.S. West came in with this proposal for an antenna on one light standard. He stated U.S. West is funding 3/4 of this project. The estimated total cost of the project is $104,000. He then stated they do not want to use the old lights because the poles are rotting and the wiring is questionable. There was an incident last year where a person jumped on the guy line wire holding a pole and crossed the electrical lines up above causing sparks above the grandstand. the Council discussed the lighting. Councilmember Jensen stepped down from the Council because she is an employee of U.S. West. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke in favor of approving the requests: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Michael Mueller, resident and Planning Commissioner. Pam Meyers, Supt. of Schools. Craig Gallol, lighting consultant. Keith Radcliff, Activities Director, Westonka Schools. Sally McCurry, School Board Member. Peter Meyer, resident, Park Commissioner. Scott Hoeschler, U.S. West, stated that they need the height of 120 feet for the antenna in this location in order to operate properly. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1998 The Council discussed the requests. They asked if all the alternatives have been explored. The Council discussed the fact that there needs to be practical difficulty and hardship shown to grant the variances. The Council also discussed the telecommunications ordinance that was just adopted two months ago and U.S. West had input into. The Council asked that Mr. Hoeschler provide the City with some technical or engineering studies or report showing that this the only option available. Mr. ttoeschler stated that he was told this would be a continued item tonight. Therefore, he did not ask his engineers to come and was not planning on a big presentation with more information. MOTION made by Polston to deny the variances because there no sufficient hardship shown. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Hoeschler asked that these items be continued to the next Council Meeting to allow him to submit evidence of practical difficulty and hardship. The Council discussed sending this back to the Planning Commission for further review. MOTION made by Weycker to bring this item back to the next City Council meeting so that the applicant can prepare for their presentation. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to have the applicant present to the Planning Commission the engineering and technical data that they intend to present to the City Council with their hardship and practical difficulty. Also that the Planning Commission make a recommendation that includes what the hardship and practical difficulties are. This will go to the Planning Commission on August 24th and come back to the Council on August 25th. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3500 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 27, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Orv Burma, and Bill Voss. Public Present: Jim Regan, Lora Bloomquist, Marshall Anderson, Greg Robbins - lSD #277, Peter Meyer, Chris Loew, Keith Randklev, Scott Hoeschler - USWest, Craig Gallop - MUSCO Lighting. Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JULY 13, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. On page 7 of the minutes on case # 98-38 under the discussion, correction to Mark Hanus comments ( 2"d paragraph) should state: "He stated that Mr. Cook stores his bobcat and trailer on the lot." So noted and corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-46: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS AND MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT # 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 CASE# 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #2771US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Two applications have been submitted for related items regarding new lighting standards and a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field. The conditional use permit application submitted by Westonka Public Schools is to update the conditional use permit, replacing the 8 existing light poles and lighting with z[ new poles and lighting. Three of the four new standards will be 70 feet in height, an increase of about 10 feet above the existing standards which are approximately 60 feet in height. The second application associated with the lighting standards, submitted by US West Wireless, is for a wireless telephone antenna to be placed on the forth lighting standard or "tower." The tower, as proposed, would be 120 feet in height and would accommodate both lighting, attached to the tower at 70 feet, and wireless telephone antenna, attached at the top of the tower. Associated with the antenna is a base station unit located at the base of the tower housing communications equipment and a backup power generator. US West Wireless and the Westonka School District have entered into an agreement which they feel is a mutual benefit to both parties. Because Memorial Field needs new lighting and US West needs a wireless antenna location, US West has offered to pay for 75% percent of the costs for the new lighting cost in return for use of one of the standards for a wireless antenna. Under the terms of the contract between the two parties, US West would have access to its antenna and base station unit for the length of time it uses the tower for an antenna. If the antenna were no longer in use, the equipment would be removed, and the school district would retain full ownership of the lighting standards. Lighting Standards The B-1 district regulates structure height to 45 feet with a conditional use permit. As proposed, three lighting standards would require a 25 feet height variance. There is no permit history on file for the existing lighting standards. The lighting standards are an overall improvement for the field. The number of standards as proposed will be reduced from 8 to 4. The proposed luminaries incorporate modern lighting technology that, according to the lighting manufacturer, will reduce the spill lighting 2 times or more onto adjacent properties. Glare, or the perceived amount of light, will also be reduced. The impact on adjacent residential properties west and south of the field will be less than the current lighting. This request seems to be consistent with the trends in the lighting industry to use a fewer number of poles with a larger number of lighting fixtures per pole with little increase in overall height. A lighting plan is included with the application which meets the code lighting requirements. Wireless Antenna Section 350:1300, "Telecommunications Towers and Facilities," addresses the location of antennas when not located on a telecommunications tower. Essentially, a tower is a self- supported monopole structure up to 125 feet in height that supports telecommunications facilities. "Antenna Support Structure" means a building, athletic field lighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 facilities. Additionally, antennas are allowed to be integrated within a light pole when designed to blend into the surrounding environment. Section 350:1305 Subd. 6 of the Definitions states: "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 as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Section 350:1370 Subd. 2(1 ) Non-tower facilities, is fairly explicit is addressing the integration of antennas on structures that are not "towers." This section also provides for additional height above the top of the lighting standard stating: "...the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet..." Conceptually, the approach of integrating wireless telephone antennas into existing structures meets the intent of the code. This application, however, does not meet the specific parameters established for integration. During the preparation of the telecommunications ordinance, staff was careful in drafting language that would be clear on how integration of antennas on existing structures could occur. The intent of the ordinance is to design telecommunications facilities that would not appear out of character with the surrounding environment by attempting to minimize the potential visual impacts that a 125 feet monopole tower could create. Allowing antennas on existing structures is one way to accomplish this end. By encouraging this design, it presents a win-win situation by protecting the residential character of Mound and requiring less capital investment in facilities by telecommunications companies. This proposal does little to satisfy the intent of the telecommunications ordinance. The request is essentially to allow a tower within a B-1 district which is a use variance not permitted by code. The ordinance specifically limits towers to Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Industrial Area (PLA) districts. Granting a height variance skirts the intent of the code by essentially allowing a monopole tower under the guise of a lighting standard. This is not to say an antenna cannot be located on the lighting standard. The code does allow the antenna to have an additional 20 feet of height above the top of a lighting standard. With the approval of the conditional use permit to allow the 70 feet lighting standards, the antenna would be permitted to extend up to a height of 90 feet without a variance. Staff feels this is the best approach to take for this case. In regards to the lighting, staff feels the plan is an improvement to the existing conditions. The current lighting standards are in poor condition and the new standards will be an improvement. Impacts to the adjacent neighborhood should be reduced with the lighting as Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 proposed. Although this is a joint proposal, denial of the 120 feet antenna height does not necessarily prevent the installation of the lighting standards. US West have stated that their network does need a facility in Mound to prevent coverage holes in the system. In the letter from their engineer, it is stated that without the "site" a gap in coverage will occur. The letter does not document the 110 feet height is a necessity in order to provide service. A denial of the request does not prevent the tower location. It may however cause changes to their network in order to accommodate a 90 feet height at this location. The application does not address this as an option, but this should be explored to determine if it is feasible. Staff recommendation: #98-46 Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit for new lighting standards as proposed. #98-45 Variance Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the requested height variance for the wireless antenna. DISCUSSION: Weiland asked for clarification of the height of the new poles and which pole would be the monopole. He questioned if the pole were to fall would it fall on any structure. Gordon stated that it could fall onto the bleachers, as could the current poles. Weiland asked if there were wires to support this. Gordon stated it was free-standing. Weiland asked about a beacon on the tower for air craft visibility. Gordon stated that it is the applicants responsibility to meet FAA and FCC regulations and the applicant can better respond to that question. Weiland asked if the school district would own the other three light poles. Gordon stated that staff's understanding is the school district would own all 4 poles except the antenna tower. Mueller asked what was presently there. Gordon stated that there are 8 light poles approximately 60 feet in height. Mueller asked if there would still be lights on the hill side. Gordon presented the lighting plan and showed the positioning of the proposed light poles. Mueller questioned the direction of the glare of the lights. Gordon stated the _ 3510 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 modern lighting standards direct mom light onto the field with less glare and spill on to adjacent properties. Mueller questioned the telecommunication ordinance, with US West requesting the ordinance, the location for a monopole in the industrial district. There were question mgarding other telecommunications companies use of this monopole. Mueller commented that the football field is one of the lowest areas in Mound. He stated that when the commission looked at the ordinance this site was not one that was discussed. Glister commented on the discussion of having the m venues come to the City of Mound and she only saw the School District benefitting from this Pole. Gordon stated that the ordinance intent is to allow antennas on public facilities as a permitted use for a number of masons that am of benefit to the telecommunications company and community but not solely as a m venue source for the City. Hasse questioned what kind of equipment would be needed to go along with the pole. Gordon stated a basestation unit would be located at the base of the pole that is needed for communications equipment and backup power. It would be fenced in. Hanus questioned if the proposal was a lighting standard with telecommunications equipment or a monopole with lighting standards. Gordon stated that staff believes it is a a monopole with lighting standards. Hanus questioned the addendum to option and site lease agreement. He wants to know what else is on that agreement. Mueller questioned if the commission should be reviewing that document. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing: Grog Robbins, lSD #277, stated that USWest approached the School Disctrict with a proposal to help the school replace the poles. The School District is paying for 1 pole and 1 lighting standard and the underground wiring for all the lights. USWest is paying for 3 poles and 3 lighting standards including their monopole. Weiland asked about the lease. Robbins stated that after the lease is up, the school district would own the poles. Mueller asked why the lighting standards need to go 70 feet. Mueller questioned if the US WEST would not have come to the School District, would the School have m placed the poles. Robbins stated them would not be funds available for new lighting. Robbins stated that they would be forced to play day games if something wasn't done with the lighting at the fields. 5 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Mueller asked when US WEST approached the School. Robbins stated in March. Hasse commented that we should deal with the issues at hand and that its not the commissions position to discuss who was going to pay for what. Scott Hoeschler, US WEST, stated that this sight was his main focus from day one. The pole will not be lighted. He stated that they ask the FAA for approval. In this case, nothing would need to be done. As a rule of thumb, a pole over 200 feet in height would need lights or to be painted. The base station are about the size of a refrigerator and they will be fenced. He stated that the poles are built in 30 feet sections. PCS needs to be placed in specific locations. Weiland questioned if US WEST would ever want to add 30 feet to the 120 foot proposed pole. Hoeschler commented that they would not need to go higher than that. Michael questioned how they would build the base to support the tower and what the maximum would be. Hoeschler stated that if they propose a 120 foot tower they would build a foundation to support a 120 foot tower. Hoeschler presented examples of monopole towers and other lighting pole standards with antennas. Mueller stated that he doesn't recall talking about 120 poles when there was discussion for the Telecommunications Towers and Facilities ordinance. He stated again that the football was one of the lowest sights in Mound. There was some discussion on personal views of the project. Hoeschler stated that this is the only site they need at this time. Hoeschler stated that this pole would have access ports. Mueller stated the section 350:1320 Subd. 1 about collocation. Mueller stated that he would like to see that this pole be able to house other companies. There was some more discussion on the stipulations on the conditional use permit. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Blvd., lives in the neighborhood of the proposed site. He feels that Mound is getting improvements done to our recreational facilities. He feels that the lighting is a big plus to the Community. Craig Gallop, MUSCO Lighting, stated that their company would be doing the lighting and that he was present if there were any questions. 6 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Weiland questioned about climbing spikes on the pole. Gallop stated that there are no spikes or steps. Mueller questioned the up grade from 60 feet to 70 feet. Gallop stated that they would be reducing the number of lights and that the downward angle of the lights would shine more on the field instead of glare outward. He explained the lighting would reduce the glare to the neighboring residences. Keith Randklev, 6680 County Road 110 W, Minnetrista, commented on the improvement of the area and that it will help with activities programs. There was discussion of the need for new lighting standards at the fields. Jim Regan, 5430 Three Points Blvd., asked about the incident that happened. Robbins explained what happened at the game. Asked if soil samples were taken. Lora Bloomquist, 5748 Lynwood, Likes the idea of less glare and less poles. She feels that it is a good deal for both the school district and for US WEST. Mueller asked about the removal of the current poles. Robbins stated that the old poles would be removed before the new ones would be installed. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing. Weiland asked if the variance was part of the Conditional Use Permit. Gordon stated that he combined the two in his report. Glister asked if this was the first PCS request. Gordon stated that US West first inquired about a location in downtown Mound before the telecommunications ordinance was adopted. This is the first formal application. Hanus commented that we are looking at a variance request to an ordinance that is about two months old. He is struggling with the issue that the school district needs the lights but the commission cannot base their vote on financial need. Weiland stated that he was unaware that so many schools had these poles. Mueller questioned the 350 feet notification radius. Michael questioned where staff came up with the maximum height. Gordon quoted the section in the ordinance that it related to the height constraint. Weiland asked how high the light poles were along commerce blvd. Regan stated 40 feet in height. Weiland stated it was just for comparison reason. 7 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 There was more discussion on the Industrial area only being 1000 feet away from the proposed site. US WEST stated that they would have to re-evaluate their position. There was more cl~scuss~on on the Ioca{ion o{ {he pole. Michael commented that he was also struggling with this. He feels that it should be tabled until further figures could be brought forth on why it could not be in the Industrial area. Scott Hoeschler commented that he would not like to see this tabled. He discussed the benefits to having the pole in this location. There was more discussion on the location of where towers should be placed. Hanus commented on the Telecommunication Ordinance. He talked about the collocation. He feels that maybe the Telecommunications Ordinance should be reevaluated. Gordon stated the League of Cities model was used in developing this ordinance. Gordon stated that he felt it would be difficult to revisit the ordinance and find other locations for towers base on previous discussions of the Commission. Keith Randklev spoke on variances and ordinances. That they are used as guidelines. Commented on the benefits that this project would bring to Mound and its residence. Mueller commented that he felt that this site has the least impact. Case 98-46: Conditional Use Permit (CUP): MOTION by Hasse, seconded Mueller to recommend approval of four (4) 70 foot lighting standards. Motion carried 6-0. Case 98-45: Variance: MOTION by Hasse, seconded Mueller to recommend a 30 feet height variance to the lighting standard at the northeast corner of the field for the incorporation of a wireless telephone antenna. Motion carried 3-2-1. In favor: Hasse, Weiland, Mueller. Opposed: Michael, Glister. Abstained: Hanus Finding of fact this sight is 1000 feet or less from the industrial area. This case will go to City Council on August 11, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. [gill TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Variance OWNER: Westonka Public Schools APPLICANT: US West Wireless and Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-45 and 98-46 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5mm and 98-5nn LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: Two applications have been submitted for related items regarding new lighting standards and a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field. The conditional use permit application submitted by Westonka Public Schools is to update the conditional use permit, replacing the 8 existing light poles and lighting with 4 new poles and lighting. Three of the four new standards will be 70 feet in height, an increase of about 10 feet above the existing standards which are approximately 60 feet in height. The second application associated with the lighting standards, submitted by US West Wireless, is for a wireless telephone antenna to be placed on the forth lighting standard or "tower." The tower, as proposed, would be 120 feet in height and would accommodate both lighting, attached to the tower at 70 feet, and wireless telephone antenna, attached at the top of the tower. Associated with the antenna is a basestation unit located at the base of the tower housing communications equipment and a backup power generator. US West Wireless and the Westonka School District have entered into an agreement which they feel is a mutual benefit to both parties. Because Memorial Field needs new lighting and US West needs a wireless antenna location, US West has offered to pay for 75% percent of the costs for the new lighting cost in retum for use of one of the standards for a wireless antenna. Under the terms of the contract between the two parties, US West would have access to its antenna and basestation unit for the length of time it uses the tower for an antenna. If the antenna were no longer in use, the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request July 27, 1998 equipment would be removed, and the school district would retain full ownership of the lighting standards. Lighting Standards The B-1 district regulates structure height to 45 feet with a conditional use permit. As proposed, three lighting standards would require a 25 feet height variance. There is no permit history on file for the existing lighting standards. The lighting standards are an overall improvement for the field. The number of standards as proposed will be reduced from 8 to 4. The proposed luminaries incorporate modern lighting technology that, according to the lighting manufacturer, will reduce the spill lighting 2 times or more onto adjacent properties. Glare, or the perceived amount of light, will also be reduced. The impact on adjacent residential properties west and south of the field will be less than the current lighting. This request seems to be consistent with the trends in the lighting industry to use a fewer number of poles with a larger number of lighting fixtures per pole with little increase in overall height. A lighting plan is included with the application which meets the code lighting requirements. Wireless Antenna Section 350:1300, "Telecommunications Towers and Facilities," addresses the location of antennas when not located on a telecommunications tower. Essentially, a tower is a self-supported monopole structure up to 125 feet in height that supports telecommunications facilities. "Antenna Support Structure" means a building, athletic field lighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Additionally, antennas are allowed to be integrated within a light pole when designed to blend into the surrounding environment. Section 350:1305 Subd. 6 of the Definitions states: "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 as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Section 350:1370 Subd. 2(1) Non-tower facilities, is fairly explicit is addressing the integration of antennas on structures that are not "towers." This section also provides for additional height above the top of the lighting standard stating: "...the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet..." COMMENTS: Conceptually, the approach of integrating wireless telephone antennas 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request .luly 27, 1998 into existing structures meets the intent of the code. This application, however, does not meet the specific parameters established for integration. During the preparation of the telecommunications ordinance, staff was careful in drafting language that would be clear on how integration of antennas on existing structures could occur. The intent of the ordinance is to design telecommunications facilities that would not appear out of character with the surrounding environment by attempting to minimize the potential visual impacts that a 125 feet monopole tower could create. Allowing antennas on existing structures is one way to accomplish this end. By encouraging this design, it presents a win-win situation by protecting the residential character of Mound and requiring less capital investment in facilities by telecommunications companies. This proposal does little to satisfy the intent of the telecommunications ordinance. The request is essentially to allow a tower within a B-1 district which is a use variance not permitted by code. The ordinance specifically limits towers to Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Industrial Area (PLA) districts. Granting a height variance skirts the intent of the code by essentially allowing a monopole tower under the guise of a lighting standard. This is not to say an antenna cannot be located on the lighting standard. The code does allow the antenna to have an additional 20 feet of height above the top of a lighting standard. With the approval of the conditional use permit to allow the 70 feet lighting standards, the antenna would be permitted to extend up to a height of 90 feet without a variance. Staff feels this is the best approach to take for this case. In regards to the lighting, staff feels the plan is an improvement to the existing conditions. The current lighting standards are in poor condition and the new standards will be an improvement. Impacts to the adjacent neighborhood should be reduced with the lighting as proposed. Although this is a joint proposal, denial of the 120 feet antenna height does not necessarily prevent the installation of the lighting standards. US West have stated that their network does need a facility in Mound to prevent coverage holes in the system. In the letter from their engineer, it is stated that without the "site" a gap in coverage will occur. The letter does not document the 110 feet height is a necessity in order to provide service. A denial of the request does not prevent the tower location. It may however cause changes to their network in order to accommodate a 90 feet height at this location. The application does not address this as an option, but this should be explored to determine if it is feasible. RECOMMENDATION: #98-45 Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council conditional use permit for new lighting standards as proposed. approval of the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request July 27, 1998 #98-46 Variance Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the requested height variance for the wireless antenna. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Rev. 11-14-97 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PER14IT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 r,,]Ul2 :!.'4 1998 Pl arining Corem± s sioI1 ~e: ~~~-- q ~ City Council Date: Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 Distribution: City Planner :~ 8 City Engineer: Public Works: Other: Please type or print the following information: INFORMATION I · - Namjl nf Rusiness DESCRIPTION Subdivi,ion APPLICANT The applicant is: ~ owner other: Phone (H) (W) ~j- ~0~O (U) O~NER ' (if other than Address .~pli;~.t) Name ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M) ZONING Circle: ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 ~ B-2 B-3 DISTRICT USE Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 DescriptionofProposedUse: ('e.~ctr..e. ~oo-~=~x~ ~-~sh'b5 oan~ EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $/d/If/ d ~ d Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? 0O yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print A~plicant's Name Print Owner's Name ApI~nt's Signature Date Date Print Owner's Name Rev. 11-14-97 Owner's Signature Date CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #98-46 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING LIGHT POLE AT MEMORIAL FIELD WITH A 120 FOOT STEEL POLE SUITABLE FOR ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AND WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA ALONG WITH THREE (3) 70 FEET POLES WITH LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21 , LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 P & Z 98-46 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a replacement of an existing light pole at Memorial Field with a 120 foot steel pole suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antenna along with three (3) 70 feet poles with lighting standards at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard located within the R-1 Zoning District. All persons appearing at said hearing ?.t~.ce to~ove will be given the opportunity to be heard at this ~~,,3 ,-~~/ ~uis~l~g Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on August 4, 1998 Published in the Laker, August 1, 1998 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE /198-46 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING LIGHT POLE AT MEMORIAL FIELD WITH A 120 FOOT STEEL POLE SUITABLE FOR ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AND WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA ALONG WITH THREE (3) 70 FEET LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21 , LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 P & Z 98-26 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, July 27, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a replacement of an existing light pole at Memorial Field with a 120 foot steel pole suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antenna along with three (3) 70 feet lighting standards at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard located within the R-1 Zoning District. ~-~¢i~:w~y~-,,~:~-~ ; ~,~.:~.::,,.~.1-. :- ........... ,-'~-: All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to t~e will be given the oppo~unity to be heard at this meetin~~ /' // Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on July 17, 1998 Published in the Laker, July 18, 1998 ° BLVO (154) TS zo ,,: (511 2.3 ZT~. 45 SUNSET ,RD o C3) ~1 '*'" -Z17.6 (35) x,' ',,' 6Z (27) zoo (2S) 20o 58 57 ~ (30) I :-'.'...;:.. ...... ~ (zo) ~ (zs) 400 (78) (; {FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) V~ARIAI~ICE APPLiCATiO,~_, CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 IUD Z995 C~~ OF Application Fee: $100.00 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC, PROPERTY OWNER City Planner _'1- I - ~R City Engineer _ - ' '-Other Public Works DNR Address._~) (~) ~_..~ Lot $~_ ' Block Subdivision PID# )___~ Plat # ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 Address ~ 0 0 ~ ~, B-2 B-3 APPLICANT IIF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address ~.~_/~ /k.). ~ ,-. Phon~e,.?)_ (; (,(~- ,~0 (.( o3,, (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes, { } no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number{s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration {size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (lk~.l l l141~?) · 'Variance Application, p. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonine district in which it is located? Yes~ No { ). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describ~ reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE Ior existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. L~keside; ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. NSEw Stree~ Frontage: ft. -- ft. Lot Size: ft. ft. sq ft __sq ft _sq ft Hardcover: _ sq ft '~ _sq ft _ sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located?. Yes ~, No ( }. If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage {>~sxisting situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe:~ Case No. - Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone aving property interests land after the zoning ordinance wa.s adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~<~ If yes, explain: in the Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road7 Yes (), No~.~ If yea, explain: . o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yeses, No { ). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notiCes as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signatu~;~__-~~~ Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. gill June 24, 1998 Scott Hoelscher US West Wireless Communications Group 426 North Fairview, Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 RE: Mound PCS application - 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Dear Mr. Hoelscher: The letter is in response to the wireless telephone antenna and athletic field fighting standards proposed for Memorial Field. As I understand the application, the proposal is to remove the existing lighting standards, replacing them with three new 71 feet structures and one 120 feet monopole serving a dual purpose for lighting and PCS antennas. The School District property is located in the B-1 District and is regulated by a 35 feet height limit for structures. A 45 feet structural height could be approved with a conditional use permit. As such, the proposed lighting standards and monopole structure would not meet the height requirements. Although the existing wood poles appear to be 50 to 60 feet in height, their replacement does not grant the same height to new standards. Any new structure would be required to meet these height requirements. If this height is not feasible, a variance process could be pursued to appeal the code. This would require an application to the Planning Commission and Council for review of the lighting standards and monopole tower. It is my interpretation that the 120 feet monopole is a tower not a lighting standard. Monopole towers are allowed only in the I-1 district. The code encourages the proposed integration of antennas on existing structures to prevent the proliferation of monopole towers. Section 350:1300 of the City Code, Telecommunication Towers and Facilities, addresses integration of antennas and support structures. Athletic field lighting can be used for telecommunications facilities when they are designed to blend into the pole and maintain a height that is consistent with other poles. The intent is to have a look of a lighting pole rather than a monopole tower. There are other locations available within the City for monopole structures and integration on buildings and existing support structures. If a monopole structure is preferred, locations within the I-1 district are available. There are also a number of School and City facilities such as water towers, existing antennas, and buildings that allow integration of antennas as a permitted use. If you have any additional questions, please call me. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Scott Hoelscher June 24, 1998 Sincerely, Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner cc: Jon Sutherland, City of Mound Dan Greensweig, Kennedy and Graven Steve Mangold, US West Wireless Greg Robbins, Westonka School District 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 U S WEST Communications Group 426 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless June 30, 1998 City ofMound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Variance Application Dear City of Mound: The letter is being submitted in association with an application for a variance to the City of Mound Telecommunications Towers and Facility Ordinance, Section 350:1300, Subd.2 that restricts the height of a telecommunications facility above an antenna support structure on school district property to 20 feet above the height of the antenna support structure. US West Wireless proposes to replace the existing light structures at Memorial Field. The property is located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard and is owned and operated by the Westonka Public Schools - Independent School District 277. The proposal involves replacement of the existing light standards with four new light standards, three 71 foot structures and one 120 foot structure. The 120 foot structure would be able to accommodate athletic field lighting and Personal Communication Services (PCS) antennas. To accommodate an antenna facility on the proposed 71 foot light standard, a 29 foot height variance is being requested. Restricting telecommunications facilities to 20 feet above an antenna support structure creates a hardship for wireless carriers seeking to establish service in Mound. PCS antennas must be spaced, depending on certain technical and geographic variables at intervals approximately two miles from each other and at a height of approximately ninety to one hundred twenty feet above ground level. Given the size and anticipated magnitude of use, there must be at least one US West Wireless PCS site in Mound in order to fulfill its mandate to provide service through out the license area. To service the Mound community, it has been determined that a 120 foot PCS site at 5600 Lynwood is the optimum location for the US West PCS network. We believe the variance request to replace the existing light structures at Memorial field with a taller structure is consistent with the City of Mound Telecommunications Towers and Facilities Ordinance. The Telecommunications Ordinance specifically addresses the location of antennas on light structures that are under the control of a school district. In addition, the proposed 120 foot lighting structure is consistent with the character of the area. Memorial Field has accommodated light structures for many years. Presently, there are eight light structures on the property. Upgrading the field lighting with four steel poles is not only consistent with the current use of the property but also necessary in order to minimize the risks associated with collapse and failure of the existing light structures. The current US West proposal, then, is not for a new monopole tower, (monopoles already exist at the site), but rather for an extension of a needed light standard. In order to accommodate night activities in the future, four new light structures are needed at Memorial Field. We feel extending one of the light standards to accommodate wireless antennas (so a new tower will not be needed) is the best alternative in order to minimize the visual impact of telecommunication towers. In conclusion, US West Wireless has designed a wireless PCS system for the Twin Cities that attempts to work within allowable zoning ordinances without compromising the intended service requirements of the system. This proposal, if approved by the City Council, will have the effect of limiting the number of new monopole towers in the City of Mound. Thank you for your time and consideration of this application. Please feel free to call me at 642-6042 with any questions you may have. Scott Hoelscher Site Acquisition US West Wireless CC: Steve Mangold, US West Wireless Eugene Sigal, US West Wireless Greg Robbins, Westonka Public Schools J~. ~. 1~98 1~:~8~ b~ ~T WI~ES~ STP ~ ~.~ P ~/~ ~ - ~ US ' '~EST Communication~ - ~r '~ '  A~,~,,on Ag~,= S~,, H~,ie~ Phew: (elS) ~042 : . __ _ . . .. PERM~ To: Prope~ Owner: Please sign and return the letter of authorization below to: US West Wireless 426 North Fain/Jew Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Attention: Stevsn Mangold as soon as possible to assure rapid processing of this sit< made only after the required zoning approval process has b This letter shall not constitute an agreement to enter a bin~ing lease or option to lease, and neither party shall be bound with respect to the leasing of the ~roperty until a final Lease Agreement is negotiated and signed by both parties. Sincerely, Steven Mangoid US West Wireless ~. Any building permit applications will be Ben completed. LETTER OF AUTHORi;~L~TION To Whom it May C¢3ncem: The undersigned hereby authorizes US West Wireless, its attorneys, agents or representatives, to make application for any necessary zoning petitions includi~lg the filing of building permit applications. · Date -Date; Page 9 of 23 ADDENDUM TO OPTION AND SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Site: MIN203 The at~ached Option and Site Lease Agreement made and entered into this day of ,19 , by and between ("Lessor") and U g WEST Wireless, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company ("Lessee") of which the Addendum is made part, is hereby amended and supplemented as follows: This is a Site Lease Agreement with no Option Period. Rent will begin upon full execution of Agreement. Lessee shall finance the purchase and installation of a new lighting facility on the Property, consisting of one monopole (the "Monopole') to attach up to nine (9) panel antennas which shall be part of Lessee's Communication Facilities and lighting fixtures 'suitable for athletic field lighting, as detailed on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Lessee shall be responsible for the construction of the monopole. The parties shall reasonably coordinate the location and installation of the field lighting on the Monopole. Lessee shall finance the purchase and installation of two (2) additional lighting facilities on the Property (the "Light Structures"), which shall also be detailed on Exhibit C. The parties shall reasonably coordinate the location and installation of the Light Structures. Lessor shall be responsible for the selection and installation of the Light Structures. Lessor and Lessee agree that the presumed development cost of the Light Structures and athletic field lighting for the Monopole to be financed by the Lessee is ~ Upon termination of the lease, Lessee agrees to remove nH antennas, cables, wires, equipment stations, equipment pad/rack and any other associated communications equipment within 90 days. -I I the first twenty years of the Lease Lessor shall reimburse Lessee for the cost of the construction, purchase and installation of the above-mentioned lighting, less the fair market value of the rent which Lessee would have owed up to the date of the termination. Page 8 For Minnesota Only SIGNATURES: LESSOR: BY: ITS: Fed Tax ID or SSN: ATTEST: LESSEE: BY: ITS: U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. Page 9 ~ ..... LI ,Si, .ii 0'2 06/02/98 12_:23 F'A][ C:i~Y OF i~OUNI) ~0 BUIL____DING PERMIT APPLICATION CiTY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 SITE' SubjectAdd~ess 5600 Lynwood Blvd~ Mound, MN 55364 =lus~nessNar~e/Tennant US WEST Wireless The applicant is: __owner __contractor Ltenent D~CRI~0N Subdi~sion PlDa_ ] 4-[ OWN~ Nama~eS~O~ ~choo~ D~s~. No. ~77 Phone(H) ~] ~/~]-8~ ~) EM) CON~O~ Companv Name ~cense Contact Add~ess Phone EH) .... ~) EM) ARCHI~CT Name &lOft Addre~ ~GINE~ Phone EH) ~1 EM) CHANGEOF FROM:, ~o Ch~e o~ use USE TO:. DESCRIBE WORK: Remove an existing light pole at memorial field and replace it with a 120,foot steel pole suitable for athletic field ]iEhtinE and wire/ess telephone antenna. ~rALUATiON OF WORK: VALUE APPROVED: SE])ARATE PERMITS ARE RE~UII~E~ FOR ~IECTfllCAI. PI. UMelNG. H~fl~, V~H~ OR NA CON01~O~NG. PERMIT~ ~ECQME NULL ~O VOiD I~ wo~ Off CONS~U~ON A~O~Z~ IS NOT C0MM~C~ ~IN lEO DAYS, OR IF CON~RUC~ON OR WORK IS SUSP~OED OR ASANOON~ ~ME L M TS ON B~L~ING COMPL~ON ~WO~K TO O~T~NING ~E PE~IT ~O ~E 0~ OF THE ~0~ ~ BE ~E~N~8~ ~A COM~0N. A ~O~ON OF ~lS OADtN~CE IS A MISOWE~OA OFF.SE. ~E Cl~ COUNCI[ MAY ~TENO ~E ~ME ~R COMe. ION UPON ~[~ REGUE~ 0F ~E ~M~E[ ~U~ING TO ~E R~ONABL~ SA~SFAC~0N O~ ~[ C[~ COUNCIL ~AT ClRCUMST~CES 8~ONO ~E CONSOL OF ~ E R~I~EE ~T~ COM~ON OF ~E WORK ~R ~ICH ~E P~IT WAS GflANT~. ~E ~T~SION SHA~ BE ~EQU~TEO NOT LESS ~ ~IR~ (301 BU~NES$ DAYS ~IOR ~tS ~PE OF WORK ~ BE COM~I~ ~ WH~ ~EC]RED H~N OR NOT, PRO~SIONS OF ANY OTH~ STATE OR LOC~ ~W REG~NG CQNS~UC~ON Off ~E P~RM~CE OF CON~UC~ON. PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPUCANT'S SIGNATURE DATE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IH/Il/III//III//Ill~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. 426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55014 City Of Mound Building Department June 2, 1998 Re: US WEST site MIN203 - Westonka School District No. 277 City Of Mound, The US West RF department is proposing to place a PCS site on a light pole located at Memorial Field, 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Mound, MN. The antenna center line will be at 110ft above the ground level. The site objective is to provide coverage to all surrounding commercial and residential areas within 4 Km. It will also provide coverage to a 5 mile section of Shoreline Rd, HY110 and HWY125. The absence of this proposed site will create a hole ( gap ) in our coverage which will cause technical failures in the service; dropped calls, call failures, and call block are some of the symptoms which are predicted to exist as a result. Building the site at the proposed location will assure continuous coverage to the surrounding community and to all traffic that passes through the city of Mound. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (612)642-6039. Thank you, RF Engineer Access2TM Advanced PCSTM Paging Services U S WEST Communications Group 425 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless June 3, 1998 City of Mound Building Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Zoning Application for a PCS Facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound - Memorial Field. US West Site No. MIN-203 Dear City of Mound: This letter is designed to comply with the application procedures for a Zoning Permit that will allow the construction of a Personal Communication Services (PCS) facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. The proposal involves removing an existing light pole at Memorial Field, and placing a new light structure at the same location. A PCS antenna array and new ballfield lights will then be placed on the new tower. Please review the enclosed computer-generated rendering of the proposed light pole replacement. (Exhibit "A"). INTRODUCTION US West is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and is scheduled to deploy a wireless PCS system for Mound and the surrounding area in the summer of 1998. (See Exhibit "B"). To fulfill its mandate from the FCC, US West will be developing a grid of antenna throughout its service area. These antenna must be spaced, depending on certain technical and geographical variables, at intervals approximately one (1) to two (2) miles from each other and at a height of approximately seventy-five (75) to one hundred twenty (120) feet above the ground. The intent of the deployed system will be to provide wireless services to all Twin City area communities. In order to meet the objective of seamless coverage, a PCS site is currently needed in Mound near the intersection of Shoreline and Commerce. (See Exhibit "C"). PCS TECHNOLOGY PCS is a new wireless telecommunication service that is personalized to the individual. PCS technology will allow a variety of telecommunication services, including local and long distance telephone services, portable telephone and facsimile transmission capability, caller identification and voice mail services to name just a few features. The types and features of services that each subscriber desires will be customized to his and her individual needs. Telephone numbers in use in PCS handsets will be assigned specifically to an individual user with a Personal Communications Number (PCN). A PCN will allow the network to track the individual at all times. PCS utilizes the latest digital technology. This will facilitate improved call clarity, but more importantly, clean data communication when using a fax or modem. A PCS customer will be able to communicate through voice and data simultaneously using the same handset without interference to either activity. In addition, computer users will be able to run applications and retrieve data faster from remote locations using their handset. PCS technology also assures less static and fading than current cellular technology and results in fewer dropped calls. PROPOSED USE We propose to remove an existing light pole on the east side of Memorial Field and install a new 120' light pole, suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antennas. A total of six (6) wireless PCS antennas will be placed on the new light standard at 120' above ground level. Each antenna is approximately 5" wide x 42" high x 4" thick. The antennas will not extend above the height of the pole and will be placed close to the pole to reduce visibility. New stadium lights as specified by the Westonka School District will then be reattached to the monopole at 71' above ground level. (See Exhibit "D" - Site Plans) No signs or additional lighting is planned for the proposed US PCS facility. The monopole color will be chosen to match the other new light standards proposed for Memorial Field. (Three additional steel light standards (used only for lighting) will be installed at a lower height. The foundation for the light pole will be a concrete caisson design. The tower steel and foundation will be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. The specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines and the type of equipment to be attached to the antenna/light support system. A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a pole that typically exceeds local building code requirements. The replacement monopole will be located on the fifteen (15) yard line of the football field. An unmanned equipment rack will be situated at the base of the monopole. Placed on the equipment rack will be two (2) or three (3) small equipment cabinets used to link the PCS antennas to the telephone network. (See Exhibit "E"). Fencing will be installed to prevent trespassing. Drainage of the site will not be changed. The site will require a single-phase two hundred (200) amp electrical service and a T1 telephone for utilities. Finally, upon any cessation of operation, US West Wireless will remove its telecommunication facilities (except for the pole that will still be utilized by the School District for field lighting) within 90 days. (See Exhibit "F"). The proposed US West monopole is part of a joint venture between the Westonka School District NO. 277 and US West to upgrade the lighting system at Memorial field and to provide PCS service to the City of Mound. (School District and US West have a signed lease agreement). (See Exhibit "G" - Property Owners Authorization). The existing lighting system at Memorial Field (eight wood poles about 50' above ground level) is severely outdated. In order to hold night activities in the future, a new lighting system was necessary. BENEFITS TO COMMUNITY This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US West to bring new Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) cellular technology to the area. CDMA, which did not exist four years ago, is now considered the leading wireless access technology in the industry. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way of communicating by business, individuals and government services. Police can use CDMA cellular fax machines as part of their drug enforcement program to obtain immediate search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building in route to fight fires more safely. Ambulances can use it to transmit vital data to emergency rooms, which allow the emergency rooms to be better prepared to receive injured accident victims. Motorists will have greater flexibility of wireless phone choices, which will allow them more security in placing emergency calls as needed. The question is often asked if the operation of a wireless antenna will affect home radio and television reception. The use of the frequency spectrum is tightly controlled by the FCC. The CDMA cellular system is operated in the 1900 MHz range. This is a higher frequency on the radio spectrum than home radio and television frequencies. This is important because higher frequency users can not interfere with lower frequency users. Since 1984, over 15,000 cellular antennas have been erected across the United States, and there have been no documented instances of interference with home entertainment equipment. ZONING REQUIREMENTS The proposed PCS site is located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. The property is owned and operated by the Westonka School District. The proposed use is merely an extension of the existing football field lighting system at Memorial Field. Moreover, replacement of a light standard at this site will be visually unobtrusive and have minimal impact on neighboring properties and will allow for the development of personal wireless service to serve Mound. The use as conditioned will not impede future development in the area. Special arrangements need not be made to accommodate access to the site. The proposed use will cause no traffic congestion or interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Site visits will be rare once the monopole/antenna/lights have been installed. Parking will not be an issue because site visits will be infrequent and of limited duration. The site will have adequate utilities for the use as conditioned and adequate access is provided to the site. Each US West antenna site will be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). US West monopoles meet all ANSI/TIA/EIA-222E and Uniform Building Code Standards. US West monopoles are designed to withstand the highest wind speeds, snow and ice loads. The proposed use requires electric and telephone service, both of which are available and ample for US West needs at this site. US West will pay for all costs of actual electric and telephone services used at the site. US West hopes this correspondence and enclosures address all issues. Should you have additional questions regarding the attached information please contact us at 612/642-6042. Thank you for your time and consideration of this application. j~Respectfully' ~.~.,~.~~ Scott Hoelscher Site Administrator US West Wireless U S WEST Communications Group 426 North Faintiew Room 101 St. Paul. MN 55104 Wlrele,,s June 4, 1998 City of Mound Building Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Zoning Application for a Personal Communication Services (PCS) Facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. US West Site # MIN203 Dear City of Mound: Please f'md enclosed an application submittal packet for a permit to construct a communication antenna support system at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. Strictly adhering to the Telecommunications Antenna and Tower ordinance checklist, the following is enclosed: Required Submittal Information Completed Application Written Description of Proposed Use Rendering of Proposed Light (Exhibit "A") Proof of FCC License (Exhibit "B") Need for Tower at Proposed Site (Exhibit "C") Site Plan (Exhibit "D") 1. Vicinity Map 2. General Site Plan 3. Enlarged Site Plan 4. Elevation Plan Rendering of Equipmem Cabinets (Exhibit "E") Tower Removal (Exhibit "F") Property Owners Authorization (Exhibit "G") If you require any further information or have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 642-6042. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Scott Hoelscher Site Administrator US West Wireless NORTH SCALE 1" = 100' MIN EIXSllNG LIGHT POLE, PROPOSED MONO-POLE LOCATION. ELEV.= 947.26 s82o46'53"~N -203 o: 450.00 180.2~O---~'/'' SS3'OG'21"W 2705-1 U.8. WEST WIRELESS SURVEY FOR: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5600 L)~wood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Beginning at a point In the North lIne of the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 distant 458 feet Wast from the Northeast corner thereof; thence, West to o point 200 feet East from the Northwest Corner thereof; thence, South to the Northwest corner of Lot 30, L~wold Pork Lake Mlnnetonka; thence, East to the Northwest corner of Lot 210 L~nwold Pork Lake MInnetonka; thence, North along the West line of said Lot 21 extended to o point distant 225 feet South from the North llne of the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence, East to a point distant 488 feet West from the · East line thereof; thence, North to the point of beginning. CER~FICATION; I hereby certify that this map was prepared by me or under my direct supervlmlon and that I am o duly Licensed L~nd Survayor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated thl, 6th dcyafMay, ,998 /~~ bY~jneeokta Lc. es No. 20281 NOTES: 1. The orientation of this bearing e)~tem le baaed en the eoet line of the SE 1/4 of Section 14, Township 117, Range 24 which is assumed to hove a beorin9 South 03 degrees 08 minutes ~52 seconds West. 2. No title work woe furnished for the proparUc~ of this eurYey to vertlfy the legal description or the existence of any easements or encumbrances. 5. BENCHMARI~: Top nut hydr~t In the southwest corner of L~t~wood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. (Elevation - 948.18) 4. Area of the property described hereo~ I$ 540,731 square feet or 7.8221 acres. Lat.//Lon. (NAD83), accurate to within one arc-second Lat. ,~ 44'56'22.5' Lan. - 95'40'09.0" EGAN FIELD & NOWAK INC. '4,~WA~ZA,A,OU'~VA,0 SURVEYORS 4~i~ ~' 24GG2R 'Olll '9~lH~l- JUOd5 ¥1OS3NN1~ '0NflO~ 9NIIH91] (]]31J ]-IVfllOOJ V)~NOIS3~ o_~OI/V(~l"lOl l ~OcId~S (3'1f1(3~S NOIJVQNrX)~I 3'10d 3]SA , i d <l:Z ~,~ zO O~ I.J 3~a,, D I--- 0 0 35/./3 u-I poo~sso8 u-I lUOWla8 uq uJaj uq aJ!Olla8 U'l poo~uoila ADLER DR. z I$':IM gNI).lOO] NOIIVA3]3 ,~C ,9[ ,0 IN3r, ldln03 /S3A~ .O-.I,Z ,,L931¥~lXOBdd¥ (VIq~VO ~ V!38 "~-Idq¥) ~ .~'-,L t t 39Od 1HOI9 M3N~ J ~VNN31NV °~g~°~ ~... #0-,0~: t Wireless MIN203 5600 Lynwood Blvd Mound, MN U $ WEST Communications, Inc. 1999 Broadway Tenth Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 303 294-1613 Marry D. Dlckerson Director Regulatory Affairs COMMUNICATIONS Wireless Group February, 1997 FCC auctions for the D and E blocks of Personal Communications Services (PCS) spectrum concluded in January. U S WEST Communications has won 53 licenses for a total of $57 million. We have money on deposit with the FCC to cover 20% of our winning bids and will be paying the remainder of the $57 million when the licenses are granted. The applications for those licenses were filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on January 30, 1997, along with applications from all the other winning bidders. We expect that FCC review and processing will take about three months, the same as for the prior PCS auctions. Attached are pa~ges from the FCC's Public Notice, dated January 15, 1997, showing U S WEST Communications as the high bidder in specific markets. U S WEST Communications is committed to providing wireless services. As an example of our commitment, we have had an experimental license in the Boulder, Colorado area since 1992 for testing and developing the PCS technology that we intend to deploy. We also have invested significant resources in building a staff to develop, implement, and market wireless services. If you have questions about the status of our license applications with the FCC, please call Marty Dickerson, 303-294-1613. attachment 'Wireless' auctioned millio~ for ~ of the licenses, w~ch cover parts of ali states, ~id AT&T spokeswoman Ma~ Ireland. In Colorado, the AT&T licenses cover the pl~ Pueblo. ~t cover the same areas as U S West, · The FCC requires between three and six companies to offer wireless service iu each area so that consumers have choices. Sev. eral other companies bid on Ii- ceases to offer the service in Colo- Wire]ess phones, often referred to as the "next generation" of phones following cellular, basically are mobile phones that can hook up with computers, fax machines, pa- gers and traditional wired phones. · "The sound is clearer than cellu- lar phones and people can't eaves- drop on your conversation because they use digital technology," Man- netti said. Most cellular phones are analog devices. It is relatively easy to eavesdrop or interrupt analog tra~mi~ions, he added... · AT&T n~;:.offers wireJess tele- phone se. Yvi~_.e legally but it not has .become c~h~u~onplace. The FCC auction means more companies ivill offer the service and the price will likely drop. U S West plans to offer wireless service in Denver by mid-year, and along the Front Range by year- end. Wireless phones may replace the common two-tiered system of wired home phones and cellular mobile phones, Mannetti said. U S West spokesman Jerry Brown said company officials "feel very good" about the $57 million they paid to provide wireless ser- vice in 53 parts of the country, be- cause it comes out to' an average $2.88 per person. Nationally, the average price per person or "price per population," as it is sometimes called, is $3.73, he added. Snagging the licenses is another step toward realizing U S West president Sol Trujillo's vision of a "one-stop shop" for telephone ser- vices. Last week Trujillo said wire- less service should be available in Colorado this year. U S West and AT&T aren't the only providers now licensed to pro- vide wireless service in Colorado. The FCC made sure it provided for competition by licensing up to six telephone companies in each area. Sprint. ICG and several other telephone providers were nc' ;mvnil:~hl~ vo~tordav ~UM.ZZ.~8 9:00AM US WEST WIRELESS STP M0.~06 P.ZxB .. INTRODUCTION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER TOWER MIN 203 5800 LYNNWOOD BLVD MOUND, MN Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon The subsurface exploration for the proposed communication tower planned for 5600 Lynnwood Blvd, in Mound, Minnesota, has been completed. As a part of our subsurface exploration, one (1) boring extending to a depth of approximately 30.5 feet below existing grade has been performed at the proposed communication tower site. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the boring, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide recommendations regarding earthwork and the design and construction of the foundation for the proposed tower. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand the proposed project will include the construction of a 90-foot high monopole communication tower which will be supported on a drilled shaft foundation, The tower loads for this site were unknown at the time this report was prepared, Based upon our experience with similar structures, maximum loads are anticipated to be about 10 kips in compression, 100 kips laterally, and overturning moments of about 300 foot-kips. Grade changes for the proposed site are expected to include only minor cuts and fills, .SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring was drilled near the staked location using an all-terrain rotary drilling rig equipped with continuous flight hollow-stem augers to advance the borehole, Representative samples were obtained using the split-barrel sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. The split-barrel sampling procedure consists of driving a standard :>-inch O,D. split barrel sampling spoon with a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch sampling interval is termed the standard penetration resistance value. The standard penetration resistance values are indicated in the appropriate column on the attached I~oring log. The samples were tagged, sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing and classification. A field log of the boring was prepared by the ddll crew, This log contained visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The final boring log included with this 'report represents an interpretation of the field log and includes modifications based on laboratory JUM.~.1998 9:01~M WEST 14~RELES$ STP MO. ;)06 ,, II P. By8 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No. 4'19850S7 June 10, 1998 Terracon observation and tests of the samples. The laboratory testing program consisted of performing water content tests on representative soil samples. Also, chemical tests including pH, resistivity, and sulfate/sulfide tests were performed on a composite sample of the native soils present from the O-foot to 5-foot depth. The results of the tests are discussed in the Corrosion Potential section of this report. Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring log are in accordance with the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. AJso shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is included in the appendix of this report. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed tower location is planned at the high school football field at 5600 Lynnwood Bivd, in Mound, Minnesota. Specific conditions at the boring location are indicated on the attached boring log. The stratification boundaries shown on the boring log represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Conditions encountered at the boring location are summarized below. The boring encountered about 4 inches of root zone material at the ground surface. The surficial materials were underlain by medium to very stiff, sandy lean clay soils with occasional sand and silt seams to the termination depth of about 30.5 feet. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS The boring was monitored while drilling and after completion to detect the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was observed at depths of about 19 to 17 feet at these times in the boring. However, observation of the groundwater level in monitoring wells sealed from the influence of surface water would be required to obtain more accurate groundwater levels on the site. ,0 Fluctuations of the groundwater level can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the boring was performed. Perched water could develop at higher levels following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. The JUN.~2.1998 9:01AM US WEST WIRELESS STP M©.206 P.4/8 _1 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of the topsoil, as well as any loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable materials from the construction area, The exposed soil that is present after the removal of the topsoil in the construction area should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near the materials optimum moisture content and recompacted. New fill and backfill placed on the site should consist of approved materials which are free of organic matter and debds. Suitable material would consist of either granular material or Iow-plasticity cohesive soil. Low-plasticity cohesive soil should have a liquid limit of less than 45 percent and a plasticity index of less than 20 percent. Moisture adjustments of the on-site soils should be expected to reach the recommended degree of compaction, Fill should not contain frozen material and it should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. The fill should be placed and compacted in lifts of 9 inches or less in loose thickness. All fill placed below structures or used to provide lateral resistance should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-6.98). All cohesive fill should be placed, compacted, and maintained at moisture'contents within minus 2 to plus 3 percent of the optimum value determined by the standard Proctor test. We recommend the geotechnical engineer be retained to monitor fill placement on the project and to perform field clensity tests as each lift of fill is placed in order to evaluate compliance with the design requirements. Standard Proctor and Atterberg limits tests should be performed on the representative samples of fill materials before their use on the site, Positive surface drainage should be incorporated into the design of the site. The ground surface around the structure should be sloped to drain away from the tower base. Tower Foundation We understand the tower will be supported on a drilled shaft foundation. Based on the results of the boring, we have developed the following table to provide design parameters for the design of the tower foundation. 3 JUM.~.1998 9:O~RM US WEST WIRELESS STP M0.~06 P.5/8 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound~ Minnesota Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon AIIowabJ'e Allowable Allowable Angle Ultimate Compressive End Passive of Horizontal Depth Soil Skin Friction Bearing Pressure' Internal Cohesion Subgrade (feet) Description (pst} Pressure (pst') Friction (pst} Reaction (tc~ (Psi) ~ 0 - 5 Frost -- 5-14 Sandy Clay 275 _ 3000 -. 1000 10 -- 14-30.5 Sandy Clay 500 6000 6000 -- 2000 20 ' Foundations can be subject to uplift loading due to frost action and loading. In calculating the shaft resistant from uplift loading, we recommend that 2/3 of the compressive loads be used to provide uplift resistance. The upper 5 feet of soil should be ignored due to the potentia1 affects of frost action. A drilled pier foundation should be designed with a minimum shaft diameter of 30 inches to facilitate cleanout of the excavation. The use of temporary casing should also be anticipated during the pier excavation in order to support the sides of the excavation and/or control groundwater seepage. Care should be taken so that any existing building foundations and the sides and bottom of the pier excavations are not disturbed during construction. Lateral loads and pier deflections could possible affect nearby footings. The bottom of the shaft should be free of water and loose soil before placing reinforcing steel and concrete. If groundwater is encountered during construction and a sump pump is unable to control the seepage, concrete should be placed using tremie techniques. A concrete slump of at least 6 inches is recommended to facilitate temporary casing removal. It should be possible to remove the casing from a pier excavation during concrete placement provided that the concrete inside the casing is maintained at a sufficient level to resist any earth and hydrostatic pressures, if any, outside the casing during the entire casing removal procedure. Tremie placement of concrete should be used if slurry drilling techniques are used. The native soils can contain cobbles and boulders. The number of cobbies and boulders which may obstruct drilling the shaft is unknown. However, some contingency should be provided in project budgeting for removal of obstructions. JUM.22.1998 9:02RM US WEST WIRELESS STP M0.~06 P.6/8 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No, 41985057 June 10, 1998 Equipment Slabs Terracon We understand the equipment slab will be supported on grade. The recommendations provided in the site preparation section of this report should be used to develop suitable subgrade support for the equipment slab. Based on the soil and climatic conditions, up to 2 inches or more of frost heave could be experienced, if this amount of movement is net acceptable, then either removal and replacement of frost susceptible material or supporting the slab with footings extending below the frost depth should be considered. For removal ahd replacement, we recommend removing the sandy lean clay to a depth of about 6 feet from below the slab and replacing it with a clean granular material. Alternately, the slab cOLIld be supported on trench footings which extend to below the frost depth. The base of trench footings should be cleaned of all loose soil prior to placement of concrete, Corrosion Protection It appears that Type I Portland cement could be used for this project based on the soluble sulfate content of less than about 25 mg/L. Laborato~ tests indicate that the sand soils had a resistivity on the order of 1,500 ohm- centimeters for the 0 to 5 foot. The measured pH of the samples was on the order of 7.8, These values should be used to estimate the corrosion potential of the soils on the site with respect to contact with the underground materials which will be used in constructing the tower. GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide testing and observation during excavation, grading, foundation, and construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil boring performed at the indicated location and from any other information discussed in this report. 'This report does not reflect any variations which may occur across the site, The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If JUM.~.1998 9:0B~M US WEST WIRELESS STP MO. 206 P. 7~B Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon variations appear eviderlt, it will DB n¢~eO~¢t~ to reevaluate the recommendations of this report, The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication' any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous' materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnicai engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. in the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outline in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this' report in writing. JUM.22.19~8 9:O~RM US NEST WIRELESS STP M0.206 P.B/8 ' LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 CLIENT A'--'RCHITECTIENGINEER Page 1 of 1 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS -LOCATION 5600 LYNWOOD BI. VD PROJECT MOUND, MINNESOTA TOWER MIN 203 SAMPLES TESTS -- O DESCRIPTION ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ROUNO SURFACE E~V.: ft ~ ~ 0,4 4" R0ot~ - ~ · m  ~ SANDY LEAN CLAY TRACE GRAVEL 5~ CL 1 SS 18 13 19.9 OCCASIONAL SILT SEAM~ ~ HS -- Brown To Gray Brown, Medium to Very - CL 2 SS ;8 9 1~.5 '2000  ~ HS lS~ CL 3 SS 16 lA 14,2 SANDY LEAN CLAY TRACE ~RAVEI 2o~ CL 4 S$ 14 18 14.' ~500~ OCCASIONAL SAND SEAMS Gray, $~ff - HS -  to VoW Stiff -- 25~CL 5 SS 18 16 1S.3~  : HS 30.5 - CL 6 SS 18 17 14.0 END OF BORING 30-- The etretifJeatJon lines repreeent the approximate boundary lines Calibrated Hen~ Pene~emefer· between eoil end ro~ type~: ~-elm, the transition may be gradual. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 6-2-98 WL ~ [ J RIG 34 FOREMAN JG WL SECTION 01000 - PROJECT SUMMARY A. SUMMARY OF WORK Furnish all technical and professional services, supervision, materials and equipment (other than materials and equipment specified as furnished by others) and perform all operations necessary and required to prepare land sites and existing building sites for installation of Personal Communications Services (PCS) Base Transmission Stations (BTS). o The scope of work will depend upon the types of site installations as listed below and outlined in Exhibit D. Actual contruction work may include variations of the site types as shown on the site-specific design drawings. · Outdoor Equipment and Monopoles or Antenna Towers (on land sites) · Outdoor Equipment and Rooftop Antennas (on existing building sites) · Rooftop Equipment and Antennas (on existing building sites) · Indoor Equipment and Rooftop Antennas (on existing building sites) For information provided by the Contractor and a list of work to be done by others, refer to Exhibit D. END OF SECTION 01000-1 8/1 m'~ SECTION 02050 - DEMOLITION A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Existing Structure and Site Demolition where shown to be removed: a. Demolition of identified structures. b. Demolition of paving, curbing, site walls, utility structures, below-grade foundations and site improvements to a minimum necessary depth to avoid conflict with new construction or site work. c. Removal of hollow items or items which could collapse. d. Protection of adjacent site work and existing structures.. e. Disconnection, rerouting, capping, and removal of identified or conflicting existing utilities. f. Pollution control during demolition. g. Removal and legal disposal of materials. 2. Selective Demolition: a. Selective demolition of interior partitions, systems, and building components designated to be removed. b. Selective demolition of structures, and components designated to be removed. c. Protection of portions of building adjacent to or affected by selective demolition. d. Removal of abandoned interfering or identified existing utilities and wiring systems. Rerouting of interfering or identified existing utilities and wiring systems. e. Notification to Owner of schedule of shut-off of utilities which serve occupied spaces. f. Removal and legal disposal of materials. END OF SECTION 02050-1 8/1/97 SECTION 02100 - SITE PREPARATION A. PROJECT INCLUDES Protection of existing trees, vegetation, landscaping materials, and site improvements not scheduled for clearing or removal which might be damaged by construction activities. 2. Trimming of existing trees and vegetation as recommended by arborist for protection during construction activities. 3. Clearing and grubbing of stumps, vegetation, debris, rubbish, designated trees, and site improvements. 4. Topsoil stripping and stockpiling. 5. Temporary erosion control, siltation control, and dust control. 6. Temporary protection of adjacent property, structures, benchmarks, and monuments. 7. Protection in-place and temporary relocation, storage and re-installation of existing of fencing and site improvements scheduled for reuse. 8. Watering of designated trees and vegetation during construction activities. 9. Removal and legal disposal of cleared materials. B. PRODUCTS 1. Materials used for tree protection, erosion control, siltation control, and dust control as suitable for specific site conditions. END OF SECTION 02100- 1 8/1/9'~ SECTION 02200 - EARTHWORK A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Excavation, trenching, filling, compaction, and grading for structures, site improvements, and utilities. 2. Materials for subbase, drainage fill, fill, backfill, and gravel for slabs, pavements, and improvements. 3. Rock excavation without blasting. 4. Supply of additional materials from offsite as required. 5. Removal and legal disposal of excavated materials as required. B. QUALrrY ASSURANCE 1. Compaction: a. Under structures, building slabs, steps, pavements, and walkways, 95 percent maximum density, ASTM D 1557, tested in each of compaction layers, at each compaction site, or at least in each 100 cu. yds. of material volume. b. Under lawns or in unpaved areas, 85 percent maximum density, ASTM D 1557. 2. Grading Tolerances Outside Building Lines: a. Lawns, unpaved areas, and walks, plus or minus 1 inch. b. Under pavements, minus 1/2 inch. 3. Grading Tolerance for Fill Under Building Slabs: Plus or minus 1/2 inch measured with 10 foot straightedge. C. PRODUCTS 1. Subbase Material: Graded mixture of natural or crushed gravel, crushed stone or slag, and natural or crushed sand. Drainage Fill: Washed, evenly graded mixture of crushed stone or gravel, with 100 percent passing a 1-1/2 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 4 sieve. 02200- I 8/1/97 35t,3 o Se o Backfill and Fill Materials: Satisfactory native or imported soil materials free of clay, rock or gravel larger than 2 inches in any dimension, debris, waste, frozen materials, vegetation, and other unsuitable materials. Clay shall be limited to no more than 5%. Baclcfill (Sand) Materials; Satisfactory cohesionless, natural or crushed sand materials free of rock or gravel, debris, waste, frozen materials, vegetation, and other unsuitable materials. With 100 percent passing a 1/4 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 200 sieve. Gravel Material: Evenly graded mixture of crashed stone or gravel, with 100 percent passing a 1-1/2 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 4 sieve. Geotextile Material: Non-woven fiber material suitable for use under gravel pavement. END OF SECTION 02200 - 2 8/1/97 SECTION 02511 - HOT-MIXED ASPHALT PAVING PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Hot-Mixed Asphalt Paving Over Prepared Subbase: a. Roads. b. Parking areas. c. Driveways. d. Walkways. e. Curbs. B. QUALrrY ASSURANCE 1. Construction Tolerances: a. Base Course Thickness: Plus 1/2 inch. b. Surface Course Thickness: Plus or minus 1/4 inch. c. Base Course Surface Smoothness: Plus or minus 1/4 inch as measured with a 10 foot straight edge. d. Surface Course Surface Smoothness Plus or minus 3/16 inch as measured with a 10 foot straight edge.. e. Crowned Surfaces: Plus or minus 1/4 inch variance from template. C. PRODUCTS 1. Asphalt-Aggregate Mixture: Plant-mixed, hot-laid asphalt-aggregate mixture, ASTM D 3515, complying with local DOT and DPW regulations. 2. Prime Coat: Cut-back asphalt, ASTM D 2027. 3. Tack Coat: Emulsified asphalt, ASTM D 977. 4. Herbicide Treatment: Commercial chemical for weed control registered by Environmental Protection Agency and acceptable to authorities having jurisdiction. 5. Lane and Parking Area Marking Paint, White or Yellow Color: Alkyd-resin type, ready-mixed, AASHTO M 248, Type I. END OF SECTION 02511-1 811/97 SECTION 02831 - CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES A. PROIECT INCLUDES 1. Furnish and install a complete Chain Link Fence and Gates with locks, as shown on the site-specific design drawings and on the typical details and notes. B. PRODUCTS 1. Fabric: a. Material: Galvanized steel, ASTM A 392, Class 2 finish. b. Size: 2 inch mesh, 12 gage steel minimum. Other materials and sizes may be used only after a written approval of the substitution is received from contractor. 2. Framework: Galvanized steel, ASTM F 1083. 3. Gates: Gates shall be of the Swinging type, unless specifically shown on the design drawings as an overhead mounted sliding type, or a cantilevered sliding type. END OF SECTION 02831-1 8/1/Q'7 SECTION 02900 - LANDSCAPE WORK A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Furnish, install, and maintain landscape work as shown on site-specific drawings or as called out in the documents: a. Trees, shrubs, and ground cover. b. Lawns. c. Topsoil and soil amendments. d. Initial maintenance of installed landscape materials. e. Pruning and relocation of existing plant materials. f. Reconditioning existing lawns affected by construction activities. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. Plants and Trees: The balled and burlaped plants and trees shall be graded to American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI Z60.1. C. PRODUCTS 1. Plant Materials shall be as shown on site-specific drawings or as called out in the documents and may be any combination of the following: a. Deciduous trees. b. Deciduous shrubs. c. Coniferous and broadleafed evergreen trees and shrubs. d. Ground cover. e. Plants. 2. Lawns: Lawn may be any of the following, as approved by the Contractor: Seed, new crop seed mixture, Sod, strongly rooted, 2 years old, Sod plugs and sprigs. 3. Topsoil: Fertile, friable topsoil from offsite, or from site stockpile with additional mixed-in fertile, friable topsoil from local suppliers of topsoil. 4. Soil Amendments: The Soil amendments may be any of the following, as required or indicated in the Laboratory Testing Reports: a. Lime: Dolomitic limestone. b. Aluminum Sulfate: Commercial grade. c. Peat Humus: Finely divided peat. d. Superphosphate: 20 percent available phosphoric acid. e. Sand: Clean, washed sand. 02900-1 8/1/97 f. Perlite: NBS PS 23. g. Sawdust: Rotted sawdust free of chips and stones. h. Manure: Rotted stable manure. i. Commercial Fertilizer: Neutral character for plant materials and lawns. j. Mulch: Ground or shredded pine bark mulch. Landscape Materials: The landscape materials may be any of the following, as shown on the site-specific drawing or called out in the documents: a. Gravel: Water-worn gravel. b. Anti-Erosion Mulch: Seed-free salt hay or threshed straw. c. Anti-Dessicant: Emulsion type, film-forming. d. Plastic Sheet: Black polyethylene, 8 mils. e. Filtration Fabric: Water permeable fiberglass or pol~,propylene fabric. f. Wrapping: Tree-wrap tape. g. Stakes and Guys: New hardwood, treated softwood, or redwood. h. Metal Edging: Commercial steel edging. i. Wood Headers and Edging: All heart redwood or pressure treated southern yellow pine. END OF SECTION 02900-2 811197 SECTION 16000 - ELECTRICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Electrical general installation. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. National Electrical Code "NFPA 70" 2. Electrical Sweep Testing of Coaxial Cables C. PRODUCTS 1. Products and materials are specified in other sections and herein. D. EXECUTION 1. Submittal of bid indicates sub-contractor is cognizant of all site conditions and work to be performed under this contract. Perform all verification, observations, test, and examination of work prior to the ordering of the electrical equipment and actual construction. Sub-contractor shall issue a written notice of all findings to the Contractor listing all malfunctions, faulty equipment and discrepancies. 3. Heights shall be verified with Contractor prior to installation. 4. Drawings are diagrammatic only, follow as closely as possible. 5. Electrical Service: 208VAC, or 240VAC, single phase, 3 wire 100 amp service. o Each conductor of every system shall be permanently tagged in each panelboard, pullbox, junction box, switch box, etc. Sub-contractor shall provide all labor, materials, insurance, installation, construction tools, transportation, etc., for a complete and properly operative system energized throughout and as indicated on drawings as specified herein and/or as otherwise required. All materials and equipment shall be new and in perfect condition when installed and shall be of the best grade and of the same manufacturer throughout for each class or group of equipment. Materials shall meet with approval of the division of industrial safety and all governing bodies having jurisdiction. Materials shall be manufactured 16000-1 8/4/97 in accordance with applicable standards established by ANSI, NEMA, and NBFU. 9. All conduit installed maybe surface mounted unless otherwise noted. 10. Sub-contractor shall carry out his work in accordance with all governing state, county, and local codes and OSHA and NEC. 11. Sub-contractor shall secure all necessary building permits and pay all required fees. 12. Complete job shall be guaranteed for a period of one year after date of job acceptance by owner. Any work, material or equipment found to be faulty during that period shall be corrected at once upon written notification, at the expense of the Sub- contractor. 13. All conduit only (C.O.) shall have a pull wire or rope. 14. All work shall be per installation drawings and details. Provide Contractor with one set of complete electrical "as installed" markups at the completion of the job showing actual dimensions, routings and circuits. 15. All brochures, operating manuals, catalogs, shop drawings, etc., shall be turned over to the Contractor at job completion. 16. Use t-tap connections on all multi-circuits with common neutral conductor for lighting fixtures. 17. All conductors shall be copper. 18. All circuit breakers, fuses and electrical equipment shall have a minimum interrupting short circuit rating of 10,000 A.I.C. Sub-contractor shall verify the Site requirements. 19. The entire electrical installation shall be grounded as required by all applicable codes and NEC. 20. Patch, repair, and paint any area that has been damaged in the course of the electrical work. 21. Penetrations in fire rated walls shall be sealed in accordance with applicable codes. 16000-2 8/4/97 22. Power wire and cable conductors shall be copper #12 AWG minimum unless specifically noted otherwise on drawings. 23. Grounding conductors shall be tinned copper, annealed, and solid or stranded and sized as shown on drawings. 24. Meter socket amperes, voltage, number of phases shall be as noted on the drawings, Manufactured by "Square D Company" or approved equal. 25. All materials shall be UL listed. 26. Conduit Rigid conduit shall be UL labeled galvanized zinc coated with zinc interior and shall be used when installed in or under concrete slabs in contact with the earth, under public roadways, in masonry walls or exposed on building exterior. Rigid conduit in contact with earth shall be Va lap wrapped with Hunts wrap process No. 3. Flexible metallic conduit shall have UL listed label and may be used where permitted by code. Fittings shall be "jake" or "squeeze" type, seal tight flexible conduit. All conduit shall have full size equipment ground wire. Conduit runs shall be surface mounted in ceilings or walls unless indicated otherwise. Conduit indicated shall run parallel or at right angles to the ceiling, floor, or beams. Verify exact routing of all exposed conduit with the Owner prior to installing. No horizontal conduits shall be below 7'-6" Above Finish Floor (A.F.F). No BX or ROMEX cable is permitted. All underground conduit shall be PVC schedule 40 (unless noted otherwise) at a minimum depth of 30" below grade or 6" below frost line. 27. All electrical equipment shall be labeled with permanent engraved plastic labels. 28. Coordinate the electrical service with the utility company. 29. Upon completion of work, conduct continuity, short circuit and fall of potential ground tests for approval. Submit test reports to the Contractor. Clean premises of all debris resulting from work and leave work in a complete and undamaged condition. 30. Sub-contractor shall coordinate with the utility company for connection of temporary and permanent power to the site. The temporary power and all hookup costs to be paid by Sub-contractor. 16000-3 8/4/97 31. Lightning Protection: Connect lightning rod with down connector to a separate ground rod per detail 520. 32. IEEE Fall of Potential Tests: Ground tests shall be performed as indicated on drawings. A biddle ground ohmer or the method of using two auxiliary ground rods (as described in IEEE standard no. 81-1983, part 1) may be used. The IEEE method requires the use of an ae test current. The auxiliary test rods must be sufficiently far away from the rod under test so that the regions in which their resistance is localized do not overlap. Sub-contractor shall submit a ground resistance test to the Contractor for review and approval.After all the external ground rings are tied together but before the equipment cabinet is tied down, a megger check of the ground system should be done. All efforts shall be made to achieve a 5 OHMS to ground resistance reading. The maximum allowable resistance is 10 OHMS to ground. Where this is not achievable, inform Contractor in writing. 33. Grounding Resistance Test Report: Upon completion of the testing for each site, a test report showing resistance in OHMS with auxiliary potential electrodes at 5 feet and 10 feet intervals until the average resistance starts 'increasing and also note that 10-15 photos must be taken to proof entire external ground ring system before backfill or notify Contractor no less than 48 hours in advance of backfill. Testing shall be completed by Sub-contractor and two (2) sets of test documents are to be bound and submitted within one week of work completion. 34. Coaxial Cable Installation: Coaxial cable size shall be installed as shown on the drawings. The minimum bending radius for the 7/8" and 1 5/8" cable is two feet(T). Coaxial cable supports. The coaxial cable shall be run in covered cable trays. For short distances the coaxial cable may be on bare runs with supports every four feet(4'), in horizontal runs, and every three feet(3'), in vertical runs. The coaxial cable shall be run inside the monopole and supported from Kellum Grips within the monopole. From the monopole to the Primary Radio Cabinet, the cable shall be supported in covered cable trays. The coaxial cable shall be supported on open waveguides on structural towers. The coaxial cables shall be sealed where the cables penetrate any rooftop, bulkheads, monopoles, and walls. 35. Coaxial cable gounding: The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the antennas using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the Radio cabinet using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the top and bottom of the monopole using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be grounded to a ground bar at the bulkheads using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. 36. Coaxial cable sweep testing: After the installation of the antenna system, the coaxial cables coaxial cables shall be sweep tested up to 2000 Mhz. to determine the 16000-4 8/4/97 acceptability of system return loss, the reflection coefficient, and the VSWR. 37. Grounding Electrode System Grounding Connections a. All underground (below grade) grounding connections shall be made by the "cadweld" process. Connections shall include all cable to cable splices, Tees, Xs, etc. All cable connections to ground rods, ground rod splices, and lighming protection system as indicated. All materials used (molds, welding metal, tools, etc.) shall be by "cadweld" and installed per manufacturer's recommendation and procedures. b. All above grade or interior grounding and bonding conductors shall be reconnected by one hole crimp type (compression) connections for #6 AWG bare copper conductor, and two hole crimp type (compressio.n) connections for #2 AWG bare copper conductor and larger. Mechanical connections, fitting or connections that depend solely on solder shall not be used. AC service electrical ground shall be sized per the NEC with #2 AWG solid tinned copper wire minimum. Service ground wire shall be continous run in an unbroken manner. c. Ground Rods All ground rods shall be 5/8" diameter x 10'-0" long Copperweld" or approved equal, and shall be of the number and at locations indicated on the drawings. Ground rods shall be driven full length vertical in undisturbed earth. All ground rods to be 8' apart unless otherwise noted. d. Ground Bars All ground bars shall be IA" thick bare copper plate and of size indicated on drawings. e. Cables All ground cable shall be standard tinned copper and of size indicated on drawings. The type of cable shall be as follows: Cable Size # 2/0 AWG ~ #6 AWG Cable Type Stranded Stranded Use of Cable To main ground, i.e., building steel, cold water pipe, or existing ground rod, and for all lightning ~rotection Groundin~ of Antenna 16000-5 8/4/97 #2 AWG #2 AWG Stranded Green Insulated Solid Cables Indoor Halo Ring Solid Outdoor Ring Grounds, and all equipment, poles and towers f. Ground Ring The ground ring encimling the pad shall be minimum size of #2 AWG bare copper conductor in direct contact with the earth at a depth of not less than 30 inches (min.), or 6" below the frost line. Conductor bends shall have a minimum radius of 8 inches. The halo ground encircling the room shall be minimum size of no. 2 AWG green insulated stranded copper conductor. Bends shall have the minimum bend radii as shown in the details. All external ground rings are to be joined together and all connections must be cadwelded. NO LUGS OR CLAMPS WILL BE ACCEPTED The ground ring encircling the structural members on the rooftop design shall be minimum size of g'2 AWG bare copper conductor. Conductor bends shall have a minimum radius of 8 inches with two paths to the main building ground with two paths to the main building ground with #2/0 AWG bare copper conductor. g. Fence/Gate Ground all sections of fence and gate as indicated on drawings. Ground each gate post and comer post. Below grade connections for the ground grid system shall be made by the "Cadweld" process, and installed per manufacturer's recommendations and procedures. h. Cable Tray Ground all sections of the cable tray as indicated on the drawings. END OF SECTION 16000-6 8/4/97 SECTION 16400 - SERVICE AND DISTRIBUTION A. PROJECT INCLUDES Electrical service and distribution including service entrance, switchboards, low- voltage power switchgear, grounding, transformers, busways, panelboards, overcurrent protective devices, and motor controllers. 2. Service and Distribution Requirements: The incoming service shall be rated at 100 Amps, single phase, 3 wire, either 208 VAC or 240 VAC. B. PRODUCTS Service Entrance: a. Circuit Breakers shall be rated for a minimum interrupting capacity of 10,000 A.I.C. b. Fuses: Time-delay, fast-acting, current-limiting types. c. Meter Sockets: Acceptable to local utility company. d. Switches: Heavy-duty safety switches with NEMA Type 1 enclosure. Grounding: a. Grounding Equipment: UL 467; copper conductors; NEC Table 8 wire and cable conductors; connectors. b. Grounding Electrodes: Copper-clad steel ground rods; copper plate electrodes. END OF SECTION 16400-1 814107 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQU T OF US WEST FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE WFIEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462,353 conveys authority to the City to plan and Section 462.357 provides enabling le~slation for the City to adopt a zoning ordinance and zoning regulations: and WHEREAS. Section 350:530 of the Mound City Code and Minnesota Statutes Section a62.357, subd. 6(2) authorize and require the variance procedures in the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant in Case No. 98-~5 is US West (the "Applicant); and WFIEREAS. Applicant desires to install a cellular communications antenna on a lighting standard proposed to be constructed on property located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard ("the Property"): and WHEREAS, the Property is owned by Independent School District No. 277 (the "Property Owner'); and WHEREAS, the antenna Applicant desires to install on the Property will extend 50 feet above the maximum height from grade of the proposed lighting structure: and WHEREAS, Section 350:1370. subdivision 2 of the Mound City Code does not permit antermas on property o~rned by the Property Owner or other governmental entity if such antennas will extend more than 20 feet above the maximum heist from grade of the structures on which they will be located; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a height variance to permit installatioxa of its antenna on the Property; and WHEREAS. Section 350:530 of the Mound City Code provides: A variance may be granted only in the event that each of the following circumstances exist: Ao Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and vicinity, and result from lot size or shape. topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of tiffs Ordinance have no control. DIG- I ,~9510 MU200-30 Bo The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Co That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the Applicant. That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the Applicant any special privil¢~ that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The variance would not be materially dctrimc~tal to the purposes of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. WHEREAS. on August 24. 1998 the Mound Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Applicant's request for a variance: and WHEREAS, on August 25. 1998 the Mound City Council conducted a public hearing on the Applicant's request for a variance: and WHEP,.EAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 permits the exercise of local zoning authority as long as such local authority does not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibit or ha¥c thc effect of prohibiting the provision of l:~rsonal wireless and WHEREAS. the City Council of the City of Mound makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT: There is substantial evidence in the record showing that the variance is being requested solely for the convenience and economic benefit of the Applicant and there is no evidence that the Property is subject to exceptional or extraordinary lot size. shape, topography, or other circumstances beyond the control of the Property Owner and the Applicant. The record shows that the Applicant's request for a variance is the result of its own actions specifically, DJG-Ia9510 MU200-30 The Applicant was included and provided input in the recent process establishing the standards for ordinances governing for antennae site locations for wireless telecommunication service in the City and supported or did not oppose the City's establishment of the 20 foot antenna extension above structure, from which it now seeks a variance. The Applicant has not demonstrated that it cannot provide reasonable service to the customers within City without the proposed site: but rather has stated that the hardship would be the alleged inability to provide optimal coverage to customers if the variance were not granted The Applicant has not tested the degree of improvement in service that the additional 30 feet requiring the variance would provide and thus the Applicant has failed to establish that requested variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate any hardship The Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated to the City with technical data that other sites not requiring a variance could not be used to enhance service: nor has the applicant performed studies testing possible equivalent coverage at two sites not requiring a variance The Applicant has not shown that the property is unusablc without granting of thc variance. There is substantial evidence in the record showing that granting the variance would provide thc Applicant with rights not commonly enjoyed by other properties within the district. Denial of the variance will leave thc Applicant and the Property Owner with the same rights as are commonly enjoyed by other properties within the district. NOW. THEREFORE. BE Fl' RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound that the application of US west for a variance to install an antenna extending 50 feet above the supporting stmcmm at the Pwperty is hereby DENIED Adopted by the City Council in and for the City of Mound. Minnesota this September. 1998. day of ATTEST: Mayor DJG- 149510 MU200...IO S£6-~ SO/~O'd ~98-£ OL£B2~Zt9 NSAY~D I AOSNN~-mo3~ meBV:tl 88-~O-eoS City Clerk DJC..-149510 1~U20o-3o CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 25, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Leininger 3065 Dundee Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Leininger: I want to thank each of you for your recent letters to me setting forth your impressions and reactions to the process which you have been required to follow in attempting to construct a three-season porch at your home in Mound. Both of your letters very forcefully assert that the city was, at best, indifferent to your concerns and interests and to the realities of the situation. Although I do not necessarily agree, I am sorry you have reached that conclusion. As you are probably aware, the Mound zoning regulations do not permit the expansion or intensification of nonconformities; but rather require that the nonconformities be brought into compliance with current regulations before the property can be further developed. Compliance is ordinarily achieved through one of two approaches (variance or removal of nonconformity) or a combination. Over the years this policy has generally worked well and properties have been bettered not only by the addition of new construction, but also by the removal of certain nonconformities. Needless to say, the entire community also benefits. Recently, the council has taken care to inform the people in attendance of their right to have items removed from the consent agenda. Efforts are also being made to let the public know about the oppommity to review the agenda packet on any item before the item is called for discussion. It appears you may not have been aware of these oppommities. As a result, I am suggesting that the matter be placed back on the City Council agenda for the meeting of September 8, 1998. At that meeting, you will have the opportunity to address the council on your concerns regarding the easements as well as any other point which you wish to raise. Please confirm with me that you wish to have this on the agenda and can attend the September 8 meeting. The city officials, elected and appointed, as well as the staff of the city of Mound, take very seriously the obligation to serve the citizens of the community. We take seriously, as well, concerns such as those expressed by you in your thoughtful and constructive letters. Thank you for taking the time Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Leininger August 25, 1998 Page 2 to present them. City Manager cc: Jon Sutherland, Building Official RECEIVE[} AUG 7 1998 August 5, 1998 Edward Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Resolution #98-74. Dear Edward Shukle: On February 11, 1998 my wife and I signed an agreement with a contractor to build a 11 X 14 sunroom onto our home here in Mound. Our home was built in 1930 and we purchased it in 1995. When the plans we submitted to the City of Mound applying for a building permit, we were told that we would have to apply for a variance because the buildings were built to close to the property lines. On April 23, 1998 the day after we found out we would have to apply for the variance, we went to city hall to do what we had to do to get on the Mound Advisory Planning Commission Agenda for the May 11, 1998 meeting. We were told that we were one day to late, and could not get on the Agenda till the June 8, 1998 meeting. On June 8, 1998 my wife and I were at the meeting. The Planning Commission said that I would have to get a survey of my North property line to which my Sunroom would be the closest. That seemed to be a reasonable request so we left. On June 9, 1998 1 stopped at city hall to review the resolution with the staff so that I was sure of what I heard the Planning Commission say, and to make sure I understood what I had to do next. I was told that after I left the Commission reopened the resolution and was now requiring that I get a survey of the entire lot, and have that survey submitted to the next City Council meeting. So I figured that it was on the Council Agenda and I had to get the survey there so that they could see where the property lines were. I do not recall now when the next City Council meeting was, but after pushing Coffin & Gronberg, we got the survey over to the City on the day before the City Council meeting, and was told that we now have to wait for the next Planning Commission meeting on July 13, 1998. On July 13, 1998 after much discussion the Planning Commission approved a from yard and side yard setback variances to construct a conforming sun porch with a condition that we would have to obtain an easement for the sidewalk and retaining wall encroachments on lots 4 and 6 from the homeowners. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. The easements are required to be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit. On July 14, 1998 we went to the City Council meeting with the hopes of having our say to them. The City Council did not even address it. We were told that the resolution had been approved by them and we would get our building permit. We went home happy and ready to get to work. On July 21, 1998 we received the Resolution//98-74 and found that nothing had changed. The current retaining wall is about four feet high. Two feet beyond the base of the retaining wall the hill drops another two or three feet. There is no way that we can do without a retaining wall and it is evident why there is a wall there. We called the owner of lot 4 and he said he would not give us an easement, but someday he would put rocks where there is now landscape timbers. I do not have a problem with that. So that is the story. Now for my gripe: 1. First of all I believe you have given my neighbors control over whether I build my Sun Porch. I cannot build it until he gets around to doing something with his part of the wall, which could be never. Why have you given my neighbor that right? 2. You also stated one condition: That I must get an easement. What happens if we fix the wall and put a separation in it? I still cannot get a building permit because I have to get an easement. What happens if the neighbor and I fix the wall and no easement is required? Hennepin County does not know that we fixed it and no easement is required. 3. Why do I have to give him an easement? Why is this wall mine? How do you know that the wall was not built by him or a previous owner of his property? It was here when we bought the house. Why doesn't he have to give me an easement? You assume the wall is mine. It could have been built by both property owners knowing that something had to be done to retain the soil. My two neighbors to the North talked about and did build a retaining wall between one neighbors garage to the other neighbors house. Since they agreed to that and they both spent time building and paying for it, will that create a mess for someone who buys the property in the future. I am a reasonable person, and if my neighbor wants to change the retaining wall I would work something out with him without the City interfering. I do not believe it is the Cities right to tell two neighbors that they have to get an easement. I believe it is the neighbors right to tell me to remove something that I have put on his property, and they could force the removal through legal avenues. This thing has cost us a couple of thousand dollars for nothing. After all of this cost, time and agony (My wife has even had tears over this thing). In my opinion you have not accomplished anything. The house and garage are still here. The property lines are still there. The retaining wall and sidewalks are still there. The only things that have changed is that we are a little poorer. Two neighbors have become enemies. The City has lost some tax base by not having the improvement done. We have lost some enjoyment to our property, and instead of being pro Mound we have become negative. We have canceled construction of the sun porch and are now faced with paying closing cost on the loan we had secured for its construction plus the $100.00 filing fee we paid the City for filing the variance and $500.00 for the survey. I do expect written response to my questions. Respectfully, Dennis Leininger 3065 Dundee Lane Mound, MN 55364 472-1704 CC: Mayor Polston Councilmember Ahrens Councilmember Hanus Councilmember Jensen Councilmember Weycker City Manager Shukle RECEIVED August 1, 1998 City of Mound Councilman My husband has already written to you concerning our attempt to construct a sun room onto the front of our home (the east side). He has related step by step the process we went through to try to secure a building permit. I foolishly thought it was just formality to acquire this permit and that any construction that was done by a reputable company and that did not interfere with the neighbors' property or the neighbors in general only to improve their property value as well as ours, would be looked on as favorable, boy was I wrong! We started this permit request in April because we had consulted the construction company in February and we were assured it could be completed by May. We repeatedly hit one "road block" after another from your office. The first was when you said the garage was too close to the front of street so that put our house out of conformity, we proved that it was ok, then you went to the house and decided we needed a survey of the north property line which was decided at the first planning meeting, by the way, we were there and were never given a chance to say anything about our plans, then after the meeting was over and we were gone our request came up for discussion again and it was decided we needed a full lot survey and we were not notified of this. What kind of public process is this when tax payers' requests are discussed and decisions are made after they have left the room and not given a chance to hear what is being decided and then never informed of such decisions? We did oblige and get the survey and as my husband has stated in his letter to you, it delayed us more precious weeks until your next meeting and several hundred dollars. When we finally came to another meeting we had been assured that everything was in place. This was after several copies of the plans--different sizes of copy and different formats etc.etc, had been requested by you and fumished by us. Each time we fumished such documents we were assured everything was in order. We thought the last meeting was the final and we would be finally granted the permit. WRONG! After hashing over the situation and looking over the survey it was decided the house was not conforming to code because it had been built 68 years ago too close to the property lines of the north and south neighbors and somewhere down the line of the minimum of 25 to 30 prior owners of this property ( I have names of these people) someone decided to build a cement sidewalk down the north side of the house which overlapped the property line and someone also built a retaining wall that went over the property line on the south of the house. Because of these two structures we were required to get a easements from the neighbors. We were informed by our neighbor to the south that he would not give us an easement, but chop down the wall and in due time put large boulders in it's place, you required the wall to be a finished product before the permit was granted which gave our neighbor full command of weather WE built OUR room, or not. I still fail to see the relationship of those two structures to our proposed small room that would sit on the east side of the house, and I also fail to understand why we should be penalized and restricted from improving the looks as well as increasing the value of our home because of something that was done a very long time ago and when this area was a different community completely. I would like to see the laws giving the city of Mound the jurisdiction of correcting situations that occurred before the land was actually Mound territory As for the city of Mound and all you officials--- I don't know if you are elected to those positions but you can bet your bottom dollar there are two people who will not vote for you again, as a matter of fact, I will do my best to dissuade anyone I know from moving into this town and I will do my best to persuade my husband to move out. I have never been so disillusioned by any the workings of government. Do you give everyone in Mound and especially on this island the same grief if they have try to improve their property ? Because as anyone can see there are a lot of very small, very cramped lots on this island. I can't help believing there is some statute of limitations law that would release us from being held responsible for some building faux pas done almost 70 years ago. I intend to look in to it because we have lost our room but the matter is certainly not dead as far as I am concerned. I might mention that our neighbor to the south told us that he had informed the Realtor that sold us in the house in 1995 about the closeness of the property lines to the house and the retaining wall and wanted him to inform us of this, the Realtor failed to do this, if we had known this, things would have been different but we thought as most people do to look at the lot that the lines are in certain places because of the way the landscaping is laid out and at the cost of a land survey there are not too many people that have a prospective home surveyed prior to purchase. This news was upsetting enough but then to encounter such response from the city itself. Well, its too much for me and I really don't want any more to do with Mound. Our whole experience with our home here in Mound has been one of unbusiness-like/unprofessionalism, disappointing as well as frustrating moments. You can bet we are two very unhappy Mound property owners! CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 July 20, 1998 Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Leininger 3065 Dundee Lane Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Variance for construction of a 3 Season porch. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Leininger: Please find enclosed two certified copies of Resolution //98-74 approving your variance to allow construction of a 3 Season porch at 3065 Dundee Lane. These Resolutions must be filed at Hennepin County prior to issuance of any building permits. Hennepin County will keep one copy and you will need to return the other copy to City Hall. Instructions for filing this Resolution are enclosed for your reference. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call us. Respectfully, ,/'~,:.__,, Planning & Inspections Secretary kl Enclosures July 14, 1998 ¸. RESOLUTION #98-74 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING SUN PORCH, AT 3065 DUNDEE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN PID # 24-117-24 44 0134 P & Z CASE #98-32 WHEREAS, the applicants, Dennis and Carolyn Leininger, have applied for a front yard and side yard setback variances to allow for construction of a conforming sun porch at 3065 Dundee Lane; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the existing garage has an 18 foot front yard setback and a 4.2 foot side yard setback, requiring a 2 foot front yard setback variance and a 1.8 foot side yard setback variance. WHEREAS, the existing house has a .6 foot side yard setback to the North and a 5.1 foot side yard setback to the South, requiring a 5.4 foot side yard setback variance to the North and a .9 foot side yard setback variance to the South; and, WHEREAS, there are two encroachments to adjacent properties: Lot 6 (North) - the sidewalk encroaches approximately 3 feet into this lot. Lot 4 (South) - the retaining wall encroaches approximately 4 feet into this lot. ; and, 206 July 14, 1998 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval of the variance with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 2 foot front yard setback, 1.8 foot side yard setback variances for the garage and a 5.4 foot side yard setback (North), .9 foot side yard setback (South) variances for the House for the purposes of constructing a conforming porch addition,-,,'"~"~, The applicant would obtain easements for the sidewalk and retaining wall encroachments on lots 4 and 6 from the homeowners. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. The easements are required to be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following improvements: A. Construction of a conforming porch. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF THE EAST HALF OF VACATED KINMAN PLACE WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE WESTERLY EXTENSIONS ACROSS SAID PLACE OF THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID LOT 5, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 6. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. 207 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus, and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Polston was absent and excused. SS/ANDREA AHRENS Acting Mayor Attest: City Clerk 208 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1998 '1.2 CASE 98-32: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A SUN PORCH, DENNIS & CAROLYN LEININGER, 3065 DUNDEE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID#24-117-24 44 0134 RESOLUTION//98-74 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING SUN PORCH, AT 3065 DUNDEE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID # 24-117-24 44 0134, P & Z CASE//98-32 Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Crv Burma, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Frank Weiland Public Present: Bradley Nordgren, Carol Laurie, Jack Jorgensen, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Michael Schulz, Sonja Schulz, Fred Johnson, Heidi Wood. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. :¸ No corrections were made. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-32: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A SUN PORCH, DENNIS & CAROLYN LEININGER, 3065 DUNDEE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN, PID # 24-117-24 44 0134 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant, Dennis and Carolyn Leininger, have submitted an updated survey as requested by the Commission at the June 8th meeting. The survey shows the side yard to exceed 1.6' for the house and as conditioned in the motion is back on the agenda for further review. Again, the request to add a conforming sun porch in the front yard. The associated variance request is listed below. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 Existing/Proposed Required Variance Garage Front Yard 18' 20' 2' Side Yard 4.2' 6' 1.8' Existing/Proposed Required Variance House Side Yard north 0.6' 6' 5.4' Side Yard south 5.1' 6' 0.9' The detached garage shows an 18 feet setback from the property line and 22 feet from the back of the curb measured at the southeast corner of the garage. The northeast corner is 23 feet from the property line. The survey also shows that portion of vacated Kinman Place which has been combined with the parcel. Hardcover as proposed for the property including the sidewalk not indicated on the survey, is 2916 sf, which is under the 3077 sf limit for this 7693 sf lot of record. The updated survey shows the house and garage setbacks as listed above which are different than those shown on the previous site plan. The survey does not show the sidewalk on the north side of the house or the retaining wall on the south side of the house that encroach onto the adjacent properties. I have drawn them on the survey for reference. The sidewalk appears to encroach approximately 3 feet onto lot 6 along with a corner of the concrete patio in front of the house. The retaining wall is about 4 feet in height and encroaches onto lot 4 approximately 4 feet. A site inspection of the property would not suggest that the sidewalk or retaining wall are encroaching. The property has been maintained such that the trees along the north and south property lines appear to define the property boundary. The initial siting of the house and garage are probably to blame for property boundary assumptions. The sidewalk along the north side of the house was probably poured when the house was constructed. It is difficult to determine when the retaining wall was built, but it too may have been built in some form when the house was constructed. Subsequent property improvements to planting beds have relied on the house orientation for property boundaries rather than an accurate survey. The property has existed in this condition for many decades and outside relying on adjacent property surveys, this may be the first time the property has been surveyed. Given the circumstances, there are a couple options the Commission could look at to address the encroachments. The first would be to remove the encroaching sidewalk, patio, and retaining wall. Removal of that portioh of the encroaching retaining wall will require additional grading on 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 lots 4 and 5 to prevent erosion. The second option would be to obtain easements for the encroachments on lots 4 and 6. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. This option would prevent disruption of the property but assumes the neighbors will agree to the easements. Input from the neighbors should be considered before any motion is made. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the options and determine which approach best fits the situation. DISCUSSION: Mueller questioned the easement, he believes that would be an agreement between the two properly owners and not something the City could require. Gordon stated that in the past, a copy of the easement would be on record at the city. Mueller stated that if the applicant could not obtain the easement agreement from the adjacent property owner then the applicant would not receive his variance. He stated that the retaining wall has been there prior to the applicant owning thee property. He stated that from the information provided in the application that the adjacent property owner would not likely grant the easement to the applicant. He stated he didn't see why the city was getting in between the issue of the easement, he feels it is between the two property owners. Suthedand stated that the city has been involved in other cases such as the Meisel's on Bartlett Blvd, where the City Attorney advised that the encroachment could be removed. Mueller asked the applicant if he asked his neighbors about granting the easements. Dennis Leininger stated that the abutting property owners do know that there are encroachments on their properties. Carolyn Leininger questioned what do the other issues have to do with the addition and why there are concerns with the encroachments on adjacent property when the addition they want to put on is in a conforming location. Michael and Mueller explained the reasoning behind the encroachment questions and that the city has a right to deny the addition due to the non conforming issues. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Voss to recommend staff's second option recommendation which states, "The applicant would obtain easements for the encroachments on lots 4 and 6. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. This option would prevent disruption of the property but assumes the neighbors will agree to the easements. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1998 There was further discussion on the retaining wall encroachment easement. Motion carried 6-1, Opposed: Mueller, This case will go to City Council on July 14, 1998. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request - updated report OWNER: Dennis and Carolyn Leininger- 3065 Dundee Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-32 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5z LOCATION: 3065 Dundee Lane ZONING: Residential District R-IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted an updated survey as requested by the Commission at the June 8* meeting. The survey shows the sideyard to exceed 1.6' for the house and as conditioned in the motion is back on the agenda for further review. Again, the request to add a conforming sun porch in the front yard. The associated variance request is listed below. Existin?~Prop0sed Required Variance Garage Front Yard 18' 20' 2' Side Yard 4.2' 6' 1.8' House Side Yard - north 0.6' 6' 5.4' Side Yard- south 5.1' 6' 0.9' The detached garage shows an 18 feet setback from the property line and 22 feet from the back of the curb measured at the southeast comer of the garage. The northeast comer is 23 feet from the property line. The survey also shows that portion of vacated Kinman Place which has been combined with the parcel. Hardcover as proposed for the property including the sidewalk not indicated on the survey, is 2916 sf, which is under the 3077 sflimit for this 7693 sflot of record. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-32 - Leininger Variance Request- updated report July 13, 1998 The updated survey shows the house and garage setbacks as listed above which are different than those shown on the previous site plan. The survey does not show the sidewalk on the north side of the house or the retaining wall on the south side of the house that encroach onto the adjacent properties. I have drawn them on the survey for reference. The sidewalk appears to encroach approximately 3 feet onto lot 6 along with a comer of the concrete patio in front of the house. The retaining wall is about 4 feet in height and encroaches onto lot 4 approximately 4 feet. A site inspection of the property would not suggest that the sidewalk or retaining wall are encroaching. The property has been maintained such that the trees along the north and south property lines appear to define the property boundary. The initial siting of the house and garage are probably to blame for property boundary assumptions. The sidewalk along the north side of the house was probably poured when the house was constructed. It is difficult to determine when the retaining wall was built, but it too may have been built in some form when the house was constructed. Subsequent property improvements to planting beds have relied on the house orientation for property boundaries rather than an accurate survey. DISCUSSION: The property has existed in this condition for many decades and outside relying on adjacent property surveys, this may be the first time the property has been surveyed. Given the circumstances, there are a couple options the Commission could look at to address the encroachments. The first would be to remove the encroaching sidewalk, patio, and retaining wall. Removal of that portion of the encroaching retaining wall will require additional grading on lots 4 and 5 to prevent erosion. The second option would be to obtain easements for the encroachments on lots 4 and 6. The easements could be removed when the house is no longer useful or is demolished for new construction. This option would prevent disruption of the property but assumes the neighbors will agree to the easements. Input from the neighbors should be considered before any motion is made. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the options and determine which approach best fits the situation. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 8, 4{)08 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss Public Present: Michaela Diercks, Don Loken, Glenna Loken, Robert Wroda, Stephen Kakos, Lisa Hanson, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Doug Birdie, Vic Sacco, Jim Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jared Smith, Jim Kovach, Jim Johnson, Dave Moore, Jennifer Garden, Martin Garden, Alan Nations Chris Meyer, Peter Liupakka Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael Chair Michael readjusted the agenda to start with the variance cases first then proceed with the Public Hearings. MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE MAY 11, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Weiland commented that Jerry Clapsaddle be Absent and Excused. Hanus stated on Case 98-24 under the discussion his comments should read, "Hanus commented there are 4 accessory buildings and this would require an additional variance. So noted and will be corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-32: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, DENNIS & CAROLYN LEININGER, 3065 DUNDEE LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN PID # 24-117-24 44 0134 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming sun porch in the front yard. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Garage Front Yard 18'8" 20' 1' 4" Side Yard 4' 6' 2' House Side Yard - north 5'10" 6' 2" Side Yard - south 1'6" 6' 4'6" The property is located at 3065 Dundee Lane. The lot has frontage Dundee and Churchill Lane, some of which has been vacated. Drainage on the property is from east to west. Existing nonconformities on the property include the house and detached garage which do not meet code setback requirements. The detached garage is a two stall front entry and is in good condition. The 11 feet by 14 feet sun porch is conforming to front and side yard setbacks. The proposed addition will not increase or expand the nonconformity of the house. The improvements should increase the owners enjoyment of the property and its overall value. The porch does not appear that it presents a negative impact on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances as requested with the following condition. 1. The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan for the proposed sun porch. 2. An updated survey accurately locating structures on the property. Discussion: Weiland suggested that if the survey shows a discrepancy that this case be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. Hanus suggested that the sun porch be in a conforming location. Weiland questioned if there can anything be done with the drainage between the two parcels. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. Updated survey be required 2. Complete drainage plan be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 3. The proposed sunporch be conforming. 4. Should the variances exceed 1.6' for the house or 1.0' for the garage then the case come back to the Planning Commission for further review. Motion carries 7-0. This case will go to the City Council on June 23,1998 Mueller moved to bring back case 98-32 for reconsideration. Hanus seconded. Mueller stated that he discovered that the hardcover would increase with the sun porch addition. Hanus stated that it was calculated at 30% and the 40% lot of record status could be used. Gordon stated that there may be encroachment of the retaining wall. Case # 98-32: Mueller motioned to rescind the prior motion, Michael seconded to reconsider this case after a current survey is obtained. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to table this case until an accurate survey is obtained. HOISINGTON KOEGLER CERTIFICATE: OF SURVEY FOR " DENNIS LEININGER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, ARDEN AND PART OF AOdOINING VACATED KINMAN PLACE HENNEP!N ..C. OL~NTY,. MINNESOTA ; ~ j L 0 "r, I -' ' , ,~ . ~. ~ '/~ ~'1 · ........ k.. U..... ~ .............. ~ ......... ~/ L~Ag OE~CRIPTION OF ~RE~S v~c~ted Ki~m~ Ploce wMi~h lies ~etween lh~ westerly extensi~ acro:s ~;e ~ce ~f the northerly ~nd southerl~ lines of ~a{~ Lot 5. This survey intends to ahow the boun~ies mf ~e ~bove described property, end the Ioc=t;on of ~n existing house, g~roge. ~tck, p~io,. .. drlvew=y onff s;dew~k 'thereon. on~ the proposed'locotlon prmpoaed ~ddltio~, tt does not purport to show ony ot~r ~mpro~e- o ; Iron ~ee.,J ; Existing ep~t elevation ~ : Praposed spot elev~/l~n Ba~rings shown ~re b~e~ upon an ~ssumed datum .. ~E~EIVED JUN 2 5 1998 - 98258 5UL 09 '98 12:44 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Dennis and Carolyn Leininger- 3065 Dundee Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-32 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5z LOCATION: 3065 Dundee Lane ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming sun porch in the front yard. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Garage Front Yard 18'8" 20' 1' 4" Side Yard 4' 6' 2' House Side Yard - north 5' 10" 6' 2" Side Yard - south 1'6" 6' 4'6" The property is located at 3065 Dundee Lane. The lot has frontage Dundee and Churchill Lane, some of which has been vacated. Drainage on the property is from east to west. Existing nonconformities on the property include the house and detached garage which do not meet code setback requirements. The detached garage is a two stall front entry and is in good condition. The 11 feet by 14 feet sun porch is conforming to front and side yard setbacks. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-32 - £eininger Variance Request June 8, 1998 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The proposed addition will not increase or expand the nonconformity of the house. The improvements should increase the owners enjoyment of the property and its overall value. The porch does not appear that it presents a negative impact on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances as requested with the following condition. 1. The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan for the proposed sun porch. 123 North Third Stxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 MayWood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 I, ,, MAY` 8 199~.'~..~O_~' ' j'" C.:":,f!.'-': ...... .- ~- ~' Application Fee: ~100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY} ~ q(~) - .Planning Commission Date: Case No. City Council Date: Distribution: ~'f'~ -~o~ City Planner , (;~-~/~ ~NR ~c~,~1~_~ ~ City Engineer _ .. Other_ ~--~.~ -/~ ~ Public Works SUBJECT Add res s .?}('.) //x .£)'' ./?,. ~ ~p-~/~_,~, PROPERTY Lot LEGAL Block ~ ],~ -~ DESC. Subdivision PROPERTY Name O~/)I/~I/_S 2 ~ l/d~ /J//j/ Phone (H) .~ ~,j-- ? ?~'/t {W) C~....~'--.~- ~(~ {M) ~' APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resc~/~t~ions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.)' Variance Application, P. 2 Cas. e No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describ~ reason for variance request, i.e. sel;back, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED Front Yard: ./~'-~'~:~;~ Side Yard: (/,.~SE W ) f~,~_~' Side Yard: ~S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake. side: ( N_S_ E W ) Lot Size: -- Hardcover: REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) /' ~// ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. /' .,/ '~ ft, =~z."~" ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil ~-~ existing situation ( ) other: specify -i' '~..\ (Rev. l ll14197) Variance Application, P. 3 o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~x~). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date (Rev. l l l14/97) .~ ~~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~-~c-~c/~ ~'' ~/__,Z,,Vd3~(~_ ~ ×/,,~_. OWNER'S NAME: ,(~2~,,,V,,VI.~ -~ ~c2Z"~_-2 /..~, /l/ .,~..c~.~l ~ /,,~? ~ t'"- LOT AREA ~"~,~?~ -~ - SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. ~r~/~>Jt~' -/- -I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT --~ ~,__,~..,/ .,., .,/ //~-~ HOUSE ,.~..;~ X ~ -- ~ I = ~' X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open d.3cks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HOUSE ......................... TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (init/ate difference) ..... ~. ......................... I pR EPAR ED By ~/~',~/. ~r.~' '/~~Z¢'~ ,/~ ~,~',~./~. DATE -. _ _/ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 -,. Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-062.0 SITE Subjoct Address 3065 Dundee Lane Business Name/Tennant The applicant is: __owner __Xcontractor __tenant LEGAL Lot Block Plat ~ DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID# Dennis & Carolyn Leininger OWNER Name Address ~ 0 6 S Dundee Lane , 5[ound , MN 55364 -- Phone (H) 472--1704 NV) same (M) CONTRACTOR Company Name Patio Enclosures, Inc. se # 1676 Addrass212j oia Hwy 8, New Brighton, ~N 55112 Phone {H), b_~I-ilQQ (W) (M) ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone IH) (W) (M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: Sunroom Addition VALUATION OF WORK: $18~625.00 VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR r~ ECTRICAI., PLUMBING. HEATING, VENTILATING OR .mar CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK, OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 1 BO DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK. IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK, IS COMMENCED. TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO SE PERFORM ED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PEAMIT OBTAINED FOR NEVV CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS. REMODELING. AND ALTEFLATIONS TO Ti~-2 r~T~A~OR$ OF ANY 6UI~DING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL SE COMI~LETEO VV3THIN ONE {1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE I:OR COM~L[3~0N. A V~OLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CiTY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WBl't-T, EN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTE:,. EST~LISHING TO THE REASONA, BLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF TH£ WORK [[OR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL SE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY I30) BUS~NESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEA~ PERIOD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICA33ON AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WiLL SE COMPLIED W~TH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO WDLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFOF[MANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. x ~/ld~,~_..~ ~, ~._~'~ ~ .,,__0 ---- 4/7/98 Joe Yohn PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPUCA~'S SIGNAT~ DATE ~~~~~/~~/~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fill~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~/~~~~/~~~~~~//~/~~~~~~/~~~fill~~~~~~/~~~~~~/ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS b COMMENTS:~: ~ ~ ,~ ~ {~ ~3~3 ~ O~WfL CONSTRUCTION TYPE; OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MkX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED APPROVED ZONING BLDG SIZE (SO F'TI · STORIES ...... FiRE SPRINFJ. ERS REQUtRED~ --- CiTY ENGINEER · ~,~s YES / .o Pu~uc WORK.S RECEiVE',~ By IDATE; '. pLANS CHECKED B~: ' ............... ApPRBV[~ By'~ DA-+-E:- ........... ., ASSESSING i ., ,~ .", ~'"~ z '~ I' I iol~..t ~ -,,,. ~ ._ -- o .-~ '~,-~ -,:, o¢, >' ~i'ill %,.,->--" i " t "'.-- 0 .-3~d i1' 14,' City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound MN 55364-1687 Phone 472-0600 Fax 472-0620 May 11, 1998 Certified Mail ~ Z 381 251 217 Y ~ ,~/~..~ Dear City of Mound Building Permit Department, Planning Commission and City Council. The enclosed certificate of survey from city records shows my neighbors house is built 3.4 feet or less from my lot line. This means that parts of some of the structures built on the lot are likely on my property. I understand this violates setback requirements. These setback requirements are part of my property rights. Changing any of these requirements gives rights to my neighbor by taking rights away from me. It is not clear where the lot line is so I will have it surveyed as quickly as practical. Please contact me at the following address in writing well in advance of any building permits or variances being approved for the existing structure or for any additions to this property. I do not want any actions taken that would allow or make easier any more building within the setback area (higher or wider) along the southernly lot line of lot 5 block 12 Arden that borders on my Lot 4. The structure on lot 5 has a number of rotten areas and it is clear at some time it will need a rebuilding. The southern wall of the structure should be moved out of the setback area if a rebuilding of the structure or addition to the southern side of th~ property is planned. MAIL ALL NOTICES TO MY PERMANENT MAILING ADDRESS. PETER PERRINE PO BOX 41479 PLYMOUTH MN 55441 TELEPHONE 612-577-0859 I DO NOT CURRENTLY LIVE AT THE PROPERTY, I WILL NOT GET THE NOTICE IF YOU MAiL IT TO THE PROPERTY. I own lots 3 and 4 Block 12 Arden, 3069 and 3073 Dundee lane Mound. My neighbor owns Lot 5 Block 12 Arden, 3065 Dundee lane Mound. My neighbor has not shared his plans-with me. Does city policy or law require or should it require that I be notified of building permit applications or requests for variances in this type of.situation at my permanent mailing address specified in this letter ? How many days in advance will I be notified v Can I be assured that I will be notified and allowed to communicate any concerns I may have to my neighbor and the city before a decisions is made on this property ~ eter Perrine PO Box 41479 Plymouth MN 55441 612-577-0859 .> .JO' 30; CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET SIIRVEY ON FILE? YES LOT OF RECORD? ~/ NO YARD j DIREC'TION ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTI-]'.' R..~ 10.~oo B/..,~ B1 7,500/0 R1A 6.000/40~..~x'~-'~ B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: I'-OT WID 1 LOT D{~P I Ii: VARIANCE IlOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W · ~II)E N S E W SIDE N S E W N S E w N S E W GARAGE, SIIED ..... DI'--FACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE 4' OR 6' NS E W N S E W SIDE REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W $0' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' '{'hi~ Zoning Infi,mafion Shccl only summarizcs a portion o[ thc rcquircmcn~ullincd in rite Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinanc-. For furfl~cr information, contac! Iht Ciiy of Mound Planning Dcpamncnl aZ 4724)600. ,5/7o2- 7 ~,,-P/' MINUTES- SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING-AUGUST 18, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Polston. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers Ahrens, Hanus and Weycker. Absent and Excused: Jensen. Also Present: Gino Businaro, Finance Director; Pam Galanter, Frank Madden & Associates; Jim Fackler, Parks Director; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Ed Shukle, City Manager indicated that the purpose of the special meeting was to move into Executive Session regarding labor relations issues and strategies. Following this discussion, the City Council would then remm and adjourn the special meeting and then move into the Committee of the Whole meeting. The Mayor then called the City Council into Executive Session with the City Council, Ms. Galanter Gino Businaro and Ed Shukle present in the Executive Session. The City Council returned to the Council Chambers approximately ½ hour later following the Executive Session and the Mayor indicated that the Council was now back in session reporting that the Executive Session was held to discuss labor relations strategies and issues. Another item was on the special meeting agenda. Councilmember Ahrens asked to address the City Council regarding the City's Dock Location map. Ahrens indicated that City staff has issued a dock permit to a non-abutting property owner in the Roanoke area. Ahrens indicated that the subject dock is in front of an abutter's house. She further stated that there are two locations in front of this abutter's house. She stated that it came to the abutter's attention that they had their dock and their boat in both locations. The abutter's have requested to adjust their locations so that they are not "straddling" the line. Circumstances regarding a light and boat lift make it difficult for Mark Smith and Gina Anderson (abutter's), to move their dock location. Ahrens asked if the non-abutting dock could be shifted down toward Scott and Linda Mack so that Smith/Anderson could utilize the light pole that is in this dock area and not to be straddling the lot line. The Mayor asked if the staff has the authority to adjust the dock sites under city ordinances or if it has to go through City Council. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, responded by saying that these issues go through the City Council under the approval of the Dock Location map. Ahrens moved that the center of the Smith/Anderson location be located where their dock currently is with their light pole and that the center of the non-abutting dock site be placed on the lot line on their easterly lot line. The motion was seconded by Hanus. Further discussion was held on the matter. Ahrens then indicated she would amend her motion that the Mack's continue to have their 40' of water space through this suggested dock location adjustment. Hanus accepted the amendment to the motion. Weycker wanted to be assured that the Mack's do not have to move their dock. Polston wanted to be assured that neither the Mack's or the Smith/Anderson's would have to move their docks. Special Meeting Minutes of August 18, 1998 Page 2 Ahrens added that if the non-abutter does not like this adjustment, that the City is prepared to give the non-abutter a refund. Hanus agreed to this amendment. The motion was now clarified by Ahrens: The center of the Smith/Anderson dock space is moved to where their light pole and dock currently exists; the center of the non-abutting dock is centered on the lot line between the Mack and the Smith/Anderson property provided that neither dock has to be moved; and that the non-abutting dock site holder is given a refund if they do not like the shift in the non-abutting dock site location. The Council then voted unanimously to approve the motion. There was no further business in the special meeting. Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjoumed at 8:20 p.m. Attest: City Manager Mayor CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 REVISED AUGUST 25, 1997 MEMO MEMORANDUM AUgUSt 27, 1998 TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ~/ FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARK DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RELOCATION OF DOCK SITE At the Special City Council Meeting August 18, 1998 the motion that passed unanimously to approve is as follows ~The center of the Smith/Anderson dock space is moved to where their light pole and dock currently exists; the center of the non-abutting dock is centered on the lot line between the Mack and the Smith/Anderson property provided that neither dock has to be moved; and that the non-abutting site holder is given a refund if they do not like the shift in the non-abutting dock site location.' This morning Tom McCaffery, Dock Inspector, and myself met with Scott & Linda Mack, Mark & Gina Smith/Anderson and Andrea Ahrens at the new non-abutting dock site on the property line between Macks home and the Smith/Anderson home. It was determined that Macks would not move their dock site to the east due to a sand bar in that area and that if this obstruction did not exist they still prefer their current dock location. . With the Mack dock remaining in their current position, which is about fifteen feet off centered but still within their dock location, and the Smith/Anderson dock centered approximately six feet westerly in its current dock location, there is not ample room for the new dock location on the shared property line. The new dock site would have to be centered five feet into the Smith/Anderson property, this is not acceptable to Smith/Anderson's. printed on recycled paper May 12, 1994 Mr. Greg Knutson 4701 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 CITY of MOUND SUBJECT: REVISED DOCK SITE NUMBERS Dear Mr. Knutson: This letter is to notify you that your dock site number has changed from 42077 to 42086. This change was necessitated by City Council Resolution //77-150 which requires minimum center to center dock spacing of 40 feet. All dock spaces have been designated with a green-tipped stake at the center point of your dock space. This should not require a relocation of your dock as we do not require docks be centered. We only require that your dock stay within the space allotted, and that you do not invade the space allotted to the docks next to yours. Please feel free to call me and we can' review your individual spacing. Sincerely, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector Jim Fackler, Parks Director printed on recycled paper TM:pj CC' 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 SeFterrber 5, 1990 'fo: The C/ty of Mou~d J/m A/brecht Due to the fact that ! will be coachi~ football on Tuesday Se~terber 8th, 1998, ! w/Il not be able to attend the C/ty Counc/l Meet/ng. ! request and g/ye ~rm/ssim that GTe~ Knutsm he m~F spokes z~erscm /n the matters regard/rig the Roanoke C.~,i,-~.~s and Dock issues. ~f~/,~erel y ' ~" ~/im ttlbrecht DOCKSITE 41477 41650 41750 41824 41866 41908 41956 42000 42043 NAME STEAD LAFORTUNE MACK ANDERSON-SMITH ALBRECHT AHRENS CASEY HARRINGTON SCHMIDT DISTANCE BETWEEN CENTERS 173 100 74 42 42 48 44 43 43 We have called the Ahlbreck's, who are the current renter of dock site #41866, and asked if they would be putting a dock in this season and if so would they be willing to look at another site further east of their current site. They stated that they will contact us next week on their decision. At this time staff will wait for the Ahlbrecks to decide on their plan and then staff may need to ask the city council for direction. CC: Ed Shukle, City Manager Tom McCafferty, Dock Inspector September 8, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98- RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1999 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is the governing body of the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing & Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound, entitled, "Resolution Approving the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority Budget for the Year 1999 Pursuant to MSA Chapter 469"; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that a special tax be levied upon real and personal property within the City of Mound in the amount not to exceed $24,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said levy, not to exceed $24,000 is approved by this Council to be used for the operation of the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, and shall be certified as a tax levy to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before September 15, 1998. MOUND HRARESOLUTION NO.98-1 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE TAX LEVY FOR THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE YEAR 1999 BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound, as follows: Section 1: That there be and hereby is levied $ 24,000 for the year 1999 on all taxable property, real and personal, situated within the corporate limits of the City of Mound and not exempted by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, for the purposes of establishing an HRA Fund and conducting the operation of an HRA pursuant to the provisions of MS 469.001 through 469.068. Section 2: That the consent resolution by the City Council of the City of Mound to this special tax for the operation of the Housing and ..................... Redevelopment Authority is attached to this resolution and made a part of it. Section 3: That said tax levy shall be certified to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before September 15, 1998 Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound this eleventh day of August, 1998 Chairperson ExeCutive D~recto~f September 8, 1998 RESOLUTION//98- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1999 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,966,230; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $2,015,570 LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $491,790, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY CERTWIED LEVY OF $1,524,780; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1999; AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following preliminary 1999 General Fund Budget appropriations: City Council 62,800 Cable TV 1,500 City Manager/Clerk 196,900 Elections/Registration 3,150 Assessing 64,800 Finance 176,270 Computer 26,550 Legal 103,480 Police 1,037,130 Emergency Preparedness 4,960 Planning/Inspections 220,370 Street 454,040 City Property/Buildings 82,690 Parks 191,440 Recreation 38,410 Contingencies 120,000 Transfers 181,740 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2,966,230 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following preliminary taxes for collection in 1999: September 8, 1998 SPECIAL LEVIES Bonded Indebtedness 85,950 Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds 33.350 Total Special Levies 119.300 TOTAL PRELIMINARY LEVY PRELIMINARY TOTAL TO BE LEVIED FOR 1999 Less Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) Preliminary Certified Levy 2,016,570 ,7491,790 1,524,780 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the preliminary overall budget for 1999 as follows: As per above SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 2,966,230 Area Fire Service Fund Capital Improvement Fund Cemetery Fund Dock Fund TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS 409,680 819,360 6,970 95,210 1,331,220 Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 101,780 607,390 445,650 .. 920.390 2,075,210 2 September 8, 1998 ~Y General Fund Special Revenue Funds Enterprise Funds TOTAL ALL FUNDS 2,966,230 1,331,220 2.075.210 6~372,660 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby sets Monday, December 7, 1998 and Monday, December 14, 1998, as the public heating dates for consideration of the 1999 Proposed Budget. 3 ;City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: August 1998 No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Payments: Water Sewer Recycle 1,155 126 1,157 126 23,328 3,368 Total $38,810 $6,817 $70,126 $18,369 $6.156 $124 ~ $25.310 Total $35,867 $5,684 $64,781 $14,530 $5.810 $104 $106.458 $20,318 09/03/98 Utility-98 Total 1,281 1,283 26,696 $45,627 $88,495 $6.28O $41,551 $79,311 $5.914 TO: FROM: RE: GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR AUGUST FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Bought: Money Market 4M ~P:lus 318,023 403 Money Market :US Bank Money Market smith Barney 367 CP Smith Barney 5:6~% 310,258 CP Smith Barney 5~655% 309i635 Matured: Money Market 4M Plus (100,000) Money Market US Bank (20,000) CD US Bank (97,383) CP Smith Barney 5.625% (305,619) CP Dain Rauscher 5.70% (409,188) CP Smith Barney 5~609% (400,400) 1999 Budget Preparation The City Manager and I have worked on the final proposed levy and budget during August, The City Council Will be asked to approve the.Preliminary levy and the proposed budget on Tuesday September 8.: The preliminary levy amount will be used by the County Auditor for the prope~ tax notices that will be sent to each property owner in November. FEMA Early in the month we finalized the forms that we needed to submit to FEMA relating to the May 15, 1998 storm, The next step is for FEMA to approve them and then hopefullY we will receive the 75% federal share. It cOuld take anOther month or two before the process is finally complete, Accounts Payable ~Clerk The City Manager and I have interviewed a number of Candidates for the open position of Accounts Payable Clerk. In the meantime, we have made use of a temporary person and the personnel in Finance. We are looking forward to filling the :position as soon as possible, given the workload in the department. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-0621 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shulde ChiefLen Harrell MontMy Report for August, 1998 STATISTICS The police department responded to 1,020 calls for service during the month of August. There were 38 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 9 burglaries, 25 larcenies, and 4 vehicle theft. There were 67 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 child abuse/neglect, 3 forgery., 2 narcotics, 8 damage to property, 12 liquor law v/olations, 9 DUI's, 2 simple assaults, 4 domestics (2 with assaults), 5 harassment, 8 juvenile status., and 12 other offenses. The patrol division issued 120 adult citations. Parking violations accounted for 'an additional 15 tickets. Warnings were issued to 102 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 2 adults and 6 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 33 adults and 17 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There was one felony warrant and an additional 7 misdemeanor warmm arrests. The department assisted in 14 vehicle accidents, 5 with injuries. There were 25 medical emergencies and 73 arfimal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 16 Occasions in August and requested assistance 7 times. Property valued at $26,468 was stolen in August. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - August, 1998 III. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 2 criminal sexual conduct cases and 4 child protection issues accounting for 27 hours of investigative time. Other cases included assault, burglary, domestic assault, DWI, damage to property, forgery, adult protection issue, theft, harassment, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for 5th degree assault, underage consumption, disorderly conduct, driving after cancellation, violation of an order for protection, and drug paraphernalia. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 83 hours of overtime during the month of August. Officers used 42 hours of comp-time, 179 hours of vacation, 54 hours of sick time, and 4 holidays. Officers earned 47 hours of comp time. Two officers attended the Wilson Leadership course and officers attended bi-monthly firearms training. Sgt. McKinley attended the retraining for the Southern Police Institute and judged for canine training. Sgt. Truax attended an Internal Affairs course for a week. I attended the Minnesota Chiefs Fall training conference on Leadership. V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS Officers Holzerland and Piper addressed 37 animal complaints, 50 ordinance violations, and 139 miscellaneous calls for services. Five citations were issued. The police reserves donated 193 hours of community service to the department and the community in August. There are currently eight reserves in the unit. MOUND POLICE DEPA~RTMENT AUGUST 1998 OFFENSES ~ EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV PART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 2 1 4 25 0 0 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 38 I 0 4 2 6 PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect Forgery/NSF Checks Criminal Damage to Property Weapons Narcotic Laws Liquor Laws DWI Simple Assault Domestic Assault Domestic (No Assault) Harassment Juvenile Status Offenses Public Peace Trespassing All Other Offenses 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0 12 0 0 9 11 2 9 0 0 9 9 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 11 2 0 0 2 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 8 1 1 2 1 1 TOTAL 67 2 2 40 33 17 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 9 5 0 25 73 16 735 863 HCCP Inspections 2 5O TOTAL 1,020 44 35 23 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT AUGUST 1998 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEA/{ MONTH DATE TO DATE 69 441 682 37 356 535 21 127 180 29 342 493 73 652 634 15 268 449 9 49 71 5 31 60 9 58 60 5 23 29 0 0 0 3 17 29 39 272 317 6 44 29 18 148 115 38 263 182 67 517 546 25 234 200 73 419 408 50 269 217 735 6,522 5,712 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,326 11,052 10,948 40 454 497 82 546 340 14 55 24 16 133 111 7 47 71 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT AUGUST 1998 DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 5 1 4 1 45 2 0 20 0 1 0 3 0 5 0 3 15 0 5 4 2 0 10 135 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT AUGUST 1998 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 29 21 10 0 0 13 0 0 0 18 91 1 6 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Run: 31-Aug-98 14:25 PR003 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/01/98 - 08/31/98  Activity codes: All roperty Status: All Property Types: S Property Descs: Ail Brands: All Models: All Officers/Badges: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Page Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off~2 Code Assnd Assnd 98000472 01 01 S 3/09/98 150 98000561 01 02 R 3/20/98 150 3/20/98 150 98000637 01 01 S 3/28/98 500 98000794 01 01 S 4/20/98 5,500 98000794 01 02 S 4/20/98 6,500 98000794 01 03 S 4/20/98 1,000 98000990 01 01 S 5/16/98 50 98001005 01 01 S 5/17/98 3,505 98001072 01 01 R 5/27/98 638 8/20/98 638 98001140 01 01 S 6/06/98 150 98001183 01 01 S 6/13/98 4,965 98001311 01 01 R 7/03/98 140 7/28/98 140 98001311 01 03 S 7/03/98 100 98001414 01 01 S 7/20/98 900 98001454 01 01 S 7/24/98 2,070 98001497 01 06 S 7/30/98 150 1 B3794 MERCURY 415 1 TG159 425 1 B3694 421 i TB229 CRESTLINER 404 422 1 TB229 JOHNSON 404 422 TB229 404 422 1 TG059 421 422 1 TB159 404 I TC059 417 1 TG159 425 1 TB169 MERCRUISER 417 422 1 B3794 417 1 B3794 417 1 TC169 411 1 B3494 417 1 B3494 425 Report Totals: 26,468 928 15.000 Run: 31-Aug-98 15:19 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 07/26/98 - 08/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: Ail Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 45 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 2 9012 OPEN BOTTLE 9014 STOP SIGN 1 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 3 9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 1 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 3 9040 NO SEATBELT 2 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 12 9150 NO TRAILER PARKING 3 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 4 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 20 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 5 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 2 9253 STOP ARM VIOLATION/NO TICKET 2 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 3 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 4 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 14 9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 1 9420 DERELICT AUTO 1 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 5 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 6 Page Run: 31-Aug-98 15:19 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 07/26/98 - 08/25/98  range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: Ail Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: Ail Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 9563 DOG AT LARGE 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 9710 MEDICA3~/ASU 9730 MEDICALS 9732 MEDICALS/CI 0 01 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 9811 J-LOITERING/LURKING 9812 TRESPASS NOTIFICATION LT 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 9921 INSPECTIONS CITATION 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 9943 PROWLER 9950 INFO/INT 9980 WARRAITrS 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 9996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 3 1 5 2 22 1 8 2 5 6 2 3 3 5 2 1 4 1 10 2 1 3 Page Run: 31-Aug-98 15:19 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 07/26/98 - 08/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDE~]TS A5505 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY H/rRM-NO WEAP-CTILD-ACQ A5555 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-HANDS ETC-CHLD-ACQ AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HA~RM-HAN-DS-AD-FAM AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM Bl120 BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-D-OTH WEAP-NO ACT B3364 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNT{ WEAP-COM THEFT B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-trNK WEAP-COM THEFT B3464 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT ~3212 FORGERY-MS-LrfT-POSS-PLACE-CHECK-BUSINESS 132E2 FORGERY-MS-UTT-POSS-PLC-CEK 200 OR LESS-PC-BUS DA540 DRUGS-SMAMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DC500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPB-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 12150 CRM AGST FM-GM-NEGLECT VI/LN ADLT 13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 32501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 32R01 TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV J2U01 0.20 OR MORE BAC J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV J3R01 TRAFFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 4 1 Page Run: 31-Aug-98 15:19 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 07/26/98 - 08/25/98 ct range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Bow Received: All ivity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS J6501 ENHANCED/DWI W/IN 10 YRS OF FIRST 2 PRI/ALCOH0 1 J6R01 ENHGMD DWI - REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TEST - MV 1 M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 5 M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 2 M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 2 M5350 JI/VENILE-RUNAWAY 1 ~1 SALE OF TOBACCO TO CHILDREN 1 >~8199 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-OTHER 1 :3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISOR/DERLY CONDUCT 1 1:3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NI/ISANCE 1 ~:3t90 DISTUR]~ PEACE-MS-HARRASSING CO~%gJNICATiONS 5 '~3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION 1 ~1110 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 ~1130 PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 n2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 72120 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNq( INTENT 1 P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2  0 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 TC159 THEPT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 2 TF159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 2 Page 4 Run: 31-Aug-98 15:19 CFS08 Priory ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 07/26/98 - 08/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVI~ CODE ACTIVITY CODE NL~MBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS TG029 ~"AEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OT"~ PROP 1 TG059 T~EFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OT~ PROP 6 TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MO~X)R VEH-MOB~EY 1 TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOP, DR VEH-OTHER 9 U2497 THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 2 U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 1 ~3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 2 VA022 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-%~RUCK-A~"~O 1 VE081 VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER-AUTO 2 /Elll VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-PARTS-MOP,DR VEH-AUTO 1 Report Totals: 332 Page Run: 31-Aug- 98 14:12 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 07/26/98 - 08/25/98  range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING A5505 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-CHLD-ACQ ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED %,./o AL351 AL354 Bl120 B3364 B3394 ?3212 ~32E2 :3A540 DC500 12150 13060 32501 J2R01 J2U01 33501 J3R01 J6501 A5555 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-HANDS ETC-CHLD-ACQ 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 t00.0 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-D-OTH WEAP-NO ACT 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT i 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U~UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 4 I 3 2 1 0 0 1 33.3 FORGERY- MS- UTT- POSS- PLACE- CHECK- BUS I NESS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 FORGERY-MS-UTT-POSS-PLC-CHK 200 OR LESS-PC-BUS 1 0 1 t 0 0 0 0 0.0 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH - POS SES S - UNK- UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 CRM AGST FM-GM-NEGLECT VI/LN ADLT 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK %;EH 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0.20 OR MORE BAC 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 7 0 7 0 7 0 0 7 100.0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.0 TRAFFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ~MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 ENHANCED/DWI W/IN 10 YRS OF FIRST 2 PRI/ALCOH0 i 0 I 0 1 0 0 i 100.0 Run: 31-Aug-98 14:12 OFF01 Priory ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 07/26/98 - 08/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: Ail Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 2 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUI~DED OFFENSES PENDING ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST A~RREST CEPTION TOTAL CLF2%RED J6R01 ENH GMD DWI - REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TEST - MV I 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 100.0 M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 M5350 JI3VENILE~RUNAWAY I 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 M7401 SALE OF ~BACC0 TO CHILDREN 1 0 i 0 0 1 0 I 100.0 N3030 DIS%~JR~ PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1 0 I 0 I 0 0 1 10~ N3070 DIS~T~RB PEACE-MS-PD-BLIC NUISANCE 1 0 i 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 N3190 DIS/~ORB PEACE-MS-HAR~RASSING COMbK/NICATIONS 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0.0 N3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 ?1110 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 50.0 71130 PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSIN-ESS-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 ~2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-I/NK INTENT I 0 I 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 P2120 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 73110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-~qqK INTENT ~ 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 73310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-LS~K INTENT 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 50.0 P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 0 i 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MO~)R VEH-O~"~{ PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TF159 ~{EFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-O~ PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG029 ~"HEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP I 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 ( TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 Run: 31-Aug-98 14:12 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 07/26/98 - 08/25/98  range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ..... OFFENSES CLE;MRED ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUIkL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ~ODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MO/~DR VEH-OTHER 9 0 9 8 1 0 0 1 11.1 U2497 THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 50.0 VA022 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-TRUCK-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 VE081 VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 VElll VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-PARTS-MOTOR %;EH-AU/X) 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 Report Totals: 97 3 94 48 30 14 2 46 48.9 MOUND FIRE DE?ARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPOR? PS .... - .3.aS~ ~HI$ YZAR LAST YEAR DNTH OF AUGUST 1998 MC~ M0~ ~ ~ TO DA~ ~. OF C~ , (566) 62 82 4OUND FI~ ~' ] ~ D~ 23 26 ] 75 · 154 ~INNETONKA BEACH FI~ O 3 ~iNNETRiSTA F~ 4 2 20 )RONO ~ 7 2 51 41 ~HOREWOOD FI~ 2 i 3 4 ~~ 1 0 3 2 ~PR!NG PARK F~ 3 11 38 15 ~'~ 1 7 33 ~ 49 ~UTUAL AID F~ 1 1 6 6 ~~ 0 1 2 3 tOTAL F~RE CALLS 24 35 241 (303) 265 tOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 38 47 270 258 ~'~ 0 0 0 0 ~S & ~~S 7 14 110 (343) 1~3 A~ 1 1 12 6 F.~E ~ / F~ ~- 12 12 73 86 ~. 0F H~ ~ 140 398 2316 3451 - MOUND ~~ 417 410 2999 2839 ~ 557 808 5315 6290 F!R~ 0 62 317 " 323 - MTKA BEACH ~~ 28 38 126 63 ~ 28 1~ 443 386 ~I~ 68 46 489 8~ M' TR I STA ~.~ 117 54 539 607 ~ 185 1~ 1028 1467 ~I~ 124 24 1186 1027 - ORONO ~ ~~ 112 142 508 286 ~ 236 166 1694 1313 ~ 28 12 40 81 - SHOREWOOD ~~. 22 0 66 38 ~ 50 12 106 119 - SP. PARK' ~G~ 10 105 570 895 ~ 52 3~ 1371 1227 F~ '7 ~ 155 196 - ~ ~D ~G~ 0 9 26 62 T~ 7 43 181 258 ~OTAL DRILL HOURS ~180 1~ 1370 1352.5 TOTAL FIRE HOURS ~409 ~ ~q~ 677D TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 706 758 ~ F~E & ~G~ ~ 1115 1573 1O~1~ 11 MUTUAL AID RECEIVED O O MUTUAL AID ~ZVZN 1 ~' ~ 9 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF AUGUST 1998 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE B/10 8/17 ~ I4]~ ~ RAIE 1 JEFF ANDER$]~N X X 2 19.00 3 43 6.50 279.50 ZG~EG AND~$0N X S Z 19.00 2.5 43 6.50 279.50 3PAUL BABB X X 2 19.00 2.5 38 6.50 247.00 4 DAVID BOYD X X 2 19.00 0 23 6.75 155.25 5 SCOTT BRYCE X X 2 19.00 0 25 6.5~ 162.50 6JIM CASEY X X 2 19.® 1.5 21 6.50 136.50 7BOB CRAWFORD X X 2 19.00 3.5 29 6.5Q 188.50 8RANDY ~GEI2-IART X X 2 10.00 6 21 6.50 136.50 9DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 3 31 6.50 201.50 IOKEVI~K; GRADY X X 2 19.00 3 24 6.5Q 156.00 llBRUCE GUSTAFSON X X 2 19.00 5 34 6.50 221.00 12PAT HANLEY X X 2 19.00 3.5 31 ~,~0 201.50 l~O ~O~SON_<~XX 2 ~9.00 2 27 6.5o 175.20 14~A~ ~,~ /E~ X i 9.5O3 28 6.50 182.00 15MATt HENiEES X X 2 19.00 5 40 6.50 260.00 1~ ~A~I~ x (~ I 9.5o0 27 6.5o 175.50 1~0~ =~c~ x x 2 19.00 5 ~3 6.5o' le~o~ ~SON X X 2 -'-19.00 4 2~ 6.5O 188.50 ~OASON ~ X X 2 ~9.00 ~ ~ 6.20 20~.50 2OrONY MYERS X X 2 19.00 4 47 6.50 305.50 2]JOHN NAFUS X X 2 19,00 2 26 6.50 169.00 223AMES t~ELSON X X 2 19.00 .0 14 6.50 91.00 2~RET NICCUM X X 2 19.00 2 34 6.50 221.00 2Z~REG PALM X X 2 19. O0 2 23 6.50 149.50 25MIKE PALM X X 2 19.00 2 30 6.50 195.00 26TI~ PALM X X 2 19. O0 3 25 6.50 162.50 27GREG PEDERSON X X 2 19.00 0 34 7.00 238.00 28CHRIS POUNDk-R X X 2 19.00 3 , 35 6.50 227.50 29RICHARD ROGERS X X 2 19.00 3 41 6.50 266.50 3~.tI KE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 8 28 6.50 182.00 31KEVIN SIPPRm'.'r. X X 2 19.00 2 22 6.50 143.00 32RON STALI/qAN X X 2 19.00 3 29 6.50 188.50 33BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 -19.00 3 25 6,50 162.50 .__3z!ED VANECEK X X 2 19.00 2 39 6.50 253.50 _3.5RICK WII/J.A~ X X 2 19.00 12.5 36 6.50 234.00 36TI2~ I.FiILIAMS X X 2 19.00 2 25 §, ~9 162.50 37 n~"~r~ ~nvmr'~'F. X X 2 19.00 3 24 §, ~O 156. O0 36 36 72 ~Tm.~ ~ 90 90 180 684.00 112 1115 k~X~S 7,270.25 180 I~m'.~ 684.00 112 ~ .1,250.00 ~3IAL 9,204.25 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 IV/E/I// O /?A /IID I.//II! DATE: September 2, 1998 TO: FROM: City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~- SUBJECT: AUGUST 1998 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 48 building permits issued in July for a construction value of $ 689,505. We issued 55 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits for a total of 83 permits this month, and 509 permits year-to-date. Total valuation now stands at $ 3,709,468. Four (4) more permits have been issued to repair damage to property due to the storm and high winds that hit on May 15, 1998. we were able to issue I permit without a variance through the streamlining process. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed Five (5) cases and sent Four (4) variance cases- one of which recommended denial, and one (1) Minor Subdivision case to the City Council. kl City of Mound BUILDING ACTIV1TY REPORT Month: AUGUST Year:_ 1998 THIS MO~ RESIDENTIAL [I # PERMIT$ ( # UNITSI VALUATION II#UNITS( VALUATION NEW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 2 2 196,000 6 770,584 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX 2 684.01.5 MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL 2 2 196,900 8 1,454,599 NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS SUSTOTAL 0 0 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 2 I~ 152,000 20 713,819 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 2 38,500 20 235,919 DECKS 7 · 34,300 44 147,367 SWIMMING POOLS · 12,000 3 23,717 REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 32 :: 224,605 191 961,940 REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 1 8,5 7 6 SU-~mAL 44 461,405 279 2,091,338 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT] 3 50.670 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL i 200 2 2,700 INDUSTRIAL ~' 1 500 PUBLIC /SCHOOLS 1 31,000 5 106,161 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL 2 : 311200 i1 1601031 ["DEMOLITIONS Ii.#PERMITS I #UNITS I VALUATION Jl 'PERMITS I VALUATION RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 1 2~300 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 2 1 , 200 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS - 0 0 3 3~500 # PERMITS ' UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION ~"PERMITS TOTAL 8 48 2 689,505 ~ 3,709,468 PERMIT COUNT I"' YEAR-TO-DATE · BUILDING 4 8 301 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 7 19 SIGNS 2 8 PLUMBING 15 9 2 MECHANICAL 7 70 GRADING 3 3 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 1 16 TOTAL I 83 I 509 z 0 0 0 --I o }- o - ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ w ~m~m 0 ~ ~ z~ ~ ~ ~~ °*°°°~ ...... ~0~ _ < 0<0000 LU ~ o o z~ z z '-I- I- Z 0 C) 0 ..I t~ ~ oo ~oooo ~o~°eE~ ZZ Z n,' 5 ~3O0 Z n a3 n n 0 LU -- ~ o ~ z ,,, G 0 ~ < ~ 0 o ~ o~~ z (.D 0 0 o ~ ~-~~o z ~o - uJ GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF AUGUST 1998 MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT# ADDRESS CONTRACTOR PERMIT TYPE AUG 98 4 4049 AUG 98 4 4050 AUG 98 5 4051 AUG 98 5 4052 AUG 98 7 4053 AUG 98 7 4054 AUG 98 7 4055 AUG 98 10 4056 AUG 98 11 4O57 AUG 98 17 4058 AUG 98 17 4059 AUG 98 17 4O6O AUG 98 17 4061 AUG 98 17 4062 AUG 98 20 4063 AUG 98 21 4064 AUG 98 21 4065 AUG 98 21 4066 AUG 98 21 4067 AUG 98 24 4068 AUG 98 25 4069 AUG 98 26 4070 AUG 98 26 4071 2890 PELICAN PT CT 2900 PELICAN PT CT 1901 SHOREWOOD LN 2580 LAKEWOOD LN 2878 PELICAN PT CIR 2884 PELICAN PT CIR 2888 PELICAN PT CIR 5019 SHORELINE DR 4930 WILSHIRE BLVD 1928 SHOREWOOD LN 2136 OVERLAND LN KILDARE RD & KERRY LN 4941 EDGEWATER DR 5400 SHORELINE DR 2121 GRANDVIEW BLVD 2871 PHEASANT CIR 4731 WILSHIRE BLVD 2147 GRANDVIEW BLVD 2385 COMMERCE BL VD 4674 HAMPTON RD 5736 LYNWOOD BLVD 1928 SHOREWOOD LN 3152 ALEXANDER LN STEINKRAUS STEINKRAUS CULLIGAN WATER MN WATER TREATMENT DITTER INC DITTER INC DITTER CUSTOM PLUMB WESTONKA MECH PLYMOUTH PLUMB CUSTOM PLUMB ACONITE CONST/NSP CULLIGAN WATER AWD COOLERS SUPERIOR PLUMB STATEWIDE GAS SOUTHTOWN PLUMBING BREDAHL PLUMBING NS/I CUSTOM PLUMBING LEGEND HEATING PLYMOUTH PLUMBING CONRAD STARR PLUMB PLUMB PLUMB PLUMB MECH MECH MECH PLUMB PLUMB PLUMB PLUMB ST EXCAV PLUMB PLUMB PLUMB MECH PLUMB PLUMB MECH PLUMB MECH MECH PLUMB Date: T/me: Where: Thursday, Sept. 24, 1998 2:30 -gp.m. Sheraton A~etrodome Note/ ~ost; $30 per person The Zeague of A4innesota C/ties (LJAC)and the Association of A4etropolitan A4unicipa/ities (AA4A4) is co-sponsoring the second annualA4etro RegionalA4eeting. _rf youplan to attend, p/eese mail the enclosed registration form along with )/our payment to the AJAA4 by Friday, Sept. 2 8. The schedule is as fo/lows: 2:30-3:30p. m. (Optional Sess/on) ~3:30-3:35p. m. Ensuring an Accurate Census Count for Your City (Bureau of the Census, Office of the State Demographer) We/come (LtdC and AldAd Pres/dents) 3:35-4:00p. m. Legislative £ssues (LA4Cand AA4A4 staff) 4:00-4:30p. m. Partnership 2000: A4arketing Your City- Personalizing City Services fan Citizens and Legislators (LA4C Communications Staff) 4:30-5;OOp. m. Overview of What 's Happening AroundLAdC/LAdETT/AA4A4 5:00-5:45p. m. SocialHour 5:45-6:45p. m. Dinner 6:45-Z'i5p. m. Welcome from Host ~dayoe, LA4Cand AA4A4 Pres/dent Remarks 7.'15-Z'45p. m. Year 2000 Computer and Embedded Chip _rssues (With Buzz O/son Video) 7'45-g:OOp. m. The Future of /detropo#tan Governance and Other Metro Issues* * 7-he candidates forgovernor have been invitedtoparticipate in a metro issues forum. Because it's impossible to confirm their attendance until after the Sept. 15primary, a back-up program has been arranged. The alternative is apane/ discussion of those looking at metro government restructuring. AA4A4 · 145 University Avenue West · St. Paul,/HN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 · Fax: (651) 281-1299 P/ease see map on reverse... Sh oton Metrodom Hotel 1330 Zndustrial Blvd. AAinneapolis, AAN 55413 Phone: (612) 331-1900 Industrial Blvd. ~ / ....... .... i .... <~ ~ / ~'~ · -...~Broadway (~ L. University Ave. 1-94 From the North Follow 1-694 to 1-35W 5outh. Take the Industrial Blvd. exit (Exit #22). Go left on Industrial and the hotel will be on the right. From the 5outh Take Z-494 to 3::-35W North. Take the Zndustrial Blvd. exit (Exit #22). The hotel will be on the right side as you exit. From the East Follow 1-94 West toward Minneapolis. Take Highway Z80 North. Take a left at the first stoplight (Broadway 5treat). Take a right on Industrial Blvd. and the hotel will be on the left. From the West Follow 1-394 East to 1-94 East. Take 1-35W North to Industrial Blvd. (Exit #22). The hotel will be on the right side as you exit. 1998 Metro Regional Meeting Registration Form Thursday, Sept. 24, 1998 · 2:$0-9 p.m. · Sheraton I~etrodome Hotel Registration Deadline: ?riday, Sept. 18, 1998 Cancellation Deadline: Friday, Sept. !8, !998 · Names/Titles of Persons A trending: Name: Name: Name: Name: Number of Attendees: To ta/ Paymen t Enclosed: ~ Title: Tit/e: Title: Tit/e: Title X $30 re£istration fee: $ Contact Person: Address: Phone city/zip: P/ease make checks payab/e to: Associat/on of/Aetropo//tan/Aunicipa//ties /Aa//re~?/strat/on form a/anal w/th ),our check to: Laurie Jennin~s Association of /Aetropolitan A4unicipalities (A/A/A) 145 University, A venue ~Vest St. Paul,/AN 55103-2044 _rf you have quest/on& call the A/A/A at (6§I) 21§-4000 August 31, 1998 RECEIVED SEP - Z 1998 GTE Service Corporation 11 Eleventh Avenue P.O. Box 330 Grinnell, IA 50112-0330 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: As you've undoubtedly heard by now, on July 28 GTE and Bell Atlantic announced their intent to merge the two companies. This merger is subject to shareholder and regulatory approval. Media coverage of the proposed merger has offered a number of different perspectives and viewpoints. As a key leader and valued constituent of GTE, we want to share with you our view of the merger. We believe the merger holds compelling benefits for customers and communities served by both companies. It truly is a merger of equals. Senior executives from both companies will share in its leadership, and the merged company's board of directors will have equal representation from both companies. This merger of these two proven companies will provide customers a vigorous, new national competitor in local, long distance, wireless and data communications. It will possess a strong mix of national and international assets, and will provide the spark that everyone has been waiting for to bring real competition to the telecom marketplace. Obviously, many of the operational and organizational decisions are yet to be made. But as the process continues, you can be assured that GTE remains committed to providing the same high quality, high value and highly reliable telecommunications service you've come to expect. The enclosed summary sheet will provide additional information that you might find helpful on the proposed merger. If you have any questions regarding the proposed merger that I might be able to assist in addressing, please feel free to call. With warm regards, James P. Larsen Manager-Public Affairs JPL:pdj Enclosure A part of GTE Corporation The proposed GTE-Bell Atlantic merger will benefit consumers by: · Allowing faster and broader development of new products and services; · Allowing new technology to be deployed faster over the new company's combined network; Creating more efficient opportunities for businesses with multiple locations across the country to link those sites through telecommunications; · Bringing compiementary expertise, capabilities and resources together for greater synergy; Enhancing competition by bringing a strong, new national competitor with the financial, operational and technological resources to compete with the already-announced national players of AT&T/TCG/TCI, Worldcom/MCI, and SBC/PacTel/Ameritech/SNET. The proposed, merged GTE-Bell Atlantic will be: A leader poised for enhanced growth potential in four key businesses: data, wireless, domestic local and long distance service, and international. The nation's largest local telecommunications company with 63 million access lines, offering customers the first mile link to the global telecommunications network throughout 38 states. A leading provider of advanced data services to both business and residential customers through its aggressive ADSL deployments and national fiber-backbone data network. The nation's largest and most advanced cellular service provider, with over 10 million domestic wireless customers. A leading player in the international telecommunications marketplace, with a significant presence in more than 30 countries and with customers who account for roughly one-third of the world international telecommunications traffic. The world's largest publisher of telephone directories. RECEIVED SEP_ 2 lg.q8 Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (UMCWD) Organizing Principles Organization B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 5 mem[~er Board of Managers No employees Hire Engineer/Adminislxator Hire Attorney Approximate Annual Budget: Cap Administration at: One monthly meeting Utilize existing data, models etc. $1,500,000 $ 125,000 Planninff Utilize and adopt pertinent portions of existing MCWD plan. Publish modest stand-alone document. Operations A. Enter into Maintenance Agreements and reimburse Cities for Gray's Bay Dam, existing ponds (6) in Orono, Long Lake, Medina and Minaelrista. B. Summer student intern for monitoring, etc. Proieets-2 Year Plan B. C. D. E. Annual Hydrologic Monitoring Painter Creek/Jennings Bay F/S - Phase II Six-Mile Creek/Halsted's Bay Investigation Assist Cities in Local Plan Preparation Assist Cities with Regional Improvements. Regulatory Ao B. C. D. Adopt Stormwater Task Force stormwater management role Modify existing MCWD wetland role Adopt existing MCWD rip rap role as a guideline Adopt existing MCWD dredging rule O AFT Should the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District be Reorganized? The Upper and Lower Watersheds Would Both Benefit. Why do we have Minnehaha Creek Watershed District? The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (district) is one of the largest metropolitan districts. It was established in 1967, after a petition was filed according to statutes, by all five cities directly adjacent to the creek (Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis). The petition called for a watershed district to be established to control and alleviate flooding along the creek corridor. A seven-member board manages the district. Six members are appointed from Hennepin County and one from Carver County. Where and How Large is the District? The district boundary encompasses the entire watershed tributary to the creek, including Lake Minnetonka and its entire watershed. Parts or all of 27 cities and parts of Hennepin and Carver Counties are within the district boundary (See attached map). Upper Watershed The watershed tributary to the Lake Minnetonka (Upper Watershed) is 100 square miles located in Hennepin and Carver Coimties, and includes parts or all of 22 cities like Victoria, Maple Plain and Minnetonka. The Upper Watershed is largely undeveloped or in agricultural use, with suburban areas in the eastern portion and agricultural land in the western portion. It includes many principal lakes, like Lake Minnetonka, many smaller lakes, hundreds of wetlands and several protected streams. Over 80% of the total water resources and approximately one-third of the total tax ca'parity of the district are located in the Upper Watershed. Lower Watershed The direct tributary watershed to the creek (Lower Watershed) is 80 square miles located in Hennepin County. It includes area located in the Cities of Minnetonka, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, Edina, Golden Valley, Richfield and Minneapolis, as well as part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. This part of the district is fully developed and urban in nature. The main water resources are the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes (managed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board) and Minnehaha Creek. Approximately 20% of the total water resources and two-thirds of the total tax capacity of the district are located in the Lower Watershed. The Upper Watershed outlets to the Lower Watershed through a dam and control structure built by the district in 1980 on Lake Minnetonka at Gray's Bay. The quality of Lake Minnetonka water flowing into Minnehaha Creek is high. The quantity of discharge is controlled by the defined terms of a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources permit. Where is the District Headed? While the establishing petition requested flood control on Minnehaha Creek, the district has progressively sought expanded authority and presence by increasing spending through the broad funding capability of the Surface Water Management Act of 1982 (as amended). Today the district exercises unlimited funding authority and is active in the areas of: a) b) c.) d.) Increasing administrative spending. Employed staff has increased from 1 to 6 since 1995. Creating multi-agency project management and advisory groups. These groups now determine the districts monitoring program and other projects. Increasing regulation of stormwater management and wetlands. Rule B remains controversial and Rule D (Wetlands) is more restrictive than the Wetland Conservation Act. Expanding communications, outreach and public education spending through grants and employed staff. Capital improvement development and implementation, primarily in the Lower Watershed. Monitoring of water. Long term planning. The district is funded by an ad valorem tax. The district budget was modest for many years, but has expanded dramatically since 1993..There has been a trend of budgets outpacing expenditures and a declining trend for implementing capital improvements. A cash position of approximately $5,000,000 has been maintained over the past two years. Interest from investment of fund excesses have enabled administrative costs to grow and exceed the statutory cap on the administrative levy (see attached graph). Approximately one-third of the tax capacity within the district is in the Upper Watershed (more than 20 communities) and two-thirds is in the Lower Watershed (less than 10 communities). Should the District be Reorganized? Little can be accomplished, from a regulatory or planning standpoint, in the Lower Watershed because it is fully developed. Remedial capital projects to correct existing problems are expected for years to come. In the Upper Watershed, there is .op. po..rt~nity for planning sound water management in concert with municipalities, for numm~zang and/or sharing large capital costs, for reduced regulation and transfer of regulatory control to the local level, to protect the principal lakes from degradation, such as Lake Minnetonka. The water resource concerns, the management issues and the fund/ng needs in the Upper and Lower Watersheds are different. Reorganization, creating an upper and lower district, would benefit both watersheds by: increasing local control of tax funded expenditures, and concentratiorf on each watershed's priority issues. The attached table illustrates major differences in priority and funding needs: Water Resource Concern Flooding Water Quality Wetlands Lakes Use Water Resource Planning Regulatory Monitoring Storm Water Utilities Tax base for Ad Valorem Upper Watershed · Gray's Bay Dam Controls Discharge to Lower Watershed. Preserve Natural Storage Capacity in the Watershed. · Water Quality of Discharge to Creek is High · Preserve Natural Storage, Wetlands and Buffers to Protect Lakes · Protection Preserve Natural Storage, Wetlands and Buffers to Protect 'Lakes Planning to Protect Water Resources from Impacts of Future Development · High Priority · Future Development is a Concern · Develop Workable Controls Many Lakes and Streams · Few Exist · Need Exists for Outside Funding Approximately One- third of Total Lower Watershed · Severe Flooding in 1997. · Direct Urban Runoff Peaks are High. · Inadequate Existing Creek and Sewer Capacity. · Retrofit Capital Improvements. · Quality of Direct Runoff to Creek is a Concern · Retrofit Capital Improvements · Capital Cost of Restoration · Retrofit Capital Improvements · Redevelopment · Brown fields · Land is Already Developed · Land is Already Developed Primarily Mirmehaha Creek - MPRB Monitors Most Lakes · Exist in Most Cities · Existing Funding Source is Available · Approximately Two- thirds of Total MlnnehahaCreekWatershedOlstrict RECEIVED SEP ~999 DRAFT Budget I ~ Mom,/Pin Smvw/[)sta Wh' Me,m Total TataJ 0~/30108 i %of , Imerest [~ I ~ 2~.~ 131.007 40.82% ~u~ J Fe~~~ ~ ~0,~ 10,697 4.08~ 51000 Co.er $e~es J~ 12.000 ~ ' 5~ 23,~ 2.025 51010 i Co~u~Comm~ualSvcs J~ 53,000 j · ~ ~j2~ ffO, 2~ 16,014 193%: 51X~ E~i~efl~ - ~ml sv~ ~ ~ 500 - ~ ~ 0,01% 51020 E~i~er~o~Mt~*retai~f ~ ~ -~. 12,~0 g 0.00% 51030 Rem - Equi~m I~ ~ 1,67~ : 0.00% 51040 Rem-BuiMi~ J~~ 24,000 ~ J 32,~ 13,584 i0.56% 51060 aLegal-Co~eesl~ J~ 38.400 ~ 500 j ~,~ 9,804 61070 Meeti~ ~ 8.250 ~ I ff.~ 4.611 0.19~ ' 51080 Su~s ~~ 3,750 ~ [ I,~ ~r~ 4.874 0.~0~ 51090 Equi~umdure I~ ~ 5,000 ! J ~.~ 28,170 0.35~ 51~00 Bank Char~s I~ 75 J J ~ ~ 30 O.00~ smo P,~ I~ ~ I ~ ~.750 o.oo~ 61q20 ] Postage ~~ 3,750 ~ ~.~ 2.100 0.09~ 51130 , Te~ I~ 3,750 ~ ~ : i 5~ 4,963 0,09%  Re~/Maimenance I~ 3,750 ~ T ; ~.~ 0.09~ ~ll~ ~ fgOr~ ~ 1~020 ~ e2,~ ~ 2~320 115,702 53010 Fin Mgm- ~H I~ ~ 4.500 I { { ~.~ 5.951 0.10% 53020 FinMg~-~coumJ~Bk~ ~ 9,000 { { { f2.~ 29~995 0,21% 55010 Manger Per D~' ~~ 26,320 j ~ J 43,920 6,327 0.77% 55020 Mana~f ex~es' I~ 6~580; ~ . 10~9~ 914 0.19% ~11 ~:~ 32~9~ j - ~ - ~ ~,~7,241 0.96~ 57030 , ....... ~.. {~ 7,200 { , ~ ,,920 ~ ''.520 4.255 0.20% ~7040 ~ Pem ~~ ~,~07 ~ ~ ~ ~,026 ~ ~.4~ 4.92~ 0.27~ 57070 WC & UC I~ 510 { { - { Oe~ ~7 0.01% 57080 U~y~m Exp }~ ~~ J - ~~ 0.00% ~000 ~ ~t ~ ~) I~ ~ ' ~020 ~ L.~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~,~ 27.7. 0.0~ elo3o I Ot~r F~ { - { o.oo~ Q5040 Le~ I~ ~.500 { ' { - } 2~ ~2.000 0.45~ 7~0~0 Co~ula~/Commctu81 ~ ~ B ~2~ ~ 52~ 26,208 0,91% 71030 ~i~en~ <.ss d~coum~~ N ~ f 7~,~ ~ 745~ 280,522 13.03% 71040 Equi~u~s . ~i } 42r~ { 42,~ 1.656 0,74% 71050 Meeti~lSemna~ . . ~t~ ~ ~ - ~ 324 0.00% 71oeo Legal [~ ~ [ i 3o,~ { 30,~ 9,603 0.52% 181020 ~,~m ~u~,ion t~ { i ] o.oo~ .030 ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,32,~i ~=.~, 2...0 7.50~ ~10~ ~s~qui~m ~ I ~ ~ 42,~0 0.~% 107~ ~pl ~ ~ i ~ 20.8~1 0.00~ ~ MeeU~Se~ns~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 3.367 0.00% K~o Momo~ ~ ~ ~ t 96 o.oo~ ~1100 Pe~ ~u~dlon [~ { { { 1,460 0.00% ~1110 Re~JrlMai~efla~e ['~ ~ 13,480 ~ 114~ }. 127r~ 51,556 2.23% ~1010 { Meell~/Se~m ~~ S,O00 { 1,~ 1,000 i 27,~ { 35,~ 0.61~ { Donat~/G~/~ ~ { 10~ ~ ~0,7~ 0.19% }1020 ! Plimi~ ~ 2.~0 { 5~ 500 ~ 14,~ { f7,~ 5,112 0.31% { Posta~ ~ 1~000 { ~ 500 { 11~ { 1~ 0.24% ,030 { ~, c~=~m ~,~ ~ ~ 2,~ { .,=~ { ~,2~ ~,.2 ~.3~ }9000 {comi~e~ ~~ { ~ - { - { Reven~ ~ss ex~,ures ~~ (470,777}{ 4,~ (2,000)! (4..e,7~)i (5r233,471) -Gen Liah Mlnnehaha Creek Watershed District 1999 DRAFT Budget I I I to~l Per Diems' Fica WC&UC i I i Other - Clem=al eir/UiinleM ~ce i ~P°lxl Lo LakePon~s Pamela Park Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 1999 DRAFT Budget T~X 51010 .,30 T,~o~ i i ! I I I i ' 57020 ] 57080 61010 E,~,~en~ , 71000 71010 ~ Co~ula~/Comm~l 71~0 Equi~Su~ 81000 ~; Im~ 8~o~o 01030 P~m~ 500 500 500 ~ 500 ~ 500 500 500 500 500 99000 ~Co~;,~,~r li,,ehaha Creek ¥al, erslled Improving quality o/Water, quality of £i~b Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19. Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excetstor. MN 55331-9578 Phone (612) 471-0590 Fax !612) .47~-0682 Emait adm~n ','~ mmnehanacreek.org Wee S~!e www m~nnehahacreek.org Pamela G Bltxt James Calkms Lance F~sner Momca Gross Thomas W LaBounty Thomas Maple Jr Malcolm Re~d MEMORANDUM Date: 20 August, t998 To: From: Re: Board Members 1999 Bud=eto Following are some of the projects that are a possibility for next, or at least ones that I was made aware of. Mike has also put together a pro. jeer activity and cost report tbr the projects. TMs is something that we shouh.1 talk about Thursday night, as far as the projects that we would like tO see accomplished next year. Nokomis-Hiawatha SW Calhoun Ponds Six-Mile CreeWHalstead's Bay Painter Creek/Jennings Bay Painter Creek Maintenance Excelsior Lagoons Alum Treatm'enf Mound Regional Ponds Long Lake Regional Pond(s) Minnehaha Creek Hydraulic Model Wetland Mitigation of Twin Lakes Project Wetland Mitigation of Long Lake Project 60'" & 1~' Regional Pond 1999 Hydrological Data Program Mooney Lake Outlet Petition Pamela Park (Regional Pond) Regional Ponds Regional Wetland Restoration 'Fhc costs Ibr these are included in the budget. ,.vt need to figure out it' it is reasonable to keep them on or wait for another ,,..'ear. I look forv,'ard to your input. ~ oo~~ Estimated Costs The estimated costs to complete this work plan are summarized below: The estimated cost to complete the Phase ii investigations for the Jennings Bay Feasibility Study is $120,700 with $45,200 being spent in 1998 and $75,500 being spent in 1999. The costs for the scope of work described above are broken down by task below: Task Cost Subtotal 1998 :'Vlordtonng - Engineering ( 1 ) 1998 Monitoring - Laboratory (2) Review o£ Historical Data Identification of Concentrated Source 1998 1909 Morutonng - Engineering (I) 1999 Morutoring - Laboratory (2) Analysis and Report 1999 $7.200 59,900 $13oo' $26.800 S18.500 $25.200 531.800 545,Z00 575.500 Project Total S120,700 (3) Notes: Fees are for Wenck engineering and management. technician and equipment are supplied by MCWD and samples are shipped to laboratoo, by MCWD. Assumes 1998 Maxim Laboratory laboratorv a. naly'tical prices and laboratory seN'ices contracted and managed by MCWD staff: 1999 laboratory prices are based on a five percent mcre~e over 1998. Tl,,e estimated costs assume adherence to the project schedule and do not include alternative/£easibilit>, analysis, meetings, hcanngs or public communications bevond the >coped presentations to the Board. Assumes one trained field sampling Cost Estimate The est/mated cost to complete the Six Mile Creek Subwatershed investigation/Diagnostic Study as outlined in this work plan is $60,000 for phase l (1998) a_nd $72,000 for phase II (1999). The estimated costs provided below include the investigation and diagnostic report preparation as outlined in this work plan. The est/mated costs assume adherence to the project schedule and do not include alternative/feasibility analysis, meetings, hearings or public commumcations. ~'hase I (1998~ 1. Subwatershed delineations for investigation areas 2. Collection and evaluation of existing data 3. Data coltectlon (1) a. Lakes b. Strearr~ 4. Laboratory analysis a. Lakes (2) (3) b. Streams (2) (3) 5 Database analysis/diagnostics and lake response rrocehng 6. Project rT~nagement and coord;na~ion 7 Phase I report w~th recommendations and updated cost estimates for implerrentmg Phase II V',brk Ptan SS,O00 S5.000 Total $3.000 $10,000 513,000 $25.000 ~.000 S4.000 $60,000 Eb~ II (199_,93 1. Data collection (1) a. Lakes b. Streams 2. Laboratory analysis a. Lakes (4) $4,000 58.000 512,000 b. Streams (4) $45 000 3. ~ analysis/diagnostics and lake response rrodettng 56,000 4. PrOject management and coordination $9,000 5. Diagnostic report preparation Tot31 572.000 (1) A.ssumes trained fietd sampling techniciar~ and equiDrnent supphed by IV~C'V'~ and samr.'e~ shipped bo taboratcr'/ (2) Ooes not include cost for stations already being monitored under MCWO 1~c-~8 Mor, itonng Program. (3) A~.sumes 1998 Maim .Laboratory prices and laboratory ~rv;ces contra~ec and managed by MCWO staff. (~.) Assumes 5% ino,'ea.s8 in laboratory pnces from 1998 rates and aborator¢ serwces cor, tra~ed and managed by MCvMD st~ff. ~ect accords with this a2p_proach_~b, utilizing_ a wet detention ~ additional dry storage capacity to accommodate nearly a 100-year storm. Evaluation of Alternatives The Task Force examined six alternatives, all of which focused on wet, dry oX wet-dry detention ponds. The criteria applied in the analysis included each alternative's ability to: provide adequate stormwater storage and quality man--serve as an amenity for the surrounding, residential area.~ accommodate existing pedestrian and automobile patterns in the area; and provide an aesthetic buffer between the residential area and an ad~ commercial area. As noted above, the selected alternative is that which was recommended by the Task Force. Estimated Cost Construction costs Pond and u_p_2E~ station construction Engineering Total 667~000 1 ~945,000 Purchase 33 Homes U~graoe Storm Dram System Construct Pond wdh Amenmes Storm Dram Easements Des~§n Eng~neermg Construction Engmeermg E. 60th Str. and 1st Ave. S. Wet Detention Pond Feasibility Level Cost Estimate City of $ 4,690,000 $ S 2.285.000 S $ S t.278.000 $ 26,00O $ $ 228.000 S 128.000 g 1~ S 'o~ $ 74 ~ 1.000 S : .509,0,'];0 4,690,000 2,285.000 1,278.000 26.000 356.000 285 900 8,920 000 March, 200(I The choice of these five methods accords with the Commission's recommendations in its May 1998 report. Estimated Cost The estimated cost for, each of the five recommended treatment alternatives is listed below and includes the initial cost of engineering, permitting, construction, administration and legal support. Project maintenance will be budgeted and funded separately and are not included here. Wet Detention Basins Construction cost Engineering, pen'nits, legal, administrative Total SI,089,2~)0 3S 1,200 Grit Chambers Construction cost Engineering, pen'nits, legal, administrativc Total (')utlct Structure Modiiication Construction cost Engineering, permits, legal, administrative Total $ A I tnl'~ Treatment Materials and mobilization costs Engineering, permits, legal, administrativc Total R,mgh Fish Harvesting Fish screen: initial catch and removal l!nginecring, permits, legal, administnmx c l'otal $ 84,7(t{) 97.401) $ 1 2,nllll RECEIVED SEP _ 8 1998 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 26, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Members present: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Lili McMillan, Orono; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bob Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director. Members absent: Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. READING OF MINUTES- 8/12/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. MOTION: Foster moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the minutes of the 8/12/98 meeting as submitted. ¥OTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, McMillan); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 min.). There were no comments on the agenda from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. 1. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (8/15/98 - 8/31/98). Nelson reviewed thc audit of vouchers for payment, noting that check 12321 for the amount of $910.76 and 12319 for the amount of $20.00 need to be added. He stated check 12321 was added to pay for damage done to a dock by a harvester; however, the majority of it should be covered by insurance. MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted, adding checks 12319 and 12321. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. July financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the July financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. Lake Min~etonka Conservation District Reghlar Board Meeting August 26, 1998 Page 2 MOTION: Rascop moved, McMillan seconded to accept the financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. e VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION A. Continued discussion on potential office re-location. Babcock introduced the agenda item stating he believed all the tasks that need to be done have been completed since the 8/12/98 Board meeting. He noted revisions have been completed to the draft lease agreement and that he had met with the Freshwater Foundation regarding rent credits. He reported the Freshwater Foundation has agreed to reimburse the District approximately $17,000 for capital improvements made by the District, they have agreed to pay the District $20,000 to offset rent increases for the next five years, and that they have agreed to pay the District reasonable moving expenses. He concluded a target move-in date of 10/1/98 has been established and that the District will be paying the owner of the Deephaven Square Building half rent during the month of September until improvements at the space have been made and the District is occupying the space. Foster stated he believed if the improvements are completed in the two to three week time frame estimated by the contractor, the District might be able to occupy the space by mid September. Kitchak stated the District needs to allow sufficient time to ensure the office space is operational and to plan for the move. He suggested the two to three week time frame might not be reasonable if something that is not anticipated arises during the remodeling. He expressed a concern in paying rent for a space the District is not occupying. Foster stated if for some reason the space cannot be occupied by October 1 for something that is unanticipated, he stated he believed the District should not be obligated to pay the rent abatement as detailed in the draft lease agreement. The Board discussed this and directed Babcock to work with staff in clarifying this rent abatement condition. MOTION: Kitchak moved, Rascop seconded to authorize the Chair to enter into the lease agreement for office space at Deephaven Square Shopping Center, subject to working with LMCD counsel to clarifying subd. 28 that deals with rent abatement. LeFevere stated if this cannot be resolved with the owner, he stated other provisions in the lease including "quiet-enjoyment" and the right to a final walk-through should provide the District protection. He added with the landlord default clause included in the lease agreement, the District could make the improvements and charge them back to the owner. 'Lal~e Midnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 26, 1998 Page 3 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Update on Administrative Technician position. Nybeck stated he and the Board Officers interviewed the two final candidates for the vacant position. He noted it was the consensus of the Search Committee that Roger L. Winberg was best candidate for the position. He provided background on Winberg noting he has a B.A. degree in Criminal Justice and a M.A.P.A. in pUblic Administration. He noted in addition to his education, he has extensive public sector background with internships at Plymouth, Moundsview, Anoka, and Shoreview, with Administration experience at Young America and Centerville. He concluded that references were checked on Winberg and that he has agreed to accept the position at an annual salary of $27,000, with performance reviews after six and 12 months, and benefits consistent with the personnel policy. MOTION: Foster moved, Nelson seconded to enter into an employment agreement with Roger L. Winberg as Administraive Technician for the District at an annual salary of $27,000 effective 9/8/98, with performance reviews after six and 12 months, and benefits consistent with the Districts personnel policy. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. Gilman arrived at 8:08 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION- (Hawks v. LMCD pending litigation). MOTION: Ahrens moved, Gilman seconded to close the Board meeting at 8:10 p.m. and go into executive session to discuss pending litigation with Bil Hawks under the attorney/client privilege to the open meeting law. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to close the executive session and reconvene the Board meeting at 8:34 p.m. -- · Lake Mmnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 26, 1998 Page 4 e VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary I ECEiVED SEP - 8 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM, Wednesday, September 9, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES - 8~26~98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 9~2~98 Workshop/Planning Session PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. WATER STRUCTURES A) Hennepin County Environmental Services, Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for denial of new multiple dock license application to convert six transient slips to overnight storage slips; Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to dock lengths owned and operated exclusively by state, county, and local law agencies; C) Additional Business; LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to launching of with watercraft infested with zebra mussels; B) Review of 8~25~98 letter from Ravich, Meyer, Kirkman, McGrath, & Nauman; C) (*) Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; D) Additional Business; FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (9/1/98 - 9/15/98); B) Additional Business; g EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes from the 8/14/98 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting; B) 8/14/98 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting Report; C) Additional Business; 5. ADMINISTRATION A) Appointment of nominating committee for Board Officers; B) Additional Business; 6. SAVE THE LAKE 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT .,,~ Clark Oil Co., Inc. 6300 Carlson Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55346 (612) 934-2837 *'Call Bill for a Fill" (612) 934-2837 Fax (612) 934-9686 (800) 231-9200 "10 ':19'~cl "110 )t~1~-'1:3 ]"1I~ 9896'~E:$~;'1:9 6~; :II 866I/t:'0/60 a i ~ ,,l~ i ~, ii, ,, I ' Blvd.. where ~e Citi~ P~e ~h~-A ~u~da~, ~ ~, l~f~ station ~ow stands, Charle~ County Built Lo .t :. . Lake built a new ~ener~l Just east ot th~ s~re Fran~ Across Bartlett Blvd. iron- ~ese two b~l~ '~lac~ stood . ' ~ the.Casino, and ~ ' ' ""' ~ Th~' Tw~ city Rapid ~ansit was the large picnic'~ounds with the 'd~k~ ot the Chap~n (Fro~ ~ thesis by '~e [canal was never a re~l I company~ which had extended its fle~ on'~ water ~oat, On the ~ su~t~: ~aa b,~lt ~r0V~./~lJstr~t car tracks to Excelsior at wear aid& ol Commerce In March, 1906, a ~)etition wus ruarsh~E'~0~ aS ~t',,li~e~lthe tugn of the centu~, put a Bus~ Corners, where ~e Baptis~ ,eing circulated in Mound far and ~t, 3il~a..~en poop1· new fleet of six express b~ts ehu~h s~nds t~ay. George ha const~ction o[ a canal across started~:~:~nal, ft:flH~ on the lak~ in 1908. These boats Broeekert and ~ank Wetland had ',est Lake to connect the depot up wt~;..~a ~ost ot e~n- g~nerally called "yel~0w street- their meat markek. n Mound with Cooks bay. The .tinual ~&;,2m~mvem,ent~ of c~r'b°a~~. ~ause of their color. )e~Uoners argued that the canal roads, ~'~(~eana ol .l~d made/.e~ursion rugs to the ho- ~ouM benefit tourhts and lake travel ~{~:~b.be abandbned teI~ tK':~uhna on Cooks bay. :esl~en~ by removing the in- In a te~/~.~.'.. " .: Mb~nd: eesid~nts could take :onvenienee of taking a livery Today ~i~"~the loop or circle these ~'~ to Excelsior and from ~agon from the depot to the ...,,,... ' loe~ on C~ks bay and would' at the de~:e~d ~ the canal is th~..,,reach downtown ~ ~{b~.' .It ' a~ll~ ~one hour and 35 ~lnutes no longer?~ .It 'w~ mean ailo'a savings oi 15c in tn to pr0~ /cr ~ live~ c~a~a. ' dation a~d~ ~ ~area: o( the Some: f~r~ted parties felt ~new ~t ~ ~'. Built :~at.,Up~t ~ke residents would ,~;.~ad of ~ktng lake mu~dY..d[~/~J~:~'!~dmark"~t~{ ~a~.~.~eton stntlon, Other brings ~CMT'~e~orlea of B~.a ~te~~tles, lakeshore r~i- ~tury to a~me of Mound's~lder e~ ~ ~"~ ~= und, wanted better citizens. . . ~~ltE.~e.,new dp- In the mld-1880's roads entered ~~trlct,.:'especi~- Mound from Sprin& Park,. S~' were m~king boat deliveries di- ~f;in~'~e",'.~l B~nifa~s, and Maple PIg~;,.A]I[ Fact' to your d~k, in Mound. office ~ wBlc~ was forme~ly ~ree 'led .tO the inte~ec~io2 ail' The railroaa =+~,,~,-~ t~at~ at Busy Corners, ~i~ Co~e~ In'the ea~l~,190 a [ -rowth of a new ,~ere was some early oppose- a:,t~.,Wa~, exte~e~ ..W ~. .[but Busy Corne~ ,,a +~ ti~. from, some people who ~ rtown tram ~e W" ~' front ' ' . .,.., .... ;, .., .... ... = v.,,,. ~,~.! commercial life d~d not ~o~ght'..= ~essments might' be neu d~strlct an~ ~omer ,. a ~ ~cau ' u~' ._, ...... ~._ .. ,,..~/~,.;t se the trains brought more ~l ~.._t~.~., ~e~g~,.. '~"' ..'1 tourists, campers, and weekend [[~~L~,~e. township., wasl guesM than ~nd ever before Il ~iBi' ~re ~mone~ on ~oads riv~ In Mound. Ii~ ~R all o~er town purpose~ At the lake front there was ~1 aff~,~ch.'~ale was still respon~ still ~he Bartlett Place and Chap- I1~ for. two days of road labo[ 'mans Mound City ho~e o~ the levled against them to pay for ,ts cost of construction. Other )ppo~ition was heard from tho~e vho wanted a higher bridge )var tile carPI on Bartlett Blvd. o accommodate larger boats. After an investigation, the :ounty commissioners gave their 'onsent, and a 30-foot wide canal vas dug in a month's time at ~ost of $3,000. The canal W.a,s pened Oct. 5. 1906, when Fre~ lartlett Look his steaznboat. M0un(l", Through fol' the first rip. Scraper teams of horses and ~ules were used in.its constr~c-: .r,n to remove the mud ~'hich: ad been piled on the banks o! le canal by the {redge boat: The ;ams, working in the mud, :acted some sidewalk auperin- rodents. The stumps along the edge of '~e canal, which are almost vis- ~le today in'winter when they. re not hklden by rushes, are'the '-'mains O! wfllo, w trees that were' lanted...to' prevent the bank~ · om washing and caving ins fret the ~anal 'was dredged out l ~ 190O.'A new bridge, the pres-.[ nt nne~' with a clearance of 12" :et, w~i built over the canal on ,artle~"Bivd. ummer and one day of snow cling in winter, the roads so bad, that Ford's "Tin Liz- .lasted'~iofily six month ac- ~g. t0_irMirmetrlsta re,or, ds. ;th~ ti~ o['the ~nco~-Pora'~ bi Mound,' the automobile .nade fl~.general appearance :was successfully competing h the horse-drawn livery ~$.that had appeared only a few years earlier. Iii[fbi Mound area these new ho~lele~s carriages became't.h~ sub] .~t of a complete new line of joke. ~nd caused some citizens to eemlnd Controls, because their greii speed endangered lives and the[{~:'~ careless operators crowded hors'.~.drawn wagons off t h brld'~i., B¥",l~ll, most Of the tourtsta who came to Mound arrived by tratn. The large steamboats such as ~e ~.CIty and the . Belle55, had 10;aim re, laced by smaller ex= curston bOats,'rRost of which were ]ope~,~[_l/y the.Lake Minnetonka l~avf~Ll~.'. Co~npany. South of the me~t market and across the street from his large white house was located Elijah Bower's blacksmith shop. Nex! to it on Lake Langdon was the Sollie Brothers Store which :lo, ed in April, 1964, wher~ by street car. There was, also in'ward Sollle died. tho Mound area, local freight and ," Farther south the house that passenger boat service such a~tnow stands nex~ to the P'T" that offered by Fred Bartlett.[~'66,,stati~n wa b ..... rilll?.S S UlIt Dy Mouncl's .. At %he turn ot the centurY, II'st photographer, Charles Ut- 'companies in downtown Mtnne-]man, in about 1908, and was ap8lis, such as the Dayton corn- known aa the Sunset View hotel. party which today makes truck, deliveries direct to your door. ~EXT: T.h® Hew Uptown Distrh:t 1880's. but the famous Lake View house and the old Chapman house that had had a monopoly [~ the tburist trade on the lakes m an earlier era were now gone. :. Newer hotels such as the Hera House, Dewey House, and Cap- tain Hart's Buena VIaLs hotel at the water's edge. in the High- lands now appeared on the lake front. A new Chapman enter- prtse ~ a pavlllion called the Casino -- was built In 1~00 by Mrs. John Chapman for her son, Cecil. . Today the lake front establish- meat is known as the Surl'side. There were ~our large boat fleets on Cooks bay that were generally operated in connection with the hotel business. At each boat fleet dock was a confectionery stand, as there had been in the 1880's. l%lks of Mound who were. children dur- ing the early part o! this century still remember these stands, es- pecially the day after the tor- nado in 190,1 when their contents were scattered .about the area. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 To: From: Date: Re: Mayor, City Council and City Manager Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager September 1, 1998 August 1998, Monthly Report Last month was a volatile one. Things s~emed to be going down. There were terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa. Then there were counter attacks in the Sudan and Afghanistan. And lets not forget the demise of the stock market, dropping 1500 points in the course of a month all predicated on the devaluation of the Russian currency and the crisis in the far East. All in all pretty scary stuff. What does this have to do with the Mound liquor store? Well when things around the world were in a turmoil and going down, sales here.,~,n Mound Minnesota at the local offsale, were rising quite nicely. Gross sales for the month weg6 172,575.00. In August of 1997 sales were $167,644.00 and last year there was an extra Friday's day of business that we did not have this year! We here at the Mound liquor store are getting ready for the Fall season, which means more focus and attention on the wine department and less concentration on the beer department. It pretty much happens to be a natural shift due to the seasonal shifts in purchasing habits. But you have to be prepared to make that shift quickly as soon as Labor Day passes. ptinted on recycled paper