Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-05_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA EDINA CITY-COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 5,.119.79 ROLLCALL I. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Pre- .sentation.by Manager::and Engineer. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to. proceed, action by Resolution Ordering Improvement. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Street Improvement No. P -BA -235 - Ewing Circle from W. 55th St. to Cul -de -sac B. Street Improvement No. P -BA -236 - Berne Circle from Olinger Rd. to Cul -de -sac C. Street Improvement No. P -BA -237 - Limerick Drive in Brookview Heights 5th Addition D. Street Improvement No. P -BA -238 - Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition II.. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presenta- tion by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, P1ats,.Flood Plain Permits, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decisions and Plan Amendments require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable roll- - call vote to pass. A. Appeal from Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision 1. KMSP -TV - 100 Foot Antenna Height Variance - 6975 York Ave. S. (Con - tinued from 2/26/79) B. Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Pat Moore's First.Addition - 6904 Indian_.Hills- Road - Lot 2, McCauley Heights 1st Addition - S -79 -1 (Cont. from 2/26/79) C. Edina Office Center - 7600 -7800 France Ave. S. - Tracts 0 and N, R.L.S. 1218 and Tracts 0, P, Q, R, S, T, U and Part of N, R.L.S. 1129 1. Ordinance No. 811 -A122 - R -1 Residential District to PIS Planned Industrial District - Z -78 -4 (CC- 11 /20 /78)(Continued from 2/26/79) 2. Final Plat Approval - S -78 -4 (CC- 11 /20 /78)(Cont.inued from 2/26/79) D. Southwest, South and Western Edina Plan Amendment (Continued from 12/4/78) E. Planned Residential District Ordinance Amendment (Continued from 12/.4/78) 1. Ordinance No. 811 -A115 - First Reading F. Set Hearing Date 1. Preliminary Registered Land Survey for Hall'a,Enterprises - Generally located South of Eden Ave., West of Willson Road and East of T.H. 100 - S -79 -2 (2/28/79) III. PUBLIC HEARING ON USE OF BUILDING NAME FOR ADDRESS Presentation by City Manager. Spectators heard. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Calhoun's Collectors Society (Continued from 2/26/79) (Continue further. to 3/19/79) IV. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS A. Mr. Burt Larson - Colonial Church Parking - Olinger Blvd. Edina City Council Agenda March 5, 1979 Page Two V. AWARD OF BIDS Tabulations and Recommendations by City Manager. Action of Council by Motion. A.,. Permanent Street Surfacing and Concrete Curb.and Gutter Improvements B. Water Control. Piping and Dredging for Ponds at Braemar C. Riding Greens Mower D. Batteries for-Golf Cars - VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ..REPORTS, A. Cable TV Needs.Assessment. (Continued from.2/26/79) B.. M.T.C. Cooperative Shelter Agreements C. Special Concerns of Mayor.and Council D. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous. Items 1. Connection.Charge - '.Watermain Improvement No. WM -127 - Lot 1, Block 1, Kiichli's Addition. VII. FINANCE A. Claims paid: General Fund, $16,893.32; Park Fund, $2,665:67; Edina -Art Fund,. $352..38; Park Construction, $845.00; Swimming Pool, $414.94; Golf Course, $328.35; Recreation Fund, $1,077.20; Waterworks, $3,125.58; Sewer Fund,` $203.84; Liquor-Fund, $45,004.52; Construction, $18,319.74; Total, $89,230.54 Ic LOC-,ATION ! doll.; SOUTHDALE Cl- SHOPPING CENTER 1 f ) :.RAN THE .TER . Y C o w 60 TH. I i _L_ YORK Variance KMSP -TV REQUEST NUMBER B -78 -41 LOCATION: 6975 York Avenue South REQUEST: 100 foot antenna height variance to permit a 150 foot antenna SAP -T. 1q.3 QT 1 I! ST. i PUBLIC LIBRARY 4� O 250 500 750 1000 N'i11aE;r !egsrWirnt .* village of rdinn sa s= QT 1 I! ST. i PUBLIC LIBRARY 4� O 250 500 750 1000 N'i11aE;r !egsrWirnt .* village of rdinn EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS STAFF REPORT December 21, 1978 B -78 -41 KMSP Television. 6975 York Avenue South. Part of Tract M, Registered Land Survey No. 629. REQUEST: 100 foot antenna tower height variance (to permit a 150 foot high tower) REFER TO: November 9, 1978 Staff Report and minutes; attached letter As of December 15, 1978 the proponents have not provided any additional material or held discussions with the planning staff. We have received the attached letter from the City Engineer. HS: jt 12-15-78 BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS STAFF REPORT November 9, 1978. B -78 -41 KMSP Television. 6975 York Avenue South. Part of Tract M, Registered Land Survey No. 629. REQUEST: 100 foot antenna tower height variance (to permit a 150 foot high antenna tower) REFER TO: attached petition, letter and engineering reports KMSP -TV .built their present facilities in 1972 on property that is zoned C -3, Commercial District. The zoning and antenna regulations have not changed appreciably since that time. There presently exists a 50 foot high tower on the property to support microwave antennas. The proponents are requesting to extend the height of the tower to 150 feet which requires a 100 foot antenna height variance. The present tower and foundations were designed to accomodate the additional height and KMSP was fully aware that the additional height would not be permitted without a variance. A building permit was issued for the existing truncated tower because the ordinance did not prohibit this construction and the owners insisted upon it. The .proponents presently have microwave transmission from Edina to the Foshay Tower which is relayed to Shoreview. This two leg path requires two separate frequencies. However, it will probably need to be replaced because of construction of the Pillsbury Building downtown. The proponents have also indicated that programming changes and competitive needs dictate that they have access to a receiving- station for signals relayed from a satellite. They do not have room for.this.type of facility at their Edina site, and consequently need an additional microwave connection to the Shoreview antenna. They have indicated that they need a direct microwave transmission from Edina to Shoreview because additional microwave channels are not available to permit a bend in the signal. The additional height of the Edina antenna tower is necessary to clear ground obstructions between Edina and Shoreview (the Washburn Water Tower). Microwave technology is beyond the expertise of the Planning Department, and consequently we have sought assistance in the analysis of this variance request. We are not able to design a solution; however, it appears there are some reasonable alternatives that can be utilized. 1. A video cable could be connected to a tall building in the area, and microwave transmitters placed on top of the building. (Northwest Financial Center, Radisson South, Yorktown Continental Apartments, Point of France, the Edina Watertower, etc.) Staff Report B-78-41 November 9, 1978 page 2 2. Microwave channels can be re -used in different locations and different: directions. This may permit a microwave. =link from KMSP to a tall building and another from the building to:Shoreview. 3. It may be feasible to construct a passive repeater on top.of the Washburn Watertower or another building and thus avoid the additional height of the tower. The proposed tower has some additional advantages to the station. The tower would allow flexibility for communication in other directions. The mobil news gathering may be enhanced. The large tower is a convenient quick solution that does not require permission from other property owners. Recommendation: The staff believes that the requested variance exceeds the minimum height necessary to provide service. However, the staff is.also concerned that there are reasonable alternative solutions that require no variance. This. indicates that the hardships claimed are self- imposed or simply inconvenient. The ordinance was presumably adopted to protect the public welfare and other property in the vicinity. There has been no evidence that there are.circum- stances that reduce or eliminate the public detriment in this, case. There are no similar variances or nonconforming structures in the vicinity, and therefore the variance will not preserve a substantial property right possessed by others in the vicinity. The proposed variance may indeed establish an undesirable precedent for other variance requests. For these reasons, the staff does not believe the variance is justified at this time. HS: j t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD DECEMBER 21, 1978, AT 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Chairman pro -tem Bill Shaw, David Runyan, Clark Miller Staff Present: Harold Sand, Assistant Planner; Judy Teichert, Secretary I; Approval of the Minutes Minutes of the November 27, 1978, Special Meeting of the Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments were continued for lack of two members who were present at that meeting. Mr. Bill Shaw moved approval of the November 16, 1978, Regular Meeting Minutes of the Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Mr. Clark Miller seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. Notices of Public Hearing Judy Teichert advised the Board that-notide of Public Hearing for all of the items to be heard had been published in the Edina Sun on Wednesday, December 6, 1978, and notice to affected property owners was mailed Friday, December 8, 1978. Affidavits of Notice and Publication are on file. III. HEARINGS: B -78 -41 KMSP Television. 6975 York Avenue South. Part of Tract M, Registered Land Survey No. 629. REQUEST: 100 foot antenna tower height variance (to permit a 150 foot high tower) Mr. Sand asked the Board to recall that the KMSP request was heard at the November 16, 1978, Board of Appeals meeting and continued to allow them to explore some alternatives. He noted staff had not received any additional informa- tion other than a letter from the City-Engineer, Fran Hoffman, which recommended a microwave system not be allowed on the Southdale Water Tower. Proponents present were Ron King, the Station Manager; Dan Reader, Engineering Consultant; Glen Smith, Director of Engineering; and Elmer Johnson, Transmitter Supervisor at the Shoreview Tower site. Mr. King presented a letter from Donald E. Swartz, President of United Television which said .there was no other alternative for KMSP other than to pursue the additional height variance. Mr. Runyan asked Mr. King if he were implying there is no other alternative for KMSP other than increasing the height of the present tower. Mr. King replied that because of the Pillsbury building construction, a two - hop system off the Foshay tower could no longer be used. He explained they would be forced to use microwave frequencies which are not available. He continued that at the present time they would like to go into a satellite situation which would also Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments December 21, 1978 Page 2 require microwave frequencies, but could also be carried by cable. However, Mr. King said cable coverage would cause degradation of the signal, both audio -wise and visually. Mr. Dan Reader stated there was no reasonable alternative. He i j asked the Board to consider that there are no buildings that are capable of viewing the Shoreview Tower by using a reflector situation that are close enough in to allow a reflector-to take on reasonable size. Mr. Reader felt the second alternative, ' that of a dual -hop microwave situation, was also not feasible due to lack of fre- quencies. He noted that any dual -hop system, whether it is by microwave or cable, is inherently a compromise in quality and reliability. Therefore, Mr. Reader felt ; KMSP had good, qualitative reasons why they had no options. Mr. Runyan asked if KMSP would continue to utilize their present system if Pillsbury were not putting additional height on their building. The pro- ponents replied that Pillsbury was just incidental to the whole thing, and they would be seeking a variance for satellite transmission even if Pillsbury were not building. They further added that the new technology that has evolved has made their request a necessity. KMSP .felt the Council did not foresee a television station in Edina when the tower ordinance was passed, and rapid advances in technology demand changes to maintain the highest signal quality. Clark Miller asked if the ordinance was in effect at the time the original operation was set up. Mr. Sand replied the building was built after the ordinance was in effect, and the ordinance has not been ammended_ since that time. .Mr. Reader reminded the Board that there are no microwave channels left. Mr. Ron King added that at this point nothing could replace the direct linkage. Mr. Reader stated that if there was a building close enough by their studio which could look at the Shoreview Tower and accommodate a passive re- peater on it, that could be a feasible solution because that is the only situation which would allow it to work without additional microwave frequencies. David Runyan asked if it was really necessary to have a 150 foot .tower. Dan Reader replied the problem is that the profile of earth would have to be considered along with any obstacle in it. Elmer Johnson elaborated that they must shoot over the Washburn Water Tower which requires extra height. David Runyan asked Harold Sand what regarding the tower would be detrimental to the public welfare. Mr. Sand answered that there would be a visual detriment and also a safety problem with tall structures. Bill Shaw asked if the tower would be an extension of the tower that now exists. The proponents replied it would be and added that if the tower was moved one block in either direction it would only need an additional 75 feet because there would be no interference with the Washburn Water Tower. Mr. Clark Miller felt that the magnitude of the request was too large to be considered a variance, and therefore the decision was more under Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments December 21, 1978 Page 3 the jurisdiction of the City Council, and he also felt the Council should examine the existing ordinance to see if they felt it was still. pertinent or if some changes were in order. Mr. David Runyan said that because KMSP was trying to keep up with changing technology and their competitors, their request could not really be called self - imposed. however, he was concerned about the precedent that could be set if the variance was granted. Mr. Sand noted that within the past year there had been a request from Cooperative Power Association for an antenna height variance which was withdrawn. Mr.. Elmer Johnson stated KMSP had built a 1,466 foot tower in Shoreview, but the Village would not allow anyone else to build a tower over 150 feet high. Mr. Bill Shaw said that if one person was allowed to build, he did not see how they could prevent anyone else from building through the courts unless it was spot zoning. Bill Shaw moved the Board deny the variance as requested on the basis that he did not feel items B and C of the four criteria were met: that it would not correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property that was not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district, and it would not preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. He also advised and encouraged KMSP to appeal the decision to the City Council because he felt it was more appropriate for them to examine if the variance should be allowed or the ordinance changed rather than go about it from the Board of Appeals decision standpoint. Dan - Reader asked if a variance had ever been granted to this ordinance in Edina. Bill Shaw replied that there were none to his knowledge, only Cooperative Power's request which was dropped. motion carried. David Runyan seconded Mr. Shaw's motion. All voted aye; the B -78 -45 John J. Velie. 4300 -02 Valley View Road. All that part of the northwest quarter of Section 30, Town- ship 28, Range 24, lying south of West 62nd Street, west of Brookview Avenue, and northeasterly of Valley View Road. REQUEST: 10 foot front yard setback variance 25 foot rear yard setback variance 3,147 square foot lot area variance Mr. Sand reminded the Board that the item had been continued a number of times while the owner obtained surveys and prepared building plans. The area being considered, he continued, is surrounded on all three sides by street frontages, is in private ownership, and is zoned R -2, two family dwelling district. Harold Sand stated the property, 11,853 square feet in area, is required by the zoning ordinance to be a minimum 15,000 square foot lot area for -fir � IEDINA 80, WEST 50TH STREET. EDiNA. MINNESOTA 55424 02-927-6861 November 29, 1978 Mr. Don Swartz, Manager KMSP - TV 6975 York Avenue South Edina, Minnesota 55435 Re: Micro - Wave Tower on Southdale Water Tower Dear Mr. Swartz: Mr. Elmer Johnson of your firm and I have discussed the possible use of the City Water Tower at Southdale.for Micro -wave Towers_ I have discussed this issue with the Minnesota Department of Health and it appears there is public concern although a definitive answer is not available as to the effects and compatibility of micro -wave. systems and. public water distribution.systems. After reviewing the probable modifications necessary to operate the micro -wave system, it does-not appear feasible or desirable to have such a system located at the tower. As such, I am recommending that the micro -wave system not be allowed on the water tower to the City Manager and Board of Appeals. Sincerely, Francis J. ffman, .E. Director of Public Works and City Engineer CC: Ken Rosland, City Manager Harold Sand, City Staff for Board of Appeals FJH:lm Registered Professional Electrical Engineer 7l -. John R. DuBois Communications Consulting Engineer City Council City of Edina 4801 Nest 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55425 Dear Friends: 7005 Heatherton Trail Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Telephone (612) 927 -6810 March 5, 1979 The purpose of this letter is to assist you in understanding the additional technical data that t.:as submitted by IGMSP -TV on February 27, 1979 in connection with their Request for Variance (rB- 78 -41) of Edina's Tower Ordinance (x812). The new technical data, titled: "Statement on Behalf of IU-ISP -TV Regarding Request for Variance of Ordinance #812 before the City Council of Edina ", teas prepared by WISP -TV's Communications Engineering Consultant, t ",r. Daniel B. Rieder. A meeting was held at 3:00 p.m, on Friday, March 2, 1979 at the Edina City Hall to permit both sides in this matter to explore proposed, alternate solutions and to insure that the opposing viewpoints were completely understood by both factions; participating in the two and one -half hour session were: • Mr. Ron Ki na • t1r. Glenn Smith • Mr. Elmer Johnson o Mr. Daniel Rieder • Mr. Ken Rosland • Mr. Harold Sand • Mr. Gordon Hushes 9 Mr. John DuBois General Manager of K11SP -TV Chief Enqineer for WSP -TV Transmitter Supervisor for KMSP -TV Consultant for KMSP -TV Edina City Manager Assistant City Planner City Planner for Edina Edina's Technical Consultant The facts presented during the meeting will be used in this report; in addition, I will refer to my original letter to you, dated January 15, 1979 and to WSP -TV's original "Request for Variance ", Case Number B- 78 -41, dated July 27, 1978 and signed by P1r. King. I believe that all of these documents have been presented to you; if you do not have one, or more, of them, the Planning Staff will provide you with copies. City Council John R. DuBois -2- BACKGROUND 1.1arch 5, 1979 After a thorough evaluation of the KMSP -TV Variance Request and supporting material, I summarized their specified reasons, in my previous letter report, as follows: 1. Their existing microwave radio link that carries the television picture from their studio to'their transmitter in Shoreview uses the Fosha,y Tower as a relay point. Construction of the Pillsbury Center, immediately crest of the Hennepin County Government Center, will interfere with Kt °SP -TV's microwave path between the Foshay Tower and the Shoreview antenna. 2. KMSP -TV desires to expand their program sources through the use of a ground receiving station for the communications satellite; they desire the additional antenna height at their studio so that they will have an unobstructed path from the studio to the ground receiving antenna site. As you may recall from my previous report, I described four separate alternate solutions to their stated problems. When I received the technical write -up from K14SP -TV's engineering consultant, I expected that he would have discussed my alternate solutions and explained why theyie re unsuitable. On the contrary, Mr. Rieder did not address my report nor did he dispute my proposed solutions; rather, he launched forth on two new technical considerations: technical quality and system reliability. Of greater consequence, he did not even address the major problem that K11SP -TV's General Manager, Mr. King, emphasized in his Request for Variance: blockage of KMISP -TV's microwave link to their television broad- cast transmitter in Shorview by the Pillsbury Center construction project. In the next section of this report, I will analyze Mir. Rieder's new technical concerns, but it is essential that you, the final "decision- makers" in this matter, realize that Mr. Rieder's comments about a "one -hop" versus a "dual - hop" microwave link were not even mentioned in the original variance request. ONE -HOP AND T610 -HOP MICR01•lAVE LI14KS Mr. Rieder devotes most of his report to describe how a dual -hop microwave link exhibits "inferior technical performance" and "degraded reliability" as compared to a single -hop microwave link. What he does not tell you is that KTISP -TV currently is using a dual -hop microwave link and has been using one for at least the past six years. If their variance request is denied and KI1SP -TV uses one of several other suggested dual -hop microwave links, they will be no worse off than they are now. In addition, other local television broadcast stations, such as Channel 4, WCCO -TV, have been using a John R. DuBois City Council -3- March 5, 1979 dual -hop microwave link for many years. On the other hand, both Channels 11 and 5 (WTCN -TV and KSTP -TV) have been using single -hop microwave links for many years. I offer a rather significant question to you, the occasional TV viewer in Edina: "Have you found Channel•9 to be any less reliable than Channel 11 or have you found the television sound and picture on KSTP -TV to be any better than '�1CCO -TV ?" There really isn't much difference in-any of the local television channels, is there? In the very strictest technical sense, Mr. Rieder is correct in stating that a'one- hop.microwave link is . slightly more reliable than a dual -hop microwave link, but for the level of reliability and technical quality required in television broadcast service, there is no significant difference between the two modes of achieving a microwave link between a television studio and the associated television broadcast transmitter. If reliability and technical quality of the television signal can be discounted as an overwhelming reason for requiring. the variance, what is the real reason that KMSP -TV requested the variance. The reason apparently is not the Pillsbury Center Construction Project, as they stated in their original application dated July 27, 1979. (My previous report offered several solutions to that problem that KMSP -TV has never refuted, either in their Consultant's rebuttal report or in our meeting on Parch 2, 1979.) In the meeting on March 2nd, both the Edina Planning Staff and Edina's technical consultant attempted to determine rilSP -TV's basic reason for requesting the variance. MEETING SYNOPSIS - MARCH 2, 1979 Several pertinent facts were verified by the KMSP -TV representatives in the discussion session with the Edina representatives: 1. / w 2. of UAl" Al 0014 , When the KNSP -TV studio was built in November of 1972, they knew about the Edina Antenna Ordinance, they knew about the Washburn Water Tower, they knew that their broadcast trans- mitter was located in Shorview and they knew that they t-:ould require a two -hop microwave link to get to the transmitter from their studio. They acknowledged that a direct microwave path exists between their existing 50 foot tower at the studio on York Avenue, and the transmitting tower in Shorview, if they rove up higher on the 1500 foot Shorview tower, as suggested in my report of January 15, 1979. As you recall, I stated that if they mounted their microwave antenna at the 1000 foot level on the Shorview tower, they would have a direct microwave path (single -hop path) to the existing 50 foot tower at their studio in Edina. They corrected my approximate calculations by stating that they would have a direct single -hop microwave path back to their existing • a, John R. DuBois City Council -4- March 5, 1979 50 foot studio tower if they mount their microwave antenna at the 1140 foot level on the Shorview tower. They added that the ice coatina at the 1140 foot level of the Shorview tower is heavy and that the transmission line loss would also be greater. 3. tor. Glenn Smith, r.,^1SP -TV's Chief Engineer, indicated that the most desirable site for their ground satellite antenna would be at their studio, but the studio site is not as well suited technically as another site, 0.8 miles east of their television transmitting tower in Shorview. He added that, based on the detailed technical analysis provided by Comsearch, Inc., (their frequency coordination consultants), they could probably use the studio site in Edina for a satellite receiving antenna (as 41TCH -TV does in Golden Valley) but that it will be much more difficult to oet the Edina Studio location licensed as a transmitting site for satellite transmissions. 4. When asked why KMSP -TV wanted to transmit programs to the television satellite, Mr. rina, the Station Manager, indicated that they planned to originate programming for a 5 or 10 state area just like WGN -TV in Chicaao-or the UHF -TV station in Atlanta, Georgia. 5. If the variance is granted and the 150 foot tower is built �. at the rJISP -TV studio, any obstruction, such as a high -rise apartment building, that is built at, or near to, the Washburn Water Tower site in Minneapolis, will require that the 150 foot tower be built even higher to clear the new obstruction. PRECEDENT In my January 15th report to you, I emphasized the dangerous pre - cedent that would be set if the antenna variance is granted to K'rISP -TV. You have discouraaed or denied the antenna variance request that the Cooperative Power association would like to have; your equitable enforce- ment of the antenna ordinance has encouraged Hennepin County to seek an alternate solution for their microwave antenna requirements at the regional library headquarters at 7001 York Avenue; and, the cable television companies (CATV) will use alternate distribution methods if they realize that tall towers are not permitted in Edina. In the rebuttal report offered by KI1SP -TV's technical consultant, he addressed the important matter of 'jrecedent" rather casually by stating: "It is not clear that any of the agencies sited (sic) as likely to rely on the instant case for precedent could demonstrate so pervasive a need for a variance. How can one compare the system design objectives and transmission requirements of a television broadcast station with those of a power company, CATV or branch library." John R. DuBois City Council -5- March 5, 1979 I will not even attempt to compare the merits of television broad- casting to the needs of a public utility, cable televison company or the County Library Headquarters, but I assure you that if Edina grants WSP -TV's request for a variance to Edina's tower ordinance, vouwill have an all too ample opportunity to hear the merits of the other, potential "tall tower users" as they parade before the Edina City Council t give you their essential reasons why they must get a variance also. I am certain that their reasons for requesting a variance to the antenna or inance will be just as convincing and probably much better than the arguments offered by KMSP -TV. 14 `77 CONCLUSIONS The overi:,helmina weight of the evidence presented, relative to KMSP -TV's variance request, indicates that the basic, underlying reason for their request is to reduce their business costs. The original reasons for the variance request as stated in their July 28, 1978 application were dissipated by my technical report of January 15, 1979; my report has not been refuted by r.%ISP -TV. Their most recent arguments for the variance: system reliability and television picture /sound quality were addressed in this report; it was shown that denial of the variance request will not deteriorate either reliability or signal .quality below their present levels nor will their technical quality or system reliability be any poorer than competing television broadcast stations in the Minneapolis area. The other "new" ingredient that came into consideration: KF1SP -TV's ability to initiate, as well as to receive, television programming via the synchronous television satellite system, should not be a factor in deciding on the variance request. VJ- 1SP -TV will be able to continue with their new, revenue generating plans, via wide area television programming, whether they have the 150 foot tower or not. The costs of establishing the initial equipment configuration, using the existing 50 foot tower at the KMISP -TV studio, will be slightly higher, but they will certainly not be restricted from their new business venture. The precedent that would be established by granting KMSP -TV's variance request should be considered very carefully. It is unrealistic to think that you will be able to grant WSP- Os request and then turn down subsequent applications for similar towers. The City Attorney's ex ert guidance should be respected in this aspect o your deliberation -� ? Ample alternate solutions have been offered to, and discussed with, KNISP -TV. The proposed techniques to eliminate the need for the 150 foot microwave tower are consistent with the state -of -the -art and will not re s t in a compromise of Y;'SP -TV's system reliability or technical excellence. it has been positively demonstrated that their existing 5`1 foot tower is satisfactory for their existing technical requirements as well as their_ technical and operational projections. Based on all of the facts presented in this matter, the prudent course of action for the Edina City Council is i., � l� /97z John R. DuBois City Council -6- March 5, 1979 to deny Y.11SP -TV's variance request to the Edina antenna ordinance. I am pleased to be of continuing service to the City of Edina. Yours sincerel , o JRD:pm ( I John R. DuBois January 22, 1979 .Mr. James Van Valkenburg. Mayor, City of Edina 4801 West 50 Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Jim: I am writing to you urging your support of a variance on the height of the microwave antenna at 70th and Xerxes (Channel 9) from 50 to 150 feet. It is my.understanding that if the variance is not forth- coming there is a good chance that Channel 9 would, out of necessity, move from Edina. It is my hope that our educational system can do much, much more with Channel 9 as it becomes disaffiliated; having Ahem geographically close can add immeasurably to a hoped for area of cooperation. Perhaps this future cooperation could be implied in the granting of such a variance. Thanks for your ear. ' cer ly, f,. Li ber Super tendent of Schools RHL:sI cc: Mr. Kenneth Rosland AN FOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER f' j{ UNITED GROUP STATIONS i` h&ISP.TV Minoea;)olis. L:ilv:cs(•c;7 : :1'V:• :• Sall Lak C.;y, U;an �- ti,'.IOL•I'V San AnWaio, T—as DONALD E. SWARTZ, PRESIDENT December 18, 1978 Gentlemen: 1 *ISP -TV outlined during the November 16th hearing the necessity to request a variance to Ordinance 7#812. The variance request was Ito extend the present tower height to one hundred and fifty feet. KMSP -TV requested a postponement to the December 21st meeting so that suggested alternatives, such as the Edina water tower could be pursued. KMSP -TV has made additional surveys from those submitted including the Edina water tower, to no avail. In order for KMSP -TV to transmit a desired signal in and for the public interest and convenience and also to continue to transmit electronic news feeds, the station has no other alternative other than the additional footage. All channels for both microwave transmission and electronic news gathering have been assigned to others. During the November hearing it was pointed out by KMSP that Ordinance 7#812 was in all probability passed to prevent towers in excess of fifty feet for two -way radios and their like. The ordinance did not forsee the day that the City of Edina granted a building license%for a television studio and offices and the subsequent changes in technology. r UNITED TELEVISION, INC. • 6975 YORK AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435 • AREA 612 - 925 -3300 0 1 1 6975 YORK AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55435 AREA 612 925 -3300 [�Omqp ID:-:_ TELEVISION As we head into the 1980's the potential to widen the cultural, informational and entertainment horizons of our neighbors and fellow citizens will be a reality if the responsibility to keep pace with technology is taken and acted upon. But in order to implement the necessary changes to bring about this advance in telecasting, communicators will creed the cooperation and expressions of" confidence from the citizens they wish to serve. What we at KMSP -TV, Channel 9, wish to do is bring our viewers innovative and varied programming by establishing an earth station for communications between satellites and users on earth. Our earth station will help us bring news stories, drama,,entertainment, and sports from all over the United States and from every corner of the globe to our viewers. The use of a satellite will supplant current live program sources. The program possibilities are endless. Our Chief Engineer, Glenn Smith, has outlined the technical aspects of sending a signal from the Earth Station to our studio and then to our transmitter for distribution to our viewers. Intrinsically involved in our implementation of providing satellite service is the raisina of our microwave structure, as requested in our variance application. There must be direct line -of -sight between our studio and the transmitter- - the only frequency available demands that we have a direct path to our earth station. The only way to provide a direct path`.is to.-raise the tower as requested. We will be investing hundreds of-thousands of dollars in this satellite earth station and the higher microwave structure is an absolute necessity without it there will be no satellite earth station for KMSP -TV. The survival of KMSP -TV depends on being able to have this direct usable path to our earth station. A TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TELEVISION STATION �Y 1 REASONS FOR REQUESTING THE EXTENSION OF KMSP -TV MICROWAVE STRUCTURE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - Present studio to transmitter microwave path will be obstructed with the construction of the Pillsbury - First National Bank building complex (map attached). - New paths will be necessary to provide our main trans- mitter with station programming from our Edina studio plus we are in need of an additional path from Shoreview to Edina for relaying satellite to earth station pro- gramming. Increasing the tower height would allow us to use our two existing licensed channels, (additional channels are unavailable), one to microwave the program direct to Shoreview from our Edina studio, and the second to micro- wave the program from the earth station at Shoreview directly to the Edina studio. - Therefore, in order to establish a usable signal path we must raise our microwave structure at Edina. Enclosed is our path-engineering study, broadcast microwave bands and assigned channels. T w, 1��� =}}}1 i {rye.'[ +f (��+ • :801 %VEST 50Th STREET. EDItiA. MINNESOYA 55.124 612- 927 -6061 November 29, 1973 Mr. Don Swartz, Manager KMSP - TV 6975 York Avenue South Edina, Minnesota 55435 Re: Micro - Wave Tower on Southdale plater Tower Dear Mr. Swartz: Mr. Elmer Johnson of your firm and I have di.scusse.d the possible use of the City 'dater Tower at Southdaie for Micro -wave. Towe.rs... I have discussed this issue with the Minnesota Department of Health and it appears there is.public concern although a definitive answer is not available as to the effects and compatibility of micro -wave systems and public water distribution systems. After reviewing the probable modifications necessary to operate the micro -wave system, it does not appear feasible or desirable to have such a system located at the tower. As such, I'am recommending that the micro -wave system not be allowed on the water tower to the City Manager and Board of.-Appeals. Sincerely, Francis J. f`fmlan, P.E. Director of Public Works and City Engineer CC: Ken Rosland, City Manager Harold Sand, City Staff for Board of Appeals FJH:lm Y lam, E7 %} _: i ' �if J C 11 it �+ ••.:, �'. _, �ac'��.:. L�L•J,t C( bill Developers M antic, -iers CoosAanfs iv1E►� I ��IVISi;,�i \! 71al York, Ave. SO Fdinc, k iron. Phone (vi'>), December 27, :1978 Mr. Elmer Johnson Transmitter Supervisor KMSP T.V. 6975 York Ave. S. Minneapolis, Mn. Dear Mr. Johnson: In reference to your letter of December 4, 1978 concerning the possibility of installing microwave antennas on the roof of Yorktown Continental Apartments at 7151 York Ave. S.,in Edina, we regret that at this particular time we canno'•t ap- prove such an installation. If necessary you may contact us again concerning this matter when we may again review this decision. Sincerely, Ms. Roxanne Givens Vice President RG /af GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 7450 OXFORD STREET o MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 November 28, 1978 Mr. Glenn Smith KMSP -TV 6975 York Avenue South Edina, Minnesota 55435 Subject: Microwave Dishes on Edina Towers Dear Glenn: Area (6 "12) 935 -0191 I am very sorry to report that our studies, of your request for the placement of the three 6 -foot dishes and one 8 -foot microwave dish or: the Edina Towers, indicate that it will not be feasible. We could accommodate 4 -foot diameter microwave dishes; however, I understand it is not technically possible to meet the FCC guidelines with that- s-iz-e- dish. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do for you at this tine. Yours truly, GL',N-EJ AL COMMUNICATIONS,' INC. Ralph Mullen President RM:se w•MUf •ciuwlw •[ ALr'w[[crrf AllVc c 0 LETTER OF TRAUNPAITTAL F ROml. ii tilitv Tower Comoa P.O. Box 12027 Oklahoma City, Okla, TO: Station KMISP-TV 120 South 9th Street •inne-a-DOliS , 1•linn. 55402 DATE 1 une.___,2-,--.,1 9_7 2..._.__ ............. . ...... PROJECT U 3 ..0 7_ 2:7 l "...4 .......... ...-• .. ............. ATTENTION RE: —50' S.S. KI tower GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU E2 HEREWITH E]DELIVERED BY HAND []UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA FOLLOWING ITEMS: ' PLANS Q PRINT S SHOP DRAWINGS f--ISAMPLES ❑ SPECIFICATIONS F-1 ESTIMATES ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE OR NO. DESCRIPTION 2 709772 150' Self supporting MW tower —2-- D.FOR egi s_t-e-re-d—D ro-€e as-iory APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURN ...... . ....... -CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ SUBMIT FOR F]RESUBM1T____COPIES FOR ❑ FOR BIDS DUE __ ......... . ....................... . . .... ... RE ARKS: Note: Tower and foundation is designed for 150', r , only a 0 however, hi �j_ _ 5 �j section will be erected at the present time. -xw> 3 .-r-r IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS INDICATED, SIGNED: R.G. ,qelson THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS INDICATED BELOW ❑ FOR YOUR USE r-JAPPROVED AS NOTED D.FOR APPROVAL APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION AS REQUESTED RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US F-1 .... ........... ❑ RETURN ...... . ....... -CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ SUBMIT FOR F]RESUBM1T____COPIES FOR ❑ FOR BIDS DUE __ ......... . ....................... . . .... ... RE ARKS: Note: Tower and foundation is designed for 150', r , only a 0 however, hi �j_ _ 5 �j section will be erected at the present time. -xw> 3 .-r-r IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS INDICATED, SIGNED: R.G. ,qelson la�safsnanonoa# �an�ro�s• o-�sa# tratrn�tanaat} a# a�rnoan�r�s; t��} #naat�t►u #ua•tr # #�r�r #aoaaoascn j UTILITY TOWER CO KLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA 1 150' SSMW 50' NOW 50PSF 2 -6' DISHES KMSP MPLS.MINN- RUN #709 -72 WIND LOAD= 5OPSF FYL= 36 KS I FYD= FYG= 36KS I (1X, TOP ANTENNA: V= 0- LBS HT= 0• FT WT= 0• LBS SECTION 1 5rrU W 1 = 4'J4 9-1 idi db br.L; V= 2'1-V1 * U-ILt 6 AWT= 360 AWL= 2545LBS OTM= 13.885 KIP FT UPLIFT= 6.241 KIPS ICE WT= 0- BS TWR WT= k V= _ r.= . F ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- LEG DESIGN SIZE= 1.31500D 1.0490ID PIPE LU= 195000FT R= .4205IN K= 1.0 KL /R= 42.80 FA= 18.963KSI MAXIMUM LEG STRESS =13.304 KSI -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1 DIAGONAL DESIGN SIZE= - 84000D - 6220ID PIPE L= 2.71OFT R= - 2613IN L /R= 124.45 FA= 9.8551(SI FDIAG= 8.385KSI --------------------------------------------------------------------- GIR"1'E = - b d i L'= 2.39OFT R= - 2613IN L /P-= 109.78FA =11.702KSI FLIRT= 7.396KSI i Tr :}$; �r�' ± w ai i!• # # i* a'�r t} -# v x x i^.rr a—`r.• }�•li�ti}T i�r a`�. 'a}�C�v ^'Fi. ., x,; ' -.t SECTION 2 _ - -- - - ------------------------------------------------ Z)zu w 1 = 0U I •GGL13J bLu V= IJbib * 1 t5Lt$b Awl-= 1 UU AWL= 2SOLSS i OTM� .78.289'KIP FT UPLIFT= 22.199 KIPS ICE WT= 0• BS T4J} i -WT --- 1095_9LB-- TWR- V_- 3�663RIP_- TAPE -- 1- 5-- 13A-E= 4- U- I_--- - - - - -- LEG DESIGN SIZE= 2.37500D 1.9390ID PIPE LU= 3 - 1667 T R= -76651N K= 1 . = 9 • 8 - - , { MAXIMUM LEG STRESS = 15.522 KSI - -- ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -� - DIAGONAL DESIGN SIZE= 1.31500D 1.04901D PIPE L= 4.201FT R= •4205IN L /R= 119.87 FA= 10.302KSI FDIAG= 6.806'•CSI ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- + GIRT DESIGN S Li:.= 1 .050001) - •8 240lf) L= 3.052FT R= - 3337IN L /R= 109.76FA =11 - 7o4KSI FLIRT= -1 •31:2f:SI ��+� {i # ?! iii }i} #ii # i}i} #+} #i} #ii #;.< #iitiii #•� #i}i} a}# i:•# v#? ra rxaru: is }: }i :•;:: };};}.�C:`:.;} {}a;;};T F i _J L }' ; ! 1 # iF i} # i •: # # # :} ` is ii # ii i}'? i i} it ii i:- ?i iF i} ii iF :: ii !F # i} i,` ?F i'• ti• # iS i} i? i} ii i} iF ii ii ii ii ii # ?} i} ti ti + !i ,: i} # • iF i'• ii i} C• A• !t # i} U11i.111 1VW C.A VV VIILH "V S'!.i %,lI I V: \LH!Z Vl'ltS 1 150' SSNW 50' NOW 50PSF 2 -6' DISHES KMSP t;PL.S•MINN. RUN#709 -72 .... _ . ... _ .... _ .. , �:- v�- c�• �, rr�- sra- �r•�c- frir•,}•'!r•�xtrir,r -a a WIND LOAD= 50PSF FYL= 36KSI FYD= 36KSI FYG= 36KSI ICE =O• bN ") (1X, F: V= 0• LBS HT= 0• FT WT= 0• LBS _SECTION -- 3 ----------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------ - - --=� ..' .. SEE W i = OdU e VULbb br-6 V =- _SUt3t3 •�3ILti� : -_ -FV t — --� UU AWL= Z) u Z6b OTM= 162.442 KIP FT- UPLIFT= 33.404 KIPS ICE WT= 0• .BS MR_ -------------=---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - -- .... .. R =' •5237IN --------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - -- ------ - =,; .. -�PiP. L/R =169.57. FA= 6.889KSI •FDIAG= 5.642KSI' ` ---------- - - - - -- ------------------------- - - - - -- ------------- ------ LEG DESIGN SIZE= 2.87500D 2.3230ID PIPE GIRT DESIGN L= 5.95.8FT - SIZE-�. I .66000D R= •5397IN 1-36OUID PIPE L/R =132 •49FA= 9.054KS I' FG IRI*= 5.989KS I MAXIMUM LEG STRESS = 15.408 KSI --------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------------------ ----- ------ -- ---- -- -x- ---- -� L= 5.343FT R= •4205IN L /R- 152.46 FA' 7.652KSI FDIAG 7.599HSI ------------------------------------------- = .... -------------------- __._._ a. �. L= 4.510FT R= •4205IN L /R =128.70FA= 9.404KSI FGIRT= 6.4151+SI ' SECTION ________________________________________________-.-W-_-_----- SEC - - OTM= 270.017 'KIP FT UPLIFT= '43-437 IUU AWL= KIPS ICE WT= 0 • BS- TWR WT= -------------------------------------------------------- _ - ---------- - - - - -- 1 LEG DESIGN SIZE= 3.50000D 2.9000ID PIPE MAXIMUM LEG STRESS= 15.102.KSI. -- --------- -- . L= 7.401FT - - - - -- .... .. R =' •5237IN --------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - -- ------ - =,; .. -�PiP. L/R =169.57. FA= 6.889KSI •FDIAG= 5.642KSI' - - - -- i ---------- - - - - -- ------------------------- - - - - -- ------------- ------ -. ----� GIRT DESIGN L= 5.95.8FT - SIZE-�. I .66000D R= •5397IN 1-36OUID PIPE L/R =132 •49FA= 9.054KS I' FG IRI*= 5.989KS I _ • R= • _ • _ • _ - 1 :MAXIMUM -LEG _STRESS---- --- --- '--- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- - ----- ---` -- DIAGONAL DESI N SIZE= - --7 00 :. -• X + L= 13'-017FT FA= 21.600KSI:FDIAG =20.701KSI• -------------------- ----------- ------------ -------------- - - - - -- GIRT DESIGN'- SIZE=-3900.X- 3.00 X-.- - 11 875,-. -. S 1 NG Lr. ANGLE,. La '8 *786FT R =. 06067IN L /R =1.73.80FA= 6-- 748KSI'FGIRT =' 5.664KSI • itpiti"riiit #�• ## Sit $ #iiSitOiiiF iititSit. #ii4w #i1i'riiit# iFiF±r #iFi}ii.•iii}i�iiS'i x" . v i •..;. . I .• 9 1i•iii}i} #ie itSirS iF iF ii i }i} #i }iF it iFii #iFu #+}ii it iFS #i} #it #it it itgit #St{}ii ii {}it ii ii it ?}i}iF 4? it it w`•ii it UT.IL ITY TOWED CO OKLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA - :::;1 •.:e 1 150' SSMi+i 50' NOW 5OPSF 2 -6' DISHES KMSP MPLS -MINN. RUN #709 -72 _ _ $ i:• i i; :, x 0 x ;r U • x i• # it •:>• ;: It S •• ,F # V x # it it # �L �t —i�";i i�t st�i i�Ti i} u it i? r i. iir ii ii .: w• s.F�t {r�5i S —� (a IND LOAD= 50PSF FYL= 36KS I FYD =• 36KS I FYG= 36KS I ICE =O • IN' C1X, TOP ANTENNA V= 0. LBS HT= Q. FT 'WT= 0• LBS IF SECTION :. -- S ~- I SEC WT= 1345.61LBS SEC. V= 1.576 •60LBS - AWT= 100 AWL= .250LBS. ~ I OTM= 405.893 KIP FT UPLIFT= 53.581 KIPS ICE WT= 0• BS. TWR WT= 4507.9LBS TWR V= 7.582KIPS TAPER =1.5F' BASE= 8.5FT } } --------------------------------------------------- •- -• - - -- - -.. --- - - - - --� LEG DESIGN SIZE= 4.0000OD 3.3640ID PIPE ` ` MAXIMUM LEG STRESS_15.383 KSI I I ------------ - - - - -- ---------------------------------- . -_ae— DIAGONAL DESIGN SIZE= •6250 OD ROD X BRACT: L= 8.757FT FA =21 - 6001CS I FD-IAG =19.454KS I ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -- GIRT DESIGN SIZE:F -50 X 2.50 X .1875 SINGLE N E L= 7.417FT R= - 5051IN L /R =176.19FA= 6.675KSI FGIRT= 5.602KSI it it ��s+� tt •a• a •it # it it it # ii w��.�i�{.'•�'.i��f"�'� �; SECTION -6 ------------------------------------------- -- ---- -------------- - - - -- -- i r r - - = 100 AWL= 250LBS OTM= 574.312 KIP FT UPLIFT= 64.244-KIPS ICE WT= .Q- BS t t' TWH WT= 5918.OLBS TWR V =- 9.260KI PS` TAPER= 1 -5F BASE= 10.OFT '.- ------------------------ - - - - -- -- . - - - -- — ------ ---- - - - - -; ---- - - -. - --- LEG DESIGN . SIZE =' 5.56300D 5.0470ID-..'PIPE ..?•....:i1. 3,5..`.,,1 U. a:—.. v --V v TM-T? tvc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - jc;T '1-LlAF1 = 7:5.3659 E'l-PS T--- L! --------------------------------------------------------------------- . ........... 7 F= 5 • 5 6.3 SOD 13 1 1• ry n "(T 0 F T T. _ - - -I..7 LT I W.- j'•. ja C, - S T p r.6 i I - - - - - - - - - - - L= 14 .038FT F- 4=2 I A 005tS I FD lArGi =16 .7 `7#6 i,..S -1 —C- TTT1: 1, I G N. T 1'-F 17=--" OTT_1; "1 GT: 7. -TIFG 1..=1o•286FT -7.0731N 6-726K'51 FGIF-T= /--,-3'6'6X-SI s .:C,r 10 N ME--------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 bu .;-! 1 51.7 O'1i•�=10.1-7 -658 :ill j P L I F-F= ;3 6 - 941 1 i I'S - If E '!..7 T rc, 67 ........ r ------------------------------------------- -------------------------- G D F S I G N SIZE= 5.5630OL' 4 -.6 130 ID P I i. LU = ITA/ .11MU,N; LE.G STRESS=15-32,; w.S1 ------------------ --------- 7' J.; 1. -L, Va. — r- L=14-912FT F-A=2 I •60OKSI FD.IAU=18-'055!-:SI ----------- --------- -------------- . ..... .... . X:. , 2 - -R " -T -.j R. A -- L =11 .7 BOFT R=. ••77831W 1./i -1 181 •7 3 FA 6.52- 6 KS 1 FG I ft T= 4 .7 5 5 HS I W-W /00 omse.arch, nc: 2936 Chain Bridge Road. • Oakton, Virginia 22124 0 (703) 281 -5550 November 9 , 1978 Mr. Glen Smith KMSP -TV. 6975 York,•Ave. South Minneapolis,•MN.55435 Dear Mr. Smith: We_ have completed the interference analysis of your proposed 'transmit /receive earth stations at both your Studio and Shoreview locations. Path profiles have been performed on �.�..the c.l.ose: in interference. cases to determine the over- •t_he- horizon losses on each path. The shielding effects'-o- ffects of local buildings and vegetation has not been considered in the profile calculations. - Table l'''and "2 -1-sts "the most .severe .interference conflicts------ and,give.s the results of the path profiling effort for the Studio and Shoreview locations respectively. As can be seen in Table_1_,_o.nly'the interference case with the terrestrial site'of-Wyoming, case 2, clears the required objectives. All other cases.profile either line -of -sight or are blocked with small amounts pf loss. Your'Shor.eview site fairs better with respect to potential 'interference conflicts.. As we discussed on the phone, the pit'area south southwest.-of your tower provides substantial terrain,isolation from existing terrestrial microwave facilities. The interference summary contained in-Table 2 shows that sufficient over - the - horizon loss exists on the majority of paths. The case concerning River Falls is the only interference conflict that misses the objective by'a large.margin. All remaining cases are expected to clear with the shielding afforded by the "pit" area. In summary, your site at Shoreview shows promise as a transmit and receive earth station. Your Shoreview site will operate satisfactorily as a receive -only facility throughout the full frequency range of 3700- 420014IIiz with Mr. Smith November 9, 1978 Page 2 no restrictions on its operation. Concerning transmit capabilities, it appears as though.the site can be cleared for the full transmit range except the receive frequency at River Falls. River Falls is currently receiving the frequencies of 6345.5, 6375.2, and 6404.8. 'The transmit spectrum-for earth stations operation is the range of 5925- 6425MHz. As with all transmit earth stations, a great deal is dependent upon the outcome of the prior coordination process. Your "pit" location at Shoreview is a site which offers the best alternative to provide you with the maximum 'frequency spectrum available at either site. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, COMSEARCH, INC. ' Kurt'R. Oliver KRO:dll Enclosures (2) SITE New Market Wyoming Longsdal.e Soderville Farmington Minneapolis Minneapolis Chaska TABLE 1 KMSP STUDIO INTERFERENCE SUMMARY Freci . ( Gli z ) 6 4 4 6 6 6 4 6 Dist. (km) Al Loss ?seeded (dB) O -ii Loss ( dL ) 27.41 183.6 28 3.8 60.2 25.5 24 52.0 39.3 190.1 23 4.0 46.2 8.,1 21 7.8 29.6 153.4 18 14.3 12.0 20.8 13 LOS 12.0 20.8 12 LOS 21.7 261.8 9 6.9 MARGI'N (d3 24.2 28.0 19.0 13.2 3.7 13.0 12.0 2.1 S1,111-1, River Falls Arden, H i I I s L Chaska Illarket Soderville Wyoming Isanti Big Lake 'TABLE 2 SHORrviEl', INTERFERENCE SUMMARY Loss O-H MARGIN e (I G I lz 4L (;:m) A Z N(-,eclecj (d13) Lo-<3--; (dB) (dB)__ 6 33.4 116.4 39 5.9 33.1 6 2.4 285.2 30 24.2 5.8 6 43.4 231.9 23 79.3 -56.3 6 50.4 199.9 20 44.1 -24.1 6 27:1 341.2 16 21.0 -5.0 6 35.8 17.4 13 14.2 -1.2 6 51:7 355.8 13 11.6 1.7 6 57.1 301.0 10 22.5 -12.5, BROADCAST MICROWAVE BANDS AND ASSIGNED CHANNELS 2 GHZ ASSIGNED TO: 7 GHZ ASSIGNED TO: 12 GHZ ASSIGNED TO: 1 - KSTP ENG 1 - WTCN STL 1.- KMSP ICR 2 - KSTP STL 2 - KTCA ICR 2 - WTCN ENG 3 - KMSP ENG 3 - KTCA ICR 3 - WCCO STL 4 - WCCO ENG 4 - WCCO X 4 - WCCO ICR -TSL 5 - KMSP STL 5 - KSTP ICR 5 - KSTP ENG 6 - WCCO STL 6 - KMSP STL 6 - KMSP ENG 7 - KTCA ICR 7 - WCCO X 7 - WCCO STL 8 - KTCA ICR 8 - KMSP ICR 9 - WTCN ENG 9 - KSTP ENG 10 - KTCA TSL 10 - KMSP ENG 11 - WCCO ENG 12 - KSTP ENG STL = Studio to Transmitter Link TSL = Transmitter to Studio Link ENG = Electronic News Gathering X = Exclusive Assignment ICR = Intercity Link L/F B /W' L/F COLOR DOCUMENT NAME 9a� -os DOCUMENT NUMBER ADDRESS i� (:� - - 9 -? IMAGE NUMBER 3(o (juawnoo® ixeN) ® peo uale8 ueoSo4nV v t., or po L F- 0r no J, -,U AM .4 agr--- ii i O'CD 046 x, 77777. J. L mm m 1.4 IL e W-ly Fam 75 is u -114 7'. irl T—i Y Ts a �7r —T—PA N N A M, E -j _j INVA M E FO 5- f--- I-A-Y--T-QAIER �i LAT 14 5 q3 ------- L ON G 16 17 L N G PATH LEINGTH E L E 10 i E L E VA'117 10 8501 ' Y Y z Minneapolis -St. Paul Hf NNFp 169 – – -- ----- -- -- ------ -- ---- -- 4> NpK'A 1 a o = 7 -- 7 d— I.., .I,. 1 L�] OON wLA1N6 IE9 ,l RAPIDS v n -- — All - a r i" )n ; w (`] L Circle O � �` r.'• I`in S 1-1 52 1 4 / I Pirn ar, N. DR CO ]• n r / __1y A. N. —11Vr0 r. N. ^• \ -.�__ ,_ __ ___ -_ 1 CO. `• : I`) _ - � Spring y � I'� ! 7tnrA P", ; i lake /I (.) •.. _ N Park , ` r. yVND■ '`U/ 51 !r •' .[ /..,,�. 1 f ... C• I "^�=j $ � -I� edL�- ) _ — _ —Ll 9A E '!r �L BROOKLYN PARK - {'.J lr Q{ •;J 71h Av. N,r, zRIDL I) ' )" ' ". "' l'3'� e I. t r .,.; N. .�` •--- .nl !.. Ill tr,. UsC ,Ard c u, _1' ) II O ROOKLYN e,r�A.. . 1. �.` -._ (_ -_• _. � ' �. , 'O � �' -- - ---- ,h, _ I ' - - _ _ - ' �i L.: aN i ,Wm•f IJ 1� }�`{.I.)n O , N[W_�• : �• E^��. C L� BirCri i.JOC!D , l n'.' AU. `�: 1,�� I°c• S71 r. �1;\ - -1 `J -' rlt..r,� DRIOMTON �___ nSJ,Y r °I WHI TC; �_ Wi��rtn,C ' � a DcAw' CRYSTAL �i- ..._____.___ LAK[ r'--Si »I I -]IITO L•r' �, I ,,' rA sl<1• I ILY vyH Ac•'. /ra NODe W. Jwo "!w; wL Aeh)L (i -. J I* 1 ! n �r, %,.� illdtlnJ, .. d • -..'_: ) I M1 -, ''.p1 ;.,1 r�� r_ _vl •I ly,�_ Ir'; ,111 .J� �- -: ��:��� -_ �; —_�' se °]A le L,'1 r_- �arY Y --I - ;'S S- E )a °�,) � c2 �. _. .. � i l9' Ar lnlle•}r,)natl,J� r 1 Jt I C5 , Cl�l A( Ar. - : a /lk o . a }'� 11` s ��t•,' - Cl ^ I - , C�. lRd- ' ° .,y��c I M A P L EJ r , �...1�'. 4�r, (U` I! ] ., �Pa.r .e ~; I• - `/ �wr 1a. IoI .I-- ^o >n �l �r. I ,,ri, ,,.. A.,... - YIOODI) \;.I PAUL Oakdale Ll k ) ? /fd �,r , k _ .- I - - A, 4 /�nS I T i V A �,, l.,n r.... -ilWn flCiytllA / il� t.•a.,w J �L. S 1' ) R? .°:, `__•� cn ',n li r;r..., ..; ,e a], ;till ^�L� /�~^r' J���.- r�r r' ].. � �, � � �'. �•r •• ( [.i K S '3 q I 1,41r >,• ST' PA U i. q J r �I' — — – – :V III r..t y E. 1117 Mlnnrll.ha �C TlJ 4 1 tnSl. ..tit '�_— ° w. �� : sr.£., ,s• IaAe 51.- \I t'm'°Y".�'r DA '°��. j .1 •' _ ^""i•� C'��S clew �s] ^ST LOUIS PARK ! I, .l r5)Tk"'r ,z t ,_ 1 717 , I - n,el lal �, --ab -1.� :r o - I IS -C rn < Gy I SF ]/S' �- 'i _�` c' I` 1_L_• -`m "'.. Slmnr,f I Ar d °pe• l]'`_\ nn,V + 1 MINNETON KJk _ '_ ° 1 _ i`i !- 'r�'1, _ 10 vJ •I) �r,��r�' APOLI_al A.d .. '�\ - ___ ,) LN� ro. t ]5 F ].+:n • ! Sl. // I �N,d..,.,n 1 Alron lry No►wlnw ac. ✓] l?��„r r -- ca4..r,.,rl L•' - " y >:'' i_7r.V.r. YI• "N'- i•�.�` D `�_ �`°- lrr.`rr.._. _ se's. 6tr� 1 ( �' ` 1)I I N k4,M�- 1 •,ne.t+na , } ` 1 ] W [!T f' 1 •q� i.- Ar,�...�ma. CDINA. °l I L V l_•__-' r v L, ,' �i• . r w,�nrl. / I L r - ` onira.l A. /r I d cr PAUL ] ' ' I ) . - - - - 'ra. � :._� r.,_ s•In YsL � g � ,� r` �a C��l ; )� ,; (_)). Q �+ ^.... -r, :) r _�� ;� „�.``, F. \�5°,n I ^.tr. ^1,(I,,, „� °r • 11 _ ::r D�' '+ ” nnr »ymA.. SOUTH 7S C;J .' I `- -- � - -- Sr1�1� �• +.1.� , , \ I\ _ 1 -.v .lt +r r...::__Is nr+r o - = , � r: r8T PAUL) '� '' IJ Z r° �� A l�W,I, I I JVI ��' d+ NllrOl,3 tfr P 1 `'�. 13L �'- �'O`,I' ' 4 r� Sa�fn.n•. ,�_ \`' -� ,..Y r -- , U f` _ •I. (' j, .. _F1 � y:. rhut � �- . 5' � �. (!•1- J \ \\ \ [CCVVV „`... - - IC s' "rrhN4rJCW44 �f .o/ L,' - -- / .'��IS I n Mr.Flyl Rd. s. cn.aw� >.v)�l "� Atcndola r ' 2.4 V Ilcl his I / + +.l � :.1 co � � „ a ro.l sy:•Iri,l r .. � � / ��-- -�- d � ^ i�( *o.., •'1Y � '0� 2 I snanr� ,r.��.� 'I� fil �10 �n 3�•.� � L,. , rLr -s, f�j' _ "6 ry nl %n -- - 1 t r•-- -'1 s ; ° • r) -_- '- v _ , , , -- , ; ,].I,- _ ,Jil, �,._ - SVt,.. r •..,._ _ ___ 1°__ _ ' �n[Y�- _ a9� '.��4 N.. lia .s'r t I wlMyTn ti.J� / s; 7. �s.,,,n. sr r +✓ �? Aawovr I c rden r'•' u5' ann sI. k.n„ yMNne vY, r 1. r.•.,n „,o.,; a..,. it J i Pravie A "d' ••� Nrw.e rnn, e� F• ° - --c .ra-ir.,n.w+. Au ./'JI• St Paul - LS Park Did 52� r. BLO MINOTO il'' ` -� _ '.'l v. 1 1.: " a 1 •' � ( / /�� 1 1 tiJ 4 I � 1 ' s s < 1 u L' G CN ,5ne f �O v �`��� °��•�����v + + +••. ��I ••!• f 5f �� b` /l.'�'i IEAGAN Ell SttAKOPKE - ��-- (3 I '° J \I 1 �O.O 1] )f ' IDUnNSV11_LE �% 1 _ ppp> Apple �IN rHALI� r ST. Pte.a�L Rosc AND VICINITY RNLI! \r I Sc.i., 7$ leAr A `✓ I W 1 L]) �_JPfi� Like dm ALP000alCo pry H KmsP7✓ M Domestic COn' munlcailons satellites and broadcasting: By Raymond Meyers This W nobile earth station was used to relay tele- vision ge during the 1976 Republican National Conve i Kansas City. (Photo by Donna Foster Roize Most people in broadcasting still believe domestic communications satellites are used only occasionally by major television networks for around- the -world coverage of major sports events (such as the Olympics) or news coverage of some political hot spot. The fact is that direct satellite -to- station program distribution is just around the corner. If your radio station has a network affiliation, there is a good chance you will see a small - aperture satellite receiving antenna mounted on your roof in the not - too - distant future. There are several reasons why radio networks now are planning to use dometic satellites to distribute programming. NaLnely_, satellite distribution_ is far loss pensive than land line services; and thq_techrcal ualty is suporoF �W A 15 kHz audio circuit via satellite, on a cross - country hop, is no more difficult to achieve than a cross -town hop is for a local- station STL. Other reasons include increased reliability of service and less equipment, resulting in fewer possible sources of problems. Looking back In 1963 SYNCOM became the first communications satellite placed in a synchronous orbit, an orbit which makes the satellite appear to remain in the same place in the sky. Since then, other satellites, such as EARLY BIRD, ATS, and INTELSAT, have made satellite communications commonplace for the U.S. government and other users. Nine years later, ANIK became the first geostation- ary synchronous satellite orbited for domestic service. There are now throe ANIKS, which are used primarily to tie Canada's population centers together, as well as to communicate with the nation's more remote outposts. Western Union placed the first U.S. private industry domestic communications satellite in orbit in 1974. Built by Hughes Aircraft Company and dubbed WESTAR I, it was placed in a geostationary synchronous orbit above the equator (about 22,300 miles above the surface of the earth) at 99 degrees west longitude. Since that time, others have joined WESTAR I to provide communications satellites at four to five degree intervals (actually, thousands of miles apart at that distance above the earth). American satellites orbited include ATS -6 in 1974, a NASA satellite which is the most powerful communi- cations satellite to date. ATS -6 was used to conduct broadcasting experiments in the Rocky Mountains, Alaska and Appalachia. It is presently positioned over India. Others are SATCOM satellites, operated by RCA for domestic private industry use; INTELSAT IV -A, with a capacity of over 6,000 voice channels and two TV channels: pother WESTAR; and finally in 1976, COMSTA owned by Comstat and leased to AT &T. lroadcast user satellites Of all ,s, the ones of most interest to U.S. broadca; a the WESTAR and SATCOM satel- continued on page 36 34 PROAOCAST FNI;1NFFQ1N(, Thc;y %-,L! ndce, now •;� continued from page 34 hies. These are the active "birds" in the business of distributing domestic programs. To understand better how these satellites will serve us let's take a quick: look at hour they operate. Satellite operation The WESTAR satellites, operated by Westorn Union, are not very large: complete with their petal -like antenna reflector, they stand little more than 12 foot high and are about 6 feet in diameter. The main body of the satellite is a 6' x 6' cylinder, with its perimeter covered with solar cells that recharge the satellite's onboard batteries. On top of the cylinder are the antenna feed horns and the antenna reflector, which are designed to throw nn elliptical pattern back to the earth. The antenna feeds and reflector are mounted on a motor assembly which rotates the antenna. When the satellite is orbited, it is given a spin to stabilize the attitude of the satellite, so it won't wobble. If the satellite wobbled in orbit, the pattern of radiation would move around, making the satellite very difficult to track. The satellite might rotate so far off axis the antenna would no longer look at the earth. Since it is necessary to spin the satellite, the antenna is rotated in the oposite direction of the satellite spin, but at the same rate. The satellite systeias There are three basic systems operating inside the satellite. The first is the control system, consisting basically of units used to orbit, stabilize, and even de -orbit the satellite if necessary. Its receiver takes commands from the ground station to perform various onboard functions, such as adjusting the attitude of continued on page 38 for More Details Circle (32) on Reply Card The Wall Street Journal's 4.5 -meter (15 -foot) receive -only earth station located near Kissimmee, Florida. (Photo courtesy of Western Union.) 36 BROADCAST ENGI14EERING This domestic communica- tions satellite transmit and receive station in Rayburn, Texas is operated by RCA American Communications, Inc. The dish antenna, 33 feet in diameter, carries private line telephone, facsimile, tele- vision and data communica- tions, serving the needs of government, business, and the media. (Photo courtesy of RCA.) They're here now continued from page 36 the satellite and turning on and off equipment. It also has a transmitter to tell the ground station what is happening aboard. The power system consists mainly of batteries, solar cells and a charging - regulating unit. The third system is the group of transponders, or the transmitter - receivers that relay the signals from one earth station to another. This is the part of the satellite of prime interest to the broadcaster. Hams using 6- and 2- meters probably will view the operation of the transponders as being similar to amateur repeaters. The fact remains that this is exactly how they operate. (The term "transponder" is one most of us will associate with aircraft equipment used to identify airplanes on flight control radar screens. Nonetheless, the term has been given to these satellite devices, so that is how we will refer to them.) On the WESTAR satellite, there are 12 trans- ponders. The receivers operate in the 6 GHz common carrier band; the transmitters operate in the 4 GHz common carrier band. Both bands are shared with terrestrial long -haul microwave links used by U.S. telephone companies. Each transponder, which consists of a receiver, a down converter, and a traveling wave tube trans- mitter, is capable of a bandwidth of 40 Mhz. The way the communication earth- to-satellite- to-earth systems were originally set up (using 51 -foot dish antennas located in key cities) it is possible to load as many as 1,200 communications channels onto each trans- ponder. With transponder power outputs typically 15 watts, the 51 -foot dishes are necessary to get this many channels. The 51 -foot dishes at 4 GHz have tremendous gain. Using small- diameter receiving antennas (which have less gain) requires snore power per channel to get a noise -free signal back to earth, thus fewer channels can be put on one transponder. From this, you should conclude that the more effort required to get noise -free channels back- to earth, the- fewer channels are available, as opposed to how wide the bandwidth of the channel is. Largely, though, each transponder is capable of carrying only one 4.3 MHz TV channel, plus its associated audio channel of up to 15 kHz. If all the available channels on the satellites over the U.S. were used to carry television (and they are not), a total capacity for 156 television channels would be available. We should note here that the SATCOM satellites are using cross - polarization which allows for 24 transponders on each satellite. Audio channels When it comes to audio channels only, Western Union has decided a good trade -off is from eight to ten channels per transponder. This depends on the size of the receiving earth station antenna, audio bandwidth, and noise tolerance of the total system. The audio bandwidths offered by most satellite operators are. 4 kHz, 8 kHz and 15 kHz. They also are offering mono, stereo and even quadraphonic, if it is requested. Getting back to earth At this point, it may be important to back up a few years and take a brief look at earth stations operated by end users such as cable TV, television, radio broadcasting and newspapers. At an international meeting of the world's communi- cations leaders in 1974, technical standards for communications satellite earth stations were pro- posed. It was determined that receive -only stations, in order to allow 4- degree spacing of satellites, should have antenna specifications that meet a mathematical value of 32 -25109 A (13 = theta). This meant that all communications satellites would operate on the same frequencies, with low power transponders, a good G/T (gain - over -noise temperature, which is similar to signal -to -noise ratios), and good side interference rejection from terrestrial signals. kYhea-calculated. this became a q- rnatFr f1n- .font) diameter dsT —wit}i a,�ow�oise Amplifier Tort o super antenna, ream) thatiad a is�id' e°tern era tyU,0 Z to100 d firces sral required thermal cooling. For recep_t[ on of TV signals, tfis is sti a requuremenf f"a good noise-free pictldirb isneedecd-Fiowever. 30- foo_ish- -typc antenn`a—"re" got t ie o confi uration t at w>'I1 —meet this criteria. omestic communise ions sa eIll e�s—ervices afire handled by the common carrier section of the Federal Communications Commission. It is apparent that regulation of satellites (since they constitute a common carrier service) should have been handled by a board of qualified persons who understand the kind of technology involved in satellite communications. Most technicians know that there is more than one kind of antenna which will receive distant signals, and more importantly, that not all antennas look alike. However, the common carrier section of the FCC wrote rules stating that in order to meet FCC requirements for earth receivo -only stations, you had to use a 9 -meter (30 -foot) dish antenna. It made no difference that the physically smaller horns could be located in places where a 30 -foot dish would not be permitted, or because of nearby terrestrial circuits on the same frequency. a 30 -foot dish could not be adequately shielded and the smaller horn could. As of January 1977, the FCC has issued new rules 38 BROADCAST ENGINEERING Getting approval to operate Although most stations will not need an FCC earth station approval, it might be helpful to know what will transpire. Receive -only earth Tstations, ¢even though they are on receivers, are licensed`by t�lie FCC a% oug t ey were F—a smYfters Tie FCC doe _this Di'imMMY— tal—site— protectid rosn,sn erference hat ca[tld'be carseil° elepl, company aiming a. `{ 7rresfrial circuit o a sateuite receiver. "since i'5 watts more�a'n -2;300 miles away wouldn't stand a chance with a 100 -watt microwave transmitter a few miles away, the FCC is attempting to preserve quiet zones used by satellite receivers located between the webs of present terrestrial circuits. It also is working to coordinate future expansion of the terrestrial circuits so as not to violate the known quiet zones. Before applying for an earth station permit, a frequency coordination study is required. Three consulting firms that do this are Comp -u-con of Dallas, Texas; SAFE (Spectrum Analysis and Frequency Engineering) of Arlington, Virginia; and Comsearch, Inc., of Oakton, Virginia. These firms have all the current existing terrestrial 4 GHz circuits stored in their computers, and they can tell almost immediately if your site is sufficiently quiet for good reception. Once it's been determined you have a quiet zone, the next step ,is to find out if you will be allowed to locate a satellite antenna at the site. If you will be using a 9 -meter (30 -foot) dish, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) becomes involved. The 14 -foot horns and smaller aperture dishes will not require this stop. The next step will be local zoning. Again, this will apply normally only to the 9 -meter dishes. continued on page 40 1. j+,, n' r+ f w.yS`JF .�M a� ,'�'+.i3iN •6';S� �Ti ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED 1070 BROOKHAVEN, CLOVIS. CALIF. 93612 Ph. (209) 299.2167 For More Details Circle (33) on Reply Card December, 1977 39 IN Tix j're hcr a now continued from page 39 Now the fun begins. At present, if you plan to use a 9 -meter dish or 14 -foot horn (the only route for TV and cable, but a bit too much for radio audio circuits), you could file one of two FCC forms: a general application form (no. 403): or an earth station application form (no. 435). The basic problem is that neither form really serves the purpose for acquiring approval. The handful of applications filed have been book -size letters (sometimes referred to as "informal applications ") setting forth the applicant's legal and financial qualifications, and specific information about the frequency coordination study, site location, equipment to be used, and details about the installation, such as the mount for the antenna. To date, nothing is being asked about which satellite you intend to monitor or what you intend to do with the signals received. (The FCC does not specify service; they assume maximum system re- quirements as for television or multiple distribution use. This is one of those areas which will eventually have to be defined before real growth can occur). If you want to use the smaller antennas, you will have to submit extensive details on the way the receiving system is to be used, showing that such things as frequency response, distortion, and signal - to noise ratio of the derived information will meet current FCC requirements. The Hughes Aircraft three -meter (10 -foot) dish, with LNA and receiver, produces the following: Signal -to- noise: Greater than 54 dB Frequency response: _+_ dB 50 Hz to 15 kHz Harmonic distortion: Less than 1% Gain stability: .f0.3 dB /Day +_0.5 dB /Month for a stereo pair: Gain difference: Less than 0.6 dB 50 Hz to 15 kHz Phase difference: Less than;J5 degrees 50 Hz to kHz This is impressive for cross - country service by comparison to telco circuits. If the site you pick happens to fall under a distant terrestrial link path, the 14 -foot horns and the 10- and 15 -foot dishes can be satisfactorily shielded by placing them behind buildings or erecting a simple, metallic billboard -like shield. Where such a condition exists, 1 . this information should be submitted.to the FCC along with the application to show you have created a sufficient quiet zone. Except in the most congested areas,1 it appears most 1. towns and small cities should not need to conduct frequency coordination studies. Also, 'a less formal registration of receive -only earth stations would be in order. - This would also reduce legal and engineering costs. }. .:Since the FCC has indicated it is goi— to consider tlio smaller antennas and less expenG :rminals on I ; a 'case by case basis, the earliest icants can .expect a considerable wait. However, lie rate the Commission is changing its attitude aL eceive -only earth stations, the smaller stations iy receive earlier approvals than is presently expeu..A. Setting up the antenna Once you receive approval and the equipment is delivered, the set up is almost as slmpt^ as putting up a TV receiving antenna. First, you mi t identify true north at the antenna site. One methor is to call the nearest weather bureau to find what tirno the sun will be directly overheard (it is not always at. noon). Another method is to place a plumb bob over the center of the antenna mount and mark the length of the shadow every few minutes from 11 am (local standard time) until 1 pm. The shortest distance will be toward "true north." Draw a line from the plumb bob to this mark. The same holds true if you get the information from the weather bureau. At the time specified (use WWV), mark the end of the shadow and draw a line from the plum bob to the mark. The only information you need now is the horizontal (azimuth) and vertical (elevation) angle from your location on the earth to the satellite. Since you know true north, you can draw the angle from true north for the antenna's azimuth with simple measuring toois, then tilt the antenna back to achieve the proper elevation angle. Once these course adjustments are made, turn on the receiver and while meter;r, the AGC voltage, rock the antenna on each axis until a maximum signal is received. It is that simple. One fellow setting up a demo unit did the alignment portion in 20 seconds. System limitations Despite all this improvement regarding the state of the broadcast art, you know there must be some drawbacks. You're right! There are some. One, of _ course, is that something could hit the satellite and !.. disable it. This is why most satellite carriers have more than one bird in orbit at a time. A simple realignment of the receiving antenna is all that is necessary to go to the backup satellite. Another problem is one that will always be with us: twice a year, the bird will pass directly in front of the .sun. How far north you are will determine how close those two events will occur. At the equator, it will occur just six months apart. The further north you are, the closer together they will get until you are. so far north that the antenna's "look angle" will always be below the farthest southward movement of the winter sun. The sun is very powerful transmitter operating on almost every frequency in the magnetic spectrum. When the satellite eclipses the sun, the weak. satellite transmitter is no match for the powerful sun, which has lined up with the satellite and the receiving antenna. All the receiving system "hears for . about five minutes is helios- noise, the sound of the' sun. These interruptions by the sun are highly predictable, so each station will receiva a notice from the satellite carrier or network affiliation, telling exactly when this event will occur, so the station can program around it if it would fall in a network program. ❑ Editor's ^ satellites proof will L receive -only t fear for the their horizons Despite these minor complications, ultimate high. On a grand scale, the when NPR stations udd their gals in the near future. And don't phone companies. They will widen th fiber optics. i• o ��• 1..._. s.. - .. Lr A.24 .•. i::.'Z •� y Cam{:, i% S .�..� L .•`... -. +•. ,' - . `, -, .. .a ..... .. . ...... .. .0 S wG, A.it dipl�cab le provigoorc '� r c- i::: }C' i:Q I�!� �:L°c �'.:Cr�Y.S; : ! 4�. �Ji U.1.1u5ti1C@ i:U. z1:i :i.�tim.� C,id .' and UJ ^_5:i.for= .n`! j?'�:�t.r Code, �i1c.�F?*;t?]ACG;J�.J� �iOV::3�O z3 Of i:3:5 Utlj Q1:3 T i - 3� E.i1C'reln ado •f v r t�� li: a�idffit::. tc� r:sc c r3et out ��I�ri ri��l.z be ;:c»r,�l_c::: . -!_... ..•. . -� ...Fi 53:, :r 13 ;.'.�J..� 4`J.: n,•, .. -: '. .. may: .. ;: -...� _.. - .. .. .. ._ .. _. _ _. .. the "+ :Gp': ,:-7 flit+ L;r!d pe-.--_. Or •--P -vQ- R - ti'.i a ? - i ises . _ . : :. .-•'i ,. .lei. �� r::.:: c': ?�.1�': � �_ .�. •. .� r - .. ;iJ.i�.• ._ :• i5 �. 1 _'•-r_ L:.;_.:. c i)sv�.': 9 O. .::.t?�`: ?13:.3 +."$. ''_' •` *"a:_.� ...... ....- ._e:� ?:•::_.. i �oes a : ?4':_ •._...., i.l A� _ r- i:!3 4_. + �� , -_ �•' .. ._.._. ... .. ...n •'•._.. !.iic! 'S5 T— +au..,es� I:t ;-- i" aa.i� ... - `... -oOA fie: fie[::':?'! �"7 .., ;•..'a.. -'_ r- •'-' -. x:i_:a :nrt a:-, _ 7. • . a Wee 1mr. .'^ .•. C;('a'U he L�4a:.i E LL 'r'i? `_1 :],... `+S.'L i s: _ -i: '.ia t]i:� 1:::i.: f..'..•. .� `F • 'F ICS r. the rmi{! .:^.i:'7{i'iR ��:� ..J4 ... a =. i 7•_T: - 1� ^, CO �dl:ny �r r.,•9Y7 L..l i!. C•° �5 +;• xIL i en q. E:i:�:.,_ Ft is D..L'ii aippl.i.ed i!:1:73b �-'' ':7. �::: t.lsr� ".: F..,�il�.���t:'s.::��9 }', �5 a•. _ ��i _ 1.:. �.• : i�5n:�.J•.:i '��I air '�� ` - • .. -'.- —,�f~ tC':'':ri: :ihie4ln-ter fry's•• 7 :r c• r., rjcj - � ..._._� �..; c: .,i.ri.:.,, c: a..ced aa: �:. *� •- �- �,•a : :�• , Viw3r�h ,? .__...... all .ge end- 'riri C►3i L'ti c.. 11 + , � �� Q� ti rl:�'J.Y s�:4!L L!?L Monte: x��:JLAc% ?��_�j !'t'ii l-:" C.�. . .0 S wG, A.it dipl�cab le provigoorc '� r c- i::: }C' i:Q I�!� �:L°c �'.:Cr�Y.S; : ! 4�. �Ji U.1.1u5ti1C@ i:U. z1:i :i.�tim.� C,id .' and UJ ^_5:i.for= .n`! j?'�:�t.r Code, �i1c.�F?*;t?]ACG;J�.J� �iOV::3�O z3 Of i:3:5 Utlj Q1:3 T i - 3� E.i1C'reln ado •f v r t�� li: a�idffit::. tc� r:sc c r3et out ��I�ri ri��l.z be ;:c»r,�l_c::: POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 1 r • � ~G.J .Lal'S •!.• P h5f• •�. . --�`/1 7�,V t.'v..... .�� .....- 1.�'... ... ...... ref: .. .. �j 1''C. .:. - •. ;i':.s:'. . .. .. .".. .._.. :�.. t:1 t C .. •r ... .L. ..... r.. r ... .. .. .•.. ._... .. .e .. _..O •• C 1 Zo' '{i �� ' :Z•GL L!� - - ..... a... ._. :'1': '. +..._ l:'.:. .. �:. r. _ _i��� .•.• ..Y� .i�t. L. j.I i.:1 �. :j. nor;.. V ••4n'.n_i �rViL �:' tha `r _• = r _ r... {:t1A- :y rl i7�T� +�..: i:5^. +,�L iiir_�' 4liE : +ei 0-1 c-. •�:4... ..m �.L-.i1S3 "} ':.•^` + w- 91.cam an� 0 + :. �:): {�~, j] -i: "a r�a�.l.. may •:: :'L 21.0 -w: t` a 44 -S ?i;:._ . `'.:il:. C: 1" is =� t.ii:'+�: w AM- all MI. 'Z% -i': "-_'[:. = ; r1 to i4 Oi::� :{!'?_� :�'s� :svi: :t'�:: ?s'.':!�:: �i: F? L'v cr 0luflII not +'tr's•^e' ii` D _, 1'_dk"G' ".:m;a 10 fp c -z, or, SEi,, ::Q the rssdiatl. v c-:.r:.-.'. z.— ni �, rlL -T?• ^. L�r'.i.:'.1_LCe . {.:. rrr.'.e`.. +.:ice +�.: ..ha Ticaveat` % G ­7 Qv i I r�' . f V7 'j-"• 1: or a-za...1 ct z L nd w...111ch d ...j th G; a EL Qad cm n•ra C-- -Y • :, Lo an.: Lr, .iM "n 37.1 With thIS a u Y COM4V s. lyl 'IL i.Lru .a;- P. in-, provie-sal of this ordix—Mcc rb v..; i1 mc eamn,-,c-­, Z., I, r e c -,L' s z a p & ed ,,lnd S•ons UPC-0. 06ta3_n.LV4R, Cl b, 3 PIY'lr,,P T-PIA•li On"a crd A.- Cau, ff repairin! or zucu. eamcgce cj7c dc'"rGvc-r3i M1.2"Or-rUl Or. bl& or m re, aa 1:;,7 : a C, I or 30zn 0441.C'_"-3. - by it, of c,,-; frm &--cl cr a a m ey L:% kind C.- 9cm-m-T 'L­u, plirs-3.1c.-.0 _d - e. -1. -Ind the'unterimm and mz7-.y ba rcpalxed or In :11 rri Irlth this ordida-a--a. �4 I'L - cc:.:72f_Qr:jze u-.% antenne oz Matr shall be uned c;� r =-g-j;j for C. perical 11:3-11ger then- 15 Ta.m.3 the effe-zU"S Or- 1-12in m4lin-mcc- but JE-hall 73e x-e-z-mrad, or bil Mee i:0 cvmply with thi-a mcneeLs 4:f ta-Z the and 0-2 Year poi-i-od. haVe aff-LLed or Y-0 if. --n j.ny f Qv i I r�' . f V7 'j-"• 1: or a-za...1 ct z L nd w...111ch d ...j th G; a EL Qad cm n•ra C-- -Y • :, Lo an.: Lr, .iM "n 37.1 With thIS a u Y COM4V s. lyl 'IL i.Lru .a;- P. in-, provie-sal of this ordix—Mcc rb v..; i1 mc eamn,-,c-­, Z., I, r e c -,L' s z a p & ed ,,lnd S•ons UPC-0. 06ta3_n.LV4R, Cl b, 3 PIY'lr,,P T-PIA•li On"a crd A.- Cau, ff repairin! or zucu. eamcgce cj7c dc'"rGvc-r3i M1.2"Or-rUl Or. bl& or m re, aa 1:;,7 : a C, I or 30zn 0441.C'_"-3. - by it, of c,,-; frm &--cl cr a a m ey L:% kind C.- 9cm-m-T 'L­u, plirs-3.1c.-.0 _d - e. -1. -Ind the'unterimm and mz7-.y ba rcpalxed or In :11 rri Irlth this ordida-a--a. �4 I'L - cc:.:72f_Qr:jze u-.% antenne oz Matr shall be uned c;� r =-g-j;j for C. perical 11:3-11ger then- 15 Ta.m.3 the effe-zU"S Or- 1-12in m4lin-mcc- but JE-hall 73e x-e-z-mrad, or bil Mee i:0 cvmply with thi-a mcneeLs 4:f ta-Z the and 0-2 Year poi-i-od. haVe aff-LLed or Y-0 if. --n j.ny . .... . Or Z Z, rz C;n r =.1(:j._..., r n r: X Z; c- ZJ n a cl. J C, T: 'U A- a Z nc 0 l.a c v r a an" /C J 6 Pv (All-Ul'..'" P.1_l0.-._:;!_j�- (a'� C foot 4.0,1C . to O-Q. On --i'Ll relia C-1 'n 1 Y an v. C ns 0 a V, in a a t i c in I 0 d:cma c a Shall I. Zlc lude zm-v 0:: lays •:4• - Plo's Gr.-?n 1.7,Y G .'I OL• P-Arsorm and Used m, • singla tmrcct. A. -'i •114"10M.CC8 .ho Strict pro-:4-siollr, of thii.q 0-.:.e namm-ce may be gran-Led in tlm% SE-MS ==Cr V.3 are granted 10nd,:;r Ordir-ance no. 311 O-Z the V..kila" to,-mr and nnZeennnv uhich iz; Eat u3ad f0r z;;t, Im cl th-- aff d2:z:=d C" =--tivc MM raquired .%n tka to kc! r_­- -..a ummnnr and pun-StI.Int th.a. C;=.. dL. s aro for dam.-a-ruus or T)roca o'" LY Gv--Uncnc'� fim. 471 and by Ordinance No. &oj, rdy-P.2-1=03 ar_­ ammded ,Crcm tim2 fur, time­ by Ch Un-11fomm - ' J. adoptad by 401. Parv-11tvo Any parson IiIjo 31-za P Z%-, V Violate C21Y Of by �j f, Iclenz c::' o;'dzmtr.c9 shall N. Of �- MiSda=anor ar;d. pjjijiun_r 0 • ..nc- tha.l. $300, or im"priconment; Ecr a period not to exceed -,90 dalls., toalwtimr with el:! cOstu Of PrOscicuticn in either C'CSG, RCCII day ouch viDl2tion contLnuo3 nhall con3tit' accorelliftmly, ut3 -1 •CaPmratUl of.fensa and Ve -Punished See. 11. P, U. -y coctica, subsection :, santallIce, ClauS3 or phram of 9 or in-nee is @for any ranoon -buld to invalid or unen,'"'orceable as to any pe.roo.-t'or'clrctA,-.iat.-�:zcr-%, the-41I. OF* such ' Lion, Subsection, clau' 52 2 C - OL" PhrMc to PerconG or circminstaticer otl--.,. tj,.jn t! Coe Ce Co Which it Fa b3 11 Id invalid or unnnforceable, chall not ba -Iffec"ad tharcbyv and .111 provlcions3 h--21-eof, in c1l otLLir re3pac.'"." rjball ram:mi- valid and onforcemble. l , EI .. .... °? .. ..:._ ?� `: :: _r _.•� .... •:� r':i'. :i .. .. ...... L• ... ark -. .. -. ..`• .. :i I r • �: . c I i ' _ /� •, is �,J +�.SP` •� ::•:.: `' �1 f 7 i . 4 V: \ +3 ' 1 .�i113:. fsa ^eu :.i: %:�• 4.?.a [:^ �• / Eii..fiia�CA� cL _' all- Ti r ;+z: � �. •`, •r _TL u. -ora+ vac` ann. w. a. .asz.�.s:aa. :.v.:�..a.al..wn::: .a ..a+•...:.a.- ay.�r. .x>.n� v ■aeaaass r u . • •a-..a... 1 9 i (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) CITY OF EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, on Monday, January 15, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. and will at said time and place consider the following: 1. Appeal by KMSP -TV of a Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision on December.21, 1978, denying their request for a 100 foot antenna height variance to permit a 150 foot antenna. The property is generally located at 6975 York Avenue South and described as follows: Registered Land Survey No. 629. 2. Appeal by United Properties /Twin City Federal of a Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision on December 21;.1978, denying their request for a sign variance. The property is generally located at 3400 West 66th Street and described as follows: Part of Lot 4, Block 4 South - dale Acres and part of Lot 4, Cassin's Outlots. All recommendations.and objections will be heard at said meeting. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COLNCIL. FLORENCE B. HALLBERG City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun on Wednesday, January 3, 1979. Please send 2 Affidavits of Publication. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD NOVEMBER 16, 1978, AT 5:30 P.M. EDINA`- CITY.` HALL CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Chairman pro- tem,Bill Shaw, David-Runyan, Clark Miller Staff.Present: Harold Sand, Assistant Planner; Judy Teichert, Secretary. I. Approval of the Minutes Mr. Clark Miller moved approval of the September 21, 1978 Regular Meeting Minutes_.of the Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Mr. David Runyan,seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. Notices of Public Hearing Judy Teichert advised the Board that Notice of Public Hearing for all of the items to be heard had been published in the Edina Sun-on, Wednesday, November 1, 1978, and notice to affected property owners was mailed Tuesday, October 31, 1978. Affidavits of Notice and Publication are on file. III. HEARINGS: B -78 -41 KMSP Television. 6975 -York Avenue South. Part of Tract M, Registered= -Land Survey No. 629. REQUEST: 100::foot antenna tower height variance" (to permit a 150 foot high antenna tower) Harold Sand said the KMSP property on the northeast corner of 70th Street and York Avenue South presently has a fifty foot truncatedantenna tower with several microwave antennas on top of .that tower, and were requesting . to.extend the height of their antenna to 150 feet which would require a 100 foot antenna tower height variance. IIe continued that the facilities, built in 1972, are on property zoned C -3, Commercial District. Presently using microwave trans- mission from Edina to the Foshay Tower which is relayed to Shoreview, Mr. Sand explained the two leg path requiring two separate frequencies would need to be replaced because of construction of the'Pillsbury Building downtown. He added the proponents had indicated that programming changes and competitive needs dictate that they have access to a receiving station for signals relayed from a satellite; but since there is not room for this type of facility in Edina, an additional microwave connection is needed to the Shoreview antenna. Mr. Sand continued the proponents need direct, line -of -sight microwave transmission from Edina to Shoreview because additional microwave channels are not available�to permit a bend in the signal, and additional height is necessary to clear ground obstructions between Edina and Shoreview such as the Washburn Water Tower. Mr. Sand suggested that-there are several alternatives that should be investigated that would eliminate the need for the variance. He noted i 4 4. Board of Appeals and Adjustments November 16, 1978 Page 2 that there are many tall buildings in the area that may be suitable for mounting the microwave equipment. He indicated the staff .felt that the hardships, claimed were.self- imposed or simply inconvenient, and.,there had been no evidence presented that there were circumstances that reduced or eliminated public detriment_in.this situation.. Staff maintained that there were no similar substantial property rights possessed by others in the vicinity to preserve, but that the request might estab- lish an undesirable precedent for other variance requests. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the variance request. The proponents present were Donald Swartz, President of United Television; Ron King, the Station Manager; Glen Smith, Director of Engineering; Elmer Johnson, Transmitter Supervisor at the Shoreview Tower site; and Dan Reader, an Engineering Consultant. Mr. Swartz began by pointing out the tower was not abutting any residential district and was located down in a basin area. He further stated the technology of receiving and transmitting television signals had changed consider - ably in_the seven years they have been located at their Edina site. Mr. Swartz' said that being cognizant that the Pillsbury Building was going up, KMSP had done several engineering studies. They found the staff alternatives ambiguous and not feasible. Mr. Swartz explained KMSP was attempting to install an earth satellite station to provide the Twin Cities area with direct satellite reception. Mr. Runyan clarified that a tower of that height is not allowed so KMSP is looking for a variance. He wondered if there were alternatives that would allow KMSP to achieve, their desired end without needing a variance. Mr. Glen Smith, Director of Engineering, stated they first checked out:- telephone lines to several different.-buildings, most of which objected to the antennas on their buildings.. To Mr. Shaw's question of why KMSP could not.-microwave from their Southdale studio over to the IDS and then relay out to their Shoreview Tower, Mr. Smith replied the IDS tower would not allow any more towers on top of their building, but even if they did there would be a problem with the window washer. He explained the window washer would break the signals which would interrupt transmission of programming. Mr. Smith also stated most tall buildings objected to the additional height of a tower on top of their buildings. Further, most buildings like the one at 6400 Barrie Road would allow one but not the three that KMSP found necessary, an eight foot in.diameter tower and 2 six foot in diameter towers. Point of France, which Mr. Smith indicated was also checked out, is partially blocked by the Fairview Hospital. The Yorktown'Continental Apartments refused to put additional towers.on their building. Mr. Dan Reader, an engineering consultant for KMSP, stated the most preferable linkage that could be established is a direct one. He continued that anything that deviates. from_a.,direct.:linkage, ;involves.- .some°,compromise to Board of Appeals and Adjustments November 16, 1978 Page 3, the broadcast, whether. that be with passive repeaters or dual hop microwaves.'. KMSP indicated, they need not only the requirements for the.studio transmitter, link but the requirements that will be imposed when'they want to 'install a satellite "earth station. Mr., Reader explained the satellite earth station would involve new demands on the present system. He-clarified when multi -hop- microwave systems are used instead of single hop microwave systems there is compromise; plus there is the additional problem that the frequency spectrum is over - burdened already in that all the,channels available are already in use and assigned to other broadcasters. In this particular instance Mr. Reader noted that most of the microwave systems are being used -at a telefarm facility. That, he explained, means the receiving antennas for those channels are on towers pointed roughly south'in the same direction KMSP intends to broadcast to their Shoreview tower. He '.'Stated that should KMSP go. to the two -hop system, they are being called upon to use frequencies that are not available. Further, he felt it would be extremely unlikely that it would be possible to coordinate simultaneous use of those frequencies with other broadcasters. Mr. Shaw asked how high the tower at Shoreview is. Mr. Smith replied it was,1398 feet.. Mi.' Reader paraphrased that to do a two -hop "system - more frequencies would -be required, and it is not apparent, at present, where those frequencies can come from. Mr. Runyan wondered if he was actually saying a straight linkage system was the best solution. Mr. Reader affirmed that was the most appropriate system. Mr. Shaw asked about the possible use of the Edina water tower. Mr.'.. Sand: indicated the Edina water towers stood over 200 feet in height. Mr. Shaw felt the City would lease a small portion of the Edina water-,tower. Mr. Reader responded that. the problem, however, exists that a two -hop system would still be necessary. A passive repeater for this purpose, he cited, would have to be extremely close and rear the studio to do the job. Mr. Reader made a quick calculation on the required dimensions for a passive repeater to the apartment building at 6400 Barrie which is .75 miles away from the transmit point, and in order to secure with a passive repeater the.same performance of a direct shot,-it would have-to be forty feet by 100 feet long. Mr. Shaw asked why an antenna could not be put on the top of a 200 plus foot Edina water tower. Mr. Shaw continued that the frequency could be brought back in by wire. Mr. Smith wondered if there would be room for the equipment - the microwave transmittersrand` receivers.. Mr. Reader 'asked if the spirit of the ordinance was predominantely protective in nature or aesthetic. Mr. Shaw replied it was a combination of both. Mr. Reader felt it hard to justify from an aesthetic standpoint erecting a tall structure on another building. Board of Appeals and Adjustments November 16, 1978 = Page 4 Mr. Shaw stated he would find the antennas equally objection- able on their own tower as the water tower. Mr. Reader felt that because they already have a 50 foot tower with antennas on it, the only difference would be a slightly slimmer extension of the present tower. ,Mr. Shaw answered that he:: would rather see KMSP.utilize an already existing structure of.200 feet. Mr. Runyan questioned why the reflectors could not be put on top of an already existing tall structure without going to something very large. Mr. Smith replied that if IMSP put their antennas on an apartment, a passive repeater would have to be used. Mr.' Runyan asked if Mr. Smith was saying it would not be possible to go from their studio to the water tower to Shoreview. Mr. Smith replied they could go.from the water tower to Shoreview.. Mr. Shaw asked if they could then go from the water tower.by wire to their studio rather than by further microwave reflection. Mr. Reader replied that it was not clear whether the video facilities would be available and what the cost factor would be. Mr. Runyan stated he felt that KMSP should attempt to utilize an already existing object that is already high rather than to extend another high object up into the sky. Mr. Ron King pointed out that there was a reliance factor that also must be considered aside from the engineering feasibility that hasn't been positively ascertained. Mr. Donald .Swartz added the casualty factor of another linkage should also be considered, and KMSP felt they could best serve the public by not having to rely on another linkage. Mr. Shaw pointed out that in five years additional buildings could be built which would block the direct linkage they were proposing, and then KMSP would be back.for additional height variances. He further stated he did not feel that all of the alternatives had been sufficient - ly explored by KMSP with the staff and the City Engineer. Mr. Glen Smith replied-that there was no question that having :'the tower on the site would be more preferable.qualitatively. 'He said. there was J ust no way the .signal could be processed more often and get as good a .results as if it was done in one hop. Mr. Shaw asked how.the signal was trans- mitted from the paravella antenna down into the studio. Mr. Smith replied a wave guild was used.. He added that.if the signal came to the water tower it would have to be an entirely different way of processing the signal and would involve some degredation of the signal.. Mr. Bill Shaw clarified that even if Pillsbury was not building the additional stories KMSP.would still want the variance for the satellite earth station. Mr. King confirmed that was correct. Mr. Donald Swartz stated_he felt at the time the ordinance was written many years::,ago, they did not anticipate a television station in Edina with its antennas. He continued that the ordinance was probably basically aimed at construction companies or others who mi-ght.use a short wave radio. Mr. Shaw explained that the C -3 ordinance was designed for commercial development, and a 50 foot height limitation is placed on all :buildings zoned C -3. Mr. Swartz noted he was referring to the tower..or.dinance. Board of Appeals and Adjustments November 16, 1978 Page 5 Mr. Runyan questioned what exactly was'meant by the statement "detriment to the public" because the tower-would be detrimental only in the visual sense. Mr. Sand explained that the City:is granted the authority to adopt ordinances that will, promote >or - protect the public health, welfare-and well -being of citizens and property. owners. Mr. Sand continued to suggest that if the_ ='Board was so inclined perhaps an ammendment to the ordinance was more appropriate than a variance. Mr. Shaw noted that the H.R.A. is currently working on the development of southeast Edina, and he felt this tower would not fit into their plan. Mr. Donald Swartz asked the Board to keep in mind that KMSP is attempting fo serve the public as -a broadcaster. He added that technology is- changing and to give the public the best possible service in reception, color, and audio a straight link to Shoreview would be the best solution. Mr. Swartz felt that the public interest should override the aesthetic considerations. Mr. Shaw, reminded the proponents that the Board represents the City of Edina and is charged with the safety, health,_ visual and every other aspect with respect to the community. Mr. Runyan asked.what time frame KMSP was working under. Mr. Donald Schmidt replied they had hoped to have an earth station in'March or early spring. Mr. Runyan suggested that the matter be held over to give the proponents -a chance to check more .thoroughly into the alternatives available to them. Mr. Shaw added that he would like to see it continued also but if there are no other viable alternatives Mr. Shaw felt the City Council should examine the terms-of the ordinance to see if they felt a revision.: was in order. Mr. Swartz stated KMSP would be more than happy to consider the. alternatives and present their findings at the next meeting. With that Mr.. Clark Miller moved the KMSP variance request be continued to the December 21, 1978 meeting. Mr. Dave Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. B -78 -45 John J. Velie. 4300 -4302 Valley View Road. All that part of the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 28; Range 24, lying south of West 62nd, Street, west of Brookview Avenue, and northeasterly of Valley View Road. REQUEST: setback variances Mr. Sand informed the Board that Mr. Velie had ordered a survey of the subject property which was not yet-available. However, he added that Mr Velie believes he will have adequate information available for the Board's December 21, 1978 meeting and would request the matter be continued until that timer Mr. David Runyan moved the matter be continued. Mr. Clark Miller seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. B -78 -47 Rauenhorst Corporation. 7700 France Avenue South.. Tracts R, S, T, U. Registered Land Survey,.No. 1129. REQUEST: 1 story building height variance to permit a 4 story building. 25 foot side yard variance Mr. Sand noted that this variance request is being done in conjunction with a rezoning, replatting, and a development plan.review for all of the vacant land south of West 76th Street, west of France Avenue, and east of Parklawn Avenue. He continued that the majority of the site is currently zoned Planned Industrial District and a small portion on the north side is proposed to be rezoned from R -1, Single.Family to PID, Planned Industrial District. Preliminary approval, he noted, has been recommended by the Edina Community Development and Planning Commission, and the City Council will review the request on November 20, 1978. While reviewing the plans with the Board, Mr. Sand explained that the immediate goal of the development was to construct .a 225,000 square foo t office building for National Car Rental Corporation on the southerly portion of the site that was proposed to be a four story structure with an average height of 50 feet, 8 inches. He continued that the setback from the northerly property line is 51 feet, and since the PID zone permits a maximum height of three stories and requires an interior side yard of 1.5 times the average height of the building, a one story building height variance is requested; because a 76 foot side yard is required, a 25 foot side_. yard. variance was requested. Mr. Sand also noted .the subject property is at a relatively low elevation, and extensive areas of the site would require soil correction. How ever, Mr. Sand.added that the proposed structure conforms in all other respects to the PID requirements,.and is adjacent to the Mann France Avenue Theater in /Bloomington which is expected to be developed commercially. in.the near future. Mr. Sand stated the staff had been working closely with. Rauenhorst concerning the traffic .generation, the intensity of the development, and traffic circulation patterns on the site. Mr. Sand continued that the developer had responded to these concerns in a very positive manner with a =high . quality planned development. The additional height requested, he added, was justified by the difficult soil conditions; because of the topography and the fact that four story buildings are permitted and exist in office zones adjacent to France Avenue, the additional height would not appear excessive. The staff felt that the side yard setback variance was logical in connection with the height variance. In addition; the staff did not believe an interior side yard should be required to be larger than the required street.setbacks. Mr. Sand also mentioned that the height variance does not permit increased intensity with the proposed design because of the excess green area and the stepped,,-back design. Therefore, Mr. Sand recommended approval of the variance based upon the reasons stated in the staff report, and contingent upon the platting, zoning and plan review approval by the City Council; the plans as presented to staff;. and the written agreement that the proposed structure represents- 'full-ldevelopment of'-the site pursuant to the development plans. Board Of Appeals and Adjustments November 16, 1978 Page 7 Mr. Bob Worthington, the proponent, explained the plans, to 'the Board,_.and revealed that. the previous,:;night the -Board of Managers of the Nine . Mile Creek Watershed had approved their grading and excavation. - plans. Mr. Shaw. asked if Rauenhorst objected to any of the contingencies suggested by the staff. Mr. Worthington replied they had no objections and explained they are attempting to put this development in the Planned Industrial zone because of the concern the City had previously expressed when Rauenhorst proposed a restaurant cluster for the site north of West 76th Street. Mr. Dave Runyan moved the Board approve the variance of height and setback as stated in the staff report with the staff recommendations of contingencies. Mr. Clark Miller seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. B -78-60 William and Bernice Jackson. 5660 Woodcrest Drive. Lot 16, Block 3, Colonial Grove Sixth Addition. REQUEST: 6.1 percent lot coverage variance (320 square foot addition) Mr. Sand noted the property located at 5660 Woodcrest Drive has a small pond, behind the house. He also explained there is an existing deck. in the rear of the house which.was the subject of a side yard setback variance in 1975 to allow the..construction on the south and east sides of the dwelling. He continued that the proponents are now proposing to extend the deck across the majority of;the width of the dwelling ;:.with -a 9 X,32 foot addition, and `a screened porch at the north end of the deck. Mr. Sand - explained the present dry lot area -is 10,892 square feet,. and the proposed addition would increase the lot coverage to 3,384 square feet or 31.1 percent.. The ordinance requires a maximum 25 percent coverage, he-added, therefore, a -..6.1 percent variance was requested. Chairman Shaw asked Mr. Sand about the measure of the dry lot area. Mrs. Jackson noted they owned 6,000 square feet of the pond also. Mr. Shaw asked if the lot area was measured by the dry land only. Mr. Sand replied the ordinance was not specific on that point but that had been the interpretation in the past because the concept of lot`coverage is to relate the dwelling size to the land area that is available. Mr. Runyan also noted that the deck would not be a solid building but only seven or eight posts would actually hit the ground. Mr. Sand stated staff had received a letter from William and Bernice Hirsch,.the adjacent property owners to the northwest which essentially objected to the granting of the variance; they also submitted photographs of the view from their. window. He revealed that the proponent's home was built after the Hirsch dwelling. Mr. Runyan stated the deck addition would undoubtedly reduce part of the Hirsch' view of the pond. Mr. Hirsch spoke that in 1969 they had an architect specially design their home with the family room .to the.:back.to take_full advantage of the .Board of Appeals and Adjustments November 16, 1978 Page 8 view of the pond. He added that if ,a screen porch was allowed on the deck what would stop it from becoming a permanent glass enclosed porch. Mr. Hirsch also. felt the addition would detract.from -the value of his property. Mrs. Jackson said that their first consideration in consulting their architect was that they would not block off the'Hirsch' view. Mrs. Hirsch replied that unfortunately the view would be hampered. Mr. and Mrs. Crane, neighbors from across the pond, were also present to view the Jackson plans. Mr. Sand noted the Jacksons would match the roof pitch, the siding, and overhang. Mr. Crane commented that most of the property owners bought property around the pond to take advantage of the natural beauty, and he was concerned that an additional structure would take away some of the green space.. Mr. Shaw explained to Mrs. Jackson that the Board usually insists on written consent of the neighboring property owners because they also consider that the variance. will not do the adjacent owners.-any harm. Mr.. Shaw continued_ to recommend to the Board that the Jackson request be denied because of the objections by surrounding property owners. Also he felt the request had the elements of being a detriment to.the community because the Board -could not be certain the Jacksons would own the same piece of property for the rest of time, and if the variance was granted there was nothing to prevent either the Jacksons .or subsequent owners from building a permanent structure from ground up in that same corner of the property. Mr..Runyan commented that when a variance does not bother the people around the house, it is easier to be objective and grant the variance than when the surrounding neighbors. object. He continued that .the Board would not override their objections to grant the.variance. Mr. Clark Miller moved denial of the variance. Mr. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the variance request was denied. IV. Next Meeting Date: December 21, = 1978, =at 5:30 p.m. V. Adjournment Mr. Clark Miller moved the November 169 1978 meeting of the Board of Appeals and:Adjus_tments be adjourned. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion for adjournment of the meeting carried. Respectfully submitted, Judy Teichert, Secretary F s (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) i CITY OF EDINA 4 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, on Thursday, December 21, 1978, at 5:30 p.m. and will at said time and place consider the following: 1.p_� 6975 York Avenue South. Registered Land Survey No. 629. REQUEST: 99 foot antenna height variance to permit a 149 °foot antenna 2. John J. Velie 4300 -02 Valley View Road. All that part of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 28, Range 24, lying south of West 62nd Street, west of Brookview Avenue -and northeasterly of . Valley View Road. REQUEST: 10 foot front yard setback 25 foot rear yard setback 3,147 square foot lot area.var. 3. United Properties 3400 West 66th Street. Part of Lot 4, Block 4, Southdale Acres and part of Lot 4, Cassin's Outlots. REQUEST: Sign Variance 4. Arnold Perschin 5700 West ._68th Street. Lot 1, Block. 2, The Hights "Second Addition.. REQUEST: 9 foot side street setback 5. Gilbert H. Feig 7708 -10 Tanglewood. Lot 3, Block 6, Braemar Hills Ninth Addition. REQUEST: 28' 6" rear yard variance. All recommendations and objections will be heard at said meeting. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA;BOARD OF APPEALS AND,ADJUSTMENTS. FLORENCE B. HALLBERG City Clerk Please publish in the -Edina Sun on Wednesday, December• 6, 1978. Please send 5 Affidavits of puBlication. A / s 6975 YORK AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55435 AREA 612 925 -3300 C3r��p Z. TELEVISION December 27, 1978 Dear Ms. Hallberg: Pursuant to a letter dated December 22, from Judy Teichert, Secretary, Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments, this correspondence will serve as a letter of intent to appear on behalf of KMSP -TV before the Edina City Council on Monday, January 15. I would appreciate your advising at what time we should be in attendance and any additional information we will need to supplement our appearance. Thank you very much. Cordially, Roland King Station Manager RK:pg Ms. Florence Hallberg City Clerk CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 A TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TELEVISION STATION Appl ican-i IMP -TV. United Television,_ Inc Ca: ;o tluf:.bcr _ i)a-l.o July 24, 1978 Fee f'a i d .Phone` 92_5 -3300 Address 6975 York Ave. So., Edina, Minnesota Zip 35435 Status of Applicant (owner, buyer, agent, etc.) : Owner Legal Uoscr i pt i on: Plat -76636 Parcel-6470 Rbq. L,�,nd SUrvey No. 629 Street Address: 6975 York Avenue South Request.: Extend existing 50' Microwave Tower to 149'. Hlinnesota statutes and Edina ordinances require that the following conditions rust be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: (If yes, please explain. Use additional sheets i necessary.) Yes MO a) Relieve an undue hardship which was not self- imposed or a mere inconvenience. -L_ Microwave signal will be obstructed due to_h iu'lding being built in present path bet��reen Foshay Tower and Shorhvie;r transmitter site._ With additional height KMSP -TV will have direct path from studio at 6975 York Ave. So. to transmitter site at Shoreview. b) Correct extraordinary circumstances applicat:le to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. X Television studio originating live. vi {temp, film_ and net_ programming. Also providing electronic news gathering service. c) Preserve a substantial property right poss sscd by other property in the vicinity and zon i nc, district. X _- The microwave structure is an integral part of the ability to conduct business operations from property site. d) Not be material 1 y detr i mcnta I to The pub I i c :lo I fare or- injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. .L_ There would be no detriment or in.iury_to public ;-gel f are or property in granting_ variance. lynaiuro of Applicant Lmgp T�z TELEVISION PETITION FOR VARIANCE a) Explanation For the path of a microwave signal, a line of sight must exist between the microwave transmitting antenna and the microwave receiving antenna. A microwave signal functions similarily to a beam of light. Any obstructions such as trees, buildings, etc.,- between the microwave transmitting antenna and the microwave receiving antenna would block the signal or beam. To achieve a line of sight from the KMSP -TV studio, at 6975 York Avenue South, to the KMSP -TV main transmitter site at 550 Gramsie Road, Shoreview, the sending or transmitting microwave antenna must be at least 149 feet above ground. A71 r:NE.A f�ii LlS MINNESOTA 55,135 AREA 612 925 -3300 A TWENTIE rH CENTURY FOX TELEVISION STAr oN City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN In The Matter Of: Height Variance Request #B -78 -41 RE: Statement on Behalf of KMSP 2/26/79 BY: Daniel B Rieder, Communications Engineering Consultant Members of the Council: I have been requested to provide this certification to the effect that I have performed various engineering calculations, determina- tions and analysis on behalf of KMSP toward effecting an optimal solution to their microwave system design requirements. KMSP has retained me as ,a consultant to perform analysis and propose the statement which I presented before the Council on 26 February 1979. This consultation was intitiated on the strength of expertise demon- strated by my pertinent experience, background and performance in the successful design, analysis, operation and construction of radio frequency communications systems herein described for your consider- ation: I have rendered professional service to the electronics communications industry since 1957; for the military, aerospace research and broad- cast communications services in various technical, engineering and consulting capacities. I hold a valid FCC First Class Radio Tele- phone License with radar endorsement. During my professional devel- opment I have gained a thorough acquaintance with theory, calculation, prediction and measurement of electromagnetic field strength and radio frequency propagation as it pertains to communications systems design. I am employed as the Director of Engineering for Minnesota Public. Radio, a statewide public broadcasting network of FM stations. During my tenure since 1966 I have been tasked with the development of all statewide network systems facilities and have personally conducted the planning, design,calculation, specification and construction supervision for numerous network transmission plants, microwave sys- tems, relays and tower facilities. 2 It is.a matter of record with the Federal Communication Commission that I performed the propagation /path calculations and engineering studies for all the various broadcast facilities and microwave relay systems comprising the MPR network system and have submitted numer- ous engineering calculations and determinations in support of these and other facilities passed on by the Commission. My services have frequently been utilized in a consultative capacity both as an individual and as a member of committees to perform eng- ineering .evaluations, calculations and analysis pertinent to radio frequency systems design, frequency allocations and establishment of communication system technical standards. These services have been rendered for various individual broadcast companies, the Corpor- ation for Public Broadcasting and National,Public Radio in Washington. I currently serve on the National.Public Radio Engineering Task Force which has been responsible for the analysis, design, planning, speci- fication and coordination of a nationwide Satellite Communications System involving 200 new earth stations. I have personnally partici- pated in the site design, performance analysis, coordination, and interference study for six satellite earth terminals to be constructed in Minnesota. I remain available to answer any questions you may have regarding my determinations towards this issue or technical report. &a., "' • Daniel B Rieder Tele: 221 -1545 Bus. 636 -9017 Home /VI G STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF KMSP -TV REGARDING REQUEST FOR VARIA CE OF ORDINANCE #812 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA Almost everyone has experienced the inconvenience and annoyance of having one of their favorite TV programs interrupted at some strategic time by a loss of picture or sound. No doubt you have also witnessed the subsequent captioned disclaimer by your local telecaster attesting to the fact that the failure was network problem and was not caused by their facilities. It is largely true that this type of malfunction in the past was primarily attributable to the fact that long haul, multi -hop network interconnections, have exhibited less realiability than the final link to the viewer through the local TV stat";;,ns Facilities., As the State of the Art presses home new technological developments, such as direct point -to -point transmission by geosynchronous satellites, new program transmission standards with much higher quality -and reliability are rapidly evolving. The previous limitation on quality and reliability of programs by national transmission facilities will no longer be the case. 'Conversely, there is now an intense pressure on the local telecaster to update and improve his local transmission facilities so that they do not become the limiting factor on the ultimate uaq lity and reliability of pro- gramming available to the viewer. It is paramount to realize that major market telecasting today is a fiercely competitive undertaking in which success depends not only on program content, but on ability to deliver the highest reliability and technical quality con- sistent within the state of the art. To survive in this environment means a telecaster must at least maintain a parity with its competition as to the reliability and quality of its transmission through the studio to trans- mission link. It is the confluence of these considerations that cause KMSP -TV to tenaciously seek relief from the constraints of Ordinance #812, to obtain a variance or waiver allowing them to extend an existing 50 -foot self- supporting tower to a height of 1-50 feet at their studio location in Edina. - 2 - This height increase would provide for the establishment of bi- directional, .jirect single -hop microwave transrri:,sions between their studio and'Shoreview. (Transmitter and proposed Earth Station sites). This system will yield higher characteristics of quality and reliability than any alternate dual - hop configuration. It is imperative to note that KMSP -TV's persistance in this matter does not primarily result from the cost ramifications of alternate solutions but from the need to establish a link with superior performance characteristics. ESP is adamant that after examination and study of various alternate solu- tions there remains no other viable approach which would not significantly com- promise the, qualitative performance, reliability and availability which can be achieved with a single direct path Where as, previous commentary has established that other telecasters in this market have achieved such direct links, KMSP is hesitant to passively commit to a link whose inferior technical performance would inhibit its ability to maintain a competitive quality of transmission. The following considerations remain relevant to the proposal in question for the Council's consideration: 1. If KMSP is forced to fall back upon a dual -hop system, qualitative performance, reliability, and availability will be compromised and degraded below the level which is now sought with the single -hop configuration to meet the pressures of competition and the state of the art improvements demanded by the consideration of trans - mision to and reception from geosynchronous satellites. 2. A dual -hop system would impose multiple asthetic impacts on the environment in Edina. It is not clear why several new antennae installations on buildings or structures, where they are completely foreign to its architecture, would be preferable to the extension of an existing single tower whose use and purpose is already accepted and will be anticipated by the public. 3. The instant tower extension proposal was exposed for public reaction and comment There• has been no opposition from any individual or agency representing any public or private interest. - 3 - 4. A small self- supporting tower can be designed with a high degree of predictabil ty as to its behavior. It is true that very tall 'guyed' towers exhibit- some -- characteristics that defy exact structural pre- dictability. [There is, however, no apprarent rational reason why a 150 -foot self- supporting tower, adequately designed to appropriate specifications, should dexhibit any more stuctural indeterminacy or risk than any other tall slender structure in a metropolitan environ- ment. The tower, if constructed, could not possibly fall on any Edina streets (163 feet to York Avenue and 220 feet to 70th Street). 5. KMSP has taken photographs from various aspects and locations around the existing tower. The existing structure is frequently difficult to locate on these views. When one appends a hypothetical 100-foot- A. Lapered addition to the existing-stub on these views, it is- dubious whether the proposed construction would subjectively be perceived as the dominant feature on the horizon except within a very limited radius of the tower. 6. WTCN -TV in Golden Valley is not an arms length comparison with KMSP. Indeed, the fact that they require fewer microwave frequencies . attests to the fact that they have a direct single -hop path to Shoreview and also have an earth terminal co- located with their studio. Realization of these facts urges KMSP to seek the least deleterious method in accomplishing their own STL to maintain technical parity with regard to performance. 7. The very nature of telecasting in a major market is so intrinsically dependent on and pervasively related to its ability to transmit, receive, and process signals with.ultra -high quality and reliability is likely that this tower height variance request should be viewed as an exception rather than as a preceden It is not clear that any of the agencies sited as likely to rely on the instant case for precedent could demonstrate so pervasive a need for a variance. How can one compare the system design objectives and transmission requirements of a television broadcast station with those of a power company, CATV, or branch library. t/ I r •• WIM FKMSP would urge the Council to carefully consid,r all of the ramifications of this proposal for a height increase against tr,t, concomitent negative impacts against the public interest which would accrue if alternate proposals are pursued. Any viable alternate solution would create additional asthetic environmental compromises in Edina without eliminating the existing one. Furthermore, these more cumbersome solutions would compromise perfor- mance, reliability and availability of the proposed service even with the additional expense, waste of resources, materials, energy and spectrum space. KMSP contends that these pointless, cumbersome manipulations can be entirely avoided if a relatively minor encroachment on the visual asthetics in a very limited area of Edina were allowed. Since the intrinsic nature of their business exhibits a unique and rare degree of extreme dependence on this specific type of transmission facility, a variance should be seriously con- sidered. 1 STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF K14SP -TV �~~ REGARDING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF ORDINANCE 0812 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA Almost everyone has experienced the inconvenience and annoyance of having p one of their favorite TV programs interrupted at some strategic time by a loss of picture or sound. No doubt you have also witnessed the subsequent captioned disclaimer by your local telecaster attesting to the fact that the failure was network problem and.was not caused by their facilities. It is largely true that this type of malfunction in the past was primarily attributable to the fact that long haul, multi -hop network interconnections, have exhibited less realiability than the final link to the viewer through the local TV stations facilities. As the State of the Art presses home new technological developments, such as direct point -to -point transmission by geosynchronous satellites, new program transmission standards with much higher quality and reliability are rapidly evolving. The previous limitation on quality and reliability of programs by national_ transmission facilities will no longer be the case. Conversely, there is now an intense pressure on the local telecaster to update and improve his local transmission facilities -.so that they:do not become the limiting- factor on the ultimate quality and reliability of pro- gramming available to the viewer. It is paramount to realize that major market telecasting today is a fiercely competitive undertaking in which success depends not only on program content, but on ability to deliver the highest reliability and technical quality con - sistent within the state of the art. To survive in this environment means a telecaster must at least maintain a parity with its competition as to the reliability and quality of its transmission through the studio to trans- mission link. It is the confluence of these considerations that cause KMSP -TV to tenaciously seek relief from the constraints of .Ordinance #812, to obtain a variance or waiver allowing them to. extend an existing 50-foot self - supporting tower to a height of 150 feet at their studio location in Edina. r -2- This height increase would provide for the establishment of directional, direct single -hop microwave transmissions between their studio and Shoreview. (Transmitter and proposed Earth Station sites). This system will yield higher characteristics of quality and reliability than..any alternate dual - hop configuration. It is imperative to note that MSP -TV's prrsistance in this matter does not primarily result from the cost ramifications of alternate solutions but from the need to establish a link with superior performance characteristics. KMS.R is adamant that after examination and study of various alternate solu- - --tios there remains no other viable approach which would not significantly com- promise the, qualitative performance, reliability and availability which can be-achieved with a single direct path. Where as, previous commentary has established that other telecasters in this market have:achif s!ch direct links, KMSP is hesitant to passively commit to a link whose _rior technical performance would. inhibit its ability to maintain a competitive quality of transmission. die following considerations,remain relevant to the proposal in question for the Council's consideration: KMSP is forced to fall back upon a dual -hop system, qualitative - Performance, reliability, and availability will be compromised and degraded below the level which is now-sought with the single -hop configuration to meet the pressures of competition and the state of the art improvements demanded by the consideration of trans - mision to and reception from geosynchronous satellites. . 2. A dual -hop system would impose multiple asthetic impacts on the environment in Edina. It is not clear why several new antennae installations on buildings or structures, where they are completely foreign to its architecture, would be preferable to the extension of -an existing single tower whose use and purpose is already accepted and will be anticipated by the public. 3. The instant tower extension proposal was exposed for public reaction and comment.Ther.e• has been no opposition from any individual or agency representing any public or private interest. -3- 4. A. small self- supporting tower can be designed with a high degree of predictability as to its behavior. It is true that very tall 'guyed' towers exhibit some characteristics that, defy exact structural pre- dictability. There is; however, no apprarent rational reason why a 150- -foot self - supporting tower, adequately designed to appropriate specifications, should exhibit any more stuctural indeterminacy or risk than any other tall slender structure in a metropolitan environ- ment. The tower, if constructed, could not possibly fall on any Edina streets (163 feet to York Avenue and 220 feet to 70th Street). 5. KMSP has taken photographs from various aspects and locations around the existing tower. The existing structure is frequently difficult to locate on these views. When one appends a hypothetical 100 -foot tapered addition to the existing stub on theses views, it is dubious whether the proposed construction would subjectively be perceived as the dominant feature on the horizon except within a very limited radius of the tower. 6. WTCN -TV in Golden Valley is not an arms length comparison with KMSP. Indeed, the fact that they require fewer microwave frequencies attests to the fact that they have a direct single -hop path to Shoreview and also have an earth terminal co- located with their studio. Realization of these facts urges KMSP to seek the least deleterious method in• accomplishing -their own STL to maintain technical parity with regard to performance. 7. The very nature of telecasting in a major market is so intrinsically dependent on and pervasively related to its ability to transmit, receive, and process signals with ultra -high quality and reliability it is likely that this tower height variance request should be viewed as an exception rather than as a precedent. It is not clear that any -of the agencies sited as likely to rely on the instant case for precedent could demonstrate so pervasive a need for a variance.. How can one compare the system design objectives and transmission requirements of a television broadcast-station with those of a power company, CATV, or branch library. -4- In conclusion,:_KMSP would urge.the Council to carefully consider all of the ramifications of this proposal far a height increase. against the. concomitent negative impacts against the public interest which would accrue if alternate i proposals are pursued. Any viable alternate solution would create additional asthetic environmental compromises in Edina without eliminating the existing one. Furthermore, these more- cumbersome solutions would compromise perfor- mance, reliability and availability of the proposed service even with the additional expense, waste of resources, materials, energy and spectrum space. KMSP contends that these pointless, cumbersome manipulations can be entirely avoided if a relatively minor encroachment on the visual asthetics in a s very limited area of Edina were allowed. Since the intrinsic nature of their business exhibits a unique and rare degree of extreme dependence on this k'. specific type of transmission facility, a variance should be seriously con sidered. John, R. DA)ois Communications Consulting Engineer Registered Professional Electrical Engineer 'City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Friends: 7005 Heatherton Trail Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Telephone (612) 927 -6810 January 15, 1979 I have been asked by the Edina City Planner to provide technical assistance for the zoning variance request ( #B- 78 -41) that is being appealed by Kt-ISP Television. The variance request is to permit KMSP -TV's existing 50 -foot microwave tower to be extended to 150 feet. QUALIFICATIOPIS My qualifications to provide the required technical support are as follows: e I hold a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. e My Master's Degree Thesis and my Ph.D. Thesis were both associated with television signal propagation at Ultra High Frequencies (UHF). e I, taught micro,.rave theory and experimental microwave courses at the University of Wisconsin , at - Madison for six years. ® I worked full time as a television transmitter engineer and studio engineer for a full -power commercial television broadcast station for seven years; my last assignment was Transmitter Supervisor involving all aspects of cor;r;iercial television broadcasting including a studio- transmitter micro - wave link (STL). e I have been in the communications engineering business for the past sixteen years. 6 I am licensed as a Registered.Pr.ofessional Engineer by the States of Illinois, Wisconsin and�Minnesota. John R. DuBois City Council -2- January 15,. 1979 o I have recently designed, and I am now'supervising.the installation of a six- station.mi.crowave network in the Minneapolis Metropolitan area. e I have served as a Communications Advisor to the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota, the U.S. Department of Justice and numerous local governmental agencies including the Edina Police,. Fire and Public Works Departments. • I assisted Edina City Attorney, Tom Erickson, in the preparation of the current Edina Tower Ordinance ( #812). e I have.been an Edina resident for the past sixteen years. SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM After carefully sifting tl in this case, the basic issue is their existing 50 -foot microwave 6975 York Avenue South in Edina, is in violation of Edina's Tower In simple terms, K11SP -TV desires two reasons: trough the large volume of data presented that YJISP Television wants to raise tower located at their television studio, to 150 feet; the proposed height increase Ordinance and KPISP -TV desires a variance. the 150 foot tower for the following 1. Their existing microwave radio link that carries the television picture from their studio to their transmitter in Shoreview uses the Foshay Tower as a relay point. Construction of the Pillsbury Center, immediately west of the Hennepin County Government Center, will interfere with KMSP -TV's microwave path between the Foshay Tower and the 'Shoreview antenna. 2. KMSP -TV desires to expand their program sources through the use of a ground receiving station for the communications satellite; they desire the additional antenna height at their studio so that they will have an unobstructed path from the studio to the ground receiving antenna site EDINA T011ER ORDINANCE #812 In the testimony at the November 16, 1973 hearing and again in his letter of December 18, 1973, Mr. Donald E. Swartz, President of the United Group Stations, the oviner of KI.1SP -TV, stated that, "Ordinance #812 was in all probability passed to prevent towers in excess of fifty feet for two -way radios and their like. The:ordinance did not foresee_ the day that the City of Edina granted a building license for a television studio and offices and the subsequent changes in technology.". City Council John R. DuBois -3- January 11, 1979 Mr. Swartz's assumption is false. Ordinance "812.is a modern ordinance; it was carefully developed by legal and communications pro- fessionals to insure the safety of residents and guests and to protect the aesthetics of Edina. The type of tower and antenna system that has been proposed by KMSP -TV is exactly what the ordinance was designed to prevent. It is interesting to note that no photographs or drawings of the proposed KIISP -TV microwave tower were submitted with the variance .reques.t. If they install three six -foot diameter and one eight -foot diameter microwave "dish" antennas on the proposed 150 -foot tower as is indicated in the November 28, 1978 letter from General Communications Company to Mr. Glenn Smith of KMSP -TV, the structure will be quite un- sightly. If the mass of antennas, as suggested above, is actually installed, then there is a second violation of Ordinance #812. Because of the very negative neighbor response to the existing tower on Wooddale Avenue, a section of the ordinance was developed to limit the area of antenna material that could be mounted on a tower. The proposed KMSP -TV antenna system is clearly in violation of that section of the ordinance. Safety is another important consideration in this matter. One of the major reasons for the ordinance section that limits the tower height was to prevent a tower from falling on adjacent owners and their property. Whenever a tower is installed, every assurance is given that it cannot possibly fail. Registered Professional Structural Engineers study and stamp the tower plans and guarantee that the tower will never fall. However, the recent tower disaster at the Shoreview. Television Tower Facility shoes that even well designed toa ,,ers do fail. If the pro- posed 150 -foot tower at the KMSP -TV studio should ever fail, it may fall on adjacent property or on a very busy Edina Street. PRECEDENT If the variance to KMSP -TV is made, then it will open the door to many others seeking to install tall antenna towers in the Southdale area of Edina. It is well known that the Cooperative Power Association (CPA) is developing a large microwave network in Minnesota and that they would like very much to install a large microwave tower near their Headquarters at 3316 best 66th Street in Edina. They intend to use more costly techniques if a microwave tower is not permitted, but if KHSP -TV installs a 150 -foot tower on York Avenue, CPA will be back to the Edina City Council for their variance. The Storer Broadcasting Company has ..recently purchased the Bloomington Cable Television System and they are now negotiating with the Minnesota John R. DuBois C1 ty.C66nci1 -4- January 15, 1979 Cable Television Board for permission to. expand their'cabl,e te.l-ev.isio.n systew into Edina. If they.see a large tower in the Southdale area, for K11SP -TV, you can he sure that they will want,.one there too. It's a matter of economics. Hennepin County is establishing a Book Circulation Control System (BCCS) with the control point for the system to be located at the Library Headquarters, 7001 York Avenue in Edina. A microwave network is being planned to provide for the required data flow in the BCCS. The County has decided to use a microwave relay station on the Government Center so that only a short microwave tower (such as the existing K11SP -TV 50 -foot tower) will be installed at'the Library Headquarters. This is a much more costly - system for the County but because Edina rigidly enforces their tower ordinance, it was decided not to ask for variance at 7001 York Avenue. Obviously, if a variance is granted to YJ4SP -TV at, 6975 York Avenue, Hennepin County would have to reconsider their decision; a 150 or 200 -foot tower at the-Library Headquarters would make the County's microwave system much simpler and less expensive. • TECHNICAL C0NSIDERATIONS A technical discussion in a letter- report to non - technical. people such as this one, is of little value if, the information presented is too complicated for the intended audience. As a result, only the key details-and results will- be presented. More technical details are available if desired. KMSP -TV has stated in the hearings and documented in several of their written presentations that no more microwave frequencies are available and they imply that they have fewer than the other television broadcasters so that they deserve the special consideration that th,.:y have requested. The table shown below was developed from material in the November 9th letter from Comsearch, Inc. to fir. Glenn Smith of K1,1SP -TV that was pre - sented by KP-1SP -TV as a part of their variance request. (Comsearch, Inc. does.frequency analysis - studies and searches on a "fee basis ".) City: Council T.V. Station KTCA -TV WCCO -TV KSTP -TV KMSP -TV WTC14 -TV TOTAL F.C.C. allo- cated channels John R. D-0,0 1S -5- MICROWAVE CHAWNELS January 15, 1979 2gHz 7gHz 12gHz Total 1 4 0 5 2 2 4 8 2 1 3 6 2 1 4 7 0 2 1 3 7 10 12 29 10 TO 22 42 The table indicates that KMSP -TV currently has 7 of the 29 micro- wave channels in use in the Metro area; only VICCO -TV with 8 microwave channels has more than KHSP -TV* All other local television stations . get along with fewer microwave channels than rjMSP -TV. These facts cause one to question the urgency and authenticity of their request for fre- quency relief. In addition, Section 74.602 of the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission pertaining to the microwave channels available to television broadcasters for "television pickup,. television STL, and television intercity relay stations" indicate that there are a total of 42 microwave channels available but only 29 are currently in use in the Twin Cities area.. It is unclear why KMSP -TV does not use some of the 13 unused microwave channels for their expansion needs. KMSP -TV has implied that their situation is somewhat different from other local television stations because their studio is located in Edina. But are they really different? Consider 4JTCN -TV. They have a studio in a very similar setting to K11SP -TV. WTCM -TV is located in Golden Valley on 441 Boone Avenue North near a golf course, shopping district and a nice residential area.. WTCN- TV.has. built a modernistic studio that incorporates their microwave antennas into a styl,tsh glass and wooden structure on the top floor of their building. The -mi-crowave antennas.are not visible except by the trained observer. Regardless of the changing technology that KMISP -TV refers to in their documents, I am quite sure that the City of Golden Valley will not be asked to approve a 150 -foot .tower for WTCN -TV. Nor .would a re- quest of that type likely get approval from the Golden Valley City Council. Yet, WTC14 -TV gets along nicely with their three microwave channels and they already have an earth satellite receiving station in operation. This "peer comparison" adds to the doubt about KMSP -TV's real need for the 150 -foot tower. One must seriously question KMSP -TV's written comments that indicate the 150 -foot towe r_is.:an "absolute Join R. DuBois City Council -6- January 15, 1979 necessity" and that "the survival of KIISP -TV" rests, with approval of the variance. One final technical consideration concerns the first-of:-their two basic reasons for requesting the variance: the impending Pillsbury Center obstruction in their Foshay Tower - Shoreview Tower microwave path. The documentation provided by WSP -TV indicates that construction of the Pillsbury Center necessitates a direct path between their studio and the Shoreview Tower; hence, the need for the 150 -foot tower. I have contacted the Construction Manager for the Gerald D. Hinds Interests, the firm that is actually building the Pillsbury Center building. He acknowledges the upcoming problem that the new building will cause to microwave users and he indicates that they will take care of the matter by offering microwave antenna space on the Pillsbury Center. Furthermore, he has been in contact with the Midwestern Relay Company and has told them of his plans. (Midwestern Relay Company is a Radio Common Carrier, RCC; they provide national television network service to all or most of the commercial television broadcast stations in Minneapolis through their own microwave network.) Mi.dwestefind RRe ayhCompanybelieve c rently supplies ABC network programming to KMSP -TV. I K14SP -TV is not fully aware of the remedial plan described above. I have contacted a representative of the Midwestern Relay Company and he offered an alternate solution their microwave antennasbfromcthen problem. They are considering moving At that lower portion of the Foshay Tower to the 80 foot mast on top. location, the microwave "beam" will clear the Pillsbury Center and a direct path to the Shoreview.Tower results. The two examples cited above indicate that obstruction by the Pillsbury Center is not a valid reason for granting K11SP -TV's variance request. The previous 14TC11 -TV example indicates that there must be some additional alternatives to K1fSP -TV's other reason for the variance: earth station satellite receiver microwave communications. ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS It is beyond the scope of this report to do the necessary engineering analysis to provide a technically provide solutions when arvariancet; nor is it the City's responsibility is denied. However, several alternate approaches to the problem will arently offered at this -time. These proposed solution "starting points" app have not been mentioned in the hearing testimony or in any of.the written documents that were presented to me: 1. Distribute the necessary microwave antennas to several local sites at Southdale.(city water tower and adjacent buildings.) f . Jo n R. DuBois City Council -7- January 1 5, 1979 and then feed the television signal back to the studio with video cable. If only one antenna is installed at each site, the antenna will probably be acceptable to the site owners.. (The City of Burnsville obtains substantial income for the City by leasing antenna space on their water towers.) Any of the local sites, mentioned in the testimony, will provide a clear, direct path to the Shoreview Tower. Thus, KMSP -TV will be able to use the microwave frequencies saved in this manner for their desired earth station expansion. 2. Distribute the necessary microwave antennas to slightly removed buildingsvihere the.owners encourage the lease of antenna space on their buildings, such as the Northwest Financial Center and the Raddison South Hotel. Then, KMSP -TV can use the higher microwave frequencies that are only suited for short range links to go from the studio to the slightly removed buildings where the long range microwave frequencies can then be used to reach the Shoreview Tower. In this manner, half of the existing K4SP -TV microwave channels can be used for their expansion. , ' 3. This next solution seems far to simple but; according to my calculations, if KMSP -TV raises their microwave antennas on the Shoreview Tower from the proposed.height (740 feet) to the 1000 foot level, the existing.50 foot tower at their studio will have a direct, line -of -sight path to Shoreview. The Washburn water tower will no longer be in the microwave path. Again, their microwave frequency requirement will be cut in half and the extra frequencies -can be used for their desired_ expansion. 4. Special microwave frequencies are set aside by the F.C.C. for Radio Common Carriers such as the Midwestern Relay Company. KMSP -TV always has the option to contract with an R.C.C. for television relay service, as they now do for their ABC network .programming. Numerous other solutions 'are possible, especially those involving a two -hop technique like the existing KMSP -TV microwave system. These should be explored in greater detail but not at the City's expense. City Council John R. DuBois ff CONCLUSIONS January 15, 1979 The weight of the facts presented, relative to KHSP -TV's variance request, seems to indicate that the basic, underlying reason for the variance request is to, reduce expenses. The proposed 150- foot -tower at the WSP -TV studio is the most inexpensive method for the station to receive programming material and to relay their broadcast signal to the transmitter site in Shoreview. Relatively-simple solutions exist (and have been offered) to the problem that K ?MSP -TV cites as their major reason for requesting the variance: blockage of their existing microwave relay path between the Foshay Tolger and their transmitter site at Shoreview. Several more complicated solutions have been offered to solve their other reason for the variance request: their need for additional microwave channels for expansion of programming sources. Itis important to realize . that if the 150 -foot tower is approved, KMSP -TV's microwave costs 1-could decrease substantially. It is not unreasonable to ask KFISP -TV to use some of the money, that they will save by having a direct path to the Shoreview Tower, to implement any of the many alternate solutions that exist. A 150 -foot microwave tower with multiple large "dish type" antennas has no place in a commercial area that borders immediately on a resi- .dential area; the tower certainly has no place _in -the Southdale area of Edina. To approve variance request B -78 -41 would establish an unsafe precedent that would almost certainly result in a proliferation of large, unsightly towers in Edina. I am pleased to be of service to the City of Edina once again, in such an important matter. I will be glad to discuss this report or any other aspect of the case with you at any time. J RD: pm Yours sincerel John R. DuBois do- q TA do lI_.,0CA,-,T RON lei AP zbl -1 VALL.CV.*.* "T I • or E L C ........... tj k- 1, -) stabdiviSi0n PAT MOORE'S FIRST ADDITION REQUEST NUMBER: S-79-1 LOCATION: 6904 Tzidian Hills Road REQUEST: do .............. I V= NORTH 0 250 5011 74550 1000 COIZIUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT January 31, 1979 S -79 -1 Pat Moore's 1st.Addition.. Generally located at 6904 Indian Hills Road. Lot 2, McCauley Heights First Addition. REFER TO: attached graphic and subdivision dedication report The subject property is a 54,448 square foot single family lot. A large single family dwelling is located on the westerly portion of the lot which fronts on Indian Hills Road. i The proposed subdivision would create a new 15,286 square foot lot which would front on Indian Hills Road. A 39,162 square foot lot would be retained for the existing dwelling on the site. Most lots on the north side of Indian Hills Road are substantially larger in area than the proposed new lot. However, many of these lots are very long and narrow and their width at the building site is quite similar to the proposed lot. Lots on the south side of Indian Hills Road and across the.street from the subject property are substantially smaller. The dimensions and area of these.lots are very similar to those of the proposed lot. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proponent's plan represents a logical subdivision of the property. Although the lots adjacent to the subject property are larger in area, staff submits that the proposed lot will not appear incom- patible due to the similarity in lot widths. Furthermore, the proposed lot is very similar in all respects to existing lots across the street. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision conditioned upon subdivision dedication. GLH:jkt 1/25/79 i i • y� a � �,�tiv a1 C L r( 1 • , 1. � � : • J'.F •\ r! Ac. 1 • • �' � a• �' / V a a . �•ti r'1 A r � O 1 1 . -ANA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CONIDWNITY DEVELOPMiENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1979, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA\CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAIMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James. Bent ley, / Leonard Fernelius, \ Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan Members Absent\ Samuel Hughes, Richard Seaberg Staff Present: cordon Hughes, Director of PYnning; Harold Sand, Assistant P .anner; Judy Teichert, Secretary; Lynn Shaw, Secretary I. of the Minutes Mary McDonald moved the minutes of the November 29, 1978, Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye/, the motion carried. II. Old Business: S -78 -8 Lyc(n Repat of Mendelssohn. Generally located south o Belmore Lane annorth of John Street. Staff recommended this item be,\continued until further informa- tion is received from the proponents. Len Fernelius moved this item be continued until further information is submitted to, staff. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted ayA�; the motion carried. \1ocated /received 8 -16 Hanson Estates. Generally north of west 78th Street, east of Marth Court, and \,west of Shaughnessy Road. \ don Hughes informed the Commission that no further informa- tion had b from the proponents, and.he recommended this \i'tem be continuZo"mmendation. indefinitely. Len Fernelius moved the matter be continued as per staff James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motiocarried. III. New Business: S -79 -1 Pat Moore's First Addition. Generally . located at 6704 Indian Hills Road. Lot 2, McCauley Heights First Addition. Gordon Hughes explained that-the-subject property, a 54,448 square foot single family lot, contains a large single family dwelling located Community Development and Planning Commission January 31, 1979 page 2 on the westerly portion of the lot which fronts on Indian Hills Road. He stated the proposal is to subdivide the property to create a new 15,286 square foot lot which would front on.Indian Hills Road, and a 39,162 square foot lot would be retained for the existing dwelling on the site. Mr. Hughes continued that most of the lots on the north side of Indian Hills Road are substantially larger in area than the proposed new lot. He noted, however, that many of these lots are very long and narrow, and their width at the building site is.quite similar to the proposed lot. On the south side of Indian Hills Road and across the street from the subject property, Gordon Hughes indicated the lots are substantially smaller, but the dimensions and area of these lots are very similar to those of the proposed lot. Staff felt the proponent's plan represented a logical sub- division of the property. Although the lots adjacent to the subject property are larger in area, staff submitted that the proposed lot would not appear incompatible due to the similarity in lot widths. Gordon Hughes also noted that although there are many large lots in the Indian Hills area, relatively few of them would be capable of further subdivision due to the placement of the house on the lot. Staff, therefore, recommended approval of the subdivision upon receipt of the subdivision dedication. Gordon Hughes introduced the proponent, Mr. Pat Moore and his realtor, Mr. Harold Chamberlain to answer the Commission's questions. Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that staff had also discussed with the pro- ponent that due to the topography of the site it might be more appropriate to grant a driveway easement on the north end of the'property so that access could come from Arrowhead Pass rather than Indian Hills Road. In response to Mary McDonald's question about access to the new home, Gordon Hughes clarified that the Ordinance required that all lots front on a public street, but due to the vegetation and topography of the lot, the driveway could better be located on the north end of the property with access from Arrowhead Pass. Len Fernelius asked if Mr: Moore had a problem with the land dedication. The proponent replied he did not. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes how many other lots in that area are capable of subdivision and if a precedent would be created that would ripple all the way down Indian Hills Road. Gordon Hughes replied that there were two or three likely candidates on the south portion of Arrowhead Lake. He continued that on the north side the topography is so steep and the homes are located such that it would be difficult to create a logical division. - Mr. Harold Chamberlain pointed out that because the present home has a two -car garage to the east, there are no windows facing the proposed Community Development and Planning Commission January 31, 1979 page 3 dwelling. David Runyan moved approval of the proposed subdivision as per staff recommendation. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; thn ­t-q­ rnrri nd _ - A LAW ( {(OPEN PEN TODAY))) C (Drl"*- bV 6704 E 1% Road) (((Prime Investment))); . P'ARK'V Minifie a t oQ ff 17 FOR T FOR COLON — ALL BRICK RAMBLER CDR MAIN -ONDA to%.. . I no. Fran Hayes lr= 0177ROA9 N TODAY 2nN2- (Drivo by 6704 Indian Hift-Road • &' Phone for aWt now) I!, JAllBrick Rambleitt� Extra Lot for Investmenfl- -8RM- -.WALKOUr, WITH- E. Et M APPX 3600 SO FT orr'over 1 3 IC I want( ACRE' ofr heavily wooded; grounds-36 FT twATED i lower I le e at di POOL—NEWER V ff"COUN- s4• 1 next finish TRY KITCHEN &: EATING— Serni formal. dining—FLORIDA MLN,l =ifora rI00 ROOM & PANELLED DEN-3. , Olin FpIcs-3 BATHS­wl.ar6e- lode Amuse & game rooms with) Wet Bar—NEW, 1111• It SAUNA— CENTRAL. AIC—Zonino & SM much much. more.- OWNER :j�, I U RELOCATING O-UT OF-' DIAT STATE—IMMEDIATE, POS- SESSION —ALL REASONA- OFFERS PRESENTED— VDE PRICED UPPER BRACKET= MAL CHAMBERLAIN 922-5256 in EVEL SPLIT "­7 ow", Mirindapolls Tribune C 4 u —n- _F 0 " A I XL; A TOLLS—, LAW ( {(OPEN PEN TODAY))) C (Drl"*- bV 6704 E 1% Road) (((Prime Investment))); . P'ARK'V au a t oQ ff 17 FOR T FOR COLON — ALL BRICK RAMBLER CDR MAIN -ONDA to%.. . I ; L.1 , . ((INDIAN HILLS)) _ t XjR CITIN(g AJC= AMUSE'& GAME I- Prr ROOMS & =MUCH 'MUCH p. 5 MORE. E L EXTRA LOT HOME. PRICED IN UPPER BRACKET i11 i 5250 —HAL CHAMBERLAIN--M EDINA 927-1100 1[waf MOVIN li (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West,50th Street on Monday, February 26, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. and will at said time and place consider the following: 1. Preliminary Plat of Pat Moore's First Addition, generally located north of Indian Hills Road and east of Arrowhead Pass, described as follows: Lot 2, McCauley Heights 1st Addition. All recommendations and objections will be heard at said meeting. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL. FLORENCE B. HALLBERG City Clerk . Please publish.in the Edina Sun on Wednesday, February 14, 1979. Please sent one (1) Affidavit of Publication. ::! CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of PAT J. MOORE for a Subdivision of Land Entitled Pat Moore First Addition (S -79 -1) FINDINGS, DECISIONS, and REASONS The above entitled matter was heard before the City - Council, City of Edina, on February 26, 1979, and March 5, 1979. Pat J. Moore ( "Proponent "), and .Harold 0. Chamberlain of Edina Realty, representative of the Proponent, were .-present. The City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Proponent, his representative, City staff, and .property owners in the vicinity of the subject subdivision, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent, his representative, -City staff, and property owners, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the following: =FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponent, on December 29, 1978, submitted an application for subdivision (the "Proposed Subdivision ") for a 54,448 square foot tract of land located in the northeast quadrant of Indian Hills Road and Arrowhead Pass. This tract of land (the "Subject Property ") is a platted lot and is described as Lot 2, McCauley Heights First Addition which was platted in 1954. An existing .single family dwelling is located on the.west central portion of the .Subject Property. 2. The Proposed Subdivision delineated two R -1 single family dwelling lots. Lot l.of the Proposed Subdivision measured 39,.162 square feet in area and would .serve as the lot-for the existing single family dwelling on the Subject Property. Lot 2 of the Proposed Subdivision measured 15,286 square feet in area and would constitute a newly created buildable lot. Findings of Fact Page 2 3. The Edina Community Development and Planning Commission reviewed the Proposed Subdivision at its January 31, 1979, meeting: Pursuant to applicable ordinances, no.-notice of the meeting was given, but signs were posted by the Proponent on the - Subject Property advising of.the Proposed Subdivision. Also, the,-meeting agenda was mailed to local neighborhood groups in the vicinity of the Subject Property. No property owners appeared at this meeting to testify for or against the Proposed Subdivision. The Commission recommended to the City Council that the Proposed Subdivision be approved conditioned upon payment of a- subdivision dedication prior to the final plat approval. 4. On February 26, 1979, the Edina City Council conducted a public hearing and received the report and recommendation of the Community. Development and Planning. Commission regarding the Proposed Subdivision. Pursuant to.appa4eab+e: , notice of the meeting was given by mailing notices to all property owners .within 200 feet of the Proposed Subdivision. At said hearing, *six property owners residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property testified in opposition to the Proposed Subdivision. Two property owners submitted letters in opposition to the Proposed Subdivision. No property owners testified or submitted letters in favor of the Proposed Subdivision. Among the issues presented by the surrounding property owners in their testimony were: A) property owners have relied upon the present platting of the area and the presumption that existing platted lots would not be further subdivided. b) excessive numbers of trees would have to be removed in order to develop lot 2 of the Proposed Subdivision. .h Findings of Fact Page 3 c) approval of the Proposed Subdivision would establish an undesirable precedent._which would encourage further subdivisions of platted lots in the area thereby undesirably altering the character of the neighborhood. d) the orientation of the new dwelling on lot 2 of the Proposed Subdivision would be incompatible with an existing dwelling on-the abutting lot (Lot,_,1, McCauley Heights First Addition). e) the neighboring properties would be depreciated in.value by allowing the Proposed Subdivision.,_ The City Council thereupon continued the public hearing on the Proposed Subdivision to March 5, 1979. 5. Edina Zoning'Ordinance No. 811, the Zoning Ordinance of Edina imposes the following minimum standards for single family dwelling lots: Minimum Lot Area - 9,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width - 75 feet Minimum Lot Depth - 120 feet The dimensions and areas of lots 1 and 2 of the Proposed Subdivision exceed the aforementioned standards Therefore, '.the Proposed Subdivision complies with the Zoning Ordinance of Edina. Furthermore, the existing dwelling located on lot 1 of the Proposed Subdivision complies with all setback and lot coverage standards imposed by the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Within a 1,000 foot radius-of the Subject Property, the average size for existing platted lots is approximately 26,000 square feet (excluding that portion of platted lots lying within the bed of Arrowhead Lake). The average lot size within the 1,000 foot radius and north of Indian Hills .Road was found J, Findings.of Fact Page 4 to be approximately 51,000 square feet. The average lot size within the 1,000 foot radius and south of Indian Hills Road was approximately 18,000 square feet. 7. Edina Ordinance No. 801 the "Platting Ordinance" states that the Council, in approving plats, shall consider among other things the suitability of plats from the standpoint of community planning. 8. Prior to the public hearing on _March 5, 1979, Edina Council Members C. Wayne Courtney and June Schmidt personally inspected the Subject Property and surrounding n ighborhood.'O`' Therefore,.based on the foregoing findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISION The Application for the Proposed Subdivision.entitled Pat Moore First Addition. is hereby denied. The above decision is made for the following REASONS A. Lot 2 of the Proposed Subdivision is substantially smaller than the average lot size in.the vicinity of the Subjecv Property and therefore would be detrimental to the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. B. Indian Hills Road clearly and demonstrably forms a logical dividing line in the vicinity of the Subject Property between.large.lot subdivisions to the north (i.e. average 51,000 square foot lots) and subdivisions with relatively small lots (i.e. average 18,000 square foot lots) to the south. The Subject Property, located on the north side of Indian Hills Road, presently measures 54,448'square feet in area, thus approximating the average lot size in the area and therefore should be maintained as it is presently platted. Findings of Fact Page 5 C. Property owners in the vicinity of the Subject Property should have the right to rely upon the filed plat entitled McCauley Heights First Addition and should rightly presume that any modification or replatting of said plat will be suitable and compatible with surrounding properties. D: The orientation of a new dwelling on lot 2 of the Proposed Subdivision would have a detrimental effect on the existing dwelling on the lot abutting on the East .(i.e. Lot 1, McCauley Heights First Addition). E. The approval of the Proposed Subdivision could establish a precedent encouraging the replatting of lots in areas adjoining the Subject Property which would adversely alter the character and symmetry of-the. surrounding neighborhood. GLH:jkt 3/5/79 IL [ICY league of minnesota cities February 20, 1979 TO: MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATORS, CLERKS, AND MANAGERS FROM: MENTOR C. "DUKE" ADDICKS, JR. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL In this session of the legislature, the League of Minnesota Cities will again attempt to address the problems being experienced by communities in their ef- fort to provide adequate insurance coverage for their risks, including health benefits, liability coverages, workmen's compensation, and other needed in- surance. Many communities have found little or no interest among the insurance providers to provide for their needs. In many cases, where there is interest, the rates are excessive. The League's bills, (S.F. 291, H.F. 251) and (S.F. 403, H.F. 262) are an attempt to provide the alternative of self- insuring and pooling among cities, thereby allowing communities the opportunity to continue purchasing their insurance through existing insurance channels or looking to self- insurance or a combination of commercial insurance and self- insurance. We ask all city officials to discuss what your community's experience has been and to support the League's efforts to enact the above bills into law. Hearings have been tentatively scheduled for March 7, 1979, in the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee in the House and for March 8, or 9, 1979 in the Commerce Committee of the Senate. We urge that you contact your senator and representative and encourage that he /she support the League's effort. Your con- tact will be especially meaningful if your senator and representative are members of the two committees that will hear the bills. The names of legislators and the committee they serve on have been published in the Legislative Bulletin (Senate, Bulletin #1; House, Bulletin #4). After contacting your legislators, please correspond with me so we can keep a close communication. If you have testimony you would like to offer in the hearings, please inform us whether you can appear in person or offer written testimony. We are in need of two kinds of testimony: 1) Examples of current self- insurance programs which are being used by communities. 300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 [61 21 222 -2661 -2- 2) Examples of serious problems in the availability of insurance or excessive costs. Please furnish figures that can be docu- mented regarding premiums for various lines for as many years as possible. We thank all of you for the fine efforts shown in legislative session thus far. We are hopeful, with your help, that much of the needed legislation can be enacted in this session to make your job as a city official easier. P.S. Please see Legislative Bulletin #3 dated February 1, 1979,. page 5 for a summary of S.F. 291 and #4 dated February 8, 1979, page 12 for a summary of H.F. 262. MCA /ck Dear Duke: I have contacted Representative and Senator regarding our City's insurance problems and have asked that he /she support the League's effort. I'd like to offer the following comments. I could testify in person I will offer written testimony for use at the hearings. Name City Phone Number L L U league of minnesota cities February 20, 1979 TO: Clerks, Administrators and Managers FROM: Helen Schende4ff Associate SUBJECT: ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE, MARCH 1, 1979 Enclosed is a registration form for the Legislative Conference to be held March 1, 1979 at the Capitol Holiday Inn from 10:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. All city officials are invited to attend the committee and task force meetings that will be held in the morning. A general luncheon will follow with the address being given by Governor Albert H. Quie. The afternoon sessions will include a panel on major money issues, address given by Winston Borden, Presi- dent of the Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry. Other afternoon sessions will include a question and answer period with the League lobbyists, and a reception will follow from 5:30 to 7:30.p..m. with Minnesota Senators and Representatives as our guests. I look forward to seeing and visiting with all my friends. Enclosure HS /ck 300 hanover building, 460 cedar street, saint Paul, minnesota 55101 C6121 222 -21361 Thursday, March 1, 1979 Ci ty_- Name Name _ Name _ Name Name _ PLAN NOW TO ATTEND League of Minnesota Cities LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFERENCE Capitol Holiday Inn, St. Paul 10:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Morning Workshops, Luncheon, Afternoon Panels, Reception REGISTRATION FORM (Please type or print) Title Title Title Title Title Registration Fee — $16 per registrant Mail to: Cathy M. Tschida League of Minnesota Cities 480 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Check enclosed in the amount of $ January 1979 mi :1 LIM league of minnesota cities February 16, 1979 Dear Municipal Official: Wayne Burggraaff who was elected President of the League of Minnesota Cities at the Minneapolis annual meeting in June, has resigned as League President to become Commissioner of Finance for the State of Minnesota. A copy of his letter to D. J. Black, the League's Vice President, and the Board of Directors is attached for your information. The League's bylaws specify that should the President resign, the Vice Pre- sident becomes President of the League of Cities. This means that Mayor D. J. Black of Hutchinson is know officially the President of the League of Cities. I know that the staff of the League of Minnesota Cities looks forward to work- ing with Mayor Black and I'm sure that the Board of Directors and city officials throughout the state will accept his leadership in the responsible manner which is characteristic of city government in the State of Minnesota Si cerely, Donald A. Slater Executive Director Attachment OVER DAS /ck 300 hanover building, 4130 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C61 21 222 -21361 i ,ill Ililufll U league of minnesota cities February 9, 1979 D. J. Black Mayor 950 - 2nd Avenue S.W. Hutchinson, MN_ 55350 Dear D. J.: This letter will notify you formally that I have accepted a position with the State of Minnesota and can, as a result, no longer continue as presi- dent of the League of Minnesota Cities: It is with considerable mixed feelings that I announce this decision to you and to my other friends with whom I have served on the Board of Directors of the League. We have spent so many hours together dealing with so many contentious and routine matters that I am not sure how I will fill the place in my activities which the League has come to play. I shall miss each and every one of you in the day to day kind of working arrangement which we shared. I shall also miss the labor and effort which we exerted in the legislati -ve field and in the management and direction of an organ- ization which has the importance of the League of Minnesota Cities.. These regrets are real but as rewarding as my service has been in the city of Richfield and with the League of Cities, it is also imperative that one accept new challenges. I look forward, however, to the fact that work in state government is in -. timately associated with-'Ithe_ci.ties. I shall value all of my time spent with you in the past and I shall look forward to seeing you a1-1- frequently in the future. Sincerely, Wayne Burggraaff City Manager, Richfield President, LMC Board of Directors 4JB: kgk. cc:LMC Board of Directors 300 re., ^aver building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 [612] 222 -2gb1 f.ationai 1020 Eye Street. N.W. OFFICERS: Le.:gue Washington, D. C. - la— P Ra "_3 of 20006 Cities 7 (202) 293 - 7310 Fa :i v e veyf e r Cable NLCITIES JeSeV "" Tc— Vl . v... . G7vn? a Oro Please distribute to all - _; _r city council,. members. p�pir�va � By popular demand! '' An expanded Pol !tiy :1 eaders training program for local 1 egi sl ators i n conjunction with tale 1979 Congressional-City Conference.'.'. A full day, of,.sk .l l -buil ding workshops . and.:other activities-specifically des, gned- _ta::;increase counci.l,. nember effecti.veness.` New 'features -include: "Nuts and bolts" focus a t KInnovative.'format - ` �1ore .reference'_materi' aIs Luncheon and prominent speaker =_ - - Reaister `earl;� Space -is limited and attendance at this year's sessions will be restricted.to registrants. - Y +•d �i�a0 - �L A. to b 2 �.PREL'If�II�iARY' PROGRAM. > Saturday, March 3x -1979 x = Washington: Hi l ton Hotel -:00-10-30 a m How- to make sure you get 1,0at ,you want from �ry a consultant "Courci l s often~ contract with consul tarts w thout k=',.i ng what trey _ova- t. or .~ -hew to insure consultant performance: - This-workshop will -focus on how to - select the right consultant for the job and hoi� to get the product that is desired. LAX i L .1G: =r5 a.m. -12.15 p.m.- Ad,nsory Boards and Corrimiss,nns Gatts��ig them LO work; with the Council rather than_ against it ; ;:ldependent citizen advisory boards and commissions are growing in number and influence in many cities. This session will eXamine how councils can make then friore effective and responsive to city -,wide needs. (OVER) - PAS; PF= c! ^,NT -: T� Bredl -y. V3/ . L=s A-, e es `'e ..�..va • He:ry :V. M•iN, '.layor. Vd +a��'e. 'lfis[.�a�r • OIFEf,70 �S: R. M;ch+.t 4my,. :.r^.:.-.e et'a Ke--y Mun.C.cal Le3yue • Patrick J. Bxt Cc r:. Pei :a -. _s_a•-; r r— ve„C: • X• -oath F. ..,.. •n• 11z p.:7 sye ^.e. LC+�ssra • RkTard Brawn, <. eCUtrva ✓ec:rn. Teas ti',n C,aa' Lea, e • X-41% G. Buwha, E.er.; •c C -e 7 C:i ^ra •�•,.+Ct?• _ . _ - eig..e • 1.1•u•xn 9ye, CJ:•­ R. C-b—a, C- W, %!.,- Ha` S, CC=.e,::,.ur • P,:Cherd E..' -a , 4i3 Or. le9:a_ Nervy C. Gv m.. r'—c i Ve-•• S,­ Pte:; 0 T: • A••�nnun Taon, CC•.l.0 +Cra,r.^.an.: +es-.rg,y;. C C • Petrick A• Cr,nM, E•°`':.r'.e D-VO,. Mr:s -r;:a. !•k.rinoa' = s;oc:e: x . M3r-1 T. Hance. �'ar:l. ?^ =nom,.. A:•:rF.l • Enna H-0.1 ri. C. -,,c: p.�•,.;. v,- ; y: • Charles F. Mom.'lyR!, Ke ^e ^erg. CM'o• May>ard Jack+cn, MaW. Ap,anl3. Decr;�a • C+:1 T. Langford. Uara, DO-= F�m+fa • Pella nca Ueing. •.:3, ^r. G "anrr..a Cey. Ottarcma • Jln MCCP n, !J3,y rhC' -r. :a.3; •John 4. P3lrYTM, r + ±Ga. a•rn.pan fy-oGa• L ?iy'R • Crny RaynaG. ,•]ibr -[r 1ror- yr_Derne., Caa37o • Jmeph P. R:ay, Jq flaps. Ct:? °as:rn Sea.tn Car_v.ra • RIc.Lrd N. Stool. _ ' _ !'i:^• o'•- s.•va•.a. V—dr Sher.:•e,e, ri" :o- v ;ssa.: ..sn• Lea,e- YC-- e%a^ :?_• K,rnE. Swleher.E•9cu:.re Jae_!m A a=: -YTJ+ F. Sxyeam CC'sc +b•.e^.^dr. v 3n Ii C." " • • frxo:hy Van Horh, C, ,. ..:'w -Car_ ypr•e -fan {�.w3 • �rr!d J_ Vann. Mtt, . E'r. ,year:. AiaeJ a •.Jaal WaCns. C, CJ t.'2TC4. L.^.3 Artre:es. CJ' 1_+'-a • 11— WC-1), •.falar, H3yr a- _ - - Ca.t•r.a•Twwilaon. •i3}s. VtLa•c Iran Y ..., _ ....- ., - __`.; "..,.�i,�•:"i`i..v_,-r Y'rT� -AS _, .a- ... a1'AA.A�K- YYr' ✓- _.•p - •. -. 1.1.✓'. PETITION The undersigned hereby petitions that the property described. below be transferred from Independent School District 0272, (Eden Prairie) to.Independent School District- °273 (Edina),.pursuant to ;I.S.A. §122.21, effective July 1, 1978. The following is a legal description of the land to be transferred: Said property is parcel Outlot A, Braemar Hills 9th Addition This parcel is adjoining: (1) „The boundary with the .Edina School District or (2) Land Proposed for detachment from the Eden Prairie School District and attachment to the Edina School District in another pending petition. (Strike out one). The petitioners desire this parcel and the other parcels identified on the plat attached hereto to be detached from the Eden ' Prairie School District and attached to the Edina Schools. The granting of this petition and all other petitions concerning the area marked for detachment and annexation on the plat hereto. will not reduce the size of the Eden Prairie School District to less than four (4) sections. Dated n,� M M City f dina 0 cane Owner Its "V gyax 940 T_'', y eQu �i Owner O' Owner This petition has been consented to by the Eden Prairie School District pursuant to a resolution, duly adopted, by its School Board at its meeting of , 197_ Chairman of Eden Prairie School Board Clerk of Eden Prairie Sc ool.Boar �J February 5, 1979 Mr. Gordon Hughes City of Edina Administrative Offices 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Braemar Hills Additions Detachment from the Eden Prairie School District Dear Mr. Hughes: The above - captioned law firm represents Edina Development, the company which developed Braemar Hills 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Additions in Edina. Edina Development still owns a number of the lots in these additions and for the past few months has been taking the steps necessary to transfer all the property in these four additions from the Eden Prairie School District to the Edina School District. The owners of the company and the current owners of the remaining lots in these additions feel it is in the best interest of the children of the ultimate owners of these lots that they attend Edina schools with their neighbors rather than be bussed miles Eden Prairie schools and attend classes with strangers. Edina Development has done all the prepatory work necessary for this change including obtaining preliminary approval from the Eden Prairie school board. The next step is to submit petitions from each of the owners of the lots in these four additions. We have obtained petitions from - all of the owners except the City of Edina which owns Outlot A in Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Thus, we would greatly appreciate your presenting the enclosed petition to the appropriate city official for execution on behalf of the City, and returning it to our office in the enclosed envelope. "LAI i GUSTAFSON. GUSTAFSON & ADAMS. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 411 MICHAEL J. ADAMS 7400 METRO BOULEVARD GREGORY D. GUSTAFSON EDINA. MINNESOTA 66436 MARK G. OHNSTAD OF COUNSEL THOMAS 1. HARA TELEPHONE (612) 836 -7277 HARRY GUSTAFSON JOHN M. BUJAN WALTER C. GUSTAFSON RONALD L. SNELLING JAMES D. ATKINSON. 111 February 5, 1979 Mr. Gordon Hughes City of Edina Administrative Offices 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Braemar Hills Additions Detachment from the Eden Prairie School District Dear Mr. Hughes: The above - captioned law firm represents Edina Development, the company which developed Braemar Hills 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Additions in Edina. Edina Development still owns a number of the lots in these additions and for the past few months has been taking the steps necessary to transfer all the property in these four additions from the Eden Prairie School District to the Edina School District. The owners of the company and the current owners of the remaining lots in these additions feel it is in the best interest of the children of the ultimate owners of these lots that they attend Edina schools with their neighbors rather than be bussed miles Eden Prairie schools and attend classes with strangers. Edina Development has done all the prepatory work necessary for this change including obtaining preliminary approval from the Eden Prairie school board. The next step is to submit petitions from each of the owners of the lots in these four additions. We have obtained petitions from - all of the owners except the City of Edina which owns Outlot A in Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Thus, we would greatly appreciate your presenting the enclosed petition to the appropriate city official for execution on behalf of the City, and returning it to our office in the enclosed envelope. "LAI Mr. Gordon Hughes February 5, 1979' Page 2 The owners of the property in the.,,,. .Braemar Additions are convinced that this change in school districts will be beneficial to all panties involved since -it will make the school attendance situation much more - practical, will increase the value of the property and will increase tle' revenue to the Edina School District. If you or any other Edina official have any questions concerning this petition, please contact me directly, and I will be glad to answer them. In closing I want to take this opportunity to thank you and the City officials for your cooperation and help in making this change a reality. Very truly yours, GUSTAFS N, GUSTAFSON & ADAMS, P.A. Jame D. Atkinson atto ney at Law JDA:gmg Enclosure 311-- 7 r t Wive � - 1z,41 9L Cv vq 1 z-7 - G y2. G o i f co Q Q Q 10/17/77�G J funding. No formal action was taken. CONNECTION CHARGE LEVIED AGAINST LO_T 10, BLOCK 2, TINGDALE BROS. BROOKSIDE. Councilman Courtney offered the following resolution and moved its. adoption: VVQnt IITTr)m BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby authorize the assessment of the connection charge for•Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. SS -224 in the amount of $748.30 to be levied against Lot 10, Block 2,.Tingdale Bros. Brookside Addition over a six year:- period at 6 %'interest. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Resolution adopted., EMPLOYEES CHRISTMAS PARTY DISCUSSED. Councilman Richards suggested the possibility that the Council pay.something toward the employees'.Christmas party. Councilman Shaw's motion continuing the matter until the next meeting for further study was seconded by Councilman Courtney. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. MR. ROSLAND EXPRESSED HIS APPRECIATION to the Council fot his appointment as City Manager. No action was taken. BIDS A14ARDED FOR BLAKE RIDGE ESTATES PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. Rosland presented tabulation of three bids received in response to Advertisement for Bids in the Edina Sun and Construction Bulletin for Watermain Improvement No. WM -329, Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. SS -344, Storm Sewer Improvement No. ST.S -155 and Permanent Street Surfacing and Concrete Curb and Gutter Improvement No. BA -230 (base only). Tabulation showed Peter Lametti Construction Company high bidder.at $73,875.20, Widmer Bros., at $71,371.40 and G. L. Contracting, Inc., low bidder at $63,173.35.. Councilman Courtney's motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt for award to recommended low bidder, G. L. Contracting, Inca Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw,..Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion.carried. SODDING FOR PARKS CONTRACT AWARDED. Mr. Rosland presented two informal bids taken for sodding Garden Park and Williams Park. Tabulation showed Riebe Sod Company at $4,900.00 and E1,11ac Landscaping at $6,860.00. Councilman Courtney's motion for award to recommended low bidder, Riebe Sod Company, was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. 1977 AUDIT CONTINUED.TO NEXT..MEETING. Councilman Courtney's motion was seconded by Councilman Shaw continuing the application of George M. Hansen Company,to audit the 1977 accounts of the City to the meeting.of November 7, 1977, was seconded by Councilman Shaw. Ayes: Courtney, Richards,' Schmidt ,.Shaw, Van Talkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. FACSIMILE SIGNATURES RESOLUTION ADOPTED. Councilman Richards.offered the follow ing resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUT11ORIZING USE OF FACSIMILE SICNATUItES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS._:: uranrvrn t- 1, t1,o 1... .I.- t- 1 1 �- - -- -7] —rT )M. tr® ®Ire rar�sit Commission 801 American Center Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/221 -0939 February 22, 1979 Mr. Francis J. Hoffman City Engineer City of Edina 4801 W..50th Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: 1979 Passenger Waiting Shelter Project Cooperative Agreement Site Number(s): C -820 Dear Mr. Hoffman: The Metropolitan Transit Commission has approved the plans and specifi- cations for its 1979 passenger waiting shelter project.. It has also authorized its Chief Administrator and General Manager to enter into cooperative agreements with cities and other parties to provide for passenger waiting shelter installations at locations where ridership does not meet current MTC guidelines for shelter installations; into which category the.above referenced site(s) fall. The cooperative agreement is a way to allow for installations in cities which would otherwise not be included in the shelter program. Provision has been made to ensure that any city will be eligible for at least one shelter installation per project, if a cooperative agree- ment is executed. Basically, the agreement calls for participation in the form -of financial reimbursement to the MTC for one half of the local funding of the shelter. The shelters are funded by .80% federal money and 200 local money. We estimate the individual costs of the new shelters will be in a range from $3,000 to $5,000 for the purchase of shelters, and related site improvement and installation mork. Therefore, the participation share will be approximately $300 to $500 per shelter.. Additionally, the agreement calls for routine maintenance to be performed by the party entering into the cooperative agreement with the MTC. Routine maintenance includes litter pickup, snow removal, weed and grass control in the vicinity of the shelter and window cleaning. Any structural repairs to the shelter would remain the responsibility of the MTC. Three copies of the cooperative agreement are enclosed for execution by the appropriate individuals. Please have the agreement executed: and return two copies to the MTC for execution. A completely executed copy will be returned for your records upon execution by the MTC. Mr. Francis J. Hoffman February 22, 1979 Page two We propose to award a contract for the purchase of shelters in mid -April of .1979:; therefore, it is imperative -that we have- executed agreements as: soon as. possible,, but in no case -later than March 15, 1979. We look forward to your participation in our 1979 shelter project. If you have any questions regarding the shelter project or the cooperative agreement, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, G� 'Laurence R. Schumi Civil Engineer LRS:msm /33 Enclosure �xN��iT A �N Y. "13-(0'x. TO ^' 1 J -(op c oNL2E.TE gA�.JE: A`� SI'IOW►J. Z. INSTAL!- TYPE- C- WITH OUI-S1 e EC -m4J{ LAS SI1UW . 3. F-LU- T2ILAL v\lOe.V : IVO"e- 4. P[2loo- To 6CG I"NI"G C-ONSTI -- uc-T1o1�I NOTIFY a) M T L b) t.ocATOF!�S FOC_ UTILITIES SE-RVIN� THE A2ED•. VERNON AV. C C.R. 158) li 16- 0. --MAN IOl-E. U P-RS 'STVP gTREE.T �.. GontrRlt- T�oM.�' . `J1CsN No pNrju"4 S1L�H STOP 514�I FRON TAGS RD. NOT TO SCALE; USE DIMENSIONS SHOWN Drawn by: Date: Reviewed Dates Metrop�oolitan Transit Passenger waiting Shelter ats Site Number.: �} Irommissio» [.Inl K_ i VE1Z^1oN L1V. _ Q 20 �? V Z O 0 rn rri C) o0 0 NOTES t . CAbT GDN c..2.E.Tt✓ EASE- AS SH Ow ^! . Z,. INSTP LL. TYPc G SI- IEI -TIA WITH pu-rStDC. 6ENu-1 AS S"0%*J 1. 3. EvEGT�1GAL lnloeK_ NONE d. SUS SToP SIC1N Tb 6G Rt'�oC.4TF D FAY c-t-Ty 1N AQEA SHOwn1. 5. PRIU2.. TO oTIFIt, a) MTC- b) LOCATOP� Pot UTIt.IT1E15 SE — \J1NC3 THE- GP,ASS iTT is Co hIT�ALT I O N �01N"r (LidQC ski P >0 V10 qs- iterQN. VERNON AV. C C.R. 158 �J u.5 bcnX�+ Vir rN �5A . .. .�,� ._ p ✓� s"1 oPS�4.r1 (E70 exI IN gIG,N SuPR�fZ>� �ARCC►aa Av. -T _ SIGN CaRASS e.a -rut1 lmOUS PAMIMG WT O C) 0 Q3 NOT TO SCALn i USE DIMENSIONS SHOWN Drawn b ys Dates Reviewed Dates Metro�oTitan Transit Commission Passenger Waiting Shelter ats � tNTt- 2LAUi� e LLV D. � VE R NO Al AV. Site N►uuher: C-- 819 lr NOTES 1. CAST 14' x So CaNC MTE BASE. +4S 51-I0W N . . Z. 1 nIS'TO.uL_ TYPE C_ bHEt.TEP_ AS 5140W N . 3, 4o.1VjTMENT OF t 1' To . g' pintiErlSlonl IS ALLOWED TO AVOIp ANCHOP_lNC -� 5H�(.TE�- Ohl s1DE�nlALK- JoIwJ "i5 . 4. BFNGH owNEr-> by U.S. 56"c -H COPP TO SE ML0CA..re > SY OTHEZ_s. 5, pAPep— BOX T'O 15E ,eEc.o GATED J6, 50uTH OP- sH Ec.7reP_ by 0TH ErLS . 6. E f..EGTP_ICAL Wolzr = NONE. ?. PpIOe. To SECIn1NrnIC� Co►�sr>?UG.Tra,J �lo-r�1 =Y T 9 -N a� M b) L0CJX_r02.S F02 VT /L1T/Er`> . �EP_VjM6 TINE AnFn FRANCE AV S. C.R. 17 re� u�re,Q i Tb� Cc,W QTE. BITUMINOUS Q pETt20LEUM Cp��12AT:oN 54oI Av. S . epiNA M14. - Drawn by: Date: Reviewed Bv� DOe Y11��71,7 cv.:c.eeT� j4 8N p¢�VaWAV r_ WN-r' -OF - WAY PabrS� O Q FEr401.euM G �S YARp 414HT cam SK�►J SA54H ZE I� NO 97A9uN4 NEB ro CORNrp Sle—M NOT TO SCALEI USE DI NSIONS SHOWN Metropo litan Tra sit Passenger Waiting Shelter at: Site Number: Commissi01) n w. sa � �T. � F��� ,s,,,. 5 . C -725 E01NA REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works and City Engineer VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: March 2, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Permanent Street Surfacing and Concrete Curb and Gutter Quotation /Bids: e Company 1 -. See attached sheet 2. 3. Amount of 'Quote or Bid Department Recommendation: Bury.& Carlson $199,744.33. Public Works Signatur Department -- Finance Director's Endorsement: The reconnended bid is is not C� withij�th o budgeted for the purchase. F N. Dalen inance Director City Manager's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: j Kennet ,os an City M n oe r i BID TABULATION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA. CONTRACT #79 -1 (ENG) PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO.'S BA 210A, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237 -& 238 BID OPENING: MARCH 2, 1979 -11:00 A.M. BIDDER BID AMOUNT Bury & Carlson, Inc. $199,744.33 Minnesota Valley Surfacing $230,301.15 Engineer's Estimate $204,471.00 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kojetin,.Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: February 28, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Water control piping and dredging for ponds at Braemar 370 feet of piping and dredging Quotations /Bids: . Company 1. Matt Bullock Contracting Co. 2. . Veit and Company, Inc. 3. Y. 1 Amount of Quote or.,.Bid .$4,940.00 $5,830.00 Department Recommendation: Recommend purchasing from Matt Bullock Contracting Co. Finance Director's Endorsement The recommended bid is Za"is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase. - 0A 07r-k J N. aleh, Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase.. 2.* I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth-Rosland, City Manager REQUEST FOR.PURCHAS-E V TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: BOB KOJ ET I N, PARK AND. RECREATION VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: MARCH 2, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): RIDING GREENSMOWER Quotations /Bids: Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1' MINNESOTA TORO WITH TRADE- $4,750,00 2. GOULDS WITH TRADE $4,736,00 3. Department Recommendation: RECOMMEND MINNESOTA TORO �•l, ,/ Sig a e Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not within the amount budgeted for:the purchase. J� DaTen, Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Roslarid, City Manager TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: DATE: REQUEST FOR PURCHAS-E, Mayor and City Council Bob Kojetin, Park and Recreation Dept. Kenneth Rosland, City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS'OF $1,000 March 1, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Replacement batteries for electric golf.carts at Braemar Golf Course Quotations /Bids: Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Cushman Motor Lease Price: EV 88-$5,'247.00 - $1,152.00 (old batteries) _ $4,095.00 2. Battery Warehouse Lease Price: EV 88 $5,491.80 - $1,044.00 (old batteries) _ $4,447.80 g. Grant Battery Lease Price.: Purchase EV 106 (no trade in) $4,700.QO Department Recommendation: Recommend Cushman Motor r JL� a-ilcflili , e Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is -the not within the amount budgeted for purchase. J DIATen, Financ Director City Manager's Endorsement:' 1. I concur with.the recommendation of the. Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2.' I recommend as an alternative: � j BID TABULATION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CONTRACT #79 -1 (ENG) PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO.'S BA 210A, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234,'235, 236, 237 & 238 BID OPENING: MARCH 2, 1979 - 11:00 A.M. BIDDER BID AMOUNT Bury & Carlson, Inc. $199,744.33 Minnesota Valley Surfacing $230,301.15 Engineer's Estimate $204,471.00 President Stephen F. Keating - Vice Chairman of the Board Honeywell Inc. General Campaign Chairman UnibPrIlWay of Minneapolis Area 404 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 Phone 612 340 -7400 79 - Dale R. Olseth President and CEO ' \\ J / (-! V A— ' C 21VIA f ✓ ` Medtronic, Inca" r 1978 Campaign Cabinet Mrs. DeWalt H. Ankeny, Jr. (Margl). Wayzata, Minnesota �(/ � ` � Dr. Raymond G. Arveson Superintendent Minneapolis Public SCtt001$ Howard E. Barnhill \ � r President and CEO North American Life and Casualty Company Robert H. Beam - Secretary- Treasurer Local shag: International Brotherhood of Teamsters , ✓,// s J�c� W. aarry Davis ?� }� Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs " Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company Dr. Hoover T. Grimsby Senior Pastor Central Lutheran Church //�(�/% // / i� / �� v v� William A. Hodder President Donaldson Company, Inc. - John E. Hulse - _ V ���./ Vice President and CEO — Minnesota Northwestern Bell Telephone Company ' G �� ((( 1J \ ` ( A) David A. Koch President and CEO Graco Inc. - Harvey M. Kuhnley President and CEO Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association Mrs. Donald. S. Logan (Marts) - Wayzata, Minnesota �^ I ) �( L. (�•, Hervey B. Mackay . President Mackey Envelope Company %/,!% O �� / ( �(J ( r� © 14:— Richard D. McFarland President Pain, Kalman Ouail, Inc. l� Patricia A. McL agen President - - - McLagan 8 Associates, Inc. Charles J. Mencel President RayGo.lnc. / John W. Morrison Chairman of the Board and CEO Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis - - ✓/ ,% i t%,` �� { / _ - - Glen D. Nelson, M.D. Presid ent St . Louis Park Medical Center - Mrs. Glen D. Nelson (Marilyn) Long Lake, Minnesota Charles R. Orem President and CEO Investors Diversified Services. Inc. John E. Pearson President and CEO Northwestern National Life Insurance Company Howard Vlken Broadcaster WCCO -AM Radio Thomas H. Wyman President and CEO Green Giant Company Thanks to you - it works for all of us rg t. TELEVISION t% ht- it had to be Tcd Tnrncr. :\s t „In{n titi�c ,ts be is fl.unhny;tnt. tilt- nntlluutllton. tin• sport+t-uh'epreneur (the At Lo It. t lir,nc, it ( I ILI%%ks) c Ili Id hardly be t-xpectcd to allim, his nt-�wly purchased : \d.utla I \' sLttion to continue losing S:50,0(1(I,t month. So, two ycatrs ago, he hit lilt tilt- notion oI•fi•cding \ \'-I'CC's progranis by communications satellite to cable -7-\' .\ stems across the rest of the nation. With that stroke. Turner not only quadrupled \VTCC's audience reach to nearly :3 ntillinn homes in 45 states but invented at poteuti ;illy revolutionary vid- eo concept —the "supcntutiun.., This month, firm• other big -city inde- pendc•nts also achieved superstation status. The prat raining menus of New Turner rcccntly openctl an advertising sales nffict in Ncw f•urk, tilt- first time it local station upc•rattm has brought his pitch into the netyorks' hotne park. Such aggressiyencss has already won WTCG sttt•b vatic nt ;d atlyertisers as Toyota, Pana- sonic and Miller beer. For tilt- cable operators and their view- ers, the value of it superstation lies in its ability to offer programing alternatives. \\'TLC's package, fi>r example, offers a heavy sampling of Atlanta football, base- ball, basketball and hockey games. That may not seem especially novel, but in small -town America, where the only ex- posure to major - league sports on Tv is confined to weekly network produc- tions, such a line -up draws cheers. _._ 77 - t Sr i f j � � 7 •I i 4 - Y Turner (ri - lit), lush's news: Feeding the cable f'ork's \\•OR, Chic:t,o's \ \'(:N, Los Ange- les's I:•1 •I•\• ;tncl Oakland -San Francis- CO's KT VV ;trc rttrw being distributed nations idc yi.t,aiclIitc. As \yith Turner's NVTC(:, tilt- slatiun, thetusclyes play no part its bc.uuirt , tln-ir'llims (u the cable system,. •I IlaI raft. is Iteitt�_, haudlcd by it lie-I,% bret-d of cotninnn carrier, corpora- tions Ilt,tt .lit- p.tid b\ the table operators ou ,t PIA-111 ill, -,cr\ t d Such t,trptnatt- ntiddlcntcn have been ath,tt tctl 1,\ Ihc- I.0 1 that pro,r,uu distri- bntnut 1,\. ,.ctelhlc —,t, a,.tiu,I st,utda rd Writ nt��,t�t- It.ut,nti „itut— ttpt-n. lip a waslly widcr in,okt-t at cousidt-rably Icss cost. "supt-I talions are the wa c• of the fitturc,” sa\ s M a hat•I Paulini, president nl'. LSt .I't-tt•t,l Ill tt;- I- a,cdI. o(tnno iianicr. ••f'ou t,nt It•plact• a 5 mill ion- %\,tit tr,nts- utittcr itli ,t .i -\\atI itaiiN tittt-r and still cull up rcat lute ) nnlluIli neon• people... Appeal: •tilde I, nu m\ N1t-r\ is to \yhy the statimi gmncrs are attracted to such an arimigcnit•nt. Although uoue ret-ciyes any p.t%ntt•nt I IIIII the c.tblt• syslt-tns fur tilt' list' of their progr.uns• the leap ill their ,ntdicncc cant ;dlim tilt•ut Ili chargt. sponsors hiLtht•r rates. 'Ihe ever- hustling )unuurr 1, 1979 importing the signals of distant in(l, pendents. "We find it hard to accept the argument that it development should ht• stopped because it Wright provide ton good service,” declared it commission opinion on the superstation issue. I he feisty Turner puts it more bluntly. "Broadcasters who are part of the old technology are trying to hold back ibe new, technology," lie argues. "They itist don't want the competition." Fourth Network? At the same time, su- perstation pioneers like Turner recog- nize that continued growth — particularly in the big cities — hinges on their offering more innovative fare than movies and sports. Accordingly, Turner is consider- ing setting up a live, 24- hour -a -day, satel- lite- distributed news service channel for his cable customers. The service, which has a January 1980 start-up date, woul(I be staffed by reporters in a score of' regional bureaus and would feature as many as 50 on- camera personalities. The d :A— _ —�� C Another drawing card is WTCG's film library, which, with 3,000 titles, far out- strips what the average independent station has on hand. \\' TCG's zany an- chorman, Bill Tush, is also boff) in the provinces. Mississippi students are such loval followers of his act that thcv have christened their touch - football team "Tush's Tusher." Upstarts: Not surprisingly, the broad- castingEstablishment regards fileadvent ofthe superstation much its MrUonald's looks upon Wendy's. No one cxpt•cts it \\'TCG to siphon off cnotigb nctyork viewers to torpedo the likes of a "Love Boat." But the fear is that it superstation could export it schedule strong enough to seriously undermine tilt- local stations' appeal to viewers and advertisers. "It stay be that the locals will lose so much rewcittie that they will go (lomyn the drain." frets John Summers.: all official of the National Association of•Broadc asters. Such concerns have not impressed the Federal (.ollinl un icatinns C0IIInilSSiUn. In fact, it wa. the 1 CC that did tilt' must to tuber in tilt- superstation cra when, in 1975, it lifted its bait against cable(-asters i t � .lf f PM,tns by Mike Reza —Gamma -Uais i hitch, however, is that to lure enough advertisers to meet its costs, such an operation would require an estimated 7.5 million cable subscribers —snore than double WTCG's current reach. What most worries the three networks is not so much the prospect of supersti- tions going into the newscast business as their potential for combining their clout. It hardly takes a genius in geography to see that each of the five superstations now operating covers it different major region oftlic U.S. If the FCC were to give its OK, and national sponsors fed tip with the networks' astronomical ad rates threw in their support, the five could conceivably hand together into it fourth network with sufficient financial muscle to afli)rd everything front Aaron Spelling sitcom hits to the Super Bowl. That possibility has not been lost on Ted Turner, hut, typically, he views it in it different light. "We look upon the other stations as rivals," lie says. "We intent) to have it fiiurth network on our own." Now that's it competitor. —HARRY F. WATERS with RICK COHEN in New York. VERN E. SMITH in Atlanta and bureau reports 61 ��' RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR EDINA OFFICE CENTER BE IT RESOLVED that that certain plat known as Edina Office Center, platted by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, a Wisconsin Corporation, and presented for final approval at the Edina City Council Meeting of March 5, 1979, be and is hereby granted final approval, sub- ject to receipt by the City of Edina of the executed easement and sani- tary sewer petition. ADOPTED this 5th day of March, 1979. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 5, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting, and that the required executed easement and sanitary sewer petition have been received by the City of Edina. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 15th day of March, 1979. City Clerk