The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSeptember 17, 2009 - - C I T Y o F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Regular Park & Recreation Commission Meeting September 17, 2009 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Resident Forum 3. Approval of Minutes (7/16/09 and 8/20/09) 4. Consider Community Garden Plots in Park Areas, cont. 5. Review Request for CUPrr-Mobile USA/Prairie Knoll Park 6. Update of Sophie's Park 7. Update of 2010-2014 Parks Capital Improvement Plan 8. Outstanding Items 9. 10. Chair's Report 11. Adjournment 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Todd J. Haas, Assistant Public Works Director SUBJECT: 4. Consider Community Garden Plats in Parks Areas, cant. DATE: September 17,2009 INTRODUCTION This item is in regard to considering community garden plots in city park areas. DISCUSSION The City Council will be reviewing the recommendation from the Park Commission to move forward with the community garden plots at their next meeting of September 15, 2009. If the City Council does give the go ahead to move forward with the program, the city staff will start the research of parks and/or other city owned property as potential locations. Once the potential parks have been identified, they will be forwarded to the Commission for their review in either the October or November meeting. An update will be provided at the meeting by city staff. ACTION REQUESTED No action is necessary as this item is only an update of the City Council direction. Respectfully submitted, ~L~ --- C I T Y o F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Todd J. Haas, Assistant Public Works Director SUBJECT: 5. Review Request for CUPIT-Mobile USA/Prairie Knoll Park DATE: September 17, 2009 INTRODUCTION This item is in regards to reviewing a request for a Condition Use Permit (CUP) from T-Mobile USA to replace and utilize one of the existing athletic field lights at Prairie Knoll Park as a telecommunications antenna facility. DISCUSSION Attached for your review are the following items: . Three 11' x 17' drawings located on side pocket of packet (site plan, enlarged site plan, and antenna infol tower elevation). . A copy of an e-mail with questions that were raised by the city planning department regarding the T-Mobile cellular tower. T-Mobile responses are identified in heavy black lining at the end of each question to help you understand how the site will operate. . E-mail dated September 9, 2009 from James Linehan, resident of Andover, regarding concerns regarding health risks. Mr. Linehan has also provided to the city an article about Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation by Karen Rogers for your review. . 2nd e-mail dated September 14,2009 from James Linehan regarding additional information about possible health risks related to cell tower radiation. The article is included. . Information from the World Health Organizations regarding electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their bases. . A copy of the Plannin~ and Zoning Commission agenda item that was presented to them on September 8 . The item also includes a letter dated August 18, 2009 from Carlson and Harrington regarding background and project description. Note: Paul Harrington of Carlson & Harrington will be at the meeting to present the proposal and to answer any questions the Park Commission may have. ACTION REQUIRED The Park and Recreation Commission is requested for a CUP and recommend to the City Council either approval or denial to install a cellular phone antenna in Prairie Knoll Park. Respecttullr. ~ CC: Paul Harrington, Carlson and Harrington (copy of item sent bye-mail) Please see m esponses below in red. Feel free to follow up with an office the majo of tomorrow morning but, back in the afte Paul From: Angie P a [mailto:A.Perera@andoverm Sent: We day, September 02,20094:52 PM To: carlsonharrington.com ~ect: T Mobile CUP / Prairie Knoll Park - Andover Paul, I am writing the staff report for the CUP for the T Mobil cellular tower at Prairie Knoll Park. I have a few questions/comments for you. Please respond to the following, at your earliest convenience. My goal is to complete the staff report by the end of the work day on Thursday 9/3/09. 1. Will there be a generator? If so: Yes a. How often will it be used? (ex. Only as a back-up for power outages, include the duration of time it would be runningpnly as back-up in the event of power outage. We do not keep the generator on-site. It is only brought in when needed.] b. propane or natural gas'tas/Diesei) c. What is the decibel level of the noise I do not have a specific decibel level for the generator. tOur generators are the same as those used by residential users under the same circumstances (i.e. general power outage)) d. Any other equipment being proposed that you can provide decibel levels on would be great. [The equipment that stays on-site is about as loud as a household refrigerator) 2. What material is proposed to be used for the exterior of the proposed 10' x 12' building? What color scheme?[The building is prefabricated with a stucco exterior. The color scheme is able to be changed but, the standard is as shown in the attached photo.) 2 3. A building permit will be required for the monopole (for the footing) which can be submitted as a conditional of approval of the CUP. The Building Department will also most likely be looking for a plan set for the specifications of the proPo~d )ilding (a building permit would not be required for the actual building since it's under 120 square fee OK 4. I did not find documentation regarding the Federal Aviation Administration (Please refer to Chapter 9-12-9, 3.a. included below :typically, we submit the tower for FAA approval after we get zoning approvals. Most municipalities make It a condition of approval. The reason we do it this way is to save the expense in the event the tower is not approved by the municipality. I am hopeful we can do it that way.) 5. Due to the setback of the proposed tower being located closer than 100 ft. to adjacent property lines, you will need to provide additional documentation (Please refer to Chapter 9-12-8, B included be10wll believe our rationale would be, as I mentioned in my letter that accompanied the application, that we are trying to allow the pole to serve a dual purpose - telecommunication antenna structure and light standard. Based on that, the best location appeared to be our selected site. Although this location is less than 100' from the property line, it does capitalize on some extensive natural vegetation to the West which will screen the base of the tower form view and it allows the light standard to be re-mounted in the same location. I can certainly have our engineer provide the collapse letter ~ 6. The Public Hearing is scheduled for the 9/8/09 Planning Commission meeting. The Park Commission will be reviewing this item at their 9/17/09 meeting. If all goes well, staff will bring this item to the City Council for their review at their 9/15/09 meeting and provide an update on the Park Commissions comments in that staff report. Worst case scenario, if Planning Commission wanted to wait to get the Park Commission's comments before making a recommendation, they could table the item or continue the public hearing to their next Planning Commission meeting which would be 10/13/09 and then proceeding to the City Council meeting on 10/20/09l?9 7. What tZ5 of vehicles will be accessing the path for maintenance of equipment? (type and approximate weightf;UV 8. This path does not typically get plowed during the winter months, to my knowledge~fthe City (Parks Department) is open to it, we would provide that service at no charge to the City.) Chapter 9-12-9, 3.a. 3. Before the issuance of a building permit. the following information shall be submitted to the city: a. Proof that the proposed tower complies With regulations administered by the Federal Aviation Administration; and b. A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer that demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards. (Ord. 270. 12-5-2000) Chapter 9-12-8, B. 3 9~12~8: SETBACKS: Towers shall conform with each of the following minimum setback requirements: A. Towers shall meet the building setbacks of the underlying zoning district as stated in the zoning ordinance. B. Towers shall be set back from all stfIJctures and all property lines at a distance equal to the height of the tower (plus an additional 10 feet), unless a qualified professional structural engineer certifies in writrng that the collapse of the tower will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. C. A tower's setback may be reduced or Its location in relation to a public street varied, at the sole discretion of the City Council, to allow the I ntegration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light standard, power line structure or similar structure. D. Towers shall be placed a minimum of five hundred feet (500') from any existing residential dwelling unit and be spaced a minimum of one-half (112) mile from each other. (Ord. 270, 12-5-2000) Please call me with any questions and thank you for your prompt attention. Regards, , A~Le perertA Associate Planner City of Andover, MN 763.767.5146 a.oerera@andovermn.gov 4 Page 1 of 1 Todd Haas From: Linehan, James M. [James.Linehan@Donaldson.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 09,200912:28 PM To: Courtney Bednarz Cc: Mike Gamache; Julie Trude; Mike Knight; Sheri Bukkila; Angie Perera; Todd Haas; James Dickinson Subject: Health Effects From Cell Phone Tower Radiation http://www.scribd. com/doc/3773284/Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone- Tower-Radiation Courtney, I attended the meeting last night September 8,2009 regarding the T-MOBILE antenna. I did a search on health risks and found this site, I'm sure there are more sites on this topic. In reading just a few paragraphs I found, that these towers can emit radiation up to 2-1/2 miles and are essentially the same frequency radiation as microwave ovens. Another paragraph states that "Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other serious illnesses." A quote in one of the paragraphs goes on to say "Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. Also at risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women." In the last paragraph it says "Siting of cellular towers is an important function of our elected officials. Protection of citizens' health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibilities of local government. We urge our elected officials to protect the health and welfare of the citizens who live here, rather than big-money interests with profit as their bottom line." I don't believe that the representative from T-MOBILE was totally upfront about the total effects on the radiation being emitted from these cell phone towers. I urge you to look at the link I've attached and read this article. I really don't believe the residents of Andover and the people who utilize this park want this health risk in our beautiful city. Please feel free to contact me and we can discuss further. Home: 763-434-0162 Thank you for your time, Jim Linehan James:M. Linehan Senior Designer Donaldson Company Inc. P.O. BOX 1299 Minneapolis MN 55440-1299 USA Tel 952-887-3648 Fax 952-887-3608 E-MaillliDehan@donaldson.com 9/9/2009 Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation by Karen J. Rogers The safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that the electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health. The cell phone industry is expanding quickly, with over 100,000 cell phone towers now up across the U.S., which is expected to increase ten-fold over the next five years. The industry has set what they say are "safe levels" of radiation exposure, but there are a growing number of doctors, physicists, and health officials who strongly disagree, and foresee a public health crisis. Many towers have been built recently in Siskiyou Colorado, with dozens more planned, as telecommunications companies rush to corner markets in this fast-growing industry. These towers emit radio frequencies (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), for a distance of up to 2-1/2 miles. They are essentially the same frequency radiation as microwaves in a microwave oven. Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. [1] Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women. Doctors from the United Kingdom have issued warnings urging children under 16 not to use cell phones, to reduce their exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation. [2] Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. And, 33 delegate physicians from 7 countries have declared cell phone towers a "public health emergency". The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of setting the standards of exposure for the public, and claims that, based on scientific studies, the current levels are safe. But it is not a public health agency, and has been criticized as being "an arm of the industry". Many who work for the FCC are either past, present or future employees of the very industries they are supposed to regulate. With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, critics have stated "you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show". "Our federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, and the blood supply were "safe", but which were later found to be harmful. uYou can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show. 11 - Cathy Bergman-Veniza, at Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center Conference, 1996 The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts, Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland, at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 microwatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S. Standard. [3,4] Contrary to what the communications industry tells us, there is vast scientific, epidemiological and medical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and microwave radiation emitted from cell towers, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. [5, 6, 7, 8]. - -------~ ---------- Page 2 - Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. Scientists and advocacy groups say that the current FCC "safe" standards are based on 1985 research, and fail to consider more recent research that found brain cancer, memory impairment, DNA breakdown, and neurological problems with RF at much lower levels. The earlier studies considered only the "thermal", or heating effects of the radiation - in other words, the level at which the radiation would heat tissue, or "cook" a person, in the same exact manner that a microwave oven works. The FCC levels may ensure our tissues are not "cooked", but they fail to address long-term chronic exposure at low levels, or what is called "non-thermal" effects. Doctors say that RF radiation is wreaking havoc with normal biological cell functions. "RF alters tissue physiology"says Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who found genetic damage in a $28 million research program, paid for by the industry. He now fights to have safety levels lowered. [9] In 1998 the Vienna Resolution, signed by 16 of the world's leading bioelectromagnetic researchers, provided a consensus statement that there is scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposure are established. It says existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. No safe exposure level can be established at this time. The world's leading electromagnetic researchers say existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. - The Vienna Resolution, 1998 The Salzburg Resolution, adopted in 2000 at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than .1 mW/cm2 - 10,000 times more strict than the current U.S. standard. This limit takes into account the growing evidence for non-thermal RF bioeffects. [10] Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary, chronic, cumulative Radio Frequency Radiation. Low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the .01 to 100 mW/cm2 range at levels hundreds, indeed, thousands, of times lower than the U.S. standards. These harmful low levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location. Reported health problems include headache, sleep disorders, memory impairment, nosebleeds, an increase in seizures, blood brain barrier leakage problems, increased heart rates, lower sperm counts, and impaired nervous systems. [11] Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in history. There are no conclusive studies on the safety of such exposures, and the growing body of scientific evidence reports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable. Dr. Neil Cherry, Ph.D. biophysicist from New Zealand, reports that "There is no safe level of EMR radiation." He said the standards are based on thermal effects, but important non-thermal effects also take place, such as cell death and DNA breakdown. Dr. Cherry wrote a 120-page review of 188 scientific studies. "The electromagnetic radiation causes cells to change in a way that makes them cancer forming." It can increase the risk of cancer two to five times, he said. "To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence." "To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence." - Dr. Neil Cherry, biophysicist Public health officials caution that we err on the side of conservatism, given the massive public health risk that is possible. -~ Page 3 - Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation Other federal health agencies disagree that safe levels of exposure have been identified, much less built into the FCC standard. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not agree with the FCC standards, and analysts have recommended that EMR be classified as a "probable human carcinogen". [12] Deputy Director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Jacobsen, has stated that the safety of RF "has not been established nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it", and cites risk of brain cancer, tumors and DNA breakdown. The California Public Utility Commission has urged the cell phone industry to not locate towers near schools or hospitals. And the World Health Organization reports "many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF fields and excess risk of cancer. These studies do not provide enough information to allow a proper evaluation of human cancer risk from RF exposure because the results of these studies are inconsistent." uThe safety of RF has not been established, nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it." - Elizabeth Jacobsen, Deputy Director, US Department of Health "Our bodies are exquisitely sensitive to subtle electromagnetic harmonics, and we depend upon tiny electrical impulses to conduct complex life processes," says Dr. Robert Becker, author of The Body Electric, and Cross Currents, The Perils of Electropollution. [13, 14] He says "at the present the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of (these) electromagnetic fields." Radiation once considered safe, he says, is now correlated with increases in birth defects, depression, Alzheimer's disease, learning disabilities, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and cancer. The incidence of brain cancer is up 25% since 1973, and this year 185,000 Americans will be diagnosed with brain cancer. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and young adults. Yet, the United States has a de facto policy of "post sales surveillance" with respect to RF radiation. . Only after years of exposure, will there be studies to characterize the health consequences. Some adverse health effects show up immediately, but it can often take 3 to 10 years for the longer term effects of RF illness to appear, such as cancer. Many researchers, public health officials and citizens believe that consumers shouldn't be forced to act as guinea pigs in a bioeffects experiment for the next 20 years. In short, "we are the experiment", for health effects. Dr. Gerard Hyland, physicist, says existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate, since they focus only on the thermal effects of exposure. [15] Hyland, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, says existing safety guidelines "afford no protection" against the non- thermal influences. "Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests." uExisting safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate." - Dr. Gerard Hyland, Physicist - two-time nominee, Nobel Prize in Medicine The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to ensure passage of a law which essentially gives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods, and makes it next to impossible to oppose them based on health reasons. It is no coincidence that EPA funding was also cut in 1996 for electromagnetic radiation health studies. Citizens and communities across the country are angered, and are protesting this imposition of involuntary, 24-hour-a-day microwave exposure, without proven safety levels. As one citizen stated, "There's no place left to escape." Page 4 - Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to pass a law that took away citizen s rights to oppose cell towers based on health reasons. Also, once a cell tower is erected, it has proved very difficult to verify the radiation is within legal limits. There are no safety measures in place to ensure that the towers are not emitting higher radiation levels than legally allowed. One frustrated resident finally spent $7,000 purchasing his own equipment to test a cell phone tower near his home, and found it emitting radiation at levels 250% over the legal limit. [16] Property values have also been known to drop once a cell tower is erected, due to the perceived risk of negative health effects. Cellular phone frequencies have also seriously disrupted local emergency and law enforcement radio communications. Massachusetts lawyer Mark Berthiaume, opposing placement of a cell phone tower, said "Municipalities .... are being bullied every day by providers of wireless telephone service who use their financial clout and the federal (law) to intimidate the communities into allowing them to place large towers in inappropriate locations." [17] Some Questions and Answers But don't we need and depend on cell phones? Of course. No one is saying not to have cell phones and towers, but to make them safer. If Austria can have levels 10,000 times more protective, then so can we. It is just more expensive to the companies. Also, we don't have to let these cell towers go anywhere and everywhere the industry. wants them. We can require that they erect the minimum number required to provide adequate coverage, and be put in the safest places possible. Why don't we just oppose the construction of cell towers in our county? In a strategic move, the cell phone industry has tried to make it illegal for citizens to oppose the towers based on health concerns. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, state and local rights were seriously limited with regard to opposing towers based on health concerns. The constitutionality of this Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court, and a long legal battle is sure to follow. But it will take years, while the public continues to be exposed to chronic, cumulative radiation with each new cell tower. So what CAN we do? The Telecommunications Act prevents citizens from opposing the towers based on concerns about RF emissions, but we can oppose them on numerous other valid grounds. There are still rights we and our local elected officials maintain, that allow us local control of the number, size and placement of cell towers, while still providing for adequate cell phone coverage. Numerous communities have called for moratoriums on tower construction, allowing them needed time to study the issue, and enact strict ordinances that require the industry to respect community desires, such as building the minimum towers necessary, in appropriate locations. During these moratoriums, communities are preparing non-industry biased studies of cell phone tower need, and creating cell tower Master Plans, to help protect the rights and health of citizens, while complying with the law. [18, 19, 20] Siting of cellular towers is an important function of our elected officials. Protection of citizens' health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibilities of local government. We urge our elected officials to protect the health and welfare of the citizens who live here, rather than big-money interests with profit as their bottom line. Page 5 - Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation --- . . For further information, these websites offer a good starting point: .emrnetwork.org, www.microwavenews.com, www.ccwti.org, www.wave-guide.org, www.planwireless.com, www.rfsafe.com, www.Sageassociates.net @2002, Karen J. Rogers, B.S. Endnotes 1 Microwave and Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure, San Francisco Medicine, Vol. 74, No 3, March 2001 2 Mobiles Risk to children, Daily Mail (U.K.), May 11,2000 3 Radiofrequency Radiation Health Studies, Wireless Antenna Site Consumer Information Package, Sage Associates, Montecito, CA, 2000, www. sageassocciates.net 4 Tower concerns should be health, not aesthetics, Burlington Free Press, January 12, 2001 5 Selected and Extensive Bibliographies on Electromagnetic Fields and Health, Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service, compiled by: Richard W. Woodley, revised 1999, www.wave-guide.org/archives/bridlewood/biblio.html 6 Reported Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation, www.wave- g uide.org/I ibrary/studies. html 7 Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation, Sage Associates, 2000 at www.sageassociates.net/rfchartreportbio-sample.pdf , and Reference List for Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR), Sage Associates, August 2000, at www.sageassociates.net/Bibliography-sample.pdf 8 A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?, includes extensive reference to scientific papers and government documents citing adverse health effects from cell tower radiation, www.cyburban.com/-lplachta/safeweb2.htm 9 Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider's Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf, @2001 10 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, by Monica Kauppi, No Place to Hide, September 2000, Resolution presented June 2000 and signed by 19 of 23 speakers, including Dr. Carl Blackman of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 11 Ibid, endnote 5. 12 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, External Review Draft, No. EPA/600/6-90/005B, October 1990. 13 Becker, Robert 0., & Gary Seldon, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1985 14 Becker, Robert 0., Cross Currents: The Perils of Electropollution, The Promise of Electromedicine, Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 336 pp., 1990. 15 The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Gerard Hyland, presented to European Parliament's Industry, Trade, Research and Energy Committee, July 11, 2001. 16 FCC takes look at 'antenna farm', Denver Post, October 30,1998 17 Town May Order Company to Remove Cellular Tower, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, March 20, 2000 18 Cellular Tower Zoning, Siting, Leasing and Franchising: Federal Developments and Municipal Interests, by Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, Howlett Attorneys at Law, presented to International Municipal Lawyers Association, September 2001, 19 Plan Wireless Newsletter, Kreines & Kreines, Inc., at www.planwireless.com/index.htm 20 U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, SPRINT SPECTRUM v WILLOTH , (Corrected Opinion, August Term 1998) , Docket No. 98-7442, at http://Iaws.findlaw.com/2nd/987442v2.html http://www.mountshastaecology.org/17other01 cellphones.html ----------- Page 1 of 1 Todd Haas From: Linehan, James M. [James.Linehan@Donaldson.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 2:18 PM To: Courtney Bednarz Cc: Mike Gamache; Julie Trude; Mike Knight; Sheri Bukkila; Angie Perera; Todd Haas; James Dickinson Subject: Cell Tower Health Risks Courtney, I've attached a link http://www.emwatch.com/Cellmasts.htm to another site that talks about possible health risk related to cell tower radiation. I would encourage you, the city council members and the park board members to view this article. I believe it has some credible evidence within this article and care should be taken when considering a location for these towers. The location, Prairie Knoll Park, has seen extreme heavy use year round by the football association, hockey association, soccer association and by the lacrosse teams. All of which are form the ages of very young children to high school ageS. As you can see from the article these ages are the most affected by this dangerous radiation. Not to mention the continuous long term, exposure that the nearby residences will be subjected to. Another thing to consider is property values; I've lived in Andover since 1991 and have worked hard at maintaining my home and property only to have a cell tower positioned directly across the street. In one of the web sites I found it states "When folks are so concerned about money - what about the value of all the homes in close vicinity to the cell tower? If the cell tower is put up in your neighborhood, expect your home value to take a deep dive! Statistics show that home values in the immediate neighborhood of a cell tower decreased up to 40%/" In closing I found another quote "Unfortunately, health and safety questions are often dismissed by the very people we entrust to protect our community welfare - council members, planners and zoners - who have been told they cannot consider such questions (or don't care since they don't live in the neighborhood considered for erecting a new cell tower)" So I urge you to reconsider not using Prairie Knoll Park as the cell tower location, as I believe that Prairie Knoll Park is a poor choice for a cell tower location. Please feel free to contact me at anytime to further discuss this issue. Thank you for your time Jim Linehan James 9vt. Linelian Senior Designer Donaldson Company Inc. P.O. BOX 1299 Minneapolis MN 55440-1299 USA Tel 952-887-3648 Fax 952-887-3608 E-Mail James.linehan@donaldson.com 9/14/2009 Cell Tower Health Risks Page 1 of 5 Cell Tower Health Risks Now find out about: More cell tower radiation Cell Phone Radiation Cell T.pwer H~e.illth Risks Health Risk Assessments Wellsource, Health Risk Assessments A leading provider of HRA systems kOrrUtuter Ritdiation. I'1tli a Cell Tower Lease? Appliance/TV Radiatlpn Cell Towers are the base stations which control cell phor HQ.Y$e Wiring EMF communication. The generic term "cell site" can also be used Microwave Radiation to include all cell phone towers, antenna masts and other ba~ station forms. Each cell site services one or more "cells". Living near Power Lines Other sources of EMF Cell tower numbers have grown exponentially in recent year as service providers raced to improve their coverage. EMF Table EMF Survey Increased cell phone traffic also contributes to cell tow! density. When a cell becomes too busy, a frequent solution More EMY Websites to divide it into smaller cells, which then require more CE Useful EMF Articles sites. Privacy Policy In 2009 there were over 200,000 cell sites in the USA alon, and 50,000 in U.K. Ads by Google Cellular Home Antenna Cell tower radiation from chimneys? Cell Phone Cover Mobile Phone Batteries Cell sites may take the form of a mast or tower, but may al~ Best Cellular Phones be disguised, in some cases so they cannot be visual discerned at all. You might notice the camouflaged "trees", but perhaps nl the cell sites on top of buildings, looking m elongated loudspeaker boxes. Help a friend to learn You'd almost certainly miss the cell sites installed insic about EMF health dangers click here chimneys and church steeples, even flagpoles. Suggest improvements to this website, click here Where a base station is installed on top of a buildin where people live or work, those occupants may Il quite unaware that they are in very close proximity 1 equipment wh ich produces substanti, electromagnetic radiation. Cell tower health dangers http://www.emwatch.com/Cellmasts.htm 9/15/2009 Cell Tower Health Risks Page 2 of 5 Cellular phone industry spokespersons continue to assert th, cell phone towers pose no health risk. Almost all scientists this field would disagree, at the very least claiming that r such assurance can be given. There is strong evidence that electromagnetic radiatiCl from cell phone towers is damaging to human (an animal) health. A study into the effects of a cell tower on a herd of dairy catt was conducted by the Bavarian state government in Germar and published in 1998. The erection of the tower cause adverse health effects resulting in a measurable drop in mi yield. Relocating the cattle restored the milk yield. Movir them back to the original pasture recreated the problem. A human study (Kempten West) in 2007 measured bloc levels of seratonin and melatonin (important hormonE involved in brain messaging, mood, sleep regulation ar immune system function) both before, and five months afte the activation of a new cell site. Twenty-five participants lived within 300 metres of the sit, Substantial unfavourable changes occurred with respect 1 both hormones, in almost all participants. Over 100 scientists and physicians at Boston an Harvard Universities Schools of Public Health ha\l called cell phone towers a radiation hazard. Cell phone towers cancer risk A study performed by doctors from the German city of Nai monitored 1000 residents who had lived in an area arour two cell phone towers for 10 years. During the last 5 years I the study they found that those living within 400 meters I either tower had a newly-diagnosed cancer rate three timE higher than those who lived further away. Breast canCl topped the list, but cancers of the prostate, pancreas, bowe skin melanoma, lung and blood cancer were all increased. Another study by researchers at Tel Aviv university compare 622 residents who lived within 350 meters of a cell phor tower with 1222 control patients who lived further away. The found 8 cancer cases in the group affected by the cell towe compared with only 2 cases amongst the controls. Very few studies have specifically concentrated Cl cancer risk from cell phone towers. This lack of studiE is in itself a cause for concern, especially sine anecdotal evidence is plentiful. For example, in a case known as "Towers of Doom", two CE http://www.emwatch.com/Cellmasts.htm 9/15/2009 Cell Tower Health Risks Page 3 of5 masts were installed (in 1994) on a five story apartmel building in London. Residents complained of many heal1 problems in the following years. Seven of them wel diagnosed with cancer. The cancer rate of the top flol residents (closest to the tower) was 10 times the nation average. We agree that more research is needed, but it may ~ slow in coming. Those who might fund major studiE are the very same organisations who would ~ disadvantaged if a definite link between cell towers an cancer were established. In the meantime, it is reasonable to apply the precautional principle. If cell towers are causing cancer, we would expect th, several years of exposure (with only minor effects on people health) might be required, followed by an unexpectedly hi~ occurrence of the disease amongst the exposed population. The damage from radiation exposure accumulates over mar years, but the breakdown in health happens only after c body defences and repair mechanisms have been exhausted. At an international health conference, 33 delegatE from seven countries declared cell phone towers public health emergency. Cell phone tower radiation limits The current US standard for cell site radiation in the US 580-1000 microwatts per square centimetre. Many other countries have set levels hundreds of timE lower. The reason for the disparity is that no one really knows wh; level of cell tower radiation is safe. Current limits have been influenced more by econom and political imperatives than by research into healt a nd safety. More important than the intensity of electromagnetic radiatic emitted at the tower is the strength of the resulting E~ wherever people live and work. This depends on the intensi1 at the source - and one's distance from it. Cell towers safe distance Different cell sites emit different amounts of radiation. http://www.emwatch.com/Cellmasts.htm 9/15/2009 Cell Tower Health Risks Page 4 of5 Radiation levels from a single cell site vary, depending c usage. Even maintenance issues can affect how muc radiation a cell site is currently producing. Radiation around a single cell tower may not be uniform there can be hot and cold spots. Measurement with a suitable meter is the only way to kno how much radiation you are receiving at a particular spot. But it seems that 400 metres is a safe distance for mo people, and smaller distances may also be safe in some case: Cell tower health effects Individuals differ in their response to similar levels of Erv radiation. For some people, short term effects from cell tow. radiation exposure may include headaches, sleE disorders, poor memory, mental excitation, confusiol anxiety, depression, appetite disturbance an listlessness. This list is not intended as a diagnostic aid, as each sympto here can have many causes. But if you and your family do not experience any of the~ symptoms you are probably not being overwhelmed by CE tower radiation. Cell tower safety - personal action plan If you are still concerned, try to obtain the use of a gaw meter designed for measuring electromagnetic radiation in tt cell phone frequency (microwave) range. If you detect mOl than .01 kilovolts per metre you may want to plan a jCl change or house move. Otherwise, establish how far away you are from the neare cell site. If that distance exceeds 400 metres you are probab not being harmed - although high risk groups may need to t more cautious. See our page Who is at Risk? When you next change your job or your house, find out ho far away you are going to be from the nearest cell site, and II that influence your decision. Do the same when you decic where to send your child to school. If you have reason to be concerned about your exposure 1 cell tower radiation - but there is nothing you can do about yet - then concentrate on reducing EMFs from other source For suggestions see our page EMF Protection. http://www.emwatch.comlCellmasts.htm 9/15/2009 Cell Tower Health Risks Page 5 of 5 Cell tower safety is a public concern In the long term, we need to find ways of providing CE phone convenience without exposing people to th existing dangers of cell tower radiation. A similar approach to that suggested in our page Living Nee Power Lines could be adopted. Communications Capital CCG along with RBSGC, provides funding for cellular leases. ..rove Cell Phone Signal .:)/!f Adeby~ .. . ..._.,",._.~.. . .~...___________..__4..._..........",..".,.... ._.._...._....,...... ...~. .......m....< Top EMF Pollution EMF Explanation Health Effects Who is at risk? EMF Pre EMF Table Cell phone EMF Cell Tower EMF Computer EMF MicrowavE Disclaimer: This material has been provided for information only. It is not sufficient t any medical condition. If you have a medical condition, please consult your healthcare I Copyright 2008, 2009 @ EMwatch.com Cell Tower Health Risks http://www.emwatch.com/Cellmasts.htm 9/15/2009 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations Page 1 of3 @ All WHO 0 This site only I Home Media centre About WHO WHO> Proqrammes and proiects > Media centre> Fact sheets Countries @ print9ble version Health topics Fact sheet N0193 Publications Revised June 2000 Data and statistics Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and Programmes and projects their base stations Media centre Mobile telephones, sometimes called cellular phones or handies, are now an integral part of modern News telecommunications. In some parts of the world, they are the most reliable or only phones available. In others, mobile phones are very popular because they allow people to maintain continuous Events communication without hampering freedom of movement. Fact sheets This fact sheet has been updated in the light of recent reviews of the effects on human beings of Multimedia exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in November Contacts 1999, the Royal Society of Canada (1999), and a review on mobile phones and health by an expert committee in the United Kingdom (IEGMP 2000). USE OF MOBILE PHONES In many countries, over half the population already use mobile phones and the market is still growing rapidly. The industry predicts that there will be as many as 1.6 billion mobile phone subscribers worldwide in the year 2005. Because of this, increasing numbers of mobile base stations have had to be installed. Base stations are low-powered radio antennae that communicate with users' handsets. In early 2000 there were about 20,000 base stations in operation the United Kingdom and about 82,000 cell sites in the United States, with each cell site holding one or more base stations. CONCERNS FOR HEALTH Given the immense numbers of users of mobile phones, even small adverse effects on health could have major public health implications. This fact sheet addresses these concerns. Several important considerations must be kept in mind when evaluating pOSSible health effects of RF fields. One is the frequency of operation. Current mobile phone systems operate at frequencies between 800 and 1800 MHz. It is important not to confuse such RF fields with ionizing radiation, such as X-rays or gamma rays. Unlike ionizing radiation, RF fields cannot cause ionization or radioactivity in the body. Because of this, RF fields are called non-ionizing. EXPOSURE LEVELS Mobile phone handsets and base stations present quite different exposure situations. RF exposure to a user of a mobile phone is far higher than to a person living near a cellular base station. However, apart from infrequent signals used to maintain links with nearby base stations, the handset transmits RF energy only while a call is being made, whereas base stations are continuously transmitting signals. Handsets: Mobile phone handsets are low-powered RF transmitters, emitting maximum powers in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 watts. Other types of hand held transmitter, such as "walkie talkies", may emit 10 watts or more. The RF field strength (and hence RF exposure to a user) falls off rapidly with distance from the handset. Therefore, the RF exposure to a user of a mobile phone located 10s of centimetres from the head (using a "hands free" appliance) is far lower than to a user who places the headset against the head. RF exposures to nearby people are very low. Base stations: Base stations transmit power levels from a few watts to 100 watts or more, depending on the size of the region or "cell" that they are designed to service. Base station antennae are typically about 20-30 em in width and a metre in length, mounted on buildings or towers at a height of from 15 to 50 metres above ground. These antennae emit RF beams that are typically very narrow in the vertical direction but quite broad in the horizontal direction. Because of the narrow vertical spread of the beam, the RF field intensity at the ground directly below the antenna is low. The RF field intensity increases slightly as one moves away from the base station and then decreases at greater distances from the :::In''~nn:::r. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/ 9/11/2009 -- ---- - WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations Page 2 of3 Other RF sources in the community: Paging and other communications antennae such as those used by fire, police and emergency services, operate at similar power levels as cellular base stations, and often at a similar frequency. In many urban areas television and radio broadcast antennae commonly transmit higher RF levels than do mobile base stations. HEALTH EFFECTS RF fields penetrate exposed tissues to depths that depend on the frequency - up to a centimetre at the frequencies used by mobile phones. RF energy is absorbed in the body and produces heat, but the body's normal thermoregulatory processes carry this heat away. All established health effects of RF exposure are clearly related to heating. While RF energy can interact with body tissues at levels too low to cause any significant heating, no study has shown adverse health effects at exposure levels below international guideline limits. Most studies have examined the results of short-term, whole body exposure to RF fields at levels far higher than those normally associated with wireless communications. With the advent of such devices as walkie-talkies and mobile phones, it has become apparent that few studies address the consequences of localised exposures to RF fields to the head. WHO has identified research needs to make better health risk assessment and promoted the research to funding agencies. Briefly, at present time this research indicates: . Cancer: Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers. Several studies of animals exposed to RF fields similar to those emitted by mobile phones found no evidence that RF causes or promotes brain cancer. While one 1997 study found that RF fields increased the rate at which genetically engineered mice developed lymphoma, the health implications of this result is unclear. Several studies are underway to confirm this finding and determine any relevance of these results to cancer in human beings. Three recent epidemiological studies found no convincing evidence of increase in risk of cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones. . Other health risks: Scientists have reported other effects of using mobile phones including changes in brain activity, reaction times, and sleep patterns. These effects are small and have no apparent health significance. More studies are in progress to try to confirm these findings. . Driving: Research has clearly shown an increased risk of traffic accidents when mobile phones (either handheld or with a "hands-free" kit) are used while driving. . Electromagnetic interference: When mobile phones are used close to some medical devices (including pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, and certain hearing aids) there is the possibility of causing interference. There is also the potential of interference between mobile phones and aircraft electronics. EMF GUIDELINES International guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are based on a careful analysis of all scientific literature (both thermal and non-thermal effects) and offer protection against all identified hazards of RF energy with large safety margins. Both measurements and calculations show that RF signal levels in areas of public access from base stations are far below international guidelines, typically by a factor of 100 or more. RF exposure levels to a user from mobile handsets are considerably larger but below international guidelines. WHAT WHO IS DOING In response to public concerns, WHO established the International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF. Specific studies have been identified to address the problem of localised exposure. The project has established a formal mechanism for reviewing the research results and conducting risk assessments of RF exposure. It is also developing public information materials, and bringing together standards groups worldwide in an attempt to harmonise international exposure standards. WHO is also conducting RF research. A large epidemiology study is being co-ordinated in over 10 countries by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARe) -- a specialised cancer research agency of WHO -- to identify if there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers. The study is anticipated to be completed in 2003. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/ 9/11/2009 -- - -- WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile telephones and their base stations Page 3 of3 . Strict adherence to health-based guidelines: International guidelines have been developed to protect everyone in the population: mobile phone users, those who work near or live around base stations, as well as people who do not use mobile phones. . Precautionary measures - Government: If regulatory authorities have adopted health-based guidelines but, because of public concerns, would like to introduce additional precautionary measures to reduce exposure to RF fields, they should not undermine the science base of the guidelines by incorporating arbitrary additional safety factors into the exposure limits. Precautionary measures should be introduced as a separate policy that encourages, through voluntary means, the reduction of RF fields by equipment manufacturers and the public. Details of such measures are given in a separate WHO Background document. - Individuals: Present scientific information does not indicate the need for any special precautions for use of mobile phones. If individuals are concerned, they might choose to limit their own or their children's' RF exposure by limiting the length of calls, or using "hands-free" devices to keep mobile phones away from the head and body. . Obey local restrictions on mobile phone use to avoid EMF interference: Mobile phones may interfere with certain electromedical devices, such as cardiac pacemakers and hearing aids. In hospital intensive care departments mobile phone use can be a danger to patients and should not be used in these areas. Similarly mobile phones should not be used in aircraft as they may interfere with its navigation systems. . Driving safety: In moving vehicles there is a well established increase in the risk of traffic accidents while the driver is using a mobile phone, either a conventional handset or one fitted with a "hands free" device. Motorists should be strongly discouraged from using mobile phones while driving. . Simple protective measures: Fences or barriers or other protective measures are needed for some base stations (principally, those located on building rooftops) to preclude unauthorised access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded. . RF absorbing devices: Scientific evidence does not indicate any need for RF-absorbing covers or other "absorbing devices" on mobile phones. They cannot be justified on health grounds and the effectiveness of many such devices in reducing RF exposure is unproven. . Consultations with the community in siting base stations: Base station sites must offer good signal coverage and be accessible for maintenance. While RF field levels around base stations are not considered a health risk, siting decisions should take into account aesthetics and public sensibilities. Siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds may need special consideration. Open communication and discussion between the mobile phone operator, local council and.the public during the planning stages for a new antenna can help create public understanding and greater acceptance of a new facility. . Providing information: An effective system of health information and communications among scientists, governments, industry and the public is needed to raise the level of general understanding about mobile phone technology and reduce any mistrust and fears, both real and perceived. This information should be accurate, and at the same time be appropriate in its level of discussion and understandable to the intended audience. FURTHER READING IEGMP (2000) Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones and Health, National Radiological Protection Board (UK) 2000. Royal Society of Canada (1999). A review of the potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunications devices. Expert panel report prepared by the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada. Ottawa, Royal Society of Canada, RSC.EPR 99-1. RELATED LINKS - The International Electromagnetic Fields Project - Electromaanetic fields - Independent EXDert Group on Mobile Phones For more information contact: WHO Media centre Telephone: +41 22 791 2222 E-mail: mediainouiries@lwho.int http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/enl 9/11/2009 ~- C I T Y o F 1685 CROSSTOWN BOUlEVA~~~~' MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-~ \.~~ FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MNUS. ,_ ~ TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners ~\ It \ ~ ~ ,~. If" ~ · · FROM: Angie Perera, Associate Planner f\Y\\.f) '" ItfI tl"""'~ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (09-08) to allow a telecommunications antenna within Prairie Knoll Park. DATE: September 8, 2009 INTRODUCTION T-Mobile has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a cellular phone antenna in Prairie Knoll Park at the location of one of the existing light poles west of the ball field. City Code 9-12 provides the specific requirements for antennas and towers. DISCUSSION Antenna & Building The proposal is to remove and replace an existing, 80 ft/ taIllight pole located on the west side of the ball field with one monopole structure that will be 100 ft. tall and include a cellular antenna for T -Mobile and lighting for the field. The new antenna will require equipment that is proposed to be located on the ground in a 12 foot by 10 foot building next to the base of the monopole. A color photo is attached with this report that provides a visual example of a standard brown, pre-fabricated building with stucco exterior similar to what is being proposed for Prairie Knoll Park. The applicant has indicated that the color scheme is able to be changed. The applicant has not proposed any additional landscaping at this time and is utilizing the existing pine trees in the park as a visual buffer for the antenna and building, which meets the screening requirements of City Code 12-13-5. The Engineering & Public Works Department have recommended that the exterior color for the proposed building and shingles should either match or be similar to the existing warming house building locatedinthe park. A color photo of the warming house has also been attached-for reference. A building permit will be required with a detailed plan set from the Architect including the specifications of the footing foundation for the monopole. This has also been included as a condition of approval recommended by the Building Department. The enclosed site drawing, photographs and letter from the applicant provide additional information about the proposed installation. Review Criteria 12-14-6 B. provides the following criteria for granting conditional use permits: 1. In granting a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and: a. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals ------------ and general welfare of occupants of sun-ounding lands. b. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land. c. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the sun-ounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. Setback Per City Code 9-12-8 B, the antenna is required to have a setback of 110 ft. :from all structures and property lines unless a qualified professional structural engineer certifies in writing that the collapse of the tower will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The applicant is required to submit this documentation to the City as a condition of approval since the proposal does not meet the setback requirement. In addition, City Code 9-12-8 C. states that a tower's setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street or neighboring property varied, at the sole discretion of the City Council. The Council's decision must be based on legitimate findings such as, but not limited to: a. Aesthetic concerns b. Safety concerns c. City staff review Collocation & Height City Code 9-12-4 B. requires that towers and antennas shall not exceed 120 ft. in residentially zoned districts. Prairie Knoll Park is located within the R-1 (Single Family-Rural district). The height of the monopole proposed is 100 ft. and meets the height requirement. The City Code requires that a tower of 100 feet or more in height shall accommodate at least three (3) additional users. The proposal does not meet the collocation requirement. The applicant has tried to maintain the integrity of the character and scaling of the park and has therefore not proposed collocation. As designed, the monopole will not allow for optimal collocation for future users due to the limited space remaining and height proposed on the plan set. The monopole is however, dual-purpose in that it maintains the same number of pole structures within the park by providing lighting and also utilizing the same location of the existing light pole as proposed. The Planning Commission is asked to consider the following two options: 1) Accept ~ the proPQsedJOO ft'n height nof the monopole and lighting ~ and recommend a ~ variance :from the collocation requirements in attempts to maintain the character and scaling of the park. 2) Require the applicant to revise the plan set and extend the height of the monopole so that it allows optimal opportunity for three (3) additional users. The height of the monopole could be extended up to 120 ft. per City Code. Location & Setback Consideration The selection of the proposed location was determined by several factors: . The coverage area desired by T-Mobile. . Utilize existing landscape as a buffer for visual screening . A voiding conflicts with the use of the ball field complex. . Providing an area that would be accessible to T-Mobile's vehicles while utilizing the existing bituminous path. . Maintain the scale and character of the park by using the same location for the existing light pole while serving a dual-purpose. Access & Proposed Easement A paved access is required to allow service and maintenance to be performed. The applicant is proposing to use the existing bituminous path located on the west side of the ball field, for access to the equipment and antenna. The applicant is aware that this path is not typically cleared of snow throughout the winter months and would need to make their own arrangements to clear the path for access to the equipment. The applicant has indicated that SUV vehicles would be accessing the path. The license agreement with the applicant will provide details for access and maintenance. These items have been included in the attached resolution for your review. Equipment The equipment will be enclosed within the proposed building. A diesel gas, back-up generator will be used only in the event of a power outage and brought to the site only when needed. The generator would be a similar to those used for residential purposes. The applicant has indicated that the sound level anticipated being produced will be similar to that of a household refrigerator. Ballfield Lighting A condition of approval requires the applicant to ensure that the ballfield lighting is replaced to meet the lighting requirements for this type of ballfield. Grading Some minor adjustments will be needed to ensure adequate drainage away from the ground mounted equipment and to prevent unintended impacts on the surrounding area. The applicant has indicated that the elevation of the proposed building will be approximately the same as the path. Directional boring will be done at the tower and at the building so restoration needed will be minimal. Park Commission Review The Park Commission will be reviewing the proposal on September 17, 2009. Their comments will be included and brought to the City Council. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on the conditiQnaluse permit request.m ------~ .mitted' Attachments Resolution Location Map Site Drawings Applicants Letter Photos: Aerial of Site, Prairie Knoll Park (3), Example of building & monopole/lighting (2) Cc: Paul Harrington, representative for T-Mobile, Carlson & Harrington Inc.,1683 Chatham Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55112 ----------- CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. WHEREAS, T-MOBILE has requested a conditional use permit to install a telecommunication antenna on the subject property, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing pursuant to the requirements of City Code 12-14-8, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and general welfare ofthe City of Andover, and; . WHEREAS. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the .* Conditional Use Permit with approval of a variance from the setback and collocation requirements of City Code 9-12, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves the Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunication antenna, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall execute a license agreement with the City of Andover prior to commencing construction on the site. 2) The applicant shall be responsible to replace the lighting array to conform with ballfield lighting standards to an equal or better standard than presently exists. 3) The applicant shall be required to relocate the existing irrigation system as necess to provide coverage of the area surrounding the proposed improvement . ~ if SclCl 4) The applicant shall be required to restore any disturbed earth and see as nece 5) The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. 6) The applicant shall provide documentation from a structural engineer regarding the setback requirement as it pertains to the circumstances in event of a collapse as outlined in City Code 9-12-8, B. 7) The applicant shall submit a revised plan set without the 20 ft. access and utility easement and design the antenna and building according to the revised plan set. 8) The exterior color for the building and shingles should also either match or be similar to the warming house building located at Prairie Knoll Park. 9) The applicant shall submit a building permit to the Building Department with a detailed set of plans from the Architect including the specifications of the footing foundation for the monopole. 10) The applicant shall be responsible for full maintenance and costs associated for the section of the path from 146th Lane to the proposed tower and building area including but not limited to snow plowing. 5 ~---- ~NDbVE~ Conditional Use Permit Incorporated Telecommunications Antenna 1974 L ""I"' ~-'///~&iJl ~/Jml"I~- -11'I'Ji-,-'-m~a;;;'~] .- Jt -- ------ 12 -' ~1":U.',,"l-__ - --- ,." I / /~/ >>e':;' / / ---"''' "';;~IJI~':I. ~ ., ... I. ,WI .' _ I~ .....::W~.~......__.\F- //......", _' ~ -- - ~~ ~1.!1;.1~5iii7 l!o101 ffi ~i!,~,>;;--j~lJl'.'I~.];1N\%~f/i\_/!i'S~~/);;;, /';.::) ,.. -,;;;,'~' --------;~1~!;' .~'i}i,.;; - ---------I~ I~" ,~'l~,~- 5!E_ =-.. -j~'\'i!~uii~;ii,';;,:{~ <~~. -.....\ ___ --.:. ISoUl"1 :::: 'SUI, 42 "!,ss. I$!JI __ ~t#! \1 r-j~'ii~);;;t.1l~+~I.? ~""'~~~~ ~~~~~'<S'l" · r ,~{~ i ., ~"I~l~~l ~,~ :~~ ,.n ,- j~r,i,;~~mJ;l~~ {:j~~-"'!Ji"'l[ffi>};~~~./ ,- :",.{;;; ____I~~: Ik'Ell~;;;~~~~' ;.~, '-)'-:; <!"'i,~.tt'J"^i,,;;~~l ~~.~~'i".j::,,;;;-, ",",fJ""" -'\;-- -:i --1- - l-- - -1 I "'ri '[~il;J:iIIJ~iJ} 1 --- --- ~- T-Tl--- ----Ll "'~'1if,:/':r~~\'~;~~~*:i'~(7 ,$-"7.,~",'. ":,_J.'.' _, ., --- - -- - - ~, ....', '...~, w / ,- ~~<~'."t!:->#-',*';:-a'~'Jfl.f.~', ":~(~\'~ ; ,:::':-';:"UH c- _ _____ _ ___ ".~ ,>J. =--::...... -~---- ~i~~'~1.~~~~~~,,~~t.~~' ,..~~~'it.~~"it~~ ::;:; /., /.. ..~gl '"'' "-.... ~ ;~"/ ~~..,/ " .';,''''~''JY...~... ~~),e~:Jil<\~t>'I''i~'' ~A\i"'" ;) -------- - .... 'i "'" _ TI>, ""'.~~'~.;'lo..V- '<<~;.~/ ~,/~~., '1'; - - -- - -- ~ " \1\ / "'-l __ , ~~~)) :4.~~~ q. \\7~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~_ mllO 1\ 15357 is {~~ ~~/ .P ~-=:r:- ~.'~' ",<. ') ""'< '" ,- '!-; - -- -------j / / 9rl. ~ . ~~~),. yy/ "\/4.~'\~~'I;;hl;~~~i""" ------------ ,= /... /.. '\ ... \, li1;_"......... '_/>.~~~m-~1~.: ~::"'I~ ,_ I ------_ ,./" // 4>"/ ~ ------.- l.l'j,@L7-::: -':C~'~J.;,):lI'FI~r.,m~~W[!JIJ~ -- --- - -- ------ -, ____:"2'-__ ___ __ ____ _n__ ,:.:. __~:__/ ___,.~____::,,_ __. -:::.:~~~~,'J}~" / ,,'(\i'$~ ,,",,<; ,-/ ;/"II~'~{ ~~ r~~ -'.< .'f\1.~"'oJ:;If/Jf' ..'J*'.,' ~,/ . '~~ ~'<i:")~.I'$' .'k- ~,~"X;.+. ,<7 ... " ~* ,.,,,,~~'!f&~,, ~~~ ~J.... ",..~ ~: ',~~~i>:;.."I:~~; ~I!""~ ------ '---- - -----------, -~---]l---I--- 1- --rr- I- ~~~- ~~13 i 'I~ r:7;~:' ';, _ all 215 . ,.1 101 " a ~ &~". ';~Ciili B -1-"!' E - "'" I~ I :~:;~ ~~~, ;'E ~~ ~11:~1~/~ ___ --:-~ -==150 - _ - _ _ ~ -i m\~" 91'~rn.~" ~l:l~n] .m ~l = ~. '" ,- ~ :~~ ~,~~a,= ___------ __ - '- -=-,..g- , ~:'''''' 1.\1." ... -/ - ----- ;~~ ~,~'.:~:~~.::~~- ~-------- -- ~ ---:--J- .1--= [-~- ml-:T:: -- ---::-- --.:=~~1:'::-~ -:~ :~, ~i~_ -::-- J J~T~~/ --:. , ~ ----- --- -- 1 IIi _~J_::J__ -----__ __ _ __ _ ___ 'ffi ~J.~Iill[ ~~ / --:/ .... '-I-J- f" -- - - - ~ - ,- "lih l~(~~. //,,/ _____ - - ~" ,." . - ~~-:.......- IMn.""~' r.~' , -- T ---- --", , ,ca t.l1R -:'\"'~i \,.~ -' $' lli 329 lC1Ol1 -___ ~~~ "'S-:l""""" ", T, ,.no ,m, "150 :; .-!!~'i~-~OU'Mr'"", #/~7-- _____ ~ -~~- --,:- 1m: ~ U7U "I" _ "'" ,./'- ~ ..- W'I!T~~~;~'liTala1\\{\rrili ".. ,,,. ... >\ . /. -- . .-' '.:--- ,: ~I-- - ,,- . .~ :-:- 'J!f!lQiil~r.~, -- -_ / // ~~ ,lOtI!: . .-' . -- - ! i i i! ~~5[j I~~,~!i z "'~ / >- co lW' :i N 1~11 ~:f\.~'t~~i^, ~. .m I.. m ,..:/, ---f----i.. .. .. .. .. - . I,. . ~ lItt;;wll ~~::Jif~l"~~~~ ~ I ,/ -- -=- -- -=-- '-'/~ .. i .," "I ~ '~~;'!"'Ih~'~~'~ " I' --- - - . --- ----- ~~~,~,\~~~~ ~ _[---[-;1 l-:-~-~- r!~-l[ .:;J,l - -l ~T J~ .T~/~0~ ~ ffi1~(Jo@I~~t~~ J f,,~ ~L J;b- ~_l::_ --J-l - _I_I__ -IJ~Il:liGJ if~iI-'~l~~'~-.~~~ ~.'~--"~-""-~"'-~~-'--TI'~i'~~[I.--~. j.:,: :~- ANoov~~I"" ---- -~- ----- - -~-~- ~j-~-~-- ~I~~]~~~----l~" ;;;;'-.,('Ti"- - -~- -- - "," ."'. . . i"1ii~ ~ ~, r- .. . ""it';),"]':!.: , ~. ,ill f~~~. l~ t:: ~ -~ ;!II;'" I :,,:J ~ !! ! ~ ~flZ:E ;;.;;;1:1_. .. iIlI 'l.!.l!'" "'l'-=-~..-r -. __.. ~!.'~L ~-~ .... - I.. - .. ~ .... 1;1= 14411- "!It., ,,,,,.,,~-d,W.~ ~~ """~"'!"'_ .~ .... f~/, < ;;;Jr.;J.""I.-, ~*~:* ;:m-:')M .~;!:. ~'':!Ir;;;: :T;' -~I ~~!h*i!'~'l~::: ~:: . /~--: ~ -' "'!H,/ !:; --- - - - " ~~ [I" It - "'11_ ~~'::-::Ji;;;a,$. E",jl'i:'liuih .if.lf.:i&I,",,,'" ~,!C ;l /. ~:,iS ~q'. - ,an ..~~ - - ~ --- ?'~fu1~>>E~~~~II]~~':.i..f.ii;;~J;:;.~~I;:~ 1~~.ti.~.:.~J.~.. ~"/}:?>, ~:'~I:cE'", _ ___ -::-j ----,--- '" '~~"h .~- ...'~~ .:1.i:l f' ,," .n """''''''''~-." "'- m'fiill""'~J ,,,,,,,,,,, , /", .' 1/;< ,p. ,- - :L.~~J!4~~~!!'"- ~~~~~~ .~\g' ~"ij".f~rl;;!::~.jl !'..' /)"'~' ....~ ~1' {~___ 14m ,m~ l~,*, ~""Q~~'" .,;1\ ~'li'l~~~'>'~~ .l.i'.' ,/-;-' '~'f. :-:1 ," El~" '1_ _ '" - - -- - .' ,~~{ \1ffi! I;Vl~~f!I1: !i fl~lWc __!~ ~I~~/."\;, \':'* ,~ill ,li] f"q . ~/i> ' - ~". -- - i:;!!!li.,;;- :fA, r't,'~~5'1, '" il2N ~19~=... <II "210;0< "#. ,,~ 1-...." ,_ __f.42i'iID ,~:--:' l'~\1 d'~i"~' IrffkJif"... ,.,..~!~....)~.~..;Z.~.~~lli.i1fP i~~l..~'t!!/~ [~ ~.t~~$l/.. :~~;/:liil!.lE!i!~JI!IEllli~"'%:,~~/...' :~l-~~-l .~ ~~~1'~1~ [;;""~ c:~J";!~<,~~l*~/Ql;lJl@L";~;: ~:f ::: ~01'<iK: ';;;- ,~'~~ E.li!il"'EIi~"~I~~~f1f,~'~L:J.~___ 4_~~ \\\J, -".....<'J-;;.;W~, ~. "'~~);,..!.5}.;it. :Bil.WJJ~'!i11 ~1}.W[['lli.';~l~~.~~~til'.~~ I~.~~~~ i~~~'~0-~~'~' ,i.V~~~ ~~mEl!lI.j ;~~\jij~t~'9 ~.." -\ '\ \ \ .~ -::€....)'!E, ~~itJ;1~ ~~.1,I:!~$rt7}}fn' ':-L1.illil~llliii~~~ ~*i'-- ij;,~~~\..." ~!!J-r.:~~~7,:;~I~~1:[l~i~~-1s~ff,!1~~~' f - __~ -\ \\\ fI:".....;.;.\t~ .~\-:~.</-I.;:I= :r.".,.. ~ ~'~~J'!!III'~T~'_:~'5'"'.'.!Ii" ~';'O.,,\ ~~",..,.63;T.r~'I"-~~~~_':_T'T')j" "'" ----- '\ \' \.<0: 7.,..\-",~"~~,,QC~!\l!ll I'''fi . me ..~" T ~.." \..,,' r.~. 't, ~'d"""l- ,E" ""< dt!I!L!8.7 / \ "'.~ ii~.::'4 - '0< ~. 7 , ~i7} '~""~ ~1:-q;'I~'~Z 1\\\~~"'~<i.@l@il.l"!r"e,liiT':/ __]_U_____ ~~\\\.... i1:i"r' - [!;l t!/$-~1:"l;' "'-- '~lJ.!~~~ - ~ ~~~~_ _ ..... :I" ~":i ~!fft: .:~r_.. .m2// 14123 ~ \\0 >;. i!! ~~\~ I; Ii! ~~~y~llL~~~lg"(i5~~ - -- ~ ~-- -, ;~\!~\;I~lf~1!;~'I~~~~I~r.~~\~ill~EUr!ffiT.~W~ir'7?/71~~~:t~m\~~~~~"~R ,~ i ~ l'll"IfU1i~.;<',,'f- , ,\ \.~\"(}. el~~~L: ijjJh==c-::L- ~) /\j1il; t~m[H~ .."/ '0 itJ-Y,c..\/'<'" ~_;-J-"" P~l~~~~~~~!'~ll!f..~~~~~~~?! ~. . 4~~~~~~~ilil~~!!@~I~J:F1_~~?~~~(~~!\~:11:T~Ji~\~f~' ,,' ~ ~~1~~ ~~~~~~iO; " H~~;:'\{~)~1!rI-~~t'tff. i~~Qh~WlI i1;~Z?p~:r.iJ)~"if'/'W'j~~i' ~,~~~t~%\~-r~~!!I:~~i'i~~E]~~~tJ~ _ ) .l/. ";;il}.,~~;r""",,..r,~;);;.!l!/ i~1im-;-;' ,M ~"...~~] ~~~~tAr~*f;z\O'",:.~~,'il(i"tl;l eJ'i~1'J1{il~1 ~):.;,"i t:::jr~ ",/ ~~''''/~!~~_'I~iW:i~.~::i\r.~~ '_~=:!;ffj.--~..'41"~~ l!l..cjl,~f;;:''! ,':';:;. k;;''j'~::1.'':~r,101 ,.1.,-;/J:ffj/itJ1/; ::i:~i!.~;,.,B"'~'~~~"~ ~\illiJ~J~; I-:,~,(.?':c'i~!--;;"\;- .~:~:'~~~'--.!~~ '" . h,,:r. !?'~' ......-..' -,- _ .1,1\'0"&:;';'" .:we~ r""" I-~' !f-=11 ':l!.1~--,;-rn--:e;21!~ 4.i~" ti,::J:~ ~ \..\ :\~;\ 'SlIl1ll' '.... .-' ~11\ ~ .11'/ ,~~ --;,' I! ,-.;:! $Ja, ~~. '3D'/1'''~/::1':i1- '~~ <;:~ "f#?~ ~:UO-!'_~~a?ilHY t-~ I."if If..yp'-' ~Y,' ~~~,.... ~ '$!'I,1.~1r"\"'.....~1~ ~ / " . - - ~_. '31C1l' . ~-, -.';:1 =1=:;! ..~ ~- "\"'~ ';iii4:::!! ~ - - _ ~ ::::I ~~- - .".y .. /":.: 't~ ,,- -.l-!I" ~ , ' ,~t-:;)~~T~j IJ I.T{~:.t~~~ ~m' ,':';;llilir'II:c,\f;~:"."~,,,,;j i I I,:? ,;,,, l"J!jri~\~\~\~-(\\\ jY"~~(c'""';;;i,~,li1'iT,.,, -,-.:'" , _ Subject Property Locati~n Map W~E s ------- ------ ---.--- CARLSO\ II H A R R I \ C* T~<(~~)Hn\<'< i > 'ow ~'.'~." d t., ....~,~.-'~~~ .Cc. .," ;. . ....c'~e_. ._.,-"" ~ '"^~.,..~_. __. . ._., COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC. August18,2009 Andover Planning Commission clo Andover Planning Department 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 RE: C.u.P. Application - Prairie Knoll Park - 595 _146th Lane NW Dear Sirs and Madams: On behalf of T-Mobile USA (liT-Mobile"), please accept this letter and the accompanying application as a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow T -Mobile to replace and utilize one of the existing athletic field light poles at the Prairie Knoll Park as a telecommunications antenna facility. BACKGROUND T -Mobile is a leading provider of digital communications in the United States with over 12 million subscribers in 46 of the top 50 wireless markets. T -Mobile uses and operates the Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications technology platform, which is the established standard in most countries outside of the United States. T-Mobile is the only U.S. wireless telecommunications provider with a national GSM network, which gives customers the choice of using their T-Mobile number while traveling internationally and supports roaming capabilities for other GSM customers traveling to the United States. T-Mobile currently has a developed wireless network covering the 11-county MinneapolislSt. Paul metropolitan area. Current plans for expansion in the metropolitan area include deployment of facilities in areas of residential character to meet increased signal coverage and capacity demands. Specifically, T-Mobile has identified the Prairie Knoll Park and surrounding area as a demand area requiring both signal coverage and capacity. <-- -CURRENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~._--- .---. -.. -..--..-..---...--------"-.-..----.-- ---_._-_.._._~ --------.. --- --_..~~ T -Mobile is proposing to replace and utilize an existing light pole at Prairie Knoll Park as an antenna facility. The existing light pole is approximately 80' in height and supports one of four (4) existing light standards serving the soccerlfootball field on the west side of the Park. T -Mobile would propose to replace the existing pole with a 100' pole and remount the light standard below the antenna level (as depicted on the attached plan set). Ground equipment - necessary for the operation of the antenna system - is proposed to be located within a 10' x 12' building at the base of the new light/antenna pole. Service Technicians will visit the site approximately one (1) time per month on a scheduled basis for routine maintenance. Additional visits to the site will only be made under emergency circumstances (equipment failure, power outage, lightening strike, etc.). No special access to the site will be necessary. The GSM system operates on a specific set of channels licensed exclusively to T -Mobile to provide high quality digital communication service for the benefit of the public good. As required by their FCC license, T-Mobile will ensure that no interference to existing, properly licensed users of FCC spectrum takes place. T.Mobile has begun discussions with City Administrator Jim Dickinson on an agreement for use of the Park as an antenna facility location and it is expected those discussions/negotiations will parallel the Planning process. On behalf of T.Mobile, I thank you for your consideration of this request. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 612-810--8174. A. Harrington Carlson & Harrington, Inc. Representative for T -Mobile lattachments: Completed C.u.P. Application Legal Description Application Fee - $530 Plan 8et-11" x 17" ---- -.------- _.-------------------------- ------- ,-.------ ---- --- ~-- ~- ---- ------~ -~--- - f<.1 ~$~ ........ "'0 Q) (.) co 0- Q) .... Q) ..0 0 :t::.. , Q) .... ::J ..... (.) ::J .... - <Il - ..c .Ql 0) c :p <Il .x UJ --- CO ..0 Q) ..c - ..... 0 - <Il Q) 5 Existing light structure (to be replaced) _.-.--~-"--~~_. .---_._--~ --~,..__.._-~- ~ --- Prairie Knoll Park (3 of 3) ------------ ---- 0) II~ C :p ..c .Ql :::::: Q) 0 ;;r a. 0 c 0 E "'0 Q) <Il 0 a. 0 .... a. Q) ..c - ..... 0 Q) a. E ro x UJ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Todd J. Haas, Assistant Public Works Director SUBJECT: ~ Update of Sophie's Park DATE: September 17, 2009 INTRODUCTION This item is an update of Sophie's Park in regards to maintaining and mowing the park. DISCUSSION Things have changed since the City Council meeting which was held on August 5th in regard to improving the park. Jim Dickinson, City Administrator and Dave Berkowitz, Director of Public Works, recently met with adjacent neighbors (Russ and Carol Schmeichel) about reconsidering the improvements of the park. After discussions with Schmeichel's, it was in the best interest to mow, regrade, and reseed the park. By the time we meet on Thursday night, the park will have been mowed, regarded and seeded by the Parks Maintenance staff out of the park maintenance budget. The timing in redoing the turf was the right time due to the time of year for seeding and the cost to do this was much less than what was estimated originally. Also the hauling in of topsoil was not necessary as the existing site topsoil at the park was better than the topsoil that was available behind Public Works. The funds that were set-aside in the CIP for 2011 for the improvements (regarding and seeding) will be eliminated from the 2010-2014 CIP. The Park Commission will again need to reconsider if improvements should be made in the future (playground equipment, etc.) in the next round of the CIP next spring. If you have any questions regarding this, feel free to contact Dave Berkowitz. ACTION REQUIRED No action is required as this item was for an update only. Respectfully submitted, ~/k--- Todd J. Haas ---.--------- C I T Y 0 F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-51 DO FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Park & Recreation Commission CC: Todd Haas, Park Coordinator FROM: Lee Brezinka, Assistant Finance Director "7. SUBJECT: Projected Fund Balance Report Question ~ DATE: September 17, 2009 INTRODUCTION Question was raised about what changed on the fund balance report between the two Park Commission meetings. DISCUSSION The Projected Fund Balance Report supplied on July 16, 2009 included the budgeted revenue ($210,013) for the year 2009. The same report given on August 20, 2009 included the projected revenue ($108,987) to be received for the year. ACTION REQUESTED Informational data provided and no formal action is needed. Respectfully submitted, City of Andover 'OL ~ Lee Brezinka Attachments: Aug 20, 2009 minutes Project Fund Balance - 07/16/09 Project Fund Balance - 08/20/09 '. .' -- -- , &.~ Regular Andover Park & Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - August 20, 2009 Page 2 know that and to please stay off that area. Mr. Haas believed the NMSA has the park now for the entire week and weekends. Commissioner Lindahl thought they should look at putting in some stakes for flags to delineate where the overflow parking can go. Mr. Haas stated he would talk to Mark Miller ofNMSA to ask him to do that. Commissioner Lindahl wondered how they would designate the area as overflow parking, would there be a sign installed for that. Mr. Haas stated he would talk to Mr. Miller about that and see if he wanted to install a temporary sign or if the City should. Motion by Lindahl, seconded by Miskowiec, to approve the overflow parking at Hawkridge Park. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Lindell) vote. UPDATE OF SOPHIE'S PARK Mr. Haas explained that this item is in regard to an update of Sophie's Park in regards to maintaining and mowing the park. Commissioner Hupp wondered what they wanted to do with the $7,500. Mr. Haas explained they want to regrade the park because it is pretty rough and also seed it and see if they could get some grass and mow it. Commissioner Hupp wondered who will take care of the park if the Park Commission does get the money to do the improvements. Mr. Haas stated Public Works would do this because the City does not allow others to do work in the parks because of liability issues. Chair Butler updated the Commission on his talk with a resident that lived next to the park. He stated he was a little disappointed it would cost $7,500 to bring in dirt and grass seed. Commissioner Hupp wondered what the residents planned to do with the space. Mr. Haas stated they wanted to use it for green space. UPDATE OF 2010-2014 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN .~- Mr. Haas explained that this item is an update of the proposed 2010-2014 Parks Capital ~e".~~ Improvement Plan (CIP). /II~ ~,~~ Chair Butler stated he noticed on their copy of the elP the numbers got worse and he asked if Mr. Haas could check into this and get back to the Commission why the numbers (V" changed. Mr. Haas stated he would ask Mr. Brezinka about this and let the Commission ~ know. )(!~ t' ~)r,1> '\17 . o Z * m"Tl"Tl ;:0 -l ....)> 0)> -l ()o())> ~ ~;f ::l 55 ~ ~ c5'5.0~5 ~ ~ZO::, ~ tlJ tCl S: Cl.Cl. CD III lllOCll~C: !!!. ;03(") ~ .. tlJ il Cll Cll ::l c:; gill, C/) ~ ;:0 e1: G) 3 -c' ~ C '"; ~~ ~ 0 :J""co~s: CD "'Oiil~!!!. ~ 0' ~ io'> ~ OJOJ '" 3 3-~&:-'Cii'~ ~ a;:!.Q.~ "'O.Q. (I) ~ ()1 :J gg 03 1ll::ll(")04'::::J~' ~ llltlJ "'0 C/) ,0 Co (1)(1) < ... "S1=:~(I)~.Q. c ~ --"J ~a OJ (l) 0 !Xl Clllll tlJ 3 S!go."JOJtlJ tlJ en;o..., o~ '< < 0 Ill"" (fl"" (I) (fl '< :J (") '" (I) "'" (I) 0. ~ n' ~ iii gsa, '2 a 3~,,3~(ij )> ~ ~li? 9,CIl :J tlJ 0 :J CCo :J r.n (I);:l.S'(I)C:Co ~ ~ (1)0. ~o ur::r Q g;:reo ~ ;:t:J'"~a(J)("J _ I 3.cr _.~ III Ill", CD * o"'T1 (l)o.:!. U> !2? N U> ~ 03 ~ "'0 iii'!!!. Q !2 .... III ~o 0 _ III -_. ~,~ (I) "C... :J 3 m =:......~, 3 CD ..., ,0 "Tl '" lll~. CD <:0" >< 9:c.n (1)_. ",")>:J (1)0 C/J 0 S>> o.>(t) "C ='- Sl..... -::;,." CD..... U> ..., n a...., tlJ cc u>3 3 0.(1) -&>;:0 ~ ~ 0 ~ a tlJ"S1 ~ (I) _N tlJ (fl -::::J . -. ~ 3. 0 (I) "'0 co ~ 3 "C =: N C ..., '" ill"" OJ .j>. ::l gJ ~ il g iil ~ 3 ~ &'.j>.c ~ ... (1) co (fl 0 tlJ III 0. 16 tlJ CIJ (1) :J :E 3. g c: .., 0' Cl. n OJ (fl:J:JC -, r:::: '< ..., -':J - ::J ~ 0. Z ur-;::;: ::r -. 0 (I) en .., 8 :e ~ :J ::: '< ~ :r ~ C III 0 (") < ..... =: tlJ l!l -&> gO"..... So C'" ~..... ..... -"" I\,) N 0" tlJ CD 0 ....., N co NN N ... c.n g gJ, Co @ e ~:: {; ~~ ~ ~ ~ co ::!l ~ ~ 0 N co c..l .....,c.n 0 ... co N ~ tlJ r.n c..l 0 c..l 0 ......CO 0 c..l 0 c.n g. 3 . III :j' ... (1) )> Co io'> :J "C 0. .., o -. < 0 ~ -" -. -" _ N ~::. ..... 0 .... ~ N....lo CJI en J\.)-..J ~."." C/) 0 co co ....j>. co (JI 0'1....., (JI c.> 0'" III lll~ III Co i-v Cl Cl OJ '0 N OJ, '0 OJ .2.;.n NON UI (JI 0 co co 00 N tlJ -l g .si .j>. c.> .... co co 0 0 0 00 c.n a 3'-< :J ~ !~o ~ a ~~~ 5= l!l 4;t -&> 53co~ . ~ CocoC "'0 3 N IXI::lO Q) ... -" -..... -".... 0 D)"< '< 0 Q....... co (JI N...... ....., 01 .j>......, ... iii~m 3 S. c..l co c.n.j>. 0 co (JI CO""".....,c.> ... ::lC;:O gJ il ~ ~ ~ ~ '8 ffi '8 ~ ~,~ ~ N 2 a en.... O'l.j>. co co 0 co 0 ... 0 .....0 c.n o _ !!l ~ (I) III 0" .., m po 4;t -&> (I) 0. g ....lo _..... -"..... ~ (JI :g 8 ~ t ~ en ~ g: (j ~ tn "'en '(0 W Cl 0, '0 N 0".0, ;fi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ g ~ :r - ro CD r ~ 4;t ~ y ;; ... ........ ~ f. . '<(I) ...., to ~,J:l. I\,) -" ~ 0'1....... ..... - III "'l 0 c..l.j>. CO (JI ........, c.> W -..(""(fl ...... a. w Cl 0, '0 N 0",0, . ",. N ....., UI 01 0 co co 0 N -.. co....., co co co 0 0 0 0 (JI - .,. - IS' ~~ ~ ~ N l\ ~ -.... ........ 0 - 0'1....., ....",. N...... W (JI....., .... t c..l....., w",. co (JI ........, c.> .j>. ':...a ~ W c" 0,""0 N 0,1.0, 0'1"" "'l UI 01 0 co co 0 N ':.\ co co co co co 0 Q 0 0 01 ~ ~ - 1\1 4;t ~ -I co ....., -" co..... 0 1'\ UI (JIN....., 0 c..l ~ c.nt ~ 0' c..l 0 01....., 0 co (]) ........ r- ~ Co 'OCo'(o '0 Co '0. -,,0, CIl t N 0.....,01 0 ....., co coo ,. UI O.....j>. 0 ",. 0 .j>.O J: - . .+ 0 z . m "'Tl "'Tl ;;0 -t ~ CIl )> 0 )> -t 0 0 0 )> C1l 0 -t ::l c c C1l 0 ~ 0 ::l CO ::l 0 III Z 0 ::l 0- ..... III a. ::l ::l < ..... cO' "C a. 0 CT ::l '"" "C 3 ..... ..... <lI ~ 0. 0. <lI !!!. III ::T 0 CIl ..... c !!!. ;;0 n' .. (Q or 3 (fl (1) ::l ::l (ii' < CIl III Gl -0' C1l 0 ..... (Q OJ OJ C 0 0' (fl C1l co - ;;0 - C1l III " < , III III <lI 0 ::l ~ OJ < s:: C1l II W n eD ~ C1l " iii iii < ci' ~ r.n 3 3" CIl CIl III (ii' ~ ::l " .2, 0- C ::l ::l 0 (1' II <lI .2, ..... iii' 0. C1l ..... 01 ::l (") (") 0 3 c or :::;; co (") ~ ::l C1l --. - III C1l CIl 0 a. <lI C1l "C s: ..... (ii' ~ 0 c --. II i<- (") '0 < ;:;: (3 0' (") 0 III ..... III <lI '0 o::r OJ III III :: ::l 0:: II iii ro' <lI Ui 0 ;:0 i<- 0 C1l '< :2 0 (fl ., < w r.n C1l a. III II (fl ::l (") ::l 3 0 (3 C1l C1l ~~-=n3~en r (fl C1l c;' iii c: 0 C ::l 3 )> <lI ~ 0: 0 0. CIl C1l <lI 0' ::l (Q .... ..... C1l :;0;- ;:+ S' (I) C a. < < 0' (I) n' 0 ::l ::l r.n III '< C1l a. Ui ::r n (") ::T 0 a. ::l ::r Q) ;3. Ul (') ::l ~ n' ~ c C1l ..... C1l Ui iii r.n ~ III ... (") <lI OJ;::;"'110 iii' ~ 0' n III r.n C1l . " <lI ~ !::, 0 0 3 0- II ::l <lI CD III 0 CD III - 0' r.n "C '"" ~ 3 m 0:: ~ co' 3 i<- " III ., (I) 0- >< S' ~ n.;::;: )> ::l C1l 0 (fl 0' III III C1l 'tl 3" ::l " C1l .... (fl ... n a. ~ C1l (Q r.n 3 c. C1l -Efl ;;0 C1l ~ 0 W ::l C1l "C 0 C1l I\.) C1l (fl ::l ~ a. (") ::l 0 < <0 < (fl " III en C1l "C C1l '"" < 3 'tl 5' I\.) 2' ~ C1l ..., iii -I> ::l C1l iii 0 ... 3 CIl -I> C ::l ..... (Q 0 <lI 0' or eD"C <lI Ui en (1) 0> r.n C1l c. ~ ::l ~ ::l 0' Q a. n en c '< III ::l ::l C C a. ~ ::l s: :!, ... z ;:;: 0 C1l en ., C"l ~ III 0 ::l ::l '< /~ ~ ::r 'tl ... C III .2. n. < C1l C1l ~ , -Efl o' ..... ~ I ::l 0 0 0 0- < ..... ~ ..... N .... -::i 0 0- III I'D ---I co I\.) I\.) I\.) 0 (JI j to> 0 il1 ...... 0> ..... 0 C I T Y 0 F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Todd J. Haas, Asst. Public Works Director ~ SUBJECT: 8. Review Outstanding Items DATE: September 17,2009 Issues list as of 9/15/09 COMPLETED PROJECTS - . ComDrehensive Plan (Park & ODen SDace ChaDter) - Everyone should now have an updated comprehensive plan for review and use which is included in the information packet. If you have not had an opportunity to review this, please do so. ON-GOING PROJECTS - . DeveloD Site Plans for all existing parks which indicates the facilities available. (On-Going). . Andover Station North Ball Field Facility (property south of the old landfill) - Everything is nearly completed in the upstairs portion. The following items that still need to be done by the Andover Baseball Association (ABA): adjust the doors upstairs, fix broken window, need lock sets on doors, adjust doors to close, fill nail holes on trim, need to clean trim/doors/railings (remove paint, ect. and varnish), install top cap on walls, finish raw edge of drywall for both stairwells, remove latter, metal door frame and oak door, good general cleaning which includes carpet, windows, window sills and above main stairwell. The staff is has forwarded the lease agreement to ABA for review and their signatures. ABA will not be able to occupy the upstairs until the executed agreement has been signed and sent to the city and all unfinished items have been completed. . UDdate of Park Dedication ImDrovement Fund Quarterlv ReDort - Next report will be due in October. . UDdate of Quarterlv Sheriff's DeDartment ReDort on Park Patrol & Vandalism - Next report will be due in October. . City Hall CamDus Hockev Outdoor Hockev Rink -The site is pretty much graded, seeded and mulched, The parking lot has been graded with recycled class 5. Most likely the boards will be wood. Note: As mentioned to the Commissioners a couple weeks ago bye-mail, the AHYHA has indicated that they will not be able to move forward due to lack of sufficient funds. . Hawkridae Park -The city staff will be finishing up on the survey work over the next couple weeks. Also there is still a decision that needs to be made as to what to do with the hockey rink. Is it rink staying for long term or is the rink going away after the 2009-2010 season? The City Council will be discussing this at their workshop on September 22nd. The staff will also mentioned to the Council that before any decision is made, the neighborhood will need to be notified since it was never decided to close permanently after the 2009-10 season. As a reminder, included in your side pocket of your packet is an article about the outdoor rink in the City of Oak Grove that appears to be moving forward as a joint effort with the St. Francis Hockey Association. Note: To date the staff has not received a call or e-mail from the SFHA about if the possibility of volunteering to be attendants at the warming house or not for the upcoming season. . Hidden Creek East Park - Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resource Technician, is working on planting trees yet this fall. H:\Engineering\Parks\Park & Rec Packet Information\ltems\2009\091709\item 8.doc ----------- . 13Sth Avenue Tot Lot - The installation of the new playground equipment will most likely start this week or early next week. This is being funded from the Parks Department maintenance budget that they have received for replacement of playground equipment. That fund that receives about $45,000 a year. ON-HOLD PROJECTS - . Eveland Fields Scoreboards - As directed by the Finance Department, the city cannot make the commitment at this time until sufficient funds are available to help in purchasing the scoreboards, The Commission will need to evaluate this as part of the 5 year CIP in the spring of 2010. . Rose Park - This project is on hold. The Park Commission has agreed to meet with neighborhood informally to discuss the future redevelopment the park that could potentially include a couple hockey rinks and a free skating rink at some point in the future. . Hartfiel's Park- The project is on hold until the property considers their option but the city at this time does not have the funds to buy it. TASK FORCE UPDA TES - Skateboard Task Force - (Hupp/Kowalewski) - If you read my e-mail last week, the staff is still seeing some problems and as we understand it some of the Commissioners have also seen the problems with ownership of the skate park. The Commission is recommended to discuss this at Thursday's meeting to determine where you want to go with the park-close it now or keep open until mid October? If you have not been out to the skate park lately, stop by before the meeting so at least you have an idea of what is going on. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST - . Irrie:ation of City Parks - Nothing to new report on this at this time, . 2010 - 2014 Parks CaDitallmDrovement Plan -Item is on the agenda. Note: If you have any items that you would like to add to the list, let me know at the meeting. H:\Engineering\Parks\Park & Rec Packet Information\ltems\2009\091709\item a.doc