Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2015-03-03 Council Packet
1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 3, 2015 — 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of February 17, 2015 City Council Minutes b. Approval of February 17, 2015 City Council Closed Session Minutes c. Approval of February 13, 2015 Airport Relations Commission Minutes d. Approval of February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes e. Receipt of January 2015 Fire Department Synopsis Report f. Approval of December Treasurer's Report g. Approval of January Treasurer's Report h. Approval of Claims List i. Approval of Contractor List 6. Public Comments 7. Presentations a. Friendly Hills Middle School Future Cities Presentation b. Saint Thomas Academy Rogers Lake Water Quality Report 8. Public Hearing a. Vacation of Easement for the Lemay Lake Shores Development 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Planning Case 2015-01, Approving Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit Application at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, Resolution 2015-16 b. Planning Case 2015-02, Approving Wetlands Permit at 2540 Arbor Court, Resolution 2015-17 c. Planning Case 2015-03, Approving Conditional Use Permit at 1897 Delaware Avenue, Resolution 2015-18 d. Public Hearing Request for Critical Area Permit and Variance at 731 Woodridge Drive e. Resolution 2015-22, Accepting Bids & Award Contract for Somerset Storm Water Improvements f. Resolution 2015-20, Granting Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. a Franchise Extension to March 31, 2016 and Resolution 2015-21, Approving the Transfer of the Cable Franchise and Change of Control of the Grantee 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn page 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 17, 2015 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present included Povolny, Petschel, and Norton. Absent: Councilmember Duggan. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Norton moved adoption of the agenda. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Norton moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items e.) Approval of Installation of Street Light at Round Hill Road and Dodd Road and i.) Approval of Resolution 2015-14, City Administrator Employment Contract. a. Approval of February 3, 2015 City Council Minutes b. Approval of February 3, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes c. Approval of February 3, 2015 City Council Goal Setting Minutes d. Approval of 2015 City Council Goals List February 17, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 1 page 4 e. Approval of Installation of Street Light at Round Hill Road and Dodd Road f. Approval of Contract for Ivy Hills Tennis Court Repairs g. Approval of Police Department Travel Request h. Approval of Fire Marshall Travel Request i. Approval of Resolution 201514, City Administrator Employment Contract j. Approval of Personnel Action Items k. Approval of Claims List 1. Approval of Contractor List m. Approval of Building Activity Report Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E) APPROVAL OF INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHT AT ROUND HILL ROAD AND DODD ROAD Councilmember Povolny noted that this item was tabled at the February 3, 2015 Council meeting to allow staff additional time to notify the adjoining residents. Public Works Director John Mazzitello stated that the adjoining residents had been notified and responses were received from all but one of the residents. Three residents were in opposition of the installation of the street light at Round Hill Road and Dodd Road, and one resident was in favor. Councilmember Petschel explained the City does not put up street lights casually and there is a light located only a half a block away. She believes one of the issues with this intersection is the condition of the current street sign and proposed replacing it with a larger one with more reflective lettering. Councilmember Petschel moved to deny the installation of a street light on Round Hill Road at Dodd Road and to direct staff to change the street signage with larger and more reflective lettering. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 Councilmember Petschel asked Public Works Director Mazzitello to follow-up with the residents informing them of this decision. He confirmed that the residents would be informed. I) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2015-14, CITY ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT Mayor Krebsbach brought this forward so the Council could vote on it together, to approve the appointment of Mark McNeill to the position of City Administrator effective February 23, 2015. February 17, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 page 5 Councilmember Povolny moved to approve the appointment of Mark McNeill to the position of City Administrator effective February 23, 2015 and to adopt RESOLUTION 2015-14, APPROVING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. Councilmember Norton seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Pat Hinderscheid, representing himself and also as chair of the Parks & Recreation Commission, came forward to speak about a dog park location. He stated the Parks & Recreation Commission was given five sites by the City Council to review. Four were approximately one acre and one was zoned commercial. Because of that, the Commission decided to not approve any of the sites. Subsequently, the Commission received some renewed interest, started researching again, and discussions were had that maybe all of the sites should not have been declined. Mayor Krebsbach stated that there were mixed feelings on the Council about the site at Pilot Knob; at least two Councilmembers thought it was a good site. Mr. Hinderscheid continued that the Parks and Recreation Commission was looking at the Sibley Memorial Highway site, a one -acre site. He acknowledged that there are some financial considerations, however, some of the feedback received from the residents was that a one -acre site does not have adequate space. Councilmember Norton stated that there should be a unified effort amongst the citizens to figure out what they want as a group and approach the Council. There are different groups that want different things. As a small city, Mendota Heights is limited in the amount of land available. Mr. Hinderscheid stated that, with balancing the cost of the Pilot Knob site, and speaking as a resident and not the chair of the Commission, he believes a dog park in the community, at the right size, would be a great legacy for the City and provide an outdoor recreational opportunity for decades to come. Councilmember Norton noted that at the Council Goal Setting session, the Council instructed Recreation Program Coordinator Sloan Wallgren to speak with the City of St. Paul to find out what they are doing with their potential dog park site near the Pool & Yacht Club and perhaps some cost sharing could take place. Also, as a group, the Council asked for more cost information on the Sibley Memorial Highway site to prepare it for an off -leash dog park. PRESENTATIONS A) INTRODUCTION OF NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR, MARK McNEILL Mayor Krebsbach noted that Mr. Mark McNeill comes to the City with 30 years of experience in city management; most recently 18 years with the City of Shakopee. He has a Bachelors Degree from February 17, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 page 6 Northern Iowa in Political Science and Business, a Masters Degree in Public Affairs from the University of Iowa. Mr. McNeill is also a member of the International City/County Management Association. Mr. McNeill expressed his appreciation to the City Council for their earlier vote and his excitement and honor for being chosen as the City of Mendota Heights City Administrator. He also introduced his wife, Sheila McNeill. Mayor Krebsbach took this opportunity to commend Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta for her work as the Interim City Administrator. B) EAGLE SCOUT ADAM WHITCOMB PROCLAMATION Mr. Adam Whitcomb, a member of Troop 264, gave a presentation regarding his Eagle Scout Project, the restoration of a butterfly garden at Mendota Elementary. The project included the building of five portable benches, weeding the gardens so they could be planted again, and building two pits into the ground for future fitness stations. He had other boy scouts and family and friends come out and work for four hours to complete the project. Mayor Krebsbach read and presented the proclamation recognizing Eagle Scout Adam Whitcomb. C) DAKOTA COUNTY HWY 110 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PRESENTATION Public Works Director John Mazzitello explained that Dakota County has developed a master plan for the Mendota Lebanon Hills Greenway. Part of that master plan identifies a need for a grade separated pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. The crossing would connect to the River -to -River Greenway, formerly known as the North Urban Regional Trail. Mr. Jacob Rezak, Senior Project Manager for Dakota County, provided an update on where the county is with respect to the development of this project. Mayor Krebsbach also recognized the presence of Mr. Tom Egan, Dakota County Commissioner, who represents the City of Mendota Heights. Mr. Rezak gave a brief history of the project, the background for the Mendota Lebanon Hills Greenway, the current project team, the project scope and goals, and the proposed schedule for the project. The sole source of funding is from a $1M Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) grant that Dakota County received, along with a Dakota County match of 20%, with construction proposed to begin in 2017. Construction would coincide with the Minnesota Department of Transportation's plans to rehabilitate Highway 110. Councilmembers asked questions and made observations regarding bicycle and handicap accessibility, lighting, length and width of the different crossing alternatives, and the adequacy of the current funding sources to completely fund the project. February 17, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 page 7 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no new and unfinished business. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS Interim City Administrator Tamara Schutta made the following announcements: March 4th at 6:30 p.m. is the informational meeting regarding the upcoming Victoria Road improvement project. The Par 3 is open on Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. for winter activities. Fat tire bikes and snowshoes are available for rent at $5/hour. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Krebsbach noted the passing of Bill Wolston who died on January 25, 2015. He was a local historian on Town Square Television for 15 years, producing more than 200 local history segments for Insight 7. ADJOURN Councilmember Petschel moved to adjourn. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Sandra Krebsbach Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith City Clerk February 17, 2015 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 page 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Closed Session Held Tuesday, February 17, 2015 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a closed session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Norton, Povolny, and Petschel. Also in attendance were LMCIT Attorney Jana O'Leary Sullivan, City Attorney Tom Lehman, Interim City Administrator Tamara Schutta, Police Chief Mike Aschenbrener, and new City Administrator Mark McNeill. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS ISSUES RELATED TO LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Mayor Krebsbach stated that, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13.d.03, the City Council would be going into a closed session. Councilmember Petschel moved to adjourn to a closed session. Councilmember Norton seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 ADJOURN Council member Petschel moved to close the meeting and adjourn to the regularly scheduled meeting. Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the closed session meeting at 6:50 p.m. Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 2015 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at Mendota Heights City Hall. The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, William Dunn, Gina Norling, Jim Neuharth, Sally Lorberbaum, Arvind Sharma, and Kevin Byrnes Absent: None Also present: Public Works Director/City Engineer John R. Mazzitello and Council Member Liz Petchel Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Approval of Minutes Lorberbaum moved, and Neuharth seconded that the minutes of the January 14, 2015 Airport Relations Commission meetings be approved with the following amendments: 1. Sloan comment about NOC report should say "one" instead of "on". 2. Newharth comment regarding flight statistical measurements should include statement about resident concerns about departures north of the corridor. 3. Lorberbaum comment about complaint statistics should say "bringing" instead of "brining". 4. Norling request for a February 2015 agenda item should say "from" instead of "form". All voted in favor. Dunn and Sharma abstained as they were not present at the January meeting. Unfinished and New Business Sloan was re-elected Chair (Dunn nominated, Lorberbaum seconded, approved unanimously (Sloan abstained)) Lorberbaum was re-elected Vice -Chair (Dunn nominated, Neuharth seconded, approved unanimously (Lorberbaum abstained)) Sharma was introduced as the newest member of the commission, and he provided some brief personal background information. Mazzitello stated the Final 2015 Commission Work Plan was provided to Commissioners as part of their packets so they would have copies of the document approved at the January meeting. Norling presented statistical analysis of noise event frequency increases at Noise Sensor #23 - Petchel stated total operations were down and that the noise contour was shrinking - Sharma asked if noise events could be correlated to number of departures per month - Byrnes asked about the sensitivity of the sensors; Petchel stated sensors register all noise and specific events should be tied to specific flights - Norling stated the purpose of the agenda item was to present the trend identified - Petchel suggested that after data is correlated, a MAC Noise Representative be brought into the discussion before any formal action is taken Neuharth suggested that departures north of the corridor be included in with the flight data correlation - Petchel suggested that 2004-2005 be used as an event to flight correlation baseline - Norling moved to table, Lorberbaum seconded, motion passes unanimously Commission agreed to hold their May 2015 meeting in conjunction with the Eagan Commission on Tuesday, May12, 2015 at Eagan City Hall at 7:OOpm. page 10 Commission discussed potential upcoming speakers noting requests for presentations from the 133' Airlift Wing, Minnesota Air National Guard, State legislative representatives, MAC Noise Representative, and Commissioner Hamilton. Reports on Areas of Focus Council Member Petchel provided the NOC update: - Legislative leadership change benefits Mendota Heights because NOC will continue as - Minneapolis is pushing for change to the Runway Use System - Provided an overview of the Runway Use System - Stated Operations are down due to up -gaging flights to larger aircraft - Delta is purchasing longer tube regional jets and new 737s, which should help noise - MAC Noise to change resident complaint tracking due to "auto -dialing" residents - Mentioned North Texas Metropolis' successful implementation of ARNAV - Reviewed NOC accomplishments for the year Lorberbaum reviewed complaint statistics noting that complaint numbers are in decline. is Neuharth noted that all measurements remain within the normal range and below the upper control limits, and reiterated concerns from residents north of the corridor. Commissioner Comments Lorberbaum asked Petchel if she would be willing to provide orientation for Sharma. Petchel stated she would meet him for coffee to go over issues. Adiourn Norling made a motion to adjourn and Dunn seconded at 8:52. All voted in favor. 2 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5 February 24, 2015 6 7 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 8 24, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10 The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael 11 Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: 12 Commissioner Howard Roston. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Consulting Planner 13 Phil Carlson, City Administrator Mark McNeill, and Public Works Director/City Engineer John 14 Mazzitello. 15 16 Chair Field acknowledged and welcomed City Administrator Mark McNeill, the new City 17 Administrator for the City of Mendota Heights. 18 19 Approval of Agenda 20 21 The agenda was approved as submitted. 22 23 Approval of December 23, 2014 Minutes 24 25 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO 26 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 23, 2014, AS PRESENTED. 27 28 AYES: 6 29 NAYS:0 30 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 31 32 Planning Commission Appointments 33 34 Chair Field introduced the new addition to the City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission, 35 Ms. Christine Costello and explained that she comes with a wealth of experience from the City of 36 Richfield. 37 38 Election of Chair and Vice -Chair 39 40 Commissioner Viksnins moved to re-elect Chair Litton Field, Jr. and Vice -chair Doug Hennes, 41 seconded by Commissioner Noonan. As there were no other motions, the nominations were closed. 42 43 AYES: 6 44 NAYS:0 45 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 46 Hearin's 47 48 PLANNING CASE #2015-01 49 Jacqueline Chase, 1680 Mayfield Heights Road 50 Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit 51 52 Consultant Planner Phil Carlson explained that this application was to build a new single-family 53 home with attached garage at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road. There were four separate applications 54 or actions requested; the Critical Area Permit and the Conditional Use Permit are required for 55 development in the Critical Area, the Variance request is to allow grading on the lot, and the 56 Wetlands Permit because it is near and will disturb some ground near the wetland. 57 58 Staff approached this application with a few key ideas in mind: 59 1. This lot is already built on; there is an existing home and garage. 60 2. There is significant development on the bluff in the vicinity, especially downhill towards 61 the river. 62 3. The slopes in question and is the subject of the variance request is believed to be man-made 63 and were not part of the original slope or bluff of the river. These slopes do not drain to the 64 river; they drain to the storm pond that is west of the site. 65 4. The total impervious surface would be reduced with this application compared to the 66 existing condition. 67 68 Planner Carlson shared an image of the site in its current condition and a rendition of the site, as it 69 would appear afterwards. He then explained the purpose of each application request and how the 70 City Code applies to each one. 71 72 Commissioners asked questions regarding the new footprint on the site, the need for fill to be added 73 to the site, the standards for granting variances in the critical area, and the site disturbance 74 restoration plan. 75 76 Ms. Jacqueline Chase came forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission. She 77 introduced her construction team members. 78 79 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 80 81 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 82 hearing. 83 111 " 84 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 85 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 86 87 AYES: 6 88 NAYS:0 89 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 90 February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 91 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 92 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-01, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, 93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE 94 FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 95 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, 96 including the conditional use permit and variance standards. 97 2. The grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project appear to have been man - 98 made and drain away from the Mississippi River and will not negatively impact the 99 character of the surrounding neighborhood. 100 3. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of 101 the City Code and adequate erosion control measures will be observed during 102 construction. 103 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 104 1. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings to meet the intent of the 105 DNR's request, in consultation with the City Planner and City Engineer. 106 2. Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City's Land 107 Disturbance Guidance Document. 108 3. Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. 109 110 AYES: 6 111 NAYS: 0 112 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 113 114 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 3, 2015 meeting. 115 116 PLANNING CASE #2015-02 117 James and Mary Waldvogel, 2540 Arbor Court 118 Wetlands Permit 119 120 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct 121 an addition and remove vegetation at 2540 Arbor Court. The subject parcel is 2.42 acres, contains 122 an existing single-family dwelling abutting a wetland to the north. Planner Wall shared an image 123 of the site indicating the wetland area. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low-density 124 residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. 125 126 The applicant intended to construct an approximately 390 square foot addition to the existing 127 single-family dwelling and an approximately 352 square foot deck on the east side of the dwelling 128 extending into the rear yard. The entire structure is located within the 100 -foot wetland or water 129 resource related area and received a Wetlands Permit in 2005, prior to construction as part of 130 Planning Case 2005-30. 131 132 Planner Wall then explained the Wetlands System Chapter requirements for construction, 133 alteration, or removal any structure and for the removal of vegetation. 134 135 He continued by explaining that the proposed addition/deck would be approximately 29 feet from 136 the edge of the wetland. There is one tree within the rear yard they are proposing to remove. The February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 137 deck would be constructed on posts, resulting in minimal impact to the existing grades and would 138 be reviewed as part of the final grading plan submitted with the building permit application. 139 Appropriate erosion control measures will be used to protect the adjacent wetland during 140 construction and no disturbance or vegetation removal will occur within the 25 -foot non -disturb 141 buffer area, and the proposed addition/deck meets the required side and rear yard setback 142 requirements. If approved, the applicants intend to begin construction this summer. 143 144 Staff recommended approval of this application. 145 146 Commissioners asked questions regarding the thresholds applicable to a wetlands permit and the 147 purpose of the Wetlands System Chapter. 148 149 Ms. Mary Waldvogel came forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission. 150 151 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 152 153 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 154 hearing. 155 156 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, 157 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 158 159 AYES:6 160 NAYS:0 161 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 162 163 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 164 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-02, WETLANDS PERMIT 165 APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 166 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the 167 City Code. 168 2. Soil disturbance within the 100 -foot wetland/water resource -related area will be minimized 169 by the construction techniques utilized for the proposed project. 170 3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area will 171 occur as part of the proposed project. 172 4. The proposed project complies with the setback requirements. 173 5. Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction. 174 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 175 1. Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. 176 2. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, will 177 occur within 25 feet of the edge of the wetland. 178 3. Construction shall be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance 179 Document. 180 181 AYES: 6 182 NAYS:0 February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 183 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 184 185 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 3, 2015 meeting. 186 187 PLANNING CASE #2015-03 188 Steven Mangold, on behalf of Verizon Wireless and ISD 197, 1897 Delaware Avenue 189 Conditional Use Permit 190 191 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that Verizon Wireless was seeking a Conditional Use Permit 192 to upgrade an existing wireless antenna facility to incorporate advanced wireless service. The 193 subject parcel is the Henry Sibley High School Campus and District 197 offices. The property is 194 zoned R-1 and guided as a school in the Comprehensive Plan. 195 196 The existing equipment consists of building -mounted antennas and related equipment for this 197 specific carrier. It is located on the roof facing south. It was originally approved in 1998 as part of 198 Planning Case 1998-09. The building also houses cellular antenna mounts for other carriers. 199 200 Planner Wall shared images of the current antenna mounts and explained details of the upgrade 201 plans. 202 203 Staff recommended approval of the application. 204 205 Commissioners asked questions regarding whether or not this application could have been 206 approved administratively and why the representative for Verizon Wireless was not present. 207 208 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 209 210 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 211 hearing. 212 213 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 214 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 215 216 AYES: 6 217 NAYS: 0 218 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 219 220 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 221 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 222 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 223 1. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing 224 such facilities. 225 2. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare 226 of the community. 227 3. Upgrading the wireless antenna facility's antennas and equipment will help increase the 228 data and call capacity in the service area. February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 229 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 230 1. The applicant shall abide by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined 231 in the staff report. 232 233 AYES: 6 234 NAYS: 0 235 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 236 237 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 3, 2015 meeting. 238 239 PLANNING CASE #2014-37 240 City of Mendota Heights 241 Proposed amendment to the Wetlands System Chapter of the City Code 242 243 City Planner Nolan Wall noted that this application was brought forward at the December 2014 244 meeting; however, due to the attendance at that meeting and no real need to rush this application 245 through, it was subsequently tabled to bring before the full commission tonight. 246 247 The City is considering various amendments to Title 12, Chapter 2 of the City Code, which is 248 concerning Wetlands Systems. Staff identified potential amendments concerning the 249 administrative approval process that is undertaken for Wetlands Permits. The reason for going 250 through this effort would be to accommodate additional eligible activities. The proposed 251 amendments were summarized in the staff report. 252 253 Planner Wall highlighted some of the proposed revisions and additions to the Code. 254 255 Commissioners asked questions regarding the application process for administrative approval, the 256 processing time for an administrative approval, and if other areas of the Code have the same 257 wording as Section 4 [City Administrator or designee may issue an administrative approval]. 258 259 Staff recommended approval of Ordinance 471 for consideration by the City Council. 260 261 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 262 263 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 264 hearing. 265 266 February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 267 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 268 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 269 270 AYES: 6 271 NAYS:0 272 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 273 274 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 275 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 471, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 276 SECTIONS 12-2-6 AND 12-2-10 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA 277 HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING WETLANDS PERMIT 278 REQUIREMENTS. 279 280 AYES: 6 281 NAYS:0 282 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 283 284 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 17, 2015 285 meeting. 286 287 PLANNING CASE #2015-04 288 City of Mendota Heights 289 Proposed amendment to the Zoning Chapter of the City Code 290 291 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering various amendments to Title 12, 292 Chapter 1, Article L of the City Code concerning Fees and Deposits. Staff identified potential 293 amendments concerning after -the -fact permit fees. 294 295 In 2014 the City processed two After -the -fact Permits involving non -permitted vegetation removal 296 activities within the City. Currently, the City only has authority to charge additional fees for after - 297 the -fact Building Permits and Sign Permits. In order to charge additional fees for after -the -fact 298 Zoning Permits; which could include Critical Area Permits, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, 299 and Wetlands Permits; the Code must be amended to actually grant that authority. Actions 300 regarding after -the -fact permits are also subject to the general penalties provision of the Code. 301 302 If the ordinance were approved, staff would add the following language into the Fee Schedule; "In 303 addition to any other remedies available to the city, a double fee shall be charged if action requiring 304 any permit required by this Title is undertaken without first obtaining a permit for such action." 305 306 Staff recommended approval of Ordinance 473 for consideration by the City Council. 307 308 Commissioners asked questions regarding the typical range on a double fee, any leeway in 309 determining the penalty fee based on the violation, and what remedies are available if a violator 310 decides to not apply for an after -the -fact permit. 311 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 312 February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 313 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 314 hearing. 315 316 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 317 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 318 319 AYES: 6 320 NAYS: 0 321 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 322 323 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 324 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 473 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 325 SECTION 12-1L-10 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, 326 MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING AFTER -THE -FACT PERMIT 327 APPLICATION FEES 328 329 Chair Field stated that he was thinking `double the fee but not less than ...' $250 or $500 so it 330 does have some bite to it. Planner Wall pointed out that the fee for a fence, a wetlands permit, or 331 a variance is pretty modest for an application versus a conditional use permit. He asked if they 332 should be treated the same or is that built in for the penalty in regards to the original fee in and of 333 itself. 334 335 Chair Field continued by saying that the fees are intended to be modest so that they are not so 336 prohibitive that people might deliberately avoid filing for an application. In this case they may 337 have unwittingly or they may have deliberately gone about the activity and avoided the fee. Then 338 he would not feel quite so charitable about the fee, and maybe it's not $500; maybe it's $250 — but 339 some number where it actually does compensate the City for staff time, planning commission time, 340 etc. 341 342 Commissioner Noonan agreed with Chair Field's suggestion so the penalty at least covers the 343 City's expenses. 344 345 Commissioner Magnuson commented that she is all right with that with respect to people who 346 apparently intentionally disregarded the Code or sort of blindly go forward without regard to even 347 investigating. However, there are a lot of permit requirements in the City that a lot of people do 348 not know about and it could very easily slip into a situation where you do something innocently 349 and realize after -the -fact that you should have had a permit and you do everything you can to make 350 amends. Those people do not need to be punished with an absolute dollar amount. She would be 351 in favor of heftier penalties for those who willfully violate but it would be nice if there was some 352 discretion to deal with the situation for the person who innocently does not understand or does not 353 know that there is a requirement. 354 355 Chair Field noted that trying to differentiate between an innocent or willful violation puts the 356 Commission in the position of judge and jury. Arguably it still consumes a fair amount of time to 357 go back and reconstruct the situation before the violation or the work that was done without a fee. 358 February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 359 Commissioner Noonan proposed that the Code addition read as follows: "In addition to any other 360 remedies available to the city, a double fee or $250, whichever is greater, shall be charged if action 361 requiring any permit required by this Title is undertaken without first obtaining a permit for such 362 action." Commissioner Magnuson agreed to this change to the motion. 363 364 AYES: 6 365 NAYS: 0 366 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) 367 368 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 17, 2015 369 meeting. 370 371 2014 Planning Department Summary 372 373 City Planner Nolan Wall reviewed the list of accomplishments completed by the Planning 374 Commission, the Consulting Planner, and the Planning Department — in cooperation with other 375 city departments — in 2014. 376 377 Verbal Review 378 379 Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 380 381 PLANNING CASE #2014-36 382 Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, 2511 and 2525 Condon Court 383 Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 384 • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 385 • Approved by the Metropolitan Council 386 • Applicant is now working on the Preliminary Plat for further consideration of that project 387 388 Staff Announcements 389 390 • An open house for the Lemay Shores Development was held on January 22, 2015 391 o Site clearing is finished and surrounding residents have been updated on the 392 progress 393 o Site grading and construction of the roadway will commence as soon as the trucks 394 and equipment can be moved in 395 o They plan to have the model home open by August 2015 396 • The Council had a broad discussion at their workshop meeting for planning -related items 397 o They covered the after -the -fact permit request, which will hopefully be brought 398 forward soon 399 o The keeping of chickens as pets was addressed and they determined that this was 400 something that they did not wanted to pursue — so chickens are still not allowed in 401 the residential zoning districts 402 o They discussed the regulations on tear -downs and direction from the City Council 403 will be brought to the Planning Commission for review this summer 404 February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 405 Adjournment 406 407 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 408 ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:25 P.M. 409 410 AYES: 6 411 NAYS: 0 412 ABSENT: 1 (Roston) February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS page 11 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-hei g hts.con DATE: March 3, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: January 2015 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls The department responded to 16 calls for the month. The majority of calls were classified as false alarms or as good intent calls. Seven were residential in nature, of the other calls, three were commercial, three were utility calls, two were EMS calls, and there was one car fire. Monthly Department Training For the monthly department drill Chief Maczko did a review of all of the tactical concerns related to fire department operations in Sunfish Lake. Some of the major issues that were addressed were water supply issues, limited access, home size, and home design. Monthly Squad Training The squad training for the month was a drill called "You Tell Me". The drill was developed a few years ago by the training department and continues to be a very successful drill. At least a week before their squad drill, each firefighter is assigned a specific topic related to various fire ground operations. At their monthly squad drill, each firefighter is then responsible for presenting their topic and leading the hands- on training for that topic. During the month of January it not uncommon to see most of the firefighters up at the station on their own time practicing their skills and presentations prior to their squad drill MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT JANUARY 2015 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 15001 - 15016 NUMBER OF CALLS: 16 page 12 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED: NUMBER ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial Structure - MH Residential Structure - Contract Areas Vehicle - MH Vehicle - Contract Areas Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract MEDICAL Assist Extrication HAZARDOUS SITUATION Spills/Leaks Arcing/Shorting Chemical Power Line Down FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction Commercial Malfunction Unintentional - Commercial Unintentional - Residential Criminal GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other MUTUAL AID 1 3 3 1 8 TOTAL CALLS 16 STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC. TOTALS TO DATE TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH) $0 $0 MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $0 $0 $0 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS: TO DATE MENDOTA HEIGHTS 14 14 MENDOTA 0 0 SUNFISH LAKE 1 1 LILYDALE 1 1 OTHER 0 0 TOTAL 16 16 LAST YEAR 26 1 0 3 1 31 BILLING FOR SERVICES AGENCY THIS MONTH TO DATE MN/DOT MILW. RR CNR RR OTHERS: TOTALS: $0 $0 WORK PERFORME HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR FIRE CALLS 278 278 780 MEETINGS 30 30 37 DRILLS 156 156 177 WEEKLY CLEAN-UP 34 34 37 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 133.5 133.5 339.25 ADMINISTATIVE 0 0 0 FIRE MARSHAL 44.5 44.5 60 TOTALS 676 676 1430.25 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH INSPECTIONS INVESTIGATIONS RE -INSPECTION MEETINGS ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL PROJECTS TOTAL 20 0 0 0 24.5 0 44.5 REMARKS: SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TREASURER'S REPORT DECEMBER 2014 V BALANCE COLLATERAL American Bank Checking Account .02% Savings Account .02% Collateral - Bonds Gov't. Guar. Investments $41,949.90 $640.42 $42,590.32 $1,078,022.00 $250,000.00 Cost PV Saving Cert 1/26/15 @0._15% Cherokee $13,952.59 $13,952.59 FHLB 1.125% 06/20/23 $1,750,000.00 $1,752,537.50 FHLB 2.00% 12/30/19 $500,000.00 $499,935.00 FHLB 2.00% 12/30/19 $750,000.00 $749,902.50 Goldman Sachs Bank 2.20% 12/17/19 $100,000.00 $99,468.00 GE Capital Financial Inc 2.05% 11/4/16 $245,000.00 $248,327.10 American Express Cent Bank 2.05% 12/1/16 $245,000.00 $248,270.75 GE Capital Retail Bank 2.00% 7/6/18 $200,000.00 $199,500.00 Sallie Mae Bank 2.050% 11/20/18 $245,000.00 $244,534.50 BMW Bank 2.00% 12/11/18 $245,000.00 $243,956.30 World's Foremost Bank 2.00% 08/13/19 $200,000.00 $197,802.00 Cit Bank 2.15% 11/13/19 $245,000.00 $242,530.40 Fidelity Institutional Government Portfolio (Piper) $5,429,443.97 $5,429,443.97 Gov't. Securities Fund 28% Sold 6/4 $433,187.00 $1,031,000.00 MMkt Fd (WF) $1,379,817.25 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 12/31/14 Funds Available 1/1/2014 Rates Monet/ Market December Bank 0.02% 5 Yr. Tr. 1.65% 10 Yr. Tr. 2.17% $12,023,991.13 $11,334,237.58 page 13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TREASURER'S REPORT JANUARY 2015 American Bank Checking Account .02% Savings Account .02% Collateral - Bonds Gov't. Guar. Investments BALANCE COLLATERAL $535,805.41 $640.43 $536,445.84 $1,078,022.00 $250,000.00 Cost PV Saving Cert 1/26/15 @0.15% Cherokee $13,952.59 $13,952.59 FHLB 1.125% 06/20/23 $1,750,000.00 $1,749,860.00 FHLB 2.00% 12/30/19 $500,000.00 $499,980.00 FHLB 2.00% 12/30/19 $750,000.00 $749,970.00 FHLB 1.00% 1/30/20 $500,000.00 $499,565.00 Goldman Sachs Bank 2.20% 12/17/19 $100,000.00 $101,452.00 GE Capital Financial Inc 2.05% 11/4/16 $245,000.00 $249,387.95 American Express Cent Bank 2.05% 12/1/16 $245,000.00 $249,456.55 GE Capital Retail Bank 2.00% 7/6/18 $200,000.00 $202,850.00 Sallie Mae Bank 2.050% 11/20/18 $245,000.00 $248,461.85 BMW Bank 2.00% 12/11/18 $245,000.00 $247,834.65 World's Foremost Bank 2.00% 08/13/19 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 Cit Bank 2.15% 11/13/19 $245,000.00 $245,725.20 Fidelity Institutional Government Portfolio (Piper) $1,871,961.47 $1,871,961.47 Gov't. Securities Fund 28% Sold 6/4 $433,187.00 $1,031,000.00 MMkt Fd (WF) $882,173.46 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 1131/15 Funds Available 1/1/2015 Rates Monet/ Market January Bank 0.02% 5Yr.Tr. 1.18% 10 Yr. Tr. 1.68% $8,962,720.36 $12,023,991.13 page 14 page 15 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651,4521850 phone ( 651,452.8940 fax www,mendota-heights,com DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BACKGROUND March 3, 2015 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director \007 Claims List Summary Significant Claims Verizon Wireless — Cell Service/Equipment ** Maguey Construction — Lift Station Repairs Mid Northern Services — Street Light Repairs/ PW Lighting Repairs Morton Salt — Road Salt City of St. Paul — Fire Hydrant Replacement US Bank — Monthly Activity Xcel Energy — Utilities Manual Checks Total System Checks Total Total for the list of claims for the March 3, 2015 city council meeting RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the list of claims for March 3, 2015. $ 8,551.80 $ 19,745.20 $ 5,238.72 $ 28,015.18 $ 8,261.91 $ 3,161.64 $ 16,619.56 $ 41,878.83 $ 112,236.82 $ 154,115.65 * * The Verizon Wireless bill is the first bill covering the switch from Sprint. It includes service and equipment charges. Credits will be coming on the next bill for equipment. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List MANUAL CHECKS 02/25/15 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr page 16 02/26/15 9:53 AM Page 1 Amount Search Name ICMA RETIREMENT 457 G 01-2072 02/13/2015 PAYROLL Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 Search Name MN CHAPTER IAAI E 01-4400-030-30 CONF. REGISTRATION - J. LEE Search Name MN CHAPTER IAAI Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 01-2072 02/13/2015 PAYROLL Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION Search Name SELECT ACCOUNT E 15-4220-060-60 E 01-4220-110-10 E 01-4220-020-20 E 01-4220-050-50 E 01-4220-070-70 E 05-4220-105-15 Search Name SELECT ACCOUNT JAN -FEB 2015 PARTICIPANT FEE JAN -FEB 2015 PARTICIPANT FEE JAN -FEB 2015 PARTICIPANT FEE JAN -FEB 2015 PARTICIPANT FEE JAN -FEB 2015 PARTICIPANT FEE JAN -FEB 2015 PARTICIPANT FEE Search Name SW/WC SERVICE COOPERATIVES E 01-4131-020-20 E 01-4131-050-50 E 01-4131-070-70 G 01-2071 G 01-2074 MARCH 2015 HEALTH INSURANCE MARCH 2015 HEALTH INSURANCE MARCH 2015 HEALTH INSURANCE MARCH 2015 HEALTH INSURANCE MARCH 2015 HEALTH INSURANCE E 05-4131-105-15 MARCH 2015 HEALTH INSURANCE E 01-4131-110-10 MARCH 2015 HEALTH INSURANCE Search Name SW/WC SERVICE COOPERATIVES Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL G 01-2070 02/13/2015 PAYROLL Search Name UNITED WAY OF ST. PAUL Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE G 01-1210 REPLENISH POSTAGE METER Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE Search Name VERIZON WIRELESS E 01-4210-110-10 E 01-4210-020-20 E 01-4210-114-14 E 01-4210-070-70 E 01-4210-050-50 E 01-4210-030-30 E 05-4210-105-15 E 15-4210-060-60 Search Name VERIZON WIRELESS Search Name XCEL ENERGY E 45-4212-046-45 E 45-4211-047-45 E 01-4211-320-70 JAN 2015 CELL USAGE & EQUIPMENT JAN 2015 CELL USAGE & EQUIPMENT JAN 2015 CELL USAGE & EQUIPMENT JAN 2015 CELL USAGE & EQUIPMENT JAN 2015 CELL USAGE & EQUIPMENT JAN 2015 CELL USAGE & EQUIPMENT JAN 2015 CELL USAGE & EQUIPMENT JAN 2015 CELL USAGE & EQUIPMENT JAN 2015 UTILITIES JAN 2015 UTILITIES JAN 2015 UTILITIES Are Utility Enterprise Administration Police Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Engineering Enterprise Police Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Engineering Enterprise Administration Administration Police Info Tech Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Fire Engineering Enterprise Utility Enterprise Golf Course Golf Course Parks & Recreation $197.92 $197.92 $260.00 $260.00 $50.00 $50.00 $4.22 $24.08 $31.28 $9.02 $2.40 $13.24 $84.24 $13,758.00 $4,148.00 $1,313.00 $3,042.00 $1,313.00 $4,008.00 $3,456.00 $31,038.00 $49.00 $49.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $284.49 $5,222.68 $657.32 $812.81 $228.48 $378.14 $625.10 $342.78 $8,551.80 $102.57 $216.00 $68.55 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List MANUAL CHECKS 02/25/15 MAN page 17 02/26/15 9:53 AM Page 2 Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4211-320-70 E 45-4211-046-45 Search Name XCEL ENERGY JAN 2015 UTILITIES JAN 2015 UTILITIES Parks & Recreation Golf Course $25.88 $34.87 $447.87 $41,878.83 Account Comments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 03/03/15 PAY DEPT Descr page 18 02/26/15 11:20 AM Page 1 Amount Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT & IMAGING E 01-4300-110-10 E 01-4300-070-70 E 01-4300-040-40 E 01-4300-080-80 E 05-4300-105-15 E 15-4300-060-60 Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT Search Name AMERICOM, INC E 01-4305-030-30 G 01-2010 Search Name AMERICOM, INC LETTERHEAD LETTERHEAD LETTERHEAD LETTERHEAD LETTERHEAD LETTERHEAD & IMAGING KEY FOBS - FIRE DEPT ACCESS SYSTEM RENEWAL - FIRE HALL Search Name AMERIPRIDE SERVICES E 15-4335-310-60 MAT SERVICE - PW GARAGE E 01-4335-310-50 MAT SERVICE - PW GARAGE E 01-4335-310-70 MAT SERVICE - PW GARAGE Search Name AMERIPRIDE SERVICES Search Name ARROW MOWER INC. E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - PARKS E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - PARKS Search Name ARROW MOWER INC. Search Name BATTERIES PLUS E 01-4305-070-70 SUPPLIES - PARKS Search Name BATTERIES PLUS Search Name BESSER WELDING & FABRICATION E 01-4305-050-50 OPERATING SUPPLIES - STREETS Search Name BESSER WELDING & FABRICATION Search Name BURROWS, RICHARD E 15-4415-060-60 MILEAGE REIMB. - R. BURROWS Search Name BURROWS, RICHARD Search Name C. DARLENE OEHLKE, CAP E 01-4220-110-10 02/17/15 COUNCIL MEETING Search Name C. DARLENE OEHLKE, CAP Search Name CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC. E 01-4331-020-20 ADD'L SHIPPING - PER CONTRACT Search Name CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC. Search Name CRABTREE COMPANIES, INC. E 01-4301-020-20 SOFTWARE - PD Search Name CRABTREE COMPANIES, INC. Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN E 01-4404-030-30 2015 MEMBERSHIP Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN Search Name DELTA DENTAL E 15-4131-060-60 MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM Administration $88.04 Parks & Recreation $66.03 Code Enforcement/Inspe $66.03 Planning $88.03 Engineering Enterprise $88.03 Utility Enterprise $44.02 $440.18 Fire Utility Enterprise Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Utility Enterprise Administration Police Police Fire Utility Enterprise $96.80 $1,876.13 $1,972.93 $28.10 $28.11 $28.10 $84.31 $184.96 $19.52 $204.48 $53.90 $53.90 $128.00 $128.00 $61.07 $61.07 $69.00 $69.00 $69.49 $69.49 $1,680.00 $1,680.00 $75.00 $75.00 $223.70 Account CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 03/03/15 PAY Comments DEPT Descr page 19 02/26/15 11:20 AM Page 2 Amount G 01-2071 E 08-4131-000-00 E 05-4131-105-15 E 01-4131-070-70 E 01-4131-050-50 E 01-4131-020-20 E 01-4131-110-10 G 01-2074 Search Name DELTA DENTAL MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM MAR 2015 DENTAL PREMIUM Search Name ELECTRO WATCHMAN E 08-4335-000-00 QTRLY SECURITY MONITORING - CITY HALL E 15-4210-060-60 QTRLY SECURITY MONITORING - UFT STAT IO Search Name ELECTRO WATCHMAN Search Name EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS E 01-4330-460-30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - FIRE DEPT E 01-4305-155-30 PROTECTIVE GEAR - FIRE DEPT E 01-4330-460-30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - FIRE DEPT Search Name EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS Search Name EVEREST EMERGENCY VEHICLES INC E 01-4330-440-20 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - PD Search Name EVEREST EMERGENCY VEHICLES INC Search Name FISCHER S SERVICE - PLOWING E 01-4268-500-30 JAN 2015 PLOWING - E 01-4335-315-30 JAN 2015 PLOWING - Search Name FISCHER S SERVICE - PLOWING DRIVEWAYS FIRE HALL Search Name FLEET SERVICES E 01-4200-610-20 JAN 2015 SQUAD LEASES Search Name FLEET SERVICES Search Name FLEETPRIDE E 01-4330-490-50 Search Name FLEETPRIDE Search Name GRAINGER E 08-4335-000-00 E 08-4335-000-00 Search Name GRAINGER EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - STREETS BLDG MAINT. SUPPLIES - CITY HALL BLDG MAINT. SUPPLIES - CITY HALL Search Name GRAYBAR ELECTRIC E 01-4330-460-30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - FIRE DEPT Search Name GRAYBAR ELECTRIC Search Name HANCO CORPORATION E 01-4330-460-30 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - FIRE DEPT Search Name HANCO CORPORATION Search Name HOSE INC E 15-4330-490-60 E 01-4330-490-50 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - SHOP EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - SHOP EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - SHOP Spec Fds Engineering Enterprise Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Police Administration Spec Fds Utility Enterprise Fire Fire Fire Police Fire Fire Police Road & Bridges Spec Fds Spec Fds Fire Fire Utility Enterprise Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation $1,006.65 $42.90 $197.65 $309.50 $421.35 $842.70 $266.60 $283.45 $3,594.50 $255.00 $495.00 $750.00 $163.66 $758.12 $94.03 $1,015.81 $15.00 $15.00 $638.00 $70.00 $708.00 $4,565.68 $4,565.68 $98.28 $98.28 $52.32 $8.78 $61.10 $15.71 $15.71 $15.94 $15.94 $76.53 $28.00 $76.54 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 03/03/15 PAY page 20 02/26/15 11:20 AM Page 3 Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4330-490-50 E 01-4330-490-70 Search Name HOSE INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - SHOP EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - SHOP Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation $76.54 $28.00 $285.61 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS E 01-4300-030-30 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT Fire $10.67 E 01-4330-030-30 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT Fire $13.58 E 15-4300-060-60 OFFICE SUPPLIES - UB Utility Enterprise $9.50 E 01-4300-110-10 OFFICE SUPPLIES - ADMIN Administration $26.97 E 01-4300-110-10 OFFICE SUPPLIES - ADMIN Administration $4.88 E 01-4300-030-30 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT Fire $24.21 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS $89.81 Search Name INTEGRA TELECOM E 01-4210-020-20 FEB -MAR 2015 TELEPHONE SERVICE Police $128.04 E 01-4210-070-70 FEB -MAR 2015 TELEPHONE SERVICE Parks & Recreation $42.70 E 01-4210-050-50 FEB -MAR 2015 TELEPHONE SERVICE Road & Bridges $42.70 E 15-4210-060-60 FEB -MAR 2015 TELEPHONE SERVICE Utility Enterprise $250.74 E 05-4210-105-15 FEB -MAR 2015 TELEPHONE SERVICE Engineering Enterprise $167.48 E 01-4210-110-10 FEB -MAR 2015 TELEPHONE SERVICE Administration $334.97 E 01-4210-020-20 FEB -MAR 2015 TELEPHONE SERVICE Police $267.98 E 01-4210-040-40 FEB -MAR 2015 TELEPHONE SERVICE Code Enforcement/Inspe $66.99 Search Name INTEGRA TELECOM $1,301.60 Search Name INVER GROVE FORD E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - SEWER Utility Enterprise $10.52 Search Name INVER GROVE FORD $10.52 Search Name IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMT E 01-4490-020-20 JAN 2015 SHREDDING Police E 01-4490-110-10 JAN 2015 SHREDDING Administration Search Name IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMT Search Name KAT KEYS E 08-4335-000-00 Search Name KAT KEYS Search Name KEEPRS, INC E 01-4410-020-20 Search Name KEEPRS, INC Search Name LELS G 01-2075 $55.33 $18.44 $73.77 REPAIRS - CITY HALL Spec Fds $17.30 $17.30 EQUIPMENT - PD Police $828.00 $828.00 MARCH 2015 UNION DUES $517.00 Search Name LELS $517.00 Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES - SHOP G 01-2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES - Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC Search Name LEAGUE MN CITIES E 29-4404-000-00 MN CITIES SW COALITION CONTR. Search Name LEAGUE MN CITIES Search Name LITTLE FALLS MACHINE, INC. -$7.85 $95.25 $87.40 Spec Fds $760.00 $760.00 Account Comments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 03/03/15 PAY DEPT Descr page 21 02/26/15 11:20 AM Page 4 Amount E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - STREETS E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - STREETS Search Name LITTLE FALLS MACHINE, INC. Search Name LUBE -TECH G 01-1210 G 01-1210 Search Name LUBE -TECH WASHER FLUID DRUM DEP. RETURN Search Name MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION E 15-4330-400-60 LIFT STATION REPAIRS Search Name MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION Search Name MENARDS E 08-4335-000-00 E 08-4335-000-00 E 01-4305-050-50 E 01-4305-070-70 E 15-4305-060-60 E 08-4335-000-00 E 08-4335-000-00 E 01-4335-315-30 Search Name MENARDS BUILDING SUPPLIES - CITY HALL CLEANING SUPPLIES - CITY HALL OPEARTING SUPPLIES - SHOP OPEARTING SUPPLIES - SHOP OPEARTING SUPPLIES - SHOP BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY HALL BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES - CITY HALL BUILDING SUPPLIES - FIRE HALL Search Name METRO JANITORIAL SUPPLY INC E 01-4305-070-70 CLEANING SUPPLIES - PARKS Search Name METRO JANITORIAL SUPPLY INC Search Name METRO SALES E 05-4330-490-15 E 01-4330-490-70 E 01-4330-445-40 E 01-4330-490-10 E 01-4300-080-80 E 15-4330-490-60 E 45-4305-045-45 Search Name METRO SALES QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTENANCE QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTENANCE QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTENANCE QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTENANCE QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTENANCE QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTENANCE QUARTERLY COPIER MAINTENANCE Search Name MID NORTHERN SERVICES E 01-4335-310-50 E 28-4330-000-00 E 01-4335-310-70 E 01-4335-310-50 E 01-4335-310-70 LIGHTING REPAIRS - PW STREET LIGHTING SUPPLIES LIGHTING REPAIRS - PW LIGHTING REPAIRS - PW LIGHTING REPAIRS - PW E 15-4335-310-60 LIGHTING REPAIRS - PW E 15-4335-310-60 LIGHTING REPAIRS - PW Search Name MID NORTHERN SERVICES Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN G 01-2071 MAR 2015 PREMIUM Search Name MN BENEFIT ASSN Search Name MNPEA G 01-2075 MARCH 2015 UNION DUES Road & Bridges Road & Bridges Utility Enterprise Spec Fds Spec Fds Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Utility Enterprise Spec Fds Spec Fds Fire Parks & Recreation $201.58 $1,841.92 $2,043.50 $95.10 -$40.00 $55.10 $19,745.20 $19,745.20 $100.59 $15.92 $39.90 $39.90 $39.90 $28.28 $19.52 $49.92 $333.93 $259.39 $259.39 Engineering Enterprise $36.25 Parks & Recreation $65.90 Code Enforcement/Inspe $39.54 Administration $441.53 Planning $32.95 Utility Enterprise $39.54 Golf Course $3.29 $659.00 Road & Bridges Spec Fds Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Utility Enterprise Utility Enterprise $358.62 $3,612.92 $358.62 $183.32 $183.31 $183.31 $358.62 $5,238.72 $15.79 $15.79 $156.00 Account Comments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 03/03/15 PAY DEPT Descr page 22 02/26/15 11:20 AM Page 5 Amount Search Name MNPEA Search Name MORTON SALT E 01-4421-050-50 E 01-4421-050-50 E 01-4421-050-50 E 01-4421-050-50 Search Name MORTON SALT ROAD SALT ROAD SALT ROAD SALT ROAD SALT Search Name OREILLY AUTO/FIRST CALL E 01-4330-460-30 E 01-4305-050-50 E 01-4305-070-70 E 15-4305-060-60 E 01-4305-070-70 E 01-4330-490-70 E 01-4305-070-70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - FIRE DEPT OPERATING SUPPLIES - SHOP OPERATING SUPPLIES - SHOP OPERATING SUPPLIES - SHOP OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - PARKS OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - PARKS Search Name OREILLY AUTO/FIRST CALL Search Name PITNEY BOWES E 01-4300-110-10 Search Name PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE SUPPLIES Search Name PORT SUPPLY E 01-4330-460-30 EQUIPMENT - FIRE DEPT Search Name PORT SUPPLY Search Name SCHUTTA, TAMARA E 01-4490-110-10 E 01-4415-110-10 E 01-4490-110-10 MEETING SUPPLIES MILEAGE REIMBURESEMENT MEETING SUPPLIES Search Name SCHUTTA, TAMARA Search Name SNAP ON TOOLS E 01-4305-050-50 E 01-4305-070-70 Search Name SNAP ON TOOLS Search Name SPRWS E 15-4425-310-60 E 01-4425-315-30 E 01-4425-310-70 E 01-4425-310-50 Search Name SPRWS TOOLS - SHOP TOOLS - PARKS JAN 2015 SERVICE - PW JAN 2015 SERVICE - FIRE HALL JAN 2015 SERVICE - PW JAN 2015 SERVICE - PW Search Name ST. PAUL, CITY OF E 37-4490-000-00 HYDRANT REPLACEMENT Search Name ST. PAUL, CITY OF Search Name STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES E 01-4220-135-80 PLANNING ASSISTANCE Search Name STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES Search Name SUN LIFE Road & Bridges Road & Bridges Road & Bridges Road & Bridges Fire Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Utility Enterprise Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Administration Fire Administration Administration Administration Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Utility Enterprise Fire Parks & Recreation Road & Bridges Spec Fds Planning $156.00 $3,057.97 $7,415.02 $14,332.68 $3,209.51 $28,015.18 $10.99 $20.65 $20.65 $20.64 $2.99 $28.48 $40.96 $179.98 $325.34 $188.66 $188.66 $432.92 $432.92 $98.31 $51.99 $66.13 $216.43 $41.50 $86.75 $128.25 $18.94 $79.31 $18.94 $18.95 $136.14 $8,261.91 $8,261.91 $930.00 $930.00 Account Comments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 03/03/15 PAY DEPT Descr page 23 02/26/15 11:20 AM Page 6 Amount E 01-4131-110-10 G 01-2074 G 01-2071 E 15-4131-060-60 E 08-4131-000-00 E 05-4131-105-15 E 01-4131-070-70 E 01-4131-020-20 E 01-4131-050-50 Search Name SUN LIFE Search Name T MOBILE E 01-4210-070-70 E 01-4210-114-14 Search Name T MOBILE Search Name TOTAL TOOL E 01-4305-050-50 Search Name TOTAL TOOL MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISB PREMIUM MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISB PREMIUM MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISE PREMIUM MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISB PREMIUM MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISB PREMIUM MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISB PREMIUM MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISB PREMIUM MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISB PREMIUM MAR 2015 LIFE AND DISB PREMIUM JAN 2015 CELL SERVICE - PARKS JAN 2015 CELL SERVICE - IT OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS Search Name TRIANGLE RUBBISH & RECYCLING E 01-4280-315-30 JAN 2015 SERVICE Search Name TRIANGLE RUBBISH & RECYCLING Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE E 01-4330-490-10 NEW EXT. SET-UP Search Name TWIN CITY TELEPHONE Search Name U. S. BANK E 01-4305-070-70 E 01-4435-200-70 E 01-4435-200-70 E 08-4335-000-00 E 01-4435-200-70 E 01-4435-200-70 E 01-4435-200-70 E 01-4435-200-70 E 23-4490-000-00 E 01-4490-110-10 E 01-4400-020-20 E 05-4400-105-15 E 01-4306-110-10 E 01-4306-110-10 E 01-4490-110-10 E 01-4490-110-10 E 01-4490-110-10 Search Name U. S. BANK OPERATING SUPPLIES - PARKS RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS SUPPLIES SIGN - RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS CLEANING SUPPLIES - CITY HALL BIKES - RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS SNOWSHOES - RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS SUPPLIES SNOWSHOES - RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS MICROPHONES - COUNCIL CHAMBERS ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEWS TRAINING - PD ENGINEERING SCHOOL DEGREE VERIFICATION DEGREE VERIFICATION MEETING SUPPLIES MEETING SUPPLIES MEETING SUPPLIES Search Name UNIFORMS UNLIMITED E 01-4410-020-20 E 01-4410-020-20 E 01-4305-024-20 UNIFORMS - J. VONFELDT UNIFORM - PETERSEN UNIFORM - J. PARKER Administration Utility Enterprise Spec Fds Engineering Enterprise Parks & Recreation Police Road & Bridges Parks & Recreation Info Tech Road & Bridges Fire Administration Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Spec Fds Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Spec Fds Administration Police Engineering Enterprise Administration Administration Administration Administration Administration Police Police Police $234.82 $124.43 $1,340.78 $93.37 $87.35 $123.33 $255.03 $463.96 $282.73 $3,005.80 $200.74 $72.67 $273.41 $26.00 $26.00 $53.10 $53.10 $125.00 $125.00 $170.99 -$80.31 $144.00 $23.90 $771.27 $154.43 $80.31 $245.35 $865.84 $74.91 $310.00 $150.00 $22.95 $19.95 $55.11 $107.02 $45.92 $3,161.64 $118.97 $1,479.50 $82.99 Search Name UNIFORMS UNLIMITED $1,681.46 Account Comments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 03/03/15 PAY DEPT Descr page 24 02/26/15 11:20 AM Page 7 Amount Search Name WALTONS HOLLOW E 01-4435-200-70 PARK CELEBRATION - PETTING ZOO DEPOSIT Search Name WALTONS HOLLOW Search Name XCEL ENERGY E 08-4211-000-00 E 15-4212-400-60 E 01-4211-300-50 E 01-4211-310-50 E 01-4211-310-70 E 01-4211-315-30 E 01-4211-420-50 E 15-4212-310-60 E 15-4211-310-60 E 15-4211-400-60 E 28-4211-000-00 E 01-4212-310-50 E 01-4212-310-70 E 01-4212-315-30 E 01-4212-320-70 E 08-4212-000-00 E 01-4211-320-70 Search Name XCEL ENERGY JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 GAS UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 GAS UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES JAN 2015 GAS UTILITIES JAN 2015 GAS UTILITIES JAN 2015 GAS UTILITIES JAN 2015 GAS UTILITIES JAN 2015 GAS UTILITIES JAN 2015 EL. UTILITIES Parks & Recreation $500.00 $500.00 Spec Fds $2,711.68 Utility Enterprise $212.05 Road & Bridges $1,812.74 Road & Bridges $400.26 Parks & Recreation $400.26 Fire $797.05 Road & Bridges $209.89 Utility Enterprise $976.67 Utility Enterprise $400.27 Utility Enterprise $905.24 Spec Fds $1,640.65 Road & Bridges $976.66 Parks & Recreation $976.66 Fire $1,090.35 Parks & Recreation $205.26 Spec Fds $1,808.70 Parks & Recreation $1,095.17 $16,619.56 $112,236.82 page 25 2015 Licensing List for City Council Type Contractor Name Drywall General HVAC Masonry Rubbish sign B & S Drywall, Inc Lloyd's Construction Services, Inc Aabbott Ferraro Heating Air Masters Heating & Cooling Angell Aire, Inc Bill Rascher Mechanical, Inc Master Gas Fitters South -Town Refrigeration The Fireplace Guys Durable Exteriors, Inc Steenberg Watrud Construction, LLC Advanced Disposal Services Troje's Trash Pick -Up, Inc Minnesota Sign Company, Inc Thursday, February 26, 2015 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: March 3, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA Public Works Director/City Engineer page 26 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 651,452.8940 fax www,mendota-heights.com SUBJECT: Future Cities Competition — Friendly Hills Middle School BACKGROUND For the past seven years, Friendly Hills Middle School has been participating in the Future Cities Competition sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Mendota Heights City staff has provided mentorship to competing teams for six of those seven years. The State competition is held each January at the University of Minnesota, where teams present their cities with a model of their city built to scale. In addition, teams are scored on a city narrative, essay, and computer model using SimCity software. Once all the teams have presented, the scores are tabulated, and the top five teams advance to compete against each other in the State finals held later the same day. The Future Cities Competition challenges teams of 6th through 8th grade students to design a city of the future based on a specific theme. This year's theme was, "Feeding Your Future City." Teams had to devise a method to produce and transport one protein and one vegetable in sufficient quantity to supply their city with food. While developing this program, they also had to consider such city staples as infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.), energy production, public safety, zoning, transportation, waste management, and environmental sustainability. Friendly Hills Middle School is one of only a few schools to incorporate the Future Cities program into their classroom curriculum. Friendly Hills Middle School entered three teams in the State competition for the fifth consecutive year. In past years, all Friendly Hills Middle School teams entered have finished in the top half of the competition. That tradition continued at the 2015 competition with the teams finishing 14th, 13th, and 5th respectively, out of 44 teams scored; but, for the first time, a Friendly Hills Middle School team entered in this year's competition finished in the top five, earning it a place in the State finals. This team also won the Best Water Supply award during the competition. While the Friendly Hills Middle School team was not selected as the State Champion (that honor went to Grandview Middle School in Mound, MN), finishing in the top five is a giant step forward for the program and is encouraging students to participate and learn more about how cities function. BUDGET IMPACT Staff time donated for mentorship of the teams was approximately two hours per week from September through mid-January. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council receive the presentation from Friendly Hills Middle School. ..••••••- CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: March 3, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA Public Works Director/City Engineer page 27 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 651,452.8940 fax www,mendota-heights.com SUBJECT: Rogers Lake Water Quality Report by Saint Thomas Academy BACKGROUND Since 2001, Saint Thomas Academy Environmental Science Classes have been monitoring several aspects of the water quality present in Rogers Lake. This year Mr. Tony Kinzley, Advanced Placement Environmental Sciences Instructor, has a group of students who conducted the research and prepared a presentation for Council. Attached is the historical data on the lakes' water quality along with a summary sheet the students will be presenting from at tonight's Council meeting. BUDGET IMPACT Saint Thomas Academy provides this service to the City free of charge. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council receive the presentation from Saint Thomas Academy. aae 28 Which chemical tests were performed? What does each test for? What factors affect the readings? What is an acceptable reading? What were the Fall 2014 readings? Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) The amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. Plant life increases D.O., organic waste inputs (pet waste, grass clippings, leaves) lowers D.O. 5-12 ppm 7.7 ppm (7.6 in 2013) Better Fecal Coliform Levels of bacteria associated with pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the water Goose and pet waste. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines. 0 colonies/100m1 is safe to drink. 200 colonies/100m1 or less is safe for swimming 9.1 co1/100m1 (10.8 in 2013) Better pH The acidity or basicity of the water Acid rain is the typical cause of acidification of lakes 6.5-8.5 pH units (slightly basic) 7.5 units (7.7 in 2013) Better Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) How much oxygen is being used by bacteria in the lake that decompose organic waste put into the water. Organic waste inputs (leaves, grass clippings, or animal waste) and algal blooms from fertilizer runoff 0-5 ppm 1.8 ppm (2.5 in 2013) Better A Temperature (Change In Temp.) The difference in temperature between 2 testing sites on the lake Sun/shade differences, industrial thermal pollution, removal of trees/shade 0-1 °C 1 0 °C (0.9 in 2013) Worse but acceptable Nitrate Measure of the amount of Nitrates in the water Animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, fertilizers. Faulty septic systems and sewer lines 0.1-3 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 0.9 ppm (0.4 in 2013) Worse but acceptable Total Phosphates Measure of the amount of various phosphates in the water Soil runoff, animal waste, grass clippings, leaves, some fertilizers. Faulty sewer lines and septic systems. 0.1-1 ppm (Low levels needed for proper aquatic plant growth) 0.5 ppm (0.8 in 2013) Better Turbidity Amount of suspended solids in the water. A measure of water clarity Soil erosion, organic waste input 1-40 JTU 8.6 JTU (9.2 in 2013) Better Total Solids Amount of suspended and dissolved solids in water Road salt, soil erosion, organic waste input. 1-300 mg/L 280.3 mg/L (299.6 in 2013) Better aae 29 Overall Rating A composite score The 9 chemical Excellent: 90-100 80.8 of all 9 chemical tests Good: 70-89.9 (78 6;n 2013) tests. Medium: 50-69.9 Better Fall 2014 Chemical Assessment of Rogers Lake Performed by Saint Thomas Academy A. P. Environmental Science Program page 30 Thank you for allowing us the time to share our findings with the Mendota Heights City Council. Fifty students participated in the program this year and were required to prepare a formal group presentation for the City Council. The winning group will present on Tuesday, March 3. This is a genuine learning opportunity for all fifty students, especially the winning group. This document reviews the chemical water quality monitoring program used by the A.P. Environmental Science students at Saint Thomas Academy for the Mayor, Council Members, and Staff. The actual data, analysis of the data, areas in need of improvement, and possible solutions will be further discussed at the council meeting. Please direct any questions to Mr. Tony Kinzley, A.P. Environmental Science Teacher, at tkinzley(a�cadets.com. aae 31 Rogers Lake Historical Data 2001-2014 (9 Parameters and Overall Rating) Blank cells indicate that data is not available Bold values indicate data collected using probeware Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliform pH BOD5 n Temperature Phosphate Nitrate Turbidity Total Solids Overall Season (ppm) (col./100m1) (units) (ppm) (Degrees F) (ppm) (ppm) (JTU) (mg/L) (0-100) Fall 2001 6.9 7.8 4.6 1.8 1.3 0.7 40.0 62.5 Spring 2002 5.9 8.0 4.0 2.0 2.2 0.1 24.1 68.0 Fall 2002 5.9 8.2 3.6 1.7 1.7 1.1 22.2 233.1 65.1 Spring 2003 6.3 7.7 2.7 0.9 1.4 1.0 21.2 68.2 Fall 2003 4.8 7.5 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.3 27.2 409.6 64.9 Spring 2004 3.2 7.6 2.2 1.6 1.1 0.4 22.0 440.3 59.0 Fall 2004 69.8 Spring 2005 71.0 Fall 2005 4.9 37.9 7.2 2.4 1.0 1.1 0.4 11.6 307.5 70.9 Spring 2006 2.7 1.9 7.6 1.5 2.0 1.2 0.7 11.8 318.5 72.8 Fall 2006 7.9 49.5 7.6 2.6 1.5 1.1 1.0 10.1 74.6 Spring 2007 7.9 11.2 8.2 2.5 1.5 0.7 0.6 11.3 301.8 78.4 Fall 2007 7.8 25.9 7.6 2.8 1.1 0.6 0.3 9.0 477.2 76.7 Spring 2008 8.0 0.0 7.6 4.7 0.9 0.5 0.4 12.4 321.2 74.3 Fall 2008 6.4 34.2 7.9 3.8 1.2 1.1 0.4 17.5 451.3 72.1 Spring 2009 8.0 3.1 7.0 2.5 0.9 1.0 0.4 12.6 344.6 77.9 Fall 2009 7.2 11.6 6.2 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.6 8.8 290.5 75.6 Fall 2010 6.8 9.9 6.2 2.4 1.0 0.9 0.2 18.6 293.2 70.8 Fall 2011 8.1 34.0 7.5 4.5 0.8 1.0 0.4 16.5 298.7 75.5 Fall 2012 7.7 28.9 7.7 3.0 1.1 1.0 0.4 14.4 296.1 75.9 Fall 2013 7.6 10.8 7.6 2.5 0.9 0.8 0.4 9.2 300.0 78.6 Fall 2014 7.7 9.1 7.5 1.8 1.0 0.5 0.9 8.6 280.3 80.8 Average 6.6 19.1 7.5 2.9 1.3 1.1 0.5 16.5 335.2 72.0 M CITY ©F IV]ENDOTA HEIGHTS page 32 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com DATE: March 3, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Vacation of Roadway, Drainage, and Utility Easements in the Auditors Subdivision #34 for the Lemay Lake Shores Development BACKGROUND In the course of recording the Final Plat for the Lemay Lake Shores Development, Ryland Homes (the developer) discovered two unused easements that need to be vacated in order for them to process their Final Plat. The City of Mendota Heights has not utilized these easements since their establishment, and City staff has determined there is no need on the part of the City to retain these easements. Easement Document Numbers 414235 and 414236, as recorded with Dakota County describes the roadway, drainage, and utility easement that run across Lots 39, 40, and 42, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION #34, MENDOTA. The easements proposed for vacation are depicted as part of the attached descriptions and drawing and are described as follows: Document No. 414235 All of the easements as created in Document No. described as follows: Parcel #1 Starting at the southeast corner of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision #34, T.28N., R.23W.; thence west along the south line of said Lot 40 a distance of 650.0 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence west along the south line of said Lot 40 a distance of 230.0 feet; thence northerly a distance of 134.45 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision #34; thence northeasterly along the easterly line of said Lot 39 a distance of 250.0 feet; thence southeasterly to a point 200.0 feet north of the point of beginning a distance of 240 feet, more or less; thence 200.0 feet south to the point of beginning Parcel #2 Starting at the southeast corner of Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision #34, Section 34, T.28N., R.23W.; thence west along the south line of said Lot 39 a distance of 100.0 feet; thence north a distance of 200.0 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 180.0 feet, more or less, to a point on the east line of said Lot 39, said point being 250.0 feet northeasterly of the southeast comer of said Lot 39; thence southwesterly along the easterly line of said Lot 39 a distance of 250.0 feet, to the point of beginning. page 33 Document No. 414236 The entire easement as created in Document No. 414236 and more particularly described as: A permanent easement over Lot 42, Auditor's Subdivision #34, Mendota, Dakota County, Minnesota, reserved in Document No. 414236, to provide road access from LeMay Lake Road to lands retained by Grantor. Easement and Right -of -Way vacation procedures require that the City hold a public hearing on the vacation of any easements. Due to required public notice timelines, and the requirement for the City to advertise the public hearing in the local paper, Council ordered the public hearing at their February 3rd meeting and scheduled it for tonight's City Council meeting. Notice was published, and all property owners that are party to the original plat of the property in question were mailed notices in accordance with notification procedures. BUDGET IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATOIN Staff recommends Council adopt the attached Resolution 2015-15, A RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENTS AT LOTS 39, 40, AND 42, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION, MENDOTA. If Council agrees with the staff's recommendation, pass a motion adopting the attached Resolution. To vacate an easement, adoption of this Resolution requires a 4/5 majority vote. page 34 February 17, 2015 RE: Easement Vacation at Lots 39, 40, and 42, Auditor's Subdivision, Mendota Dear Property Owner: This letter is in reference to an easement vacation of Lots 39, 40, and 42, Auditor's Subdivision, Mendota. A Planned Unit Development of Lemay Lake Shores Development, located between Lemay Lake, Resurrection Cemetery, Lake Augusta, and City owned property was approved by the City Council. The plans of the Planned Unit Development for the Lemay Lake Shores Development identified right-of-way to be platted and development to occur in the location of existing roadway, drainage and utility easements. Utilization of the specified easements has never taken place. The City Council is holding a public hearing on this easement vacation at their March 3, 2015, City Council meeting at City Hall located at 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 pm. You are invited to attend this public hearing to give any input on this easement vacation. After the public hearing is held, the City Council may vote on whether or not to vacate these easements. Enclosed for your information is the hearing notice and resolution that will be on the council agenda. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns about this easement vacation, please contact me at City Hall at 651-452-1850 or by e-mail at johnrm@mendota-heights.com. Sincerely, John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA Public Works Director/City Engineer Enclosures page 35 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-15 A RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENTS AT LOTS 39, 40, AND 42, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION, MENDOTA WHEREAS, a Planned Unit Development for the Lemay Lake Shores Development, located between Lemay Lake, Resurrection Cemetery, Lake Augusta, and City owned property was approved by City Council; and WHEREAS, the plans of the Planned Unit Development for the Lemay Lake Shores Development identified right-of-way to be platted and development to occur in the location of existing roadway, drainage, and utility easements; and WHEREAS, utilization of the specified easements has never taken place; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights sees no foreseeable use for the roadway, drainage, and utility easements as recorded at Dakota County under Easement Document Numbers 414235 and 414236; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider the vacation of such easement was held on the 3rd day of March, 2015, before the City Council in the City Hall located at 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 p.m. after due published and posted notice had been given, and all interested and affected persons were given an opportunity to voice their concerns and be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, that vacation is hereby granted and the roadway, drainage, and utility easements described as follows are hereby vacated: Document No. 414235 All of the easements as created in Document No. described as follows: Parcel #1 Starting at the southeast corner of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision #34, T.28N., R.23W.; thence west along the south line of said Lot 40 a distance of 650.0 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence west along the south line of said Lot 40 a distance of 230.0 feet; thence northerly a distance of 134.45 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision #34; thence northeasterly along the easterly line of said Lot 39 a distance of 250.0 feet; thence southeasterly to a point 200.0 feet north of the point of beginning a distance of 240 feet, more or less; thence 200.0 feet south to the point of beginning. Parcel #2 Starting at the southeast corner of Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision #34, Section 34, T.28N., R.23W.; thence west along the south line of said Lot 39 a distance of 100.0 feet; thence north a distance of 200.0 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 180.0 feet, more or less, to a point on the east line of said Lot 39, said point being 250.0 feet northeasterly of the page 36 southeast comer of said Lot 39; thence southwesterly along the easterly line of said Lot 39 a distance of 250.0 feet, to the point of beginning. Document No. 414236 The entire easement as created in Document No. 414236 and more particularly described as: A permanent easement over Lot 42, Auditor's Subdivision #34, Mendota, Dakota County, Minnesota, reserved in Document No. 414236, to provide road access from LeMay Lake Road to lands retained by Grantor. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign all documents necessary to effectuate the intent of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 3rd day of March 2015. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Lorri Smith, City Clerk Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor rm, I� DATE: TO: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS page 37 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com March 3, 2015 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit Applications at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road BACKGROUND The applicant wishes to demolish existing structures and build a new single-family home with attached garage on an existing lot at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The lot is now occupied by a single-family home and detached garage, which are proposed to be removed. The requests in the application package include: • Critical Area Permit to demolish existing structures and construct the proposed improvements in the Critical Area • Conditional Use Permit for new development in the Critical Area • Variance to allow grading of the site affecting slopes over 18% • Wetlands Permit The staff report contains a detailed analysis of the various requests and applicable regulations in relation to the proposed project. In summary, as included in the findings of fact for approval, the proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, as well as the conditional use permit, variance, and wetlands permit standards. The slopes proposed to be impacted by construction appear to have been man-made, drain away from the Mississippi River, and will not negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood or water bodies. In addition, the proposed improvements will reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site from the existing condition, which will reduce the total flow rate and volume of storm water runoff. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the February 24 meeting; there were no public comments. Upon review of the application materials, the DNR Area Hydrologist recommended additional landscaping be added to the proposed back patio area of the site, which is incorporated as a condition of approval. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of all the requests, with conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-01. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-16 APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS AT 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 38 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-16 RESOLUTION APPROVING CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS AT 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD WHEREAS, Jacqueline Chase has applied for a critical area permit, conditional use permit, variance, and wetlands permit to demolish existing structures and construct a new single-family residential dwelling at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road as proposed in Planning Case 2015-01 and described in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on February 24, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the critical area permit, conditional use permit, variance, and wetlands permit application requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-01 are hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, including the conditional use permit and variance standards. 2. The grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project appear to have been man-made and drain away from the Mississippi River and will not negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code and adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the that the critical area permit, conditional use permit, variance, and wetlands permit application requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-01 are hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings to meet the intent of the DNR's request, in consultation with the City Planner and City Engineer. 2. Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3. Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of March, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 39 a, Stantec Item No. 2015-01 MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: RE: February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner; John Mazzitello, Public Works Director/City Engineer Planning Case 2015-01: Jacqueline Chase 1. Critical Area Permit to demolish existing structures and construct a new single family home with attached garage in the Critical Area 2. Conditional Use Permit for new development within the Critical Area 3. Variance to allow grading of the site affecting slopes over 18% 4. Wetland Permit Action Deadline: April 6, 2015 (60 days from complete application submittal) INTRODUCTION The applicant, Jacqueline Chase, wishes to build a new single family home with attached garage on an existing lot at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The lot is now occupied by a single family home and detached garage. The existing house and garage would be removed. The project requires: • Critical Area permit to demolish existing structures and construct the new home and garage in the Critical Area • Conditional use permit for new development in the Critical Area • Variance to allow grading of the site affecting slopes over 18% • Wetlands permit Development within the Critical Area requires scrutiny, but City staff's approach to this project is tempered by the following: • The lot is already built on. • There is significant development on the bluff around this site, especially between this lot and the Mississippi River. Changes on this lot will have little or no impact on the Critical Area, compared to what already exists. • The slopes in question on-site were manmade and not part of the original bluffline which the Critical Area ordinance intends to protect and preserve. • The slopes in question on site do not drain to the river, but to a storm pond west of the site. • Total impervious surface on the site would be reduced from the current condition. BACKGROUND page 40 • The subject property is 1.42 acres (61,934 square feet) in area. • The property is guided LR Low Density Residential in the City's Land Use Plan. • The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential. • The proposed new home and garage is approximately 3,000 square feet in area. • There are 3,840 square feet of other impervious surface (driveway, sidewalk and patio) proposed on the site. • The total proposed impervious coverage on the site is 11.1%. • The total existing impervious coverage on the site is 16.5 %. ANALYSIS Understanding the purpose of the Critical Area regulations is important to this application: 12-3-2. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter: • To prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource • To promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, • To preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems 12-3-8.A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. The proposed development meets these objectives since it does not impact the shoreline or bluff areas, does not involve an on-site septic system, provides adequate erosion protection, and provides adequate pollution prevention measures. There are a number of specific ordinance requirements that come together on this application: 1) Relation to Critical Area 12-3-14.A. Critical Area Permit: "The construction of any building or structure, or the alteration of any land consisting of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of fill or excavation, shall require a critical area permit from the city council." New structures are proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required. Design with community in mind page 41 2) Relation to bluff line 12-3-8.B.1: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river. The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the buildable lot area is below the bluff line, so the above standard does not apply. The existing house and garage are located in this buildable area below the bluff line, as are numerous other houses and apartment buildings. 3) Development on slopes between 18% and 40%. 12-3-14.B. Conditional Use Permit: Any affected activity requiring a critical area permit on slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) but less than forty percent (40%) shall require a conditional use permit, and shall be required to meet the procedural and performance requirements of this section. Conditional use permits under this chapter shall be considered as follows: 2. On lots where a principal building was present as of September 1, 2006, only accessory or incidental structures shall be allowed under this clause on slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%). Examples of such structures include fences, retaining walls, landscape elements, decks and patios, or similar structures. There are slopes between 18% and 40% that are being disturbed by this project and there was a structure on this lot before 2006, so the above standards apply. The grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project appear to have been man-made in conjunction with the installation of the existing driveway. Drainage from grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project drain away from the Mississippi River and towards a storm water retention pond to the west of the site. Impact to these grades will have little to no effect on drainage, erosion, or sedimentation with respect to the Mississippi River. 4) Conditional use permit standards within the Critical Area. 12-3-16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Conditional use permits may be granted after an application process and a public hearing according to the provisions of section 12-1L-6 of this title. A conditional use permit may be granted only when the following findings are made, in addition to those conditions listed in this zoning ordinance: Design with community in mind page 42 A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the critical area order and the city's comprehensive plan; B. The proposed use is compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity; and C. The proposed use is allowed under the applicable ordinances of the city of Mendota Heights. The proposed development meets all three criteria above. 5) Variances can be granted from the standards. 12-3-15.B. When considering a proposal for a variance or other applications within the Mississippi River corridor critical area, the planning commission and city council shall address the following items in making their decision, in addition to those conditions listed in this zoning ordinance: 1. Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the river corridor, especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. 2. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. 3. The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation. 4. The location of the site with respect to floodways, floodplains, slopes and bluff lines. 5. The erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type and vegetative cover. 6. Potential impact on game and fish habitat. 7. Location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. 8. The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed disposal systems. 9. The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and facilities. 10. The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land. The variance request, therefore, is to the provision of the ordinance prohibiting development other than accessory structures on slopes greater than 18%. The proposed development meets all ten of the above criteria. The variance can also be considered against three of the criteria for variances in the Mendota Heights code (Section 12 -1L -5(A)): • There are practical difficulties in utilizing the site for a new home without disturbing the slopes in question. • The circumstances are unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Rather, they were created by the previous landowner, likely before the Critical Area ordinance was in effect. • A variance to develop the property as proposed will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The character of the surrounding neighborhood is of a completely developed suburban neighborhood. The proposed home will be Design with community in mind page 43 compatible with the area, while being respectful of the slopes, adjacent stormwater pond and surrounding properties. 6) Relation to normal high water. 12-3-8.B.2: "No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body." The proposed structures are outside the 100 -foot buffer from the adjacent water body. There is grading for the new driveway within 100 feet of the water body. This water body in question is a manmade storm water treatment pond and is not the channel of the Mississippi River, the key resource protected by the Critical Area ordinance. 7) Height limit. R-1 District: 12-1-E.D (3): Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or twenty five feet (25') in height, whichever is the lesser in height..." Critical Area Overly: 12-3-8.C: "All new structures shall be limited to thirty five feet..." The proposed house is about 22.7 feet in height, as height is defined by ordinance. This meets both the Critical Area Overlay District and the R-1 District standards. 8) Wetlands Permit The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code Title (12-2-1) is to: 1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands/water resource -related areas; 2. Maintain the natural drainage system; 3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and 5. Ensure safety from floods. The proposed project would reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site; thus, reducing the total flow rate and volume of storm water runoff (as demonstrated in the applicant's storm water model). The Area Hydrologist for the DNR was also asked to review the plans and requested "that additional plantings be incorporated in the landscaping plan that would limit any potential runoff from the back patio areas before it reaches the area of steepest slopes." The applicant has agreed to revise the landscape plan to add such plantings. Design with community in mind STAFF RECOMMENDATION page 44 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the application for Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for the Jacqueline Chase application with the following conditions: 1. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings to meet the intent of the DNR's request, in consultation with the City Planner and City Engineer. 2. Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3. Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for the proposed improvements based on the finding that the application does not meet the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW The following exhibits are attached for your review: 1. Aerial Location Map 2. Site Photos 3. Planning Applications, including supporting materials Design with community in mind page 45 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit 1680 Mayfield Heights Road 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, including the conditional use permit and variance standards. 2. The grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project appear to have been man-made and drain away from the Mississippi River and will not negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code and adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction. Design with community in mind Planning Case 2015-01 1680 Mayfield Heights Road Date: 2/2/2015 0 70 SCALE IN FEET Kaye 46 City of fMendota Heights - , •1111."14. . -,01•14 , j4 • f iM !' 1 i!'----. I v I: 1041 m e'roetr`cs GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 47 Site Photos — 1680 Mayfield Heights Road Critical Area/Conditional Use/Variance/Wetlands Permits Source: Staff (02.18.15) Source: Staff (02.18.15) • . , A • ; A' ^AO - ,1 f 7P, - Source: Staff (02.18.15) page 48 Date: February 4, 2015 To: City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission & City Council From: Jacqueline Chase Subject: Letter of Intent I am writing this Letter of Intent to the Planning Commission and City Council of Mendota Heights to request a variance from the City's zoning standards. My husband, Michael Chase, and I are interested in building a new home on the property located at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN. The property is located within "The Critical Area." I am working with Santanni Custom Homes, Southview Design, Oliver Surveying & Engineering, Inc. and Paul Dorn of The Dorn Company, to design and place a new structure on the property. It is our hope to begin this project in May 2015. Construction will be completed in 7-9 months. We have met with staff to determine how to move forward. They have directed us to seek a variance and a wetland permit. Despite our best efforts to place the proposed home on the property without disturbing any areas that are covered by Chapter 3 of the Critical Area Overlay District, we have encountered discrete portions of the property that require variance from the ordinance sections pertaining to areas that are between 18 and 40% in slope. Specific to this request, I propose the following answers to the questions set forth in the Variance Checklist Questionnaire: 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? The answer is Yes. The proposal would include removal of existing property including a house that currently is nonconforming in two respects; it violates the critical area slope restrictions and encroaches on existing setback requirements. In addition, two detached, aging structures will be removed. Our proposal is a new single family dwelling that will be positioned on the property in such a manner to improve watershed control and beautify the property. 2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you). It is difficult to determine the original topography of the land. The property has been occupied for many years and during that time, it appears that several changes to the terrain have been made. Specifically, the slope that we seek to change does not appear to be natural to the property. It was likely created in order to support a driveway that has existed on the property for many years. page 49 In addition, it is my understanding that the property is approximately 1,400 feet from the Mississippi River (Oliver Surveying & Engineering provided this information). Located on the south side of the river itself is the bluff on which numerous large condominium complexes are located. The condominiums are accessed from Highway 13, which runs east/west at this point. Mayfield Heights Road intersects Highway 13 to the south and proceeds uphill. There are approximately 5 homes with yards of varying sizes on each side of Mayfield Heights Road before one arrives at the top of the Road. It dead -ends at 1680. Based on the storm water runoff report (also provided by Oliver Surveying), we will be reducing the runoff from the current property. 3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? The answer is Yes. We propose to build a single family dwelling that will be "Craftsman" or "Cape Cod" in character. We intend to significantly improve the existing property by use of landscaping and retaining walls. During construction, proper erosion control measures will be installed and properly maintained by our experienced builder and landscape design firms. The end result will be a setting which will likely improve the current runoff from the existing property and, we believe, will have negligible impact on the river system. We look forward to working with the Planning Commission and the City Council to improve this property and become residents of Mendota Heights. In addition to this Letter of Intent, we have submitted the following requests: 1. Critical Area Permit 2. Conditional Use Permit 3. Variance Checklist Questionnaire 4 Wetland Permit. Thank you for your consideration. ely, ueline A. Chase 94. Sibley Memorial Highway #411 Lilydale, MN 55118 651-583-1939 a7, page 50 1101 Victoria Curve ( Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.coin CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Office Use 'On! f Case #. Application: Date: ? l ? l ( Staff Initials: Property Address/Street Location: /11 g o I a el� "t Wj41 Iva Q Applicant Name: jitertOt e CAA Ie Phone: Sl-- 58 3- l ?3 Applicant E -Mail Address: ja C . C.ka1C 0 5024.11. L?DI44 Applicant Mailing Address: ) �`RemtilAbu/01/11 / !ydae i/ la Property Owner Name: 0./v747L D/!Phone: 51yb- i77` Property Owner Mailing Address: MVO Mete idM»1?7XbGtd LZLeg I Description & PIN of Property: (Complete/Legal from itle or Deed must be provided) SGOlt Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning Variance ❑ Subdivision Approval ❑ Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit /Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit ❑ Lot Split it ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. ///1c /. NA!, / .21//6 f/!�� ppli ant Date - Sig at of Owner % ( Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Planning Application (modified 1/28/2014) Date Page 1 of 1 CITY OF MEI IDOTA HEIGHTS page 51 1101Victoria`Curve. 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.4523850 phone 1 651:-052:8940 fax www. nendota,heightsxgm CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Applicant:624.46- s Address: ('b' 44 F , rGf (4--,)/4 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. ® If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8'/2 x 11. • Any drawing in color — must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Pi( Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). Letter of Intent. Site Plan, prepared to a scale appropriate to the size of the project and suitable for the review to be performed, including: Location of the property, including such information as the name and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, or other landmarks. Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greater than two feet (2') per contour; the contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, all streams, including intermittent streams and swales, rivers, water bodies, and wetlands located on the site. A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the volume, and at what rate the stormwater is conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the site where stormwater collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to stream or lake. X A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil types by areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. All areas Critical Area Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 1 of 2 page 52 proposed for grading shall be identified by soil type, both as to soil type of existing topsoil and soil type of the new contour. The location and extent of any erosion areas shall be included in the soils description. X Description of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are occasionally found thereon, setting forth with detail those areas where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site. Description of any features, buildings, or areas which are of historic significance. X Map indicating proposed finished grading shown at contours at the same intervals proposed above or as required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features. Landscape plan drawn to an appropriate scale including dimensions, distance, location, type, size, and description of all existing vegetation, clearly locating and describing any vegetation proposed for removal and all proposed landscape materials which will be added to this site as part of the development. Proposed drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction, volume, and at what rate stormwater will be conveyed from the site and setting forth the areas of the site where stormwater will be allowed to collect and gradually percolate into the soil, or be slowly released to stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth hydraulic capacity of all structures to be constructed or exiting structures to be utilized, including volume or holding ponds and design storms. 1g, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan indicating the type, location, and necessary technical information on control measures to be taken both during and after construction including a statement expressing the calculated anticipated gross soil loss expressed in tons/acres/year both during and after construction. XProposed size, alignment, height, and intended use of any structures to be erected or located on the site. Clear delineation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced including a description of the surfacing material to be used. Description of the method to be provided for vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development and public access to the river and/or public river view opportunities both before and after development; a description of the development's impact on existing views of and along the river. ❑ Description of all parking facilities to be provided as part of the development of the site including an analysis of parking needs generated by the proposed development. A'/A- CI '/A- ❑ Delineation of the area or areas to be dedicated for public use. /t, -11J- Delineation of the location and amounts of excavated soils to be stored on the site during construction. ) Any other information pertinent to that particular project which in the opinion of the City or applicant is necessary or helpful for the review of the project. Critical Area Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 2 of 2 page 53 1101 Victoria Curve. I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 65).452.8940 fax www mendota-,heights_co.m CITY' OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Applicant: Address: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller - only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8'/2 x 11. • Any drawing in color - must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: 14 Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. gLetter of Intent. Site Development Plan, including: g Location of all buildings, including existing and proposed. Location of all adjacent buildings located within 350' of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. ❑ Floor area ratio. 4fL,/ fr ❑ Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. B`'1 O- D ❑ Vehicular circulation. / /8- X Architectural elevations (type and materials used on all external surfaces). ❑ Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. iv/ A- ❑ Location and candle power of all luminaries. /v/i)- >, Location of all existing easements. Conditional Use Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 1 of 2 page 54 Dimension Plan, including: Lot dimensions and area. Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. '( "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. Setbacks on all structures existing or proposed on property in question. Proposed setbacks. Grading Plan, including: jX Existing contour. Proposed grading elevations. 0 Drainage configuration. Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. Spot elevations. ❑ Proposed road profile. Landscape Plan, including: p Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. O. Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. Location and material used of all screening devices. NOTES: Conditional Use Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 2 of 2 page 55 1101 Victoria Curve. 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8410 fax www: mendota,heights.coin CITY OF 1VIENDOTA HEIGHTS. VARIANCE CHECKLIST/QUESTIONNAIRE Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case #: Applican Address: 11 6:' A variance is a request to vary from the City of Mendota Heights zoning standards. Under Minnesota State Law, variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code and when consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning standards. "Practical difficulties," in regards to variance requests, has three parts: (1) the proposed use of the property is a reasonable; (2) unique circumstances exist on the property which are not created by the landowner; and (3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 81/2 x 11. • Any drawing in color — must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Ai Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). OSketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. Letter of Intent. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. - 1 -- Variance Checklist/Questionnaire (modified 92/6/2093) Page 1 of 3 page 56 1101 VictoriaCurve, 1 Mendota Heights; MN 55118 651.4523850 phone 1 651.452.8940; fax www,mendota •heigl its.corn WETLANDS PERMIT REQUEST Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office'. Case' Applicant: Address:.f6 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 1/2 x 11. • Any drawing in color — must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: f81. Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). Letter of Intent. g- Full and adequate description of all phases of the operation and/or proposed physical • changes. .Soil survey map of the proposed plat. [•Topographic map of the area. Contour intervals shall be drawn at two (2) foot intervals. x- Detailed site plan of the proposal showing proposed drainage, grading, and landscaping. Site design map showing the location of existing and future man-made features within the site. g Information on existing drainage and vegetation of all land within the site. 1g- Time period for completion of development including timing for staging of development if applicable. Design specifications for all sediment and erosion control measures. Wetlands Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 1 of 1 /2v1. H L qcIW L PID= 27-02300-040-52 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOUND JUDICIAL LAND MARK Court Case No. 49818 T co t L _ Call 48 Hours before digging GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin Cities Area 651-454-0002 MN. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 PID= 27-02300-080-52 TONY STEMBERGER 1670 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD / V r r N7 38'30'E 82.50 N138'30'E 206.00 1 NOO°07'36"E 0 O N • EXjST//vG B/TUM/NO(/S 4 9/i/Ey4/4 Y - POINT OF BEGINNING 1 / I I // 1 I / // 9� / 10.5 2 PID= 27-02300-050-52 PETER & NARY TAURINSKAS U 6. Y 1- 337 00 347.46 S88°21130"E 337.28 L _ PID= 27-47500-070-00 GERALD & KAREN BREN 1041 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS LANE --X 33700 t.)/144/ ,(i///,t,`(\1.1 �6 /74.4/ \ EXISTING r SHED '1 ' t - SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 7, // BLOCK 1, MAYFIELD HEIGHTS. PID= 27-02300-070-52 CLIFFORD & PATRICIA BOLIN 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD AREA= 61,934 SQUARE FEET OR 1.422 ACRES N89°52'24"W 337.06 /--SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECT/ON 23, TOWNSHIP / 28, RANGE 23, PER CURRENT SECTION SUBDIVISION. 9,:5\I 1 I 1 1 - NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 3, TILSEN S HIGHLAND HEIGHTS PLAT 3, PER FOUND JUD/C/AL LAND MARKS. L: /_ A / / V dr r I L / 337.00 N89 52'24 "W 352.84 3370 DOUGLAS ROAD A / 1 L _ -r PID= 27-02300-060-52 DAVID & ELLEN SLOANE / FOUND - JUDICIAL LAND MARK Court Case No. 49818 -s- V 7 7 O O N N 0; SOO°09138"W NO'12'55"E 206.06 O 0 SE CORNER OF GO VERNMEN T LOT 5, SECTION 23 PER t CURRENT SECTION SUBDIVISION. I \� II _3.36 SE CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 23 PER - - - PLAT OF MAYFIELD HEIGHTS / 4-1 vi Q C)- (f)� Otis CO cp oio zza QZ ''moo kLLI U 1 I 10 FOUND / 1 JUDICIAL LAND MARK Court Case No. 49818 a 7,6 • 6 A ., 7 A `/ 7 A I- \ 7 7 L 7 r\ L 1 J -L J coI 0 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEET PROPOSED DESCRIPTION NO SCALE VICINITY MAP: O • X MAR/E AVENUE SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 28, RANGE 23, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA d as EJ LEGEND: Denotes iron pipe monument set, marked by license number 13057 Denotes Denotes Denotes iron pipe monument found existing hydrant existing fence Denotes existing bituminous surface Denotes existing concrete surface That part of Government Lot 5, Section 23, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 24 seconds West, assumed basis of bearings, along the South line of said Government Lot 5, a distance of 337.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 07 minutes 36 seconds East, a distance of 100.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue North 0 degrees 07 minutes 36 seconds East, a distance of 188.18 feet; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 337.28 feet to the East line of said Government Lot 5; thence South 0 degrees 09 minutes 38 seconds West along the East line of said Government Lot 5, a distance of 179.26 feet to the North line of the South 100 feet of said Government Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 24 seconds West, a distance of 337.06 feet to the point of beginning. P DESCRIPTION ag 7 w 0 >. W Qz O N LI] 0 W m 0 0 m 0 m DRAWN BY: m LY CHECKED BY: 1704-10-1 IDesc.dwq 0 FL x Li] m O z LJ L_ 0 0 0 >7, -o L E.°J L (n 0 0)0) -Om 1)) _ v 0 >0� 0 °00)�E �0 L_ E L ) Q� 0 0 C c— ��'>> 0 —00-()0 0 0 0) 0 0 0) 0 0) 0 0 U7 N N (3, cnz U E 02) 0 N 0 N 0 0 .s tko ti Land Surveying • Civil Engineering •Land Planning oliver-se.com Z 0 F- 0_ 0 (1) w 0 MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, 0 I SHEET NO. OF page 58 L TNH=861.96 FT. M1 YFIELD • HEIGHTS ROAD I L 859.1 )0 SAN MH ,\ \e \p � SILT FENCE •__ oo / S °21'30"L'`�� — —856 / \I by ' 1"I L\ h � by / /00 �—_864-`= h I II _%_ / ��` / I PROPOSED TOP\FOUNDATION/ ELE�= 866.5\ PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR EfLEVI =863.0 PROPOSEDWES1 FLOOR rLEV. =857.0 00 , j \ 1 \ I \ \ 49 \\ I 1 I I STORMWATER I I POND (CITY OWNED) 1 1 NWL=849.0 I 1 TOP OF -.011-- 1 DIKE=859.0 CoI EOF=854.0 w oi N 4.... in I I cn X01 I I I W 1 1 1 1 00 100 FT. / / X860 — ---� --. \—.. o62` / .011• 00 86 �8 // / !_� 4�� // // / / — _ _ 1`PFONN D . FT -="---- - — — +1 l 776( / / <. W. ,QF Z`0 N X86 �r / ,1/ / / // — —878 � � N N \ N \8)O 8 — — —` / / / //Q'� / /� 88o— \ \ N \ N \ 8�2 �`_ I /Z \ ////// / I \ 8,.7\\��`—� III\o)14) 1if /�/ / \ PPS �\ I(//// Il��//o/ l� / I —880---.:1 .......... — ▪ _-- —r 4/4// //03/// / /)\ \ - _ —882- _ (O'er // // ///��I I 884— —__ ��—_--I-1Q; / ////5'/// //s I ///1/ /;� / — I �886� � \ X84 �\ I'; =�L / I 1 1 / / 1 �N \ \\ ' 887.4 X \T -POST 1.2 FT. )1 t=- / 1ii ^ / 1 \ \ AST OF LINE / �g6 /lk / I 1/iSq/l l Iii \ \ —886— / i/' CDf / / /// / I v415 -- /"o = ▪ / l /l ` I / I 1 / /// 'kill/ / b G3 1 li / q) e , / • ,.. / r )1; jo-e/-/ i , ,/ / .r, , . ,,, 1---,5 1 / / I 1 j 1 I / / / / / / -886_ _ , / I� \ X88 \ \ \ / co o /// 00 1l I I / / \\ \ \ 11 11.48 ' G—, /::, // /�3/ 57/ \ 112.35\ \ /139132, _ 2 j'%N:• ��'� //3'3�/,t'Q/6 � �3 \90 �\ \� \ e H i / I I / d �' \ I �cp 19 i — 4SB#I 1 .1 1' I \v' — 1 ;I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I -1— x x EOF 856.0 Ill I I Note: Soils mapping from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. 39B2 Wadena Loam 250 Kennebec Silt Loam 415C Kanaranzi Loam 539 Klossner Muck a x 852.4 SILT FENCE n r 400, ti)-/ 854.:�`� 1/ i - POINT OF/ BEGIN#IING — r \�90. / / / / / 1p • Qj 5?� • 40 1.V / i TO REMOVED SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet Denotes Soil Boring by Geo Technical Consultants, Inc. dated 10/14/14 Note: All disturbed areas excluding building footprint & driveway shall receive temporary mulch - either straw fiber blankets or hydraulic soil stabilizer MnDot 3844 type 5 Hydromulch within 7 days of completion of eartwork. Final stabilization shall be by implementing Landscape plan by others. Note: All existing structures to be removed. I 14 Proposed House For: Jacqueline Chase Part of Government Lot 5, Section 23, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this plan, specifcation or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature- Date: Ross D. Abel, PE 01/27/2015 Lic. No. 16733 Oliver Surveying & Engineering, Inc. Land Surveying • Civil Engineering. Land Planning 580 Dodge Ave. Elk River, MN 55330. 763.441.2072 • fac. 763.441.5665 www.oliver-se.com DRAWING FILE: 1704-10—SKOI.dwg FILE NO. B 1704.10-14 page 59 L TNH=861.96 TT. ittA YF/ELD 859.1 >0SAN MH HEIGHTS ROAl I I I — — +N I PROPOSED TOP FOUNDATION ELEV.=866.5 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. =863.0 PROPOSED LOWEST FLOOR ELEV. =857.0 852 —850 -337. 00 „1-- I-- 1 1-af-_II- I-" 1 856 854 S88°21'30"E X860. 862 19 1014.4 14.11 c co0 co 00 _ EXISTING SHED STORMWATER POND (CITY OWNED) NWL=849.0 J'1 TOP OF DIKE=859.0 EOF=854.0 w Woa 100 FT. co N 0 0 O Z 0 o oo /C\ o SB#I 0 a x 852.4 w cn N oo 0 01 0) m 10 co cb D• co 00 r L- 1 x i0F 856.0 1 t,5/ 854.6 X / "— POINT OF BEGINNING 89.66 Note: Soils mapping from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. 39B2 Wadena Loam 250 Kennebec Silt Loam 415C Kanaranzi Loam 539 Klossner Muck SCALE: 1 inch = 30 feet 0 Denotes Soil Boring by Geo Technical Consultants, Inc. dated 10/14/14 Denotes Denotes Denotes Denotes slopes slopes slopes slopes 0% - 12% 12% - 18% 18% - 40% 40% - 600% CO / OD 40 ODOD i TO BE REMOVED 10.5 Note: All disturbed areas excluding building footprint & driveway shall receive temporary mulch - either straw fiber blankets or hydraulic soil stabilizer MnDot 3844 type 5 Hydromulch within 7 days of completion of eartwork. Final stabilization shall be by implementing Landscape plan by others. Note: All existing structures to be removed. i S-�p,IRs 4,44 II W 0 00 884 878 880 -_ BBB -4 886 888 864 866 I.P. FOUND 0.6 FT----' S.W. OF CORNER. —880- 882 886 887.4 X 868 T -POST 1.2 FT. EAST OF LINE 886 0 63.57 112.35 -N89°52'24"W 337/06 I 89 8l 2 co. N .rn r r. L1J PP \ _1_ / O /1396 �' 3 X90 / ''1 t , \. ','D Slope Exhibit For: Jacqueline Chase Part of Government Lot 5, Section 23, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this plan, specifcation or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature. Ross D. Abel, PE Date: 01/27/2015 Lic. No. 16733 Oliver Surveying & Engineering, Inc. Land Surveying- - CMl Ems- Land Plug 580 Dodge Ave. Elk River, MN 55330. 763.441.2072 • fac 763.441.5665 www.oliver-se.com DRAWING FILE: 1704-10—SK02.dwg FILE NO. B 1704.10-14 page 60 MIDPOINT OF HIGHEST ROOF TOP OF GARAGE FLOOR I■1■■1■■111. .1■�111■■1■11■111i►. I1111■■■■11■■■■I■I■■■1■11.11. 11 ■1■11■1■11■111■■■11■111■11■■■1■11■1■11■11■■1■11■1■I■1�■■11=�1■1�MIMI =1.111:r I■1111I■IIil•l•ul■■■1■■III111.111■■1■U•UIII■111i■■■•■1!1■■I■■■■•1-■■I■■1■1■■1■-•••••1'1111 mei ■1■I111Ii 1i11i1 1■1■i7 1111101.1.1111 1■11111■1■ 1■111■ 1■■1■1 111■■■■_■I ■1■1111u11 1■11■1 1■1■■ •■11•■1■1 1111111■1■ 1■■I■ 1■■I■1 I....I_■I ■1■I111■■ I■11■1 1■1■Il 1•■■1■1■1■1 ■11111■1I■1■1■■1■■1■1■■■1111111■■1■1••111■111■■1■•■1 ■1■1111■11■111■■1.11■111■11■■■1■1■1■11.111■11■11■1■1■1 ■11111■1•■11■■■■1•■■111111111••1■1■■111■■1■■1■•■1 11■I111111■•111■■1■11■111■111■■1■■■1■1•■1■1■1■■1■1•■1 1111111■•1■■1■■1■■1■I■1.11111111.1.1..111.111..1.1.11 11.1111111■■111••1■It■11■111■■■1•1■1■It■It■111■11■1■■1 ■11111■ 11111■■1■■■1■■1■1111111■■I■1■■1■■111■■••■1 i■aiJGi■■II■1■■■•I■■U■I■■■■•I■■•■•I■■I■■•I■■I•■111MUi • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Front Elevation /4n = 11_On Scale 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1•■■1■1 ■1N■■ •1■11■■ 1■•1■1 1■■■1■1 1■1■■■ •1■11■■ 1■•1■1 1•■■1■1 M1■■■ ■1■11■■ MINIM ■■■1■1 1II1■■■ •1■11■■ 1■•1■1 •INIMM ■MINS 1■■■1■1\ II■1■■S /1■•■1■■■1--.-..■■■I ■1■1■ ■1■11■■li■upiman iiiI IU•1■i■IimiImmoili I■■•■1 ■■1..1.11 I■■•■1■u■1 1■1■•1■■� I■■•■1■u■ 1■1■■1■11• ■1■-■1■.■1 1■1M1■1.■1 11■•■1■■• 1■■1■1■1 r 1-161 rams- IiltIgagrlrrao O= li t-* �1 Orailivoir me t .**71 page 61 - — - - - page 62 TREE LST Quantity Symbol 5 40( 0 0 Common Name Mugho Tannenbaum Pine Northern Red Oak Sugar Maple khite Pine / / / / / / -kiF4 gni m..■1di glitiplitif *blffrilactm,1 ■1 ..■1 ..■1 .■1 ..■1 ..■I APPROX. EXISTING VEGETATION LINE SCALE 111=101 JACKIE & MIKE CHASE LA\DCAPE CO\ P 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN DESIGN/SALES REP: TIM JOHNSON DESIGN ASST: MEGAN BEISNER DATE: 2.2.15 REVISIONS / / / / / This Drawing contains proprietary information which belongs to Southview Design Inc. Any unauthorized duplication or use is strictly prohibited. Released By: Date Released: / / 2383 PILOT KNOB ROAD MENDOTA HEIGHTS MINNESOTA 55120 PHONE 651.455.8238 FAX 651.455.1734 SOUTHVIEW *DESIGN.r landscape contractors Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota SS County of Dakota E. KITTY SUNDBERG page 63 , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The_newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each TH week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 8day of FEBRUARY , 2015 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 9TH day of FEBRUARY 15 TNotary Public BY: G�1 TITLE LEGAL C ORDINATOR *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD Notary Pubiio-Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2020 VVVWVVVVVVVANWWWWWWWwkt (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space $25.00 per col. inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ per col. inch 1/15 RATE INFORMATION page 64 ,OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE°OF HEARING,' %A PUBLIC HEARING ON• L' ,AREA, CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT ,VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT: APPLICATIONS AT 1680( MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD .TO1WHOM IT MAY CONCERN NOTICE Is hereby given that the ;Planning Commission of Mendota' Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, Februaryl24, 2015in the City Hall;Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider critical area, conditional use permit, variance, and wetlands permit - applications to demolish existing structures and construct anew single-family residential' dwelling for Michael and: Jacqueline Chase at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road. This request has been assigned Planning Case i-number2015-01. , This notice is pursuant to .Title 12 (Zoning) of the Mendota Heights City Gode. Such persons as desire` to be, o heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Lorrl Smith (South-West Review: Feb. 8' 2818 City Clerk Print Preview Planning Case 2015-01 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List Page 1 of 1 page 65 277640202080 274750000063 0 1016 DOUGLAS RD CD 1037 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS LN ADAM R & LAUREN A CREPEAU DAVID E ELLIS 277640203170 277640100140 1008 JAMES CT 0 1005 DOUGLAS RD ANGELA &TIMOTHY GALLANT DAVID ] & ELIZABETH POLISENO 277640202030 277640100110 0 1046 DOUGLAS RD 11111 1690 JAMES RD CHRISTOPHER D GOVPJK DICKENS NYABUTI 270230052040 277640203100 NO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1045 DOUGLAS RD EMMA A KIPPLEY OGMAN 270230052070 270230052030 0 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD 0 1673 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD CLIFFORD & PATRICIA BOLIN FREDERICK D TOENNIGES 277640100130 277640202050 1704 JAMES RD CCIII 1040 DOUGLAS RD DANIEL J & MOLLY M SCHULTZ GARY A & LORILEE PETRANGELO 277640203180 0 1012 JAMES CT DANIEL W & RUTH A FRAM 277640100120 0 1696 JAMES Rd DARREN F STR4FELDA 277640203120 0 1031 DOUGLAS RD DAVID B & ELLEN SLOANE 270230052060 DAVID B & ELLEN SLOANE 274750000070 11031 1041 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS LN GERALD C & KAREN L T B'REN 270370008010 0 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY GERALD TROOIEN 274650001030 0 1661 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD GORDON D & ELIZABETH HESSELROTH 277640203100 0 1016 JAMES CT HAROLD & MAXINE 5 SLOBOF Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted fora title searcfr,appraisal survey, or tor2oning verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the infcrrnat on contained in this data. Map Scaie 1 inch = 469 feet 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 Print Preview Page 2 Page 1 of 1 page 66 277640202040 MI 1044 DOUGLAS RD JONATHAN & ARIELLE EHRLICH 277640203140 al 1701 JAMES RD JONATHAN FARBER 274750000040 0 1034 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS LN JUDY M BROWN 277640203210 1015 JAMES CT KATHERINE D TSTE GOLDMAN 277640203130 1011 DOUGLAS RD KEVIN T TSTEE BROWN 277640203150 1693 JAMES RD MARK C MUELLER 277640202070 1030 DOUGLAS RD MARK DUPAUL 274750000030 1650 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD MAURICE U LAZARUS 274750000050 1030 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS LN MICHELLE PAULINE HOFFMAN 277640203060 1055 DOUGLAS RD NANCY D BREYMEIER 277640203090 0 1049 DOUGLAS RD NANCY H FUSHAN 270230052093 0 1666 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD PATRICK G ZIMMERMAN mil 270230052050 PETER J & MARY H TAURINSKAS 277640203110 1/33 1041 DOUGLAS RD PETER J & MARY H TAURINSKAS 277640202020 Ira 1050 DOUGLAS RD lirmIPP RICHARD AND BARBARA RUPPMAN LIVING TRU 277640203070 1051 DOUGLAS RD ROBERT A REE! L 277640203160 !Ei 1687 JAMES RD ROBERT J & LEAH A HENDERSON 6 277640203211 1011 JAMES CT ROBIN C REED 277640203220 0 1665 JAMES RD THOMAS 5 & KELLEY STDNEBURNER 274650001020 0 1655 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD TIM & ANDREA LARSON Disclaimer: Flap and parcel data are bell document and should not be substituted eyed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed" This is nota legal Map Scate far a title search appraisal survey, or For zoning verification. Dakota County 1 inch = 464 feet http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 t CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS page 67 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone d 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com DATE: March 3, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Wetlands Permit at 2540 Arbor Court BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct an addition to the existing single-family dwelling and remove vegetation at 2540 Arbor Court. The proposed construction is within 100 feet of a wetland/water resource -related area and does not meet the conditions for an administrative approval. The applicant intends to construct an approximately 390 -square foot addition and 325 -square foot deck on the east side of the existing dwelling, extending into the rear yard. The entire dwelling was constructed within the 100 -foot wetland/water resource -related area and received a wetlands permit in 2005, as part of Planning Case 2005-30. One tree within the rear yard is proposed to be removed and the addition will be constructed on posts, which will result in minimal impacts to the existing grades. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the February 24 meeting; there were no public comments. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetlands peiutit, with conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-02. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-17 APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT AT 2540 ARBOR COURT. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 68 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-17 RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT AT 2540 ARBOR COURT WHEREAS, James and Mary Waldvogel have applied for a wetlands permit to construct an addition to the existing single-family dwelling and remove vegetation at 2540 Arbor Court as proposed in Planning Case 2015-02 and described in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on February 24, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the wetlands permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-02 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2. Soil disturbance within the 100 -foot wetland/water resource -related area will be minimized by the construction techniques utilized for the proposed project. 3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area will occur as part of the proposed project. 4. The proposed project complies with the setback requirements. 5. Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the wetlands permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-02 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. 2. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, will occur within 25 feet of the edge of the wetland. 3. Construction shall be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of March, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk t DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZONED/GUIDED: ACTION DEADLINE: February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Nolan Wall, AICP Planner page 69 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone d 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com Planning Case 2015-02 Wetlands Permit Application James and Mary Waldvogel 2540 Arbor Court R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential April 6, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct an addition to the existing single-family dwelling and remove vegetation on the subject parcel. The proposed construction is within 100 feet of a wetland/water resource -related area and does not meet the conditions for an administrative approval. Title 12-2-6(A) of the Code requires a wetlands permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure and removal of vegetation within a wetland/water resource -related area. BACKGROUND The subject parcel at 2540 Arbor Court is 2.42 acres (105,525 square feet) and contains an existing single- family dwelling abutting a wetland to the north. In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for low density residential development. The applicant intends to construct an approximately 390 - square foot addition and 325 -square foot deck on the east side of the existing dwelling, extending into the rear yard. The entire dwelling was constructed within the 100 -foot wetland/water resource -related area and received a wetlands permit in 2005, as part of Planning Case 2005-30. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's request to construct an addition and deck are consistent with the continued use as a single-family residential dwelling. Wetlands Permit The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code is to (Title 12-2-1): • Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource -related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; page 70 • Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. As shown in the attached map, the proposed addition/deck will be approximately 29 feet from the edge of the wetland. According to the applicant, one tree within the rear yard is proposed to be removed. As shown in the proposed plans, the addition/deck will be constructed on posts, which will result in minimal impacts to the existing grades and will be reviewed as part of the final grading plan submitted with the building permit application. In addition, appropriate erosion control measures will be used to protect the adjacent wetland during construction, no disturbance or vegetation removal will occur within the 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area, and the proposed addition/deck meets the required side and rear yard setback requirements. If approved, the applicants intend to begin construction this summer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Peinut with the following conditions: 1. Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. 2. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, will occur within 25 feet of the edge of the wetland. 3. Construction shall be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Wetlands Permit for construction of an addition/deck on an existing single-family dwelling and vegetation removal within a wetland/water resource - related area, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Wetlands Permit, for construction of an addition/deck on an existing single-family dwelling and vegetation removal within a wetland/water resource -related area based on a finding that the proposed project will have negative impacts on the wetland/water resource -related area and is therefore inconsistent with the Wetland Systems Chapter of the City Code. OR 3. Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial Site Map/Site Plan 2. Site Photos 3. Planning Applications, including supporting materials page 71 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit for Construction and Vegetation Removal 2540 Arbor Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2. Soil disturbance within the 100 -foot wetland/water resource -related area will be minimized by the construction techniques utilized for the proposed project. 3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area will occur as part of the proposed project. 4. The proposed project complies with the setback requirements. 5. Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction. Planni Case 2015-02 2540 Arb • Court Date: 2/2/2015 0 30 SCALE IN FEET pdye 72 City of Mendota Heights Arbor Court Wetland 100 -foot Wetland Buffer 25 -foot Non -disturb Buffer • • 1' _ ?' • gilt n !• r p fillips 13754FRON1ERCOURI THIS OVERLAY1WAS P� EP ' /BURNSVILE,�533� APPLICANT MIRY WALDVO (952)432 44es wwv.philli plan.co MEM OF R WETLANDS PERMIT HILLIPS PLANNING, INC. 1! BUILDERS OF THM.TJrF CITIE 1 GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only andshould not be substituted for a true M e search; property ppraisal; pi -4i survey, or for zoning verification The City of,Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the inf rmatioon containedi in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no ability for any errors] or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact, the City of,M` endota;Heights:�� Contact$"Gopher% State OneCauI" at 65145410002 for, utility locations, -48 hours;prior;to'any,excavaion , • Aerometries page 73 Site Photos — 2540 Arbor Court Wetlands Permit Source: Staff (02.18.15) Source: Staff (02.18.15) page 74 Letter of Intent James and Mary Waldvogel 2540 Arbor Court Mendota Heights, MN 55120 To Whom It May Concern: We purchased our home in September of 2014. It is our intent to add on a four - season room off the south east corner of our home. This will provide us with a dining room and expanded family space. This new room will be approximately 390 square feet. An approximate 325 sf deck will be built after the addition has been completed. This addition and future deck will be built on posts as to make the least impact on the soil and environment. There will be no removal of any vegetation other than a possible tree. The contractor will provide sufficient barriers for erosion control during construction. The project will take approximately 2 months and we hope to begin construction this summer. page 75 1101 Victoria C:urve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phony i 651.452.8940 fax wwrananduta-hights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Office Use Only: Case#: ' O i 5-- 4) Fee Paid: i [ 5-0J 4' Application Date: 2 / 2- / 15— Staff Initials: iv P Applicable Ordinance #: / 2- 2 Section: C Existing Zoning: P- i Proposed Zoning: /2 Existing Use: S r Proposed Use: c Property Address/Street Location: 4O /Le- C7.iftLi2-� Applicant Name: J vM, S +/titAely WALT JC LPhone: Applicant E -Mail Address: 1U1 W, (—Vie Applicant Mailing Address: 25.40 74 2 M' Property Owner Name:/6,61/1.,‘•; 1 wA lf` ' ..Phone: Property Owner Mailing Address: eta A 2--C -t fid W ' 1.A.,L) 2_0 Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) t Lv F' , fes LCA - ©! r o-7`7 Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD ❑ Variance Wetlands Permit ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Subdivision Approval ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Code Amendment ❑ Lot Split ❑ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agentin4pect •e ab•ve pro y during daylight hours. Signature of 0 S'•na Planning Application (modified 1/28/2014) ure of Owner (if mor n one) Date 2'L�f 5 Date 7 ±fS� Date Page 1 of 1 page 76 1101 Victoria Curve. 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452:1850 phone 1 551.452.8940 Fax www:mendota-heights:com CITY OF 1VIENDOTA HEIGHTS WETLANDS PERMIT REQUEST Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. ........................__ Office' Applicant: Address: 3y €* r 4 »- Cif-• APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8'/2 x 11. • Any drawing in color — must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: y, Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. IX Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). 1 Letter of Intent. Full and adequate description of all phases of the operation and/or proposed physical changes. ❑ Soil survey map of the proposed plat. /✓/.' XTopographic map of the area. Contour intervals shall be drawn at two (2) foot intervals. 14. Detailed site plan of the proposal showing proposed drainage, grading, and landscaping. A Site design map showing the location of existing and future man-made features within the site. sA Information on existing drainage and vegetation of all land within the site. Time period for completion of development including timing for staging of development if applicable. Design specifications for all sediment and erosion control measures. Wetlands Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 1 of 1 Dimensions, notes, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction Phillips Planning, Inc. will assume no responsibility for same after commencement of construction. 7 - - \ ^ \ \ 7 /- \ \ 7 \ 7 / 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 \\ \ 7 7 7 G7 7 _ \ \ \ \ -r- Nr- EXISTING 12 3.5 2'-0" rr� 1-77 LL_� L JTL 7— .7 / L - / 7 7 / 7 7 7/7 7 / 7 r L L Eft Ili fffff fffff gni 7-1 ✓ SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4"= 11-0" / STONE VENEER ASPHALT SHINGLES VENT 1/300th OF ROOF AREA 50% TO 80% NEAR RIDGE REMAINDER IN SOFFIT FLASH OVER ALL EXT OPGS 3.5:12 PITCH 12 PROPOSED L L EXISTING 7 N. /\ / /7 -^\\ \\ 7 \ \\ 777-777-N.,„ \N. \ \ N. \ N. \ N. \ \ N. \ N. \ N. N. \ \ \ \ \ \ 7-7 \ \ \ N. \ \ 7 \ \ \ \ 7 7\ \ N. \ / / N. \ \ \ / / N. \ \ \ 7 7N. \ N. 7 7\ N. \ \ N. \ \ \ 7777.7 N. \ N.N.,\ \ 7.777 \ \ \ \ N. \ \ \ N. \ N. 7 N. N. 7 7N. \ 7.77 / \ \ \ \ \ \ / N. \ N. N. N. \ \ \ N. \ \ \ \ \ 7 N. N. 7 / . 7 / \ \ \N. \ N. 7\ N. \ \ N. N. \ N. \ \ \ N. \ \ N. \\ N. \ \\ \ N. \ N. \ \ N. N. \ \ \ N. \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ N. 1 1 / / 7 / / / 7 LZ—_ Li] FINAL GRADES AND RETAINING TO BE DETERMINED ON SITE TO MATCH EXISTING �L L r— TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING LAP SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING MAINTAIN 6" MIN SEPARATION WOOD to EARTH ALL EXTERIOR FTGS TO BE 42" MIN BELOW FINISHED GRADE EAST ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0" LL 7-1 FINAL GRADES AND RETAINING TO BE DETERMINED ON SITE 1-6" TO MATCH EXISTING L I— LJ En_ J 7- L. II II II LL---- I— NORTH ELEVATION 1/4"=11-0" LL fffff LL PROPOSED 8:12 TO MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED 8:12 TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING 8:12 • i • • ▪ PROPOSED 3.5:12 F / LL -- J L ===J L -( ti EXISTING 8:12 i i i i i i • • • • • ROOF PLAN it IN= fffff 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 wpm 1/8"=1'-0" James and _Wary WaCivogeC4iiition PLAN# 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 5-0126A THE Wilk ISA SERVICE MARK OF THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF THE TWIN CITIES AND IS USED WITH PERMISSION page 77 REVISIONS phillipsplanning inc. 13754 FRONTIER COURT SUITE 100 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 (952) 432-2044 www.phillipsplan.com MEMBER OF BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF THE TWIN CITIES. 1 3 © COPYRIGHT 2014 PHILLIPS PLANNING, INC. page 78 Dimensions, notes, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction Phillips Planning, Inc. will assume no responsibility for same after commencement of construction. r CV O X1511 \G 3A \ \ I II X1511 X1511k\G OW\R' 5 I3F) CTR2810 OVER CX155 2'-0" 14'-6" 6-0" 6'-6" 2'-0" 905 33-0" 4'-9" 8'-0" 4,-9" 13-6" 2'-0" 2'-61/2" 2-21/2" 1'-10" 4,-4" 1'-10" 2-21/2" 2'-61/2" 6-8" 6-10" CTR2810 OVER CX14 —d M CTR2810 OVER CX155 CTR281 OVER CX155 M ' CTR281tl\ OVER CX155 F. PROVIDE BEARING AS REQUIRED -i--- 1 ` r DROPPED SOFFIT CTR2810 OVER CX14 41 BUILT-IN WDW SEAT STONE VENEER 2'-0" WOOD L BOX_ 3-0" RAISED HEARTH 1 BUILT-IN WDW SEAT TV ABOVE —J W/ SHUTTERS PROVIDE CONDUIT BARN WOOD BEAMS -SEE OWNER 0 FULL MASONRY WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE �0 / n 9 BARN WOOD MANTEL -SEE OWNER 9053 FOO M CARPET MFD TRUSSES AT 24" O.C. REMOVE EXISTING WALL —\ VERIFY EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE STEPS TO GRADE TR2810 OVER CX15 FWT-2-6011 OVER FWG6068R TRANSOM OVER FWG3368S DROPPED SOFFIT 04 9M \G L © COPYRIGHT 2014 PHILLIPS PLANNING, INC. REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW REMOVE EXISTING GAS FIREPLACE (OPTION) RELOCATE TO LOWER LEVEL X1511f\G FAMILY 2M REPLACE EXISTING CABTS. -SEE OWNER (OPTIONAL) ENLARGE & REARRANGE BATH MATCH BATH WALL WITH VAULT LINE X15 -11\G 9W2I X151" \G C. PROPOSED 4-0 OPG. CARPET CTR2010 OVER CR155 CTR2010 OVER CR155 . CTR22410 OVER CW255 \ REMOVE m\ \\ REMOVE EXISTING DECK EXISTING PROPOSED \ \\ DOOR WALL OVEN \\ \ & MICRO \ ` \�/ T T \\ ` \\\ `\ /, \\rz \\ \\ // INCREASE FLOOR AREA \ \\\\ \\I�`; 511 \G \\\\ \\\\ ``\\ \ \ AS HEADROOM ALLOWS \`\ \\`\ K11�E1; \ \\`\ \\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \ \ \\ \\\ \\` \ \ / \\ \\\ / �_> X1511\G 1OY; / \\ T \ 1 \\� J FX1511\G 51-009 r 1— Ks -1-1\6. 31 \F1' (OPTIONAL) EXTEND WALL TO CEILING 1 II J L___ J \;\ / X 51' \G MLP pM I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 \ , r__,i(OPTIONAL) I ) \�� II III INCREASE WINDOW SIZE h 111 I REMOVE EXISTING MICROHOOD 1 1� 1•� II III I ADD WOOD HOOD I' �> > I I I X15 -1\G GMAC' I 1 1 I I 4 JL X151-1 \G CAU L J 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1/4"=I-0" L J 14'-6" 6-0" 6'-6" 2'-0" 7'-3" 7'-3" 2-2x10 TREATED HDR • O 6x6 POST 12" CONC. PIER FTG MIN. 42" BELOW GRADE (TYPICAL DECK POST) 2-2x10 TREATED HDR TREATED 2x10's 16" ON CENTER 33-0" r 6-7" 1 FLUSH BEAM 24" MFD FLOOR TRUSSES 1 TO MATCH EXISTING 4'-4" 6'-7" 13'-6" 5'-0" 1 FLUSH BEAM 1 - 1 1 - I 1 N _ I _ 1 52x32 CONC. BLOCK FOUNDATION OVER 60x40x12 CONC. PAD FOOTING MIN. 42" BELOW GRADE ,8\ TREATED 2x10's 16" ON CENTER 2'-0" p 1 FLUSH BEAM 7" —6x6 POST OVER1 \�• 1 _N 12"e CONC. COLUMN L _ _ _ 30x30x12 CONC. FTG. _2ek in cs 51 \G ?ti 24" MFD FLOOR TRUSSES TO MATCH EXISTING 6x6 POST 12" CONC. PIER FTG MIN. 42" BELOW GRADE 0 1f n1 I /, o 1 // N 1 L `\\ �\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ —1 1 1 J 1 I I I_ J 1 ; I FOUNDATION PLAN 1 /4"=1-0" SCLA CR Phillips Planning nor its employees assume any responsibility for various construction techniques and/or quality of materials and workmanship . Residential designers or draftspersons are not engineers . Phillips Planning , Inc . recommends that a qualified , licensed structural engineer be retained to insure the structural integrity of all buildings . Beams and structural members specified on these plans are for bid purposes only and should be sized by the manufacturers engineering staff and/or a licensed engineer . Sizes of materials and products specified on these plans reflect accepted industry standards and in no way indicate a specific manufacturer , unless requested by the client . In the case of doors and windows , generic sizes are specified unless noted otherwise and it is assumed that the supplier will bid and use the closest size available . Phillips Planning will only specify stucco or stucco - - like products if requested to do so by our clients. Phillips Planning assumes no responsibility for either the application techniques or the performance of these products . Builder/owner should be aware that there have been issues relating to moisture migration into wall cavities resulting in serious mold problems and deterioration of materials within the wall cavities . Windows and doors within a stucco or stucco product wall should be installed with strict attention to the manufactures guidelines for this installation . The general contractor and/or homeowner shall assume full responsibility for the checking and verification of dimensions , details and notes , as well as construction techniques , specifications , structural and/or safety requirements and conformity to all federal , state and local building codes , laws and ordinances . Homes which are to be constructed in areas that are subject to extraordinary seismic , wind , snowfall , cold or flood issues should be engineered and inspected by a construction professional familiar with the particular conditions of that region . These plans shall remain the property of Phillips Planning , Inc . and shall not be copied or reproduced without the written consent of same or the client for which they were prepared . 2 3 page 79 Dimensions, notes, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction Phillips Planning, Inc. will assume no responsibility for same after commencement of construction. © COPYRIGHT 2014 PHILLIPS PLANNING, INC. SCOPE & REQUIREMENTS GENERAL NOTES — Clean street daily of any material tracked onto it from this site. — Use only manufacturer approved hangers and hardware with all laminated beams and trusses. Install as per factory specifications. TOILET, BATH & SHOWER SPACES per IRC R307 & MN Rules Chapter 4715 — Plumbing access required on all tubs & min clear of 21" front access. — Toilet min clearance: 15" in width from center to each side; 24" clear to the front — Shower: min. 30" dia circle at control handles & horizontal cross section area of at least 900 sq. inches; 24" clearance at front of opening — Lavatories front access min. clearance of 21". GARAGE SEPERATION per IRC R309 — Garage fire door min. 1 3/8" of solid wood, or solid core steel or honeycomb core steel, or min. 20 minute fire—rated. — Garages shall be separated from the residence and its attic area by not less than 1/2" gyp. bd. applied to the garage side. — Garages beneath habitable rooms shall be seperated from habitable rooms above by no less than 5/8" Type X gyp. bd. EMERGENCY ESCAPE & RESCUE OPENINGS per IRC R310 — 20" min. clear width. —24" min. clear height. — 5.7 sq.ft. min. opening. —44" max. sill height. EGRESS WELLS per IRC 310.2 — Horiz dim allowing door or window to fully open. — Min horiz projection & width of 36". — Minimum net clear area of 9 sq. ft. — Ladder required with vertical depth greater than 44". STAIRWAYS per IRC R311.5 — 36" min. clear width above handrails and below required headroom height. — Min. headroom in all parts shall be not less than 6'-8" in height. — Max. riser height to be 7 3/4" and not vary more than 3/8" from greatest to smallest. —Min. tread depth to be 10" with nosing not less than 3/4' but not more than 1 1/4". No nosing is required where the tread depth is minimum of 11 inches. — Landings at stairs & ext. doors shall have a min. dim. of 36" in direction of travel. — Full length continuous handrail required at one side of stair with 4 or more risers. Min. 34' to 38" max. ht. above tread nosing with ends returned or terminated in newel posts or safety terminals. — Space handrails not less than 1 1/2" from walls. — Stairway illumination requirements in accordance to IRC R303.6 Int & Ext stairways to be illuminated including landings & treads. Provide artificial lighting at each int. landing, & at ext. top landings or at ea. stairway section. Stairs to basement from ext. grade to have artificial illum. at lower landing. — Open sides of stairs with a 30" total rise or more shall have guards at least 34" high. — Enclosures under stairs shall be protected with 1/2" gypsum. (IRC R311.2.2) 17-6" SHINGLES OVER FELT PAPER OVER 1/2" SHEATHING VENT ROOF PER IRC SECTION R806 MFD TRUSSES 12 1-6" i PROPOSED 3/4" SUBFLOOR 4 MILL. POLY VAPOR / AIR BARRIER ENTIRE EXTERIOR ENVELOPE ON WARM SIDE OF FRAMING 01°05;b - �M 00 z 1- X w 0 PRO 24 POSED FLOOR —R USSES d MIN. R-30 I SPRAY FOAM INSUL. 112" TREATED PLYWD VERIFY FINISH —_ _ SECTION C -C 1 /4"=1'-0" Liy FASCIA & SOFFIT TO MATCH EXISING 2X6 AT 16" O.C. R-19 BATT INSUL IN SUBSTANTIAL CONTACT W/ AIR BARR. CONTINUOUS WOOD STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEATHING SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING GUARDS per IRC R312 — Porches, balconies, ramps or raised floor surfaces more than 30" above the floor or grade below shall have gaurds min. 36" high with rail openings of less than 4". SMOKE ALARMS per IRC R313 — Alarms shall be installed in the following locations: 1 In each sleeping room. 2 Outside each seperate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms. 3 On each additional story of the dwelling, including basements but not including crawl spaces and uninhabitable attics. — Alarm devices to be interconnected such that acuation of one alarm will activate all others. — Alarms shall be hard wired & have battery back—up. CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS per MN Statutes 299F.50 — Alarms shall be installed within ten feet of each sleeping room. WOOD TO EARTH SEPARATION per IRC R319 — Wood siding, sheathing and wall framing on the exterior of a building shall have at least 6" of clearance from the ground. — Treated plates are required when bearing on ext. concrete or block foundations and less than 8" from the exposed ground.. DECKS, STAIRS & PORCHES ON EXTERIOR per IRC R319 — All structural members exposed to the weather without adequate protection must be naturally durable wood SITE ADDRESS per IRC R321 — During construction approved addresses shall be displayed plainly visible & legible from the street fronting the property. — Prior to occupancy permit city to approve location of house numbers (min 4"). FOUNDATION ANCHORAGE IRC R403.1.6 — Apply 1/2" Anchor Bolts min. of 7" embedded in concrete, max. 6'-0" on center & min. of 2 per piece of sill plate; also within 12" of plate splices & corners. FOUNDATION DRAINAGE per IRC R405 — In other than Group I soils, a sump shall be provided to drain the porous layer and footings. — All water from foundation drains or sumps must be discharged into an approved sewer or daylight — Secure sump cover. WOOD TRUSSES per IRC R502.1 1.4 & R802.10 — Submit truss design drawings to building official before installation. Such drawings shall be provided with shipment of trusses. EXISTING PROPOSED VERIFY EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE 1 PROVIDE BEARING AS REQUIRED I I I I 1 I I 1 N. I I 1 1 1 N. 1 I 1 1 I 12 N� 8 I �N. MFD TRUSS PROPOSEJTRUSSES' TO MATCH EXISTING I I I I I I I I EXISTING 3/4" SUBFLOOR \G 4 MILL. POLY VAPOR / AIR BARRIER ENTIRE EXTERIOR ENVELOPE ON WARM SIDE OF FRAMING PROPOSED 3/4" SUBFLOOR 005'b i \ \ MASONRY FIREPLACE VERIFY DES GN EXISTING 24" FLOOR TRUSSES X1511 I3A5; M EXISTING 4" CONC. FLOOR \G \1 00 O PROPOSED 24" FLOOR TRUSSES ANCHORED LEDGER SYSTEM DESIGNED BY OTHERS MIN. R-30 SPRAY FOAM INSUL. 1/2" TREATED PLYWD SECTION B -B 1 /4"=1'-0" _J FIREBLOCKING per IRC R602.8 — Fire block at all concealed draft opgs vert. & horiz. as a fire barrier between stories. Fire block at 10 ft intervals horizontally with approved materials in high walls & interconnections such as: soffits, dropped ceilings & cove ceilings, at stairs, at opgs around vents, pipes & ducts and around flues, chimneys & fireplaces. CHANGE IN THICKNESS IRC R606.2.3 — Where masonry units change thickness solid core fill bottom course of thinner unit & the top course of thicker unit. PIERS IRC R606.6 — Provide full width, solid bearing down to the foundation at all bearing locs (ie. beams) — Provide solid cap block or fill top course solid. FLASHING per IRC R703.8 amended — Approved corrosion resistant flashing shall be installed at all of the following locations: 1 Top of wdw & door opgs in such a way as to be to be leakproof 2 Intersect. of chimineys or masonry const. w/ frame or stucco walls 3 Under & at masonry, wood, or metal copings & sills 4 Continuously above all projecting wood trim 5 Where exterior porches, decks or stairs attach to walls or floors 6 At wall & roof intersections 7 At built—in gutters 8 Where ext. material meets in other than a verticle line. 9 Where the lower portion of a sloped roof stops within the plane of an intersecting wall cladding in such a manner to divert or kick out water away from the assembly. ATTIC ACCESS per IRC R807 — Min. 30" by 22" rough framed access required opening into attics of 30 sq. ft. and a vertical height of 30" or more. Min. headroom of 30" required at opening. ROOF ICE BARRIER per IRC R905.2.7.1 — Min. two layers of underlayment cemented together or self—adhering polymer modified bitumen sheet shall be applied from the eaves to a line 24 inches inside the exterior wall line with all laps cemented together. 2X6 AT 16" O.C. R-19 BATT INSUL IN SUBSTANTIAL CONTACT W/ AIR BARR. CONTINUOUS WOOD STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEATHING SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING DECK JOISTS IL EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING 3/4" SUBFLOOR \G T r EXISTING 24" FLOOR TRUSSES X1511 I3A5; M EXISTING 4" CONC. FLOOR \G 00 0 4 MILL. POLY VAPOR / AIR BARRIER ENTIRE EXTERIOR ENVELOPE ON WARM SIDE OF FRAMING °0°0512 13NNG PROPOSED 3/4" SUBFLOOR ADJUST TO MATCH EXISTING FASCIA PROPOSED 24" FLOOR TRUSSES FASCIA & SOFFIT TO MATCH EXISING f 6" O.C. ATT INSUL UBSTANTIAL !TACT W/ AIR BARR. NUOUS WOOD STRUCTURAL EL SHEATHING 3 TO MATCH EXISTING DECK JOISTS ANCHORED LEDGER SYSTEM DESIGNED BY OTHERS MIN. R-30 SPRAY FOAM INSUL. 1/2" TREATED PLYWD VERIFY FINISH L_ _J SECTION A -A 1 /4"=1'-0" FLUSH BEAM APPROVED GALV. POST ANCHOR 6x6 POST OVER 12"o CONC. COLUMN 30x30x12 CONC. FTG. 2 3 Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota SS County of Dakota E. KITTY SUNDBERG page 80 , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 0TH day of FEBRUARY , 2015 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 9 TH day of FEBRUARY 2015 -4S 1 •4/75 41, jyyv Notary Public BY: TITLE LEGAL C6ORDINATOR *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD Notary Public -Minnesota RATE INFORMATION My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2020 (1) Lowest c assified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space $25.00 per col. inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ per col. inch 1/15 page 81 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A - PUBLIC HEARING ON A WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION' AT 2540 ARBOR COURT TO WHOM, IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE Is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or, as soon as possible thereafter, on', Tuesday, February 24, 2015 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101',. Victoria Curve, , Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider a wetlands permit application to construct`, an addition for James and Mary Waldvogel at 2540 Arbor Court. This request has been assigned Planning Case number 2015-02. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning) of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Lorri Smith City Clerk (South-West. Review: Feb. 8, 2015 Print Preview Planning Case 2015-02 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List Page 1 of 1 page 82 274160004101 2581 HERITAGE DR AMBER L HERBST O 274160005127 AMBER L HERBST 274160004134 2532 BROOKFIELD LN ANDREW BROWN ✓ 274160005168 ANDREW BROWN 274160005169 ▪ ANDREW BROWN 274160005153 110 ANN E HANEBUTH 274160004121 0 2521 CONCORD WAY ANN E HANEBLfTH 274160004118 0 2533 CONCORD WAY ANN M GARVEY ri 274160005148 FOP ANTI M GARVEY mi 274160005165 IVO ANTHONY W PETERSON 274160004136 0 2536 BROOKFIELD LN ANTHONY W PETERSON 0 274160005120 BARBARA E WING co274160005121 BARBARA. E WING 274160004097 0 2591 HERITAGE DR BARBARA E WING 274160004114 0 2543 CONCORD WAY BONNIE L HOLLENBECK en274160005142 BONNIE L HOLLENBECK 274846001010 0 740 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD CYNTHIA M LONNQUIST D274160005128 DANIEL A HALSEY 274846001080 2530 ARBOR CTS 27416017115129 ANTHONY & SUZANNE HAIDER 161.11P DANIEL A HALSEY Disclaimer: flap and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal Map Scale document and should not be substituted fora title searcfr,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County 1 inch = 329 feet assumes ro legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 Print Preview Page 2 Page 1 of 1 page 83 274160004102 le 2583 HERITAGE DR DANIEL A HALSEY cri 274160005122 ETHELE KRAWETZ 274846001040 274846001113 0 2535 ARBOR CT 0 2536 ARBOR CT DAVID C & BARBARA J KOZIOL GARRETT R & CLARA L GRIFFIN 274846001100 0 2510 ARBOR CT DAVID C & RITA 14 AYD 274160004106 2573 HERITAGE DR DIANA FISHER 2741600051.32 DIANA FISHER 274160005143 ELAINE WAGNER 274160004115 2545 CONCORD WAY ELAINE WAGNER 274160004126 2513 CONCORD WAY ELIZABETH A CHRISTENSON 274160005155 ELIETH A CHRISTENSON 274160004098 2593 HERITAGE DR ETHELE KRAWETZ D274160005156 HEATHER L POLSKI 274150004127 ED 2515 CONCORD WAY HEATHER L POLSKI 274846001070 0 2540 ARBOR Cr JAMES A & MARY E WALDVOGEL 274150004111 0 2555 HERITAGE DR JAMES D CHILD en 274160005136 JAMES D a -GILD 274846001114 JANA B TSTE PATRICK. rrik 274160005144 JANE I KASE 2741600 04116 0 2547 CONCORD WAY JANE I KASE Disclaimer: dap and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This as not a iegal Map 5ca1e document and should not be substituted fora title search,appraisal survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County 1 inch = 329 feet assarnes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 Print Preview Page 3 Page 1 of 1 page 84 274160004104 2587 HERITAGE DR JANE P MITCHELL 274160005125 JANE P MITCHELL 274835001200 788 MONET CT JOANNE MOORE 274160005133 JOHN P KENNELLY 274160004105 2571 HERITAGE DR JOHN P KENRELLY 274160005138 KARI ANN KUEPPERS O274160005139 KART ANN KUEPPERS 274160004125 0 2511 CONCORD WAY KATHERINE SCHWARTZ inei 274160005157 KATHERINE SCHWARTZ O27416000516,6 27416000516 KATHLEEN A POPE 274160004130 274160004135 2522 BROOKFIELD LN 0 2534 BROOKFIELD LN JOSE S & PERLA P AGPOON KATHLEEN A POPE 274160005162 274160004132 JOSE S & PERLA P AGPOON 0 2526 BROOKFIELD LN KATHLEEN r$ JOHNSON 274160005154 m 274160005164 KARA A SHEEHAN Will KATHLEEN M JOHNSON 274160004124 2527 CONCORD WAY KARA A SHEEHAN 274160004112 2567 HERITAGE DR KARI ANN KUEPPERS 274160005130 KUNDAI MTUNGA O274160005131 KUNDAI MTkJJNGA isclarrner: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a regal document and should not be substituted fora title searchzappraisal, survey, or for2orring verification. Dakota County assumes no legal resporrsibifity for the frrfo„mation contained in this data. Map Scale 1 inch = 329 feet 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 Print Preview Page 4 Page 1 of 1 page 85 274160004107 2575 HERITAGE DR KUNDAI MTUNGA 274160004133 0 2530 BROOKFIELD LN MAXINE STOVEN GROUT 274846001050 2545 ARBOR CT cm 274160005167 LARRY & LAURA KEITHAHN MAXINE STOVEN GROUT 274160004110 2563 HERITAGE DR LAURELT BOERGER 274160005135 LAUREL T BOERGER 2741613005123 LESLIE A MCCORMICK 274160004099 2595 HERITAGE DR LESLIE A MCCORMICK 274160004122 2523 CONCORD WAY MARGARET M SANCHEZ 274160005152 MARGARET M SANCHEZ 274160004109 2561 HERITAGE DR MARILYN K S:IEMERS 274160005137 MARILYN K SIEMERS O274160005158 MAXINE WEST 274160005159 411110 MAXINE WEST 274160004128 0 2517 CONCORD WAY MAXINE WEST 274846001020 2515 ARBOR CT MICHAEL L & DIANE ❑UhkER 274835001190 0 744 M❑NET CT MICHAEL L 6 JANET S SCOTT 274835001180 0 798 MONET CT MICHAEL THOEMKE oft 274160005160 IWO MONICA L RAMSTAD 4il 274160005161 116111. MONICA L RAMSTAD Disclaimer: flap and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is nota legal Map Scale document and should not be substituted fora trifle sears* appraisal survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County 1 inch = 329 feet assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 Print Preview Page 5 Page 1 of 1 page 86 27416101) 04129 2520 BROOKFIELD LN MONICA L PAMSTAD 274846001030 2525 ARBOR CT MOOFEN HIEW 2748460011060 2550 ARBOR CT PAUL] STEVENS 274160004108 2577 HERITAGE DR PAULETTE M CAMERON 274160005134 PAULETTE M CAMERON 274160005140 RALPH B KIRSHBAUM 274160005141 RALPH B KIRSHBAUM 274160004113 2541 CONCORD WAY RALPH B KIRSHBAUM al274160005126 RICHARD E CARLSON 274160005150 SANDRA R AARON en274160005151 SANDRA R AARON 274160004123 0 2525 CONCORD WAY SANDRA R AARON 274160004100 0 2597 HERITAGE DR SO L1A R THORSON 274160005124 SONIA RTHORSON 270360054050 STATE OF MN - DOT 274160004131 0 2524 BROOKFIELD LN STEVE & SUSAN GRANER 274846001090 2520 ARBOR CT 10 274160005163 RICHARD C 5& KARLA T RABANUS STEVE &SUSAN GRANER 274160004103 2585 HERITAGE DR RICHARD E CARLSON 274160004120 r F 2537 CONCORD WAY SUNNY ANDR.IY CHEN Disclaimer: Map and garret data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is nota legal Map Scale document and should not be substituted Fora title searrh,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County 1 inch = 329 feet assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 2/212015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 alaWH 101 Print Preview Pa :Tie Page 1 of 1 page 87 .11 1 lvs 102 103 104 274160005149 SUNNY APDRIY CHEN 274160005145 SUNNY ANDRIY CHEN 274160004117 Cal 2531 CONCORD WAY VICKI L LARSON 274160004119 cm 2535 CONCORD WAY VIRGINIA M ECKER 274846000020 2542 BROOKFIELD LN co 274160005146 THOMAS G & €4 co BETTY J RAFFIVIRGINIA M ECKER 274160005147 VICKI L LARSON Disclarrner: Kap and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed_ This is not a legal document and should not be substituted fora title searcfa,appraisa; survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this dab. Map Scale 1 inch = 328 feet 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 t CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS page 88 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone d 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com DATE: March 3, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit at 1897 Delaware Avenue BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to the existing facility at 1897 Delaware Avenue, which contains the Henry Sibley High School campus and I.S.D. 197 district offices. The existing wireless antenna equipment consists of building -mounted antennas and related equipment located on the roof, and was originally approved in 1998 as part of Planning Case 1998-09. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades are necessary to incorporate Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). The staff report contains a detailed analysis of the applicable regulations in relation to the proposed project. The applicant will comply with all applicable provisions for such a request, in compliance with Title 12- 1D-4 of the Code. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the February 24 meeting; there were no public comments. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit, with conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-03. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-18 APPROVING A CONDITONAL USE PERMIT AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 89 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-18 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITONAL USE PERMIT AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless, on behalf of Independent School District 197, has applied for a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades at 1897 Delaware Avenue as proposed in Planning Case 2015-03 and described in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting on February 24, 2015. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-03 is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3. Upgrading the wireless antenna facility's antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-03 is hereby approved with the condition that the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of March, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk t CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: February 24, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner page 90 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-03 Conditional Use Permit for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades APPLICANT: Verizon/I.S.D. 197 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1897 Delaware Avenue ZONED/GUIDED: R-1 One -Family Residential/S School ACTION DEADLINE: April 6, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to the existing facility at 1897 Delaware Avenue. Title 12-1D-4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is the Henry Sibley High School campus and I.S.D. 197 district offices (see aerial map). The parcel is zoned R-1 One -Family Residential and guided as a school. The existing wireless antenna equipment consists of building -mounted antennas and related equipment located on the roof, and was originally approved in 1998 as part of Planning Case 1998-09. In addition, the building currently has cellular antenna mounts for other cellular carriers. ANALYSIS Title 12-1D-4 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code section is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to: 1. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2. Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be screened from properties within viewing distance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. 3. Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 4. Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing collocation. page 91 5. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades are necessary to incorporate Advanced Wireless Service (AWS), and is described in the attached plans as follows: • Remove (12) panel antennas • (2) Distribution boxes • Add (12) panel antennas • (6) Sector boxes • (3) Couplers • (6) 2RRU Hybrid cables • (3) RRUs-12/A2 The Code section also contains the following specific evaluation criteria for a conditional use permit application. Wireless Antenna Facility Title 12-1D-14 contains the following provisions, which are analyzed based on the submitted materials: C. Building Mounted Antennas: 1. Permitted Buildings: Antennas may only be mounted on institutional buildings (churches, schools, businesses, etc.) or multiple family dwellings two (2) stories or higher. Wireless telecommunications antennas are not permitted on attached or detached single-family homes or townhome dwellings. The existing location is on top of an institutional building (school). 2. Flush Mounting; Color: a. Building mounted antennas must be flush mounted to the sides of the building and painted the color of the building exterior unless the applicant can demonstrate to the council that protrusion above the roofline is necessary for communication effectiveness. Not applicable, the existing building -mounted wireless antenna structures were approved in 1998. b. In no case shall building mounted antennas or any attachment thereto be allowed to protrude more than fifteen feet (15) above the roofline of the building. The upgraded equipment will be compliant with the 15 -foot height limit. 3. Agreement To Mount On City Property: If both the applicant and the city consent to mounting the antennas on the city's water tower or other municipal building, a developer's agreement may be necessary at the discretion of the city in addition to a conditional use permit. Not applicable. E. Aesthetics: 1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be ofa monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. Not applicable. 2. Color: a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. page 92 b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. The upgraded equipment will be painted to match the existing equipment. 3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described in subsection 12 -1D -13-2D1 of this article subject to council review. Not applicable. 4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. No advertising currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility. 5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required shall be allowed. No lighting currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility. 6. Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. F. Safety: 1. Report Of Compliance: For a freestanding antenna tower, the applicant must provide a report from a licensed qualified professional structural engineer certifying that the tower will meet or exceed current EIA/TIA-222-E standards including, but not limited to, standards for withstanding meteorological conditions such as high winds and radial ice. Not applicable. 2. Compliance With Building And Electrical Codes: All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Fencing: The applicant may be required by the council to erect a security fence around any freestanding antenna. Not applicable. G. Accessory Structures For Antennas: 1. Location And General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone. 2. Architecture: a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. page 93 b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides. c. The planning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. Not applicable, the accessory structure is located on the roof and no exterior modifications are being proposed. H. Additional Requirements: (responses summarized from the applicant's letter) 1. Abandoned Structures: a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a half (11/2) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. The applicant is required to comply with these provisions. 2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). The applicant is required to comply with this provision; see attached letter. 4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. See attached maps. S. Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. The applicant is required to comply with this provision; see attached letter. 6. Environmental Impact Statement: In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. Not applicable. page 94 7. Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. See attached maps. 9. Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. Not applicable. 11. Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) The applicant is required to comply with this provision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the existing structures. The visual changes will relate primarily to the relocation of the new antennas and will be painted to match the existing equipment. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, with the condition that the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in the staff report. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR page 95 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the finding of fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Code and Comprehensive Plan. OR 3. Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial Site Map 2. Planning Application, including supporting materials. page 96 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Request for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades to an Existing Facility 1897 Delaware Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3. Upgrading the wireless antenna facility's antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. Planning Case 2015-03 1897 Delaware Avenue Date: 2/11/2015 0 390 SCALE IN FEET 4 Ndye 97 City of fll Mendota Heights MARIE AVE W I,j i. j fl i —1:11 PRESe-RVE PATH ;�-- -rL-�� r I l • f•q 1 .I 1 II I, •I fl I LIQ` j I 4 j DEER RUN TRL• ✓ - . •DARLACT j` I •-" j r.� f� h j f 11,- ' I-- I— I -�- I MENDOTA R I _ r-- SIBLEY CT m I I 1 IFLIC HWY 110 i 1 �reriometr+i",es GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. January 30, 2015 Mr. Nolan Wall City Planner City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 page 98 Buell Consulting, Inc. 1360 Energy Park Drive, Suite 210 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108 (651) 225-0792 www.buellconsulting.com Re: Verizon Site #: MINC Sunfish Site Address: 1897 Delaware Ave. Mendota Heights MN Conditional Use Permit Request Dear Nolan, Site Acquisition Permitting Established 1991 Hand Delivered This is a request that the Conditional Use Permit that Verizon currently has for their wireless facility located at 1897 Delaware Ave be amended to allow for modifications to that facility. 1 have attached the following for your review and approval: 1. Application for Consideration of Planning Request 2. Conditional Use Permit Request 3. Independent School District #197 Consent For Proposed Modifications 4. Structural Evaluation 5. Signed Construction Drawings 6. Check for $350.00 (Conditional Use Permit Application Fee) I would like to have this request be heard before the February 24th Planning Commission meeting if possible. There is a possibility that there may not be anyone representing Verizon at that meeting. Please let me know if this would create a problem. If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact me at 612.824- 4601. Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Steven Mangold Buell Consulting stevenmangoldia'�.msn.com Agent for Verizon Wireless Carr or: MENDDTA HEIGHTS page 99 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 551.4521850 phone 1 651.452,8440 fax w.m wwendota-height3:com APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Property Address/Street Location:1897 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights MN Applicant Name: Steven Mangold -for Verizon Phone:612 824 4601 Applicant E -Mail Address: stevenmangold a�7msn.com Applicant Mailing Address: Buell Consulting 1360 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, MN 55108 Property Owner Name:BSD #197 -Ron Monson Phone:651-403-7000 Property Owner Mailing Address:1897 Delaware Ave. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) 17 -02500 -03 -010 -Property ID; Plat -Section 25 TWN 28 Range 23; Lot and Bock -25 28 23; Tax Description SR 114 of NE 1/4 LESS HGWY 98/100 A EX PT FOR ST SUBJ TO CQ R/W PAR 1 (352) & SUB, TO CO RNV PAR 1 (390) Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning LI Variance ❑ Subdivision Approval LI Code Amendment I hereby declare that all !further authorize City /Conditional Use Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD ❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Lot Split ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment LI Other Modify equipment cell tower statements made in this request and on the additional materia! are true. Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours ' January 29, 2015 Sign „fvL w ignature of s er Date Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Planning Application (modified 1128/2014) Date Page 1 af 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS page 100 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 5511E 651.452.1850 phone. 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only Case#: Applicant:,.; / ! si) i 4 Address:. I "71 1� Llrc Vic• 7 ve. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: ® Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. ® If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller - only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 1/2x 11. ® Any drawing in color - must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: • Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. • Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). • Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. • Letter of Intent. Site Development Plan, including: D Location of all buildings, including existing and proposed. Location of all adjacent buildings located within 350' of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. U Floor area ratio. f,, ! ki- ❑ Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. ) j if- ❑ Vehicular circulation. N / k • Architectural elevations (type and materials used on all external surfaces). U Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. P7/r ❑ Location and candle power of all luminaries. /L./ A- ❑ Location of all existing easements. Ac(44- Conditional Use Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 1 of 2 page 101 Dimension Plan, including: ❑ Lot dimensions and area. / l �- IN Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. ❑ "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. Nli- ❑ Setbacks on all structures existing or proposed on property in question. /A-/ A- ❑ Proposed setbacks. P/ 4 Grading Plan, including: /'y/f ❑ Existing contour. U Proposed grading elevations. U Drainage configuration. U Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. U Spot elevations. U Proposed road profile. Landscape Plan, including: U Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. ❑ Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. U Location and material used of all screening devices. NOTES: This project involves proposed modifications to Verizon Wireless's existing facility located on the rooftop of the Sibley High School at 1897 Delaware Ave. The modifications will include the removal of the (12) existing panel antennas, adding (12) upgraded panel antennas and related equipment. Existing support structures will be utilized. There will be no ground work for this project. Conditional Use Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 2 of 2 Nclimiii4JELL February 4, 2015 Mr. Nolan Wall City Planner City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 page 102 Buell Consulting, Inc. 1360 Energy Park Drive, Suite 210 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108 (651) 225-0792 www.buellconsulting.com Re: Verizon Site #: MINC Sunfish Site Address: 1897 Delaware Ave. Mendota Heights MN Conditional Use Permit Request Dear Nolan, Site Acquisition Permitting Established 1991 Hand Delivered This letter will address Section 12-1D14 Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures of Mendota Heights Ordinance. In this section there is a request for Additional Requirements that touch upon interference with the public warning system, coverage/interference analysis, compliance with FCC standards and an area map showing all Verizon Wireless facilities within a (2) mile radius. I have attached the following which should provide the information required to satisfy these requirements. You will find: A non -Interference Letter from Verizon which states confirmation that the equipment will not interfere with public safety or private communications. It also states that all equipment is in compliance with the FCC. A Capacity and Coverage Analysis for MIN Sunfish (1897 Delaware Ave) A map of MIN Sunfish and surrounding existing sites. Verizon has enjoyed the relationship that is has with the City of Mendota Heights and the property owner, the Independent School District 197, since 1996. Verizon wants to continue on with providing the best possible service for its customers in this community. Please let me know if there is any further information that is required Nolan. And again, thank you for all of your assistance with this application. Sincerely, ,J6L- r�w�c Steven Mangold Buell Consulting stevenmangold@msn.com Agent for Verizon Wireless page 103 vers nwireless 4 February, 2015 Nolan Wall City of Mendota Heights Planning Department 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 RE: Non -Interference with Public Safety or Private Telecommunications, pursuant to Mendota Heights City Ordinance 12-1D-14: WIRELESS ANTENAS, TOWERS, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, Section H. (Re: Verizon Wireless Project Name "MIN Sunfish AWS Carrier Add", an existing rooftop installation with proposed modifications). Dear Nolan, This letter serves to confirm that the existing and proposed telecommunications equipment to be operated on the Verizon Wireless "MIN Sunfish" site at 1897 Delaware Ave, Mendota Heights, will not interfere with public safety or private telecommunications. Verizon Wireless provides Commercial Mobile Radio Services ("CMRS") under licenses granted by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). Pursuant to these licenses, Verizon Wireless is authorized to provide CMRS and operate a CMRS network in many geographic areas throughout the nation, including Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The FCC exclusively regulates all technical aspects of Verizon Wireless' operations and network and preempts all state and local regulation of radiofrequency transmissions. The FCC rules protect co - channel and adjacent licensees against harmful interference. The above noted existing Verizon Wireless facility and proposed modifications are in compliance with all applicable FCC requirements. The following points cover Verizon Wireless' practices pertinent to complying with the FCC requirements: 1. Verizon Wireless locates its transmitting antenna(s) in order to maximize vertical and horizontal separation from other operator's systems to minimize interference potential. 2. All operating hardware at the site is type -accepted by the FCC as far as emission levels within our licensed frequency band in addition to spurious emissions outside of our frequency band. Letter to Nolan Wall 2/4/15 Page 1 of 2 page 104 3. The power levels generated by the base station hardware and corresponding effective radiated power (ERP) from the transmit antenna(s) are within the limitations specified by Part 22 (for cellular), Part 24 (for PCS), or Part 101 (for microwave) of the Commission's Rules. 4. Intermodulation studies are prepared and analyzed considering all carriers on our tower to ensure no mixing of frequencies will create harmful interference to / from our wireless system. Verizon Wireless is committed to providing state of the art wireless services that benefit your community. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ,42 Jordan Alstad RF Engineer Mobile (612)719-5587 Verizon Wireless Letter to Nolan Wall 2/4/15 Page 2 of 2 Capacity and Coverage Analysis for MIN Sunfish AWS Carrier Add 2-4-2015 Jordan Alstad page 105 The proposed modification to the existing MIN Sunfish site is designed to add equipment for the new AWS spectrum Verizon has been deploying in cities across the nation to expand the capacity of its existing 700 MHz LTE network. The Twin Cities is one of the areas of AWS deployment, and several cell sites, including some surrounding the MIN Sunfish site, have already been upgraded to include AWS equipment. The map below shows where AWS coverage exists: Green areas show where AWS coverage is strong, that is where almost all connections will be reliable. Yellow areas show where AWS coverage is fair, that is, connections will mostly be reliable, but some areas indoors may cause connection issues. Red areas show where AWS coverage is poor; while some connections will be reliable, many others will have reduced quality, especially in high traffic and indoor areas. White areas show where users will not be able to connect to the AWS network at all, and will have to rely on the traditional 700 MHz network for LTE connections. Map of Existing AWS Coverage \ �, : J .1;�! .1.! uNOM iiiiuIr tib: 1PM 11 ! !r . `." Npi 1 '101111 I I . . Lippe: ' r !1►!i. Iw 'bpi 'I �_i�'� ilr AL '—;111N4 m, _# 1)1' _4- I As can be seen from the map, users traveling along MN -110 between I -35E and 1-494, and users along Dodd Rd, will have no access to the AWS network. The existing 700 MHz network will have to support all of the LTE traffic in those areas, which causes capacity issues. Adding AWS to the Sunfish site, as will be seen on the next map, will relieve the traffic along those highways, allowing all users a supif&i.9 106 experience on the Verizon network. Map of Proposed AWS Coverage The above map shows the improvement in the AWS coverage surrounding the Sunfish site. Now users along MN -110 and Dodd Rd, as well as the neighborhoods in the area, will be able to utilize the new AWS spectrum for LTE connections instead of being forced to rely on the existing 700 MHz network. The purpose of adding AWS capability to the existing sites is to provide capacity relief for the existing network. Customers who are able to access the new AWS spectrum will no longer be contributing to traffic on the existing network, and will experience increased speeds on the new spectrum. Customers outside of the area will experience increase speeds due to the reduced traffic, which will improve customer experience for everyone. page 107 Map of MIN Sunfish and Surrounding Existing Sites Existing Site with Proposed Modifications 4/2111 Existing Surrounding Site MR 1 mi VERIZON WIRELESS MINC SUNFISH AWS SITE PHOTO GENERAL NOTES 1. In the event that Special Inspections are not performed in compliance with the contract terms, bid specifications and/or specified form, the General Contractor will be liable for all damages, construction performance, failures, and corrective actions related to the same. 2. The following general notes shall apply to drawings and govern unless otherwise noted or specified. 3. The work delineated in these drawings and described in the specifications shall conform to codes, standards and regulations that have jurisdiction in the state of Minnesota , and the city of Mendota Heights. 4. Requirements and regulations pertaining to R.F. safety codes and practices must be incorporated in the work even though they may not be listed individually and separately in either the drawings or the specifications. 5. Compare field conditions with architectural and engineering drawings. Any discrepancies shall be directed to the Architect for clarification prior to fabrication and/or construction. Submit necessary shop drawings prior to fabrication for approval by the Architect. No information or details on these sheets may be used without the permission of the owner, or the architect. 6. Do not scale drawings! 11" x 17" drawings to scale 24" x 36" drawings scale multiply by 2 7. Unless otherwise shown or noted, typical details shall be used where applicable. 8. Details shall be considered typical at similar conditions. 9. Safety measures: The contractor shall be solely and completely responsible for the conditions of the job site, including safety of the persons and property and for independent engineering reviews of these conditions. The Architect's or Engineers' job site review is not intended to include review of the adequacy of the contractor's safety measures. 10. Within these plans and specifications, "Owner" implies VERIZON WIRELESS. 11. The work is the responsibility of the general contractor unless noted otherwise. 12. The terms "contractor' and "g.c." refer to the owners general contractor and the general contractor's sub -contractors. It is the general contractor's responsibility to determine the division of work among sub -contractors. 13. The general contractor is responsible in obtaining necessary public and private underground utility locate services prior to start of excavating / construction. VICINITY MAP SITE DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONS FROM BLOOMINGTON RNC: FROM E BUSH LAKE RD., MERGE ONTO 1-494 E. FOLLOW 1-494 E FOR APPROXIMATELY 11 MILES , THEN TAKE EXIT 69 FOR DODD RD. TURN RIGHT ONTO DODD RD. CONTINUE FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES, THEN TURN RIGHT ONTO MN -110 E. TURN LEFT ONTO DELAWARE AVE. SITE WILL BE ON THE LEFT (HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL). PROJECT INFORMATION SITE NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: SITE ADDRESS: COUNTY: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: GROUND ELEVATION: ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT: ANTENNA CENTERLINE HEIGHT: OVERALL STRUCTURE HEIGHT: GENERATOR ON SITE: BASED ON SMCO DATED: COAX RUNS: (18) TOTAL (12) EXISTING (6) PROPOSED MINC SUNFISH 20141117838 1897 DELAWARE AVE. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 DAKOTA N44° 53' 14.88" W93° 06' 33.79" 970.0' AMSL VARIES (SEE ANTENNA KEY) VARIES (SEE ANTENNA KEY) 70' AGL (HELD VERIFY) NO 07-18-14 "X" COAX RUN = (4) 7/8" LINES @ 35' EA "Y" COAX RUN = (4) 7/8" LINES @ 35' EA "Z" COAX RUN = (4) 7/8" LINES @ 35' EA (6) 2RRU HYBRID CABLES (PROPOSED) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REMOVE (12) PANEL ANTENNAS. ADD (12) PANEL ANTENNAS, (3) COUPLERS, (3) RRUS-B13/A2, (3) RRUS-12/A2, (2) DISTRIBUTION BOXES, (6) SECTOR BOXES, AND (6) 2RRU HYBRID CABLES. SHEET INDEX SHEET T-1 A-1 A-2 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN AND MISC. PHOTOS A-3 MOUNTING DETAILS A-4 TOWER ELEVATIONS A-5 COAX, ANTENNA, AND TTA KEY A-6 EQUIPMENT ROOM PLAN, ONE LINE DIAGRAM, & COAX ENTRY DETAIL A-7 ANTENNA MOUNT DETAILS A-8 MISC. PHOTOS SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT INFORMATION, MAPS, DIRECTIONS, AND SHEET INDEX EXISTING ROOF PLAN AND MISC. PHOTOS ISSUE SUMMARY REV. DESCRIPTION SHEET OR DETAIL A ISSUED FOR REVIEW 12-08-14 ALL B ISSUED FOR OWNER SIGNOFF 12-22-14 ALL 0 ISSUED FOR BID / CONSTRUCTION 01-15-15 ALL CONTACTS LESSOR: LESSEE: ARCHITECT: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #197 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 MIKE COGAR (612) 720-0030 DESIGN 1 OF EDEN PRAIRIE, LLC. 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 HERZOG ENGINEERING 530 NORTH 3RD STREET, SUITE 230 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 (612) 844-1234 (JOSH HERZOG) VERIZON WIRELESS DEPARTMENTAL APPROVALS JOB TITLE NAME DATE RF ENGINEER DUSTIN LOZINSKI 12-10-14 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER CHRIS ILANGARATNE 12-12-14 LESSOR / LICENSOR APPROVAL SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME DATE MARK FORTMAN 01-15-15 LESSOR / LICENSOR: PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX BELOW 0 NO CHANGES. 0 CHANGES NEEDED. SEE COMMENTS ON PLANS. LICENSED ARCHITECT 12427 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Print Name: ROBERT J. DAVIS Signature: Date: 01-15-15 DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT 20141117838 MINC SUNFISH AWS 1897 DELAWARE AVE. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 SHEET CONTENTS: CONTACTS ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET INDEX DEPARTMENTAL APPROVALS LESSOR APPROVAL PROJECT INFORMATION VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES DRAWN BY: KNW DATE: 09-09-14 CHECKED BY: TJR REV. A 12-08-14 REV. B 12-22-14 REV. 0 01-15-15 T-1 EXISTING J r INTERMEDIATE ROOF (4) EXISTING PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED (SEE ANTENNA KEY) EXISTING LOW ROOF (4) EXISTING 7/8" COAX RUNS FOR 'Z' SECTOR TO REMAIN EXISTING FRAME SUPPORT EXISTING HORIZONTAL COAX RUN EXISTING HIGH ROOF (4) EXISTING PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED. SEE A-2 AND 2/A-3 (4) EXISTING 7/8" COAX RUNS FOR 'X' SECTOR TO BE RE—ROUTED r777"777,77E )! NA EQUIPMENT SHELTER EXISTING VERTICAL COAX RUN EXISTING - PLATFORM - 'Z' SECTOR EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNT SCALE: NONE EXISTING HORIZONTAL COAX RUN EXISTING LOW ROOF EXISTING ROOF PLAN SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 'X' SECTOR EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNT SCALE: NONE EXISTING INTERMEDIATE ROOF EXISTING FRAME SUPPORT (4) EXISTING PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED (SEE ANTENNA KEY) (4) EXISTING 7/8" COAX RUNS FOR 'Y' SECTOR TO REMAIN GRAPHIC SCALE 51-4" 10'-8" NORTH 'Y' SECTOR EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNT SCALE: NONE LICENSED ARCHITECT 12427 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Print Name: ROBERT J. DAVIS Signature:„o„ox.+ono7 Date: 01-15-15 DESIGN© ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT 20141117838 MINC SUNFISH AWS 1897 DELAWARE AVE. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 SHEET CONTENTS: TOWER ELEVATIONS DRAWN BY: DATE: CHECKED BY: REV. A TJR 12-08-14 A-1 (4) EXISTING 'Z' SECTOR PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED ANTENNA CENTERDNE HEIGHT 66' AGL (TYP. AT 'Y' & 'Z' SECTOR) ANTENNA CENTERLINE HEIGHT 62' AGL MP. AT 'X' SECTOR) (4) EXISTING 'X' SECTOR PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED EXISTING VZW EQUIPMENT SHELTER (4) EXISTING 'Y' SECTOR PANEL ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED (4) PROPOSED 'Z' SECTOR PANEL ANTENNAS ilioANTENNA CENTERLINE HEIGHT 66' AGL (TYP. AT 'Y' & 'Z' SECTOR) (1) PROPOSED RRUS-B13/A2 MOUNTED TO EXISTING MOUNTING PIPE BEHIND ANTENNAS (1) PROPOSED RRUS12-B4/A2 MOUNTED TO EXISTING MOUNTING PIPE BEHIND ANTENNAS ANTENNA CENTERLINE HEIGHT 64' AGL (TYP. AT 'X' SECTOR) ANTENNA CENTERUNE HEIGHT 62' AGL (TYP. AT 'X' SECTOR) EXISTING TOWER ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" GRAPHIC SCALE (1) PROPOSED RRUS-B13/A2 MOUNTED TO PROPOSED MOUNTING PIPE (1) PROPOSED RRUS12-B4/A2 MOUNTED TO PROPOSED MOUNTING PIPE (4) PROPOSED 'X' SECTOR PANEL ANTENNAS (2) PROPOSED SECTOR BOXES MOUNTED TO PROPOSED MOUNTING PIPES 8( EXISTING VZW EQUIPMENT SHELTER 16' (1) PROPOSED RRUS-B13/A2 MOUNTED TO EXISTING MOUNTING PIPE BEHIND ANTENNAS (1) PROPOSED RRUS12-B4/A2 MOUNTED TO EXISTING MOUNTING PIPE BEHIND ANTENNAS (4) PROPOSED 'Y' SECTOR PANEL ANTENNAS PROPOSED TOWER ELEVATION GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1/16" = LICENSED ARCHITECT 12427Nrz- I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Print Name: ROBERT J. DAVIS Si ature: eCy Date: 01-15-15 DESIGN© ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT 20141117838 MINC SUNFISH AWS 1897 DELAWARE AVE. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 SHEET CONTENTS: EQUIPMENT ROOM PLAN DRAWN BY: KNW DATE: 09-09-14 CHECKED BY: TJR REV. A 12-08-14 REV. B 12-22-14 REV. 0 01-15-15 A-4 page 111 Affic avli of Publication State of Minnesota SS County of Dakota E. KITTY SUNDBERG , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the. .requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 8Tx day of FEBRUARY , 2015 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including ,the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ `ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 9Tri day of FEBRUARY 2015 lk Notary Public BY: - TITLE LEGAL COlfoORDINATOR C� *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD Notary Public -Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2020 VeNWWWWWVVvvvvvvvVVVV~W (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space $25.00 per col. inch (2) . Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch RATE INFORMATION (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ per col. inch 1/15 page 112 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A ':PUBLIC HEARING ')ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE Is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights Will meet at 7:00 P.M.,:or,' as soon as;, possible ,thereafter, on Tuesday, February' 24 2015 in the City .Hal j Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota to consider a' conditional use permit application to update an existing wireless antenna facility from Verizon; on behalf of' Independent School : District 197,. at 1897 Delaware Avenue ' .This request has been assigned Planning' Case number 2015-03;7' This notice" is pursuant to Title 12. (Zoning) of the Mendota `Heights City. Gode.--Such persons asldesire; to be heard with reference to this request, will be heard at this meeting. Lorrl Smith' City Clerk` (South-West Review: Feb. 8, 2015 Print Preview Planning Case 2015-03 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List Page 1 of 1 page 113 4T'1 IIw•u11'w= t ■isaFzi-x. 9 5 19 va- 0114.02181.. In .'" ®` ! .: ■■■■ i 278430000151 0 599 CALLAHAN PL ARTHUR B TSTE ETTL 2784300130331 623 CALLAHAN PL BRIAN P & JANICE M MARSHALL 276610001030 58.6 SIBLEY CT CRAIG A & PRISCILLA KOECKERITZ 276810001100 0 575 SIBLEY CT CRAIG D. TRAUTMAN 276610001230 0 585 HIGHRIDGE CIR DANIEL M & DEBORAH G PARADISE 278430000340 0 620 CALLAHAN PL DOROTHY J LAPEAN 276810001110 0 576 HIGH RIDGE CIR DREW STEVEN BACKSTRAND 271510001040 1792 RIDGEWOOD DR GERALD T & REBECCA R PETSCHEN en 270250001030 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197 270250001040 0 1833 DELAWARE AVE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197 en270250001050 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197 en27 0 25 0 013 1060 iNDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197 en270250002010 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 1315T 197 2702500133010 1897 DELAWARE AVE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 197 276810001240 277590001060 0 605 HIGH RIDGE CIR C311901 WARRIOR DR EDWARD A & SUZANNE M KOCOUREK JAMES F & JANICE A SCHUEPPERT 2784301300341 0 624 CALLAHAN PL ERIC 3 WAGNER 277590001030 1867 WARRIOR DR FRANK &JOAN P TSTES PILNEY 278430000353 0 1825 WARRIOR DR JAMES R & ANGELA R PIRKL 271510002050 0 565 MARIE AVE ',IV JAMES R & BARBARA I KASAL Disclaimer: &Jap and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisai survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. Map ScaPe 1 inch = 1250 feet 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 Print Preview P a :i c c Page 1 of 1 page 114 1 111 ■ if 1 MEN FT I _i At Inlnn 1211111 mw tiY 145Jn ilni MI 4 inn- 11 Mit NM 28 ..¢:a Immo aim J' igni lom iso 11'."" �mmem � ■ jI L E1 411 1 K LE—s_ X 1T - 277590001020 276810001200 1859 WARRIOR DR 0 613 HIGH RIDGE CIR JERROLD & GAIL M WILDENAUER LAWRENCE 5 5 JO E CHLEBECK 275430000141 Ca 605 MARIE AVE W JON LAUSTEIN 277590001010 0 1851 WARRIOR DR JOSEPH 5 & TERESA M LAWDER 276810001140 592 HIGH RIDGE CIR KENT A & MARY E MOGLER 270240.079071 0 531 MARIE AVE YJ KERRY L & LISA A KERN 2775900131040 1875 WARRIOR DR KEVIN & CARISSA BORMANN 276810001160 600 HIGH RIDGE CIR KEVIN 3 & DIANE H OHEHIR 276810001010 574 SIBLEY CT KEVIN W & JUiIE A GILLEN 270250004024 595 HIGHWAY 110 LARRY E MROZINSKI 278430000140 0 591 MARIE AVE W MARIE WIEGNER 278430000150 0 594 MARIE AVE W MARIORIE D CHEESEBROW 273250001110 ED 620 HIDDEN CREEKTRL MATT R BIRK 2784313000355 0 610 CALLAHAN PL MATTHEW C & COLLEEN KULHANEK 2702501304010 0 591 HIGHWAY 110 MATTHEW L & ANDREA L GLEWWE 276510001180 0 608 HIGH RIDGE CIR MICHAEL ] & CAROL A BUTCHERT 270240079040 0 1775 DELAWARE AVE MICHAEL] & KRISTEN NICKLAWSKE 270240079072 0 535 MARIE AVE MICHAEL KRAJNIAI< 271510002030 271510001030 1775 RIDGEWOOD DR 0 1776 RIDGEWOOD DR LAWRENCE & CHRISTINE FISCHER MICHAEL N & SUSAN MICEVYCH Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This Is not a legal document and should not be substituted fora title searckappraisai survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the .information contained in this data. Map ScaPe 1 inch = 1250 feet 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 Print Preview Page 3 Page 1 of 1 page 115 1 ri1 ■ Mr 1 MIN Ji.•i-'i lir rtian• imam Blind I 1111111111 al���nni ..4411 42 45 r '`:r 48 50 ®f d 55 i j ■.- 4911 53 } L TIN 1 276810001130 588 HIGH RIDGE CIR NANCYA GOLDBERGER 276810001190 612 HIGHRIDGE CIR NATHAN & SHANNON HUNTLEY 276810001070 593 SIBLEY CT PATRICK J & SHIRLEY KELLY 277590001050 1883 WARRIOR DR PATRICK L & SARA] COTTER 276810001210 609 HIGH RIDGE CIR PETER L PICO 270250004022 0 599 HIGHWAY 110 SYLVIA A GLEWWE-WENTWORTH O273020000181 THOMAS IRVINE DODGE 270250076010 0 590 HIGHWAY 110 THOMAS IRVINE DODGE FON 270250075011 co 656 HIGHWAY 110 THOMAS IRVINE DODGE FOUNDATION 276810001090 01 581 SIBLEY CT THOMAS J & SHARON D THIEMAN 273250001100 276810001080 614 HIDDEN CREEKTRL 0 587 SIBLEY CT RICHARD C & JAYME H CHAPMAN THOMAS P &JANIS L VUCICEVIC 276810001020 580 SIBLIY CT ROBERT W TUTTLE 276810001170 604 HIGH RIDGE CIR SCOTT HERZOG 271510002040 0 1791 RIDGEWOOD DR TIMOTHY ] OUJIRI 278430000162 0 610 MARIE AVE W TIMOTHY M & NANCY RYAN! 276810001040 270240079060 592 SIBLEY CT 0 1783 DELAWARE AVE STEVEN L & JACALYN R HANSON VERN G & ROSEMARY R HILDEBRANDT 276810001220 577 HIGH RIDGE CIR STUART R & JENNIFER SIMEJ{ 278430000152 0 602 MARIE AVE VIKTORS ULDIS ROZENBERGS Disclaimer: Flap and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed- his is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title sears appraisals survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the .rnforrnation contained in this data.. MapScaPe 1 inch = 1250 feet 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 Print Preview Pa ie 4 Page 1 of 1 page 116 19 2784300100332 2768-110001120 615 CALLAHAN PL al 582 HIGH RIDGE CIR WILLIAM & MARIA KOSKI WILLIAM M & N N E SLPTMAR Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted fora title search ppraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data_ Map Scabe 1 inch = 1245 feet 2/2/2015 http://gis. co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co... 2/2/2015 t DATE: TO: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS page 117 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com March 3, 2015 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing Request for City Council Consideration of a Critical Area Permit BACKGROUND As a result a landslide event in June 2014, a substantial portion of the rear yard of the property located at 731 Woodridge Drive slid onto Highway 13 and is susceptible to future failure if left unaddressed. As discussed in the attached letter, the property owners have been working to address the situation since that time. The proposed slope repair project would include construction of a retaining wall, and associated soil stabilization, which requires approval of a critical area permit. Due to the nature of the work and the Critical Area Overlay District standards, conditional use permit and variance requests will also be required as part of the application package. As a result, a public hearing before the Planning Commission would normally be required. In order to expedite the approval process, the property owners are requesting the application be exempted from Planning Commission review and the public hearing be held before the City Council on March 17. In 2001, a similar event caused slope damage at 711 Woodridge Drive. In that case, the City granted an exemption and the public hearing was held before the City Council to approve a similar slope repair project. Upon consultation with the City Attorney, staff advised the property owner that a formal request to the City Council is required to consider setting the public hearing date. Regardless of Council action on this request, a complete application is due Monday, March 2. If the request to hold the public hearing before the City Council is granted, the notice would be mailed to the required surrounding property owners and published in the Sunday, March 8 edition of the South-West Review, in compliance with public notice requirements for such requests. In addition, the 60 -day timeline would still apply and the required state agencies will be provided the application materials for review and comment. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion to set the public hearing date for Tuesday, March 17 and direct staff to provide the required public notice. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 118 To: Mendota Heights City Council From: Eileen O'Shaughnessy and Art Perlman 731 Woodridge Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55118 We will be applying for a Critical Area Permit and Variance for the construction of a project on our property. We are writing to ask that the City Council review our application and hold a public hearing on March 17, 2015, bypassing review by the Planning Commission. As we will illustrate below, there is some urgency regarding the construction of the project, and shortening the time needed for the consideration of our application would be very helpful. On June 19, 2014 there was a landslide at the rear of our property, which overlooks Highway 13. The slope needs repair and stabilization, and we are only now at a point where we could move ahead and arrange for the work to be done. To show why this is the case we would like to provide a summary of what has occurred since June 19: • Following the landslide, we were advised by Jon Solberg of MnDOT to wait until we knew what action MnDOT would take before planning any work of our own on our property, since any fix of the failed slope would need to involve an integrated approach. • Meanwhile, John Mazzitello provided a list of several engineering companies to call. We contacted these, including Barr Engineering, and several others, but none were willing to work with a residential client. Eventually, Steve Klein of Barr Engineering was kind enough to agree to consult with us concerning slope stabilization issues. • After doing a survey of the slope and soil borings along the MnDOT right of way, MnDOT engaged SRF Construction to explore/design a solution. • We were subsequently sent both the data gathered and conceptual drawings for a pile retaining wall to be constructed by MnDOT on the ROW. • On July 21, we got a call from Mark Watson, project manager for MnDOT, saying that MnDOT planned to go ahead with the wall, and that construction could start as early as the beginning of September. • On July 24, he called again to say that the project had been abandoned. He said that, given the minimum amount of geotechnical data gathered by MnDOT, SRF was not comfortable with the concept as conceived unless it involved tiebacks into the slope, something MnDOT was not willing to consider since it would involve our property. • In September, at the suggestion of one of MnDOT's engineers, the president of GSI (GeoStabilization International) viewed the site and presented us with a proposal that addressed the failed slope as a whole. We shared this proposal with MnDOT and set up a meeting to discuss a possible collaboration. Considering that GSI's plan efficiently and effectively stabilized both the ROW and our property, we expected that at the very least MnDOT would be willing to contribute a prorated amount to page 119 cover the public portion of the project. However, MnDOT declined to participate in the project and would not allow any encroachment by us on their property. • At this time we also learned that MnDOT had no further plans to stabilize its portion of the failed slope, and were thus left to start over, having lost three months. In October, following these events, we were able to engage Barr Engineering to gather and analyze more extensive geotechnical data and advise on how to address the failed slope. The geotechnical investigation consisted in seismic (geophysical) testing, soil drilling, reconnaissance, and laboratory testing, resulting in the following: • Barr's analysis of these data showed that there is a risk of further sliding at the same site and they strongly advised that the slope be stabilized. • In mid-November we were presented with four conceptual approaches to slope stabilization. • Barr's geotechnical engineers then did further analysis and preliminary designs and cost estimates for two of these approaches. This involved computer modeling of the possible failure surface and iterative modeling of each approach to achieve a preliminary design with the necessary safety factor. • We received the preliminary design descriptions and cost estimates in mid-January. • The option we have chosen, after carefully considering Barr's expert analysis and advice, is a pile and concrete lagging retaining wall, similar to that proposed by SRF, but to be constructed on our property just above the right of way line. All of this is to show why we are only now in a position to move ahead. We lost three months of valuable time in attempting to collaborate with MnDOT, and Barr Engineering's work was very thorough, but time consuming. Engineers at Barr are currently finalizing the design, specifications and construction drawings for the project. Veit Construction would carry out this work and they have advised us that it would be preferable to construct the retaining wall before the ground thaws. And in any case, the more time that elapses before the slope is stabilized, the greater the risk that heavy rainfall might occur, causing a further slide at the same site. This would pose a real risk, not only to the structure of our house, but also to the safety of those using Highway 13 below. With spring fast approaching we feel a great sense of urgency to move ahead with the stabilization of the failed slope. We would greatly appreciate your consideration of our request so that, if our Critical Area Permit/Variance is approved, we can move ahead as quickly as possible. Thank you, Eileen O'Shaughnessy Art Perlman mjCITY OF IV]ENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: March 3, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Ryan E. Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Somerset Storm Water Improvements BACKGROUND page 120 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com Last Spring brought record rainfalls to the State of Minnesota and caused some extensive damage throughout the State. Locally, Mendota Heights experienced several areas that were damaged due to the excessive run off. A handful of areas were repaired last fall but more are outstanding. Ivy Falls Creek, which runs through Somerset Country Club, had a number of gabion grade control failures. Staff is proposing to reinforce the stream banks with a larger limestone rip rap and install new grade control with steel sheet piling and rip rap. The outlet control structure is also proposed to be replaced with the project which will allow the pond to function more efficiently. The gabions were installed in late 1970's with FEMA disaster funds. Spring Creek Circle was developed adjacent to Marie Creek which has been experiencing several areas of erosion. Marie Creek had a slope failure north of the properties of 719 & 727 Spring Creek Circle. Staff is proposing to armor the stream bank with rip rap to prevent any further loss of soil. Ten bids (see attached resolution) were received and opened on Wednesday, February 25, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. for the Somerset Storm Water Improvements. Four of the ten bidders did not meet the requirements in the project specification for mobilization which states that the lump sum bid price for mobilization shall not exceed 4% of the total base bid. Staff recommends summarily rejecting the bids from Fitzgerald Excavating, Arnt Construction Company, Urban Companies, and Didion Contracting. North Pine Aggregate, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid of $128,713.60. Their bid was less than the Engineer's Estimate of $180,410.00. North Pine Aggregate has not worked with Mendota Heights on previous projects but came highly recommended through reference checks. page 121 BUDGET IMPACT Staff has been working with the State of Minnesota on securing disaster relief funds. Preliminary estimates have identified the Ivy Falls repair being eligible for a 75 percent reimbursement of $95,000.00. The city has been asked to supply additional data which could potentially allow the entire project to be reimbursed at 75 percent. The cost estimate is currently calculated at $118,930.10 not including indirect costs for engineering, surveying, finance, etc. The Spring Creek Project has not been identified for reimbursement and is estimated to cost $9,783.50. The projects would be funded through the Storm Sewer Utility Fund which should have an adequate balance after the State reimbursement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council adopt the attached Resolution 2015-22, A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE SOMERSET STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201408). If Council agrees with the staff's recommendation, pass a motion adopting the attached Resolution. page 122 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2015-22 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE SOMERSET STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201408) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed stream bank stabilization and related appurtenant work for Ivy Falls Creek through Somerset County Club and Marie Creek through Spring Creek Circle referred to as the Somerset Storm Water Improvements, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received complying with said advertisement: NAME OF BIDDER North Pine Aggregate, Inc. Sunram Construction, Inc. GL Contracting, Inc. New Look Contracting, Inc. G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. Penn Contracting, Inc. and AMOUNT OF BID $128,713.60 $134,504.00 $136,988.10 $145,905.00 $166,670.00 $220,805.00 WHEREAS, the bid submitted by Fitzgerald Excavating, Arnt Construction Company, Urban Companies, and Didion Contracting did not meet the requirements in the project specification for mobilization which states that the lump sum bid price for mobilization shall not exceed 4% of the total base bid; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommended that the bid submitted by Fitzgerald Excavating, Arnt Construction Company, Urban Companies, and Didion Contracting be summarily rejected; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommended that the lowest responsible bid submitted by North Pine Aggregate, Inc. of Forest Lake, Minnesota, be accepted. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the bids for the above project are hereby received and accepted. 2. That the bid of North Pine Aggregate, Inc. of Forest Lake, Minnesota, submitted for the construction of the above described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted. 3. That the contract be awarded to North Pine Aggregate, Inc. of Forest Lake, Minnesota, and that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to page 123 execute and deliver any and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of March, 2015. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 124 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.riendota-heights.com M CMITY OF ENIDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 3, 2015 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Tamara Schutta, Assistant to the City Administrator Approve Resolution 2015-20, Granting Comcast a Franchise Extension and Approve Resolution 2015-21, Approving the Transfer of the Cable Franchise and Change of Control of the Grantee. BACKGROUND Attached is a memo, resolutions and other pertinent documentation from NDC4 Executive Director Jodie Miller concerning the current franchise agreement with Comcast. Ms. Miller will be providing an update on the cable franchise agreement renewal. Ms. Miller will also be requesting the city council approve Resolution 2015-20, granting Comcast a franchise extension to March 31, 2016 and Resolution 2015-21, approving the transfer of the cable franchise and change of control of the grantee. ATTACHED 022515 Memo from NDC4 Executive Director Resolution 2015-20, Granting Comcast A Franchise Extension to March 31, 2016 Resolution 2015-21, Approving the Transfer of the Cable Franchise and Change of Control of the Grantee Comcast/Midwest Cable Transfer of Franchise PowerPoint Presentation Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC Report Moss & Barnett Report RECOMMENDATION The NDC4 Commission recommends approval of both these resolutions. If Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign Resolution No. 2015- 20; GRANTING COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, INC. A FRANCHISE EXTENSION TO MARCH 31, 2016 and Resolution No. 2015-21, APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE FRANCHISE AND CHANGE OF CONTROL OF THE GRANTEE. NDC 4 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 5845 Blaine Avenue Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 55076-1401 651/450-9891 Fax 651/450.9429 NDC4@lownsquoraly page 125 Honorable Mayor Krebsbach and Council Members c/o City Administrator Mark McNeill 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Cover Letter / Executive Suminaiy for March 3'-`r Council Meeting Via e-mail February 25, 2015 Dear Honorable Mayor Krebsbach and Mendota Heights Council Members: Enclosed are two resolutions, one relating to the Comcast request for transfer of the franchise, and the second relating to a 12 -month extension of the current franchise. On February 4th the NDC4 Cable Commission unanimously approved these two DRAFT Resolutions to be recommended for approval by each of the seven NDC4 Member Cities. We are reconunending that the Council adopt BOTH resolutions, as they provide conditions on the Comcast merger to protect our cities, residents and subscribers, and give us the ability to complete franchise renewal negotiations over the next 12 months. Also enclosed are background documents including a PowerPoint from our attorney Brian Grogan, and two expert consultants' financial reports on the merger transactions. All of this information is also available on the "cable customers" tab on our web site at littp://www.townsquare.iv/customer-services-dakota-county-public-access.efni. It is a very complex topic and not easy to absorb in a brief city council presentation. As a reference, the February 4th NDC4 meeting is available on demand at www.townsquare.tv. If you would like to review the presentation and discussion at West St. Paul's February 9'}' City Council meeting, it is also available on our web site. Fortunately your city has been represented by your cable commission members Ultan Duggan and Mickey Kieffer, who have been officers on the Executive Committee and have participated in the smaller group negotiating meetings as well, so they are well informed and able to share their insights with your council. As you can see, there are two DRAFT resolutions, one includes approval of the transfer with many conditions relating to financial and customer service protections, as well as assurances that Comcast will work in good faith to complete our franchise renewal in the next twelve months, and that Comcast AND (if the merger closes) the new Grantee, will be obliged under terms of the extension. The second resolution is a simpler, shorter agreement to simply extend the franchise for twelve months. The NDC4 Commission recommends approval of both of these page 126 NDC4 Cover Letter / Executive Summary February 25, 2014 Page 2 of 2 resolutions by each of the seven Member Cities. (The resolutions are inter -related, so we recommend that BOTH resolutions be approved by the cities.) If you read through the two financial reports, they clearly do not paint a pretty picture of the financial qualifications of the Grantee that will be in place after the transactions. However, most of the LFA's (Local Franchise Authorities) in the Twin Cities are moving forward with making agreements like ours, to protect our consumers, cities, and our Rights -of -Way as best we can, with conditions on the merger. Several cities and cable commissions have already passed similar approvals with conditions tailored to their communities. As you know, we are a tiny speck on the map of this $54 Billion transaction, and it doesn't appear that any of the Twin Cities (or Michigan) communities have the resources required to try to deny this transfer and fight it out in court with these mega -corporations. There is still the possibility that either the FCC or other federal reviewers, or even some state PVC's reviewing the telephone side of the transaction, may not approve the merger, That is why we are recommending the resolutions will apply to either the current Grantee (Comcast) OR the new entity IF the merger is approved and closes. On a separate, but somewhat related note, people are asking whether and when residents of our cities may have the opportunity to purchase a cable TV package from CenturyLink as another option. NDC4 Cable Commission staff and individual city representatives have held meetings with CenturyLink, and it is Iikely that we will very soon initiate a process for them to apply to our Member Cities for a Competitive Video Franchise in Northern Dakota County, in order to bring more competition to our residents. Please feel free to call me or e-mail me at 651-450-9891 ext. 308, imiller rr townsquare.ty, if you have any questions or need further information, Sincerely, Y(1.1 NkgvAJ NDC4 Executive Director cc: Mickey Kieffer, Mendota Heights Citizen Rep. NDC4 Commission Brian Grogan, NDC4 Legal Counsel Attachments: • DRAFT NDC4 Resolution Relating to Franchise Extension • FINAL DRAFT Resolution and Guaranty • Grogan PowerPoint dated 2-4-15 • Ashpaugh & Sculco and Front Range Consulting Financial Report • Moss & Barnett Financial Report RESOLUTION NO. 2015-20 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF Mendota Heights MINNESOTA GRANTING COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, INC. A FRANCHISE EXTENSION TO MARCH 31, 2016 WHEREAS, on or about April 1, 2000, the City of Mendota Heights page 127 Minnesota granted Cable Television Franchise Ordinance ("Franchise") which is currently held by Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. ("Comcast"); and WHEREAS, Comcast has requested renewal of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the initial term of the Franchise is due to expire on or about March 31, 2015; and WHEREAS, both the City and Comcast desire to reserve all of their respective rights under state and federal law regarding the franchise renewal process, specifically all rights provided by 47 U.S.C. 546. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Mendota Heights , Minnesota hereby resolves as follows: 1. The Franchise is hereby amended by extending the term of the Franchise from April 1, 2015 through and including March 31, 2016. 2. Except as specifically modified hereby, the Franchise shall remain in full force and effect. 3. The City and Comcast hereby agree that neither party waives any rights either may have under the Franchise or applicable law. 4. This Resolution shall become effective upon the occurrence of both of the following conditions: (1) The Resolution being passed and adopted by the City; and (2) Comcast's acceptance of this Resolution. Adopted by the City of Mendota Heights , Minnesota, this 3rd day of March 2015. 1 2717999v1 ATTEST: By: 2717999v1 page 128 CITY OF Mendota Heights , MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor 2 page 129 ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENT Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. hereby accepts this Resolution No. ("Resolution") and hereby accepts the terms, provisions and recitals of the Resolution and agrees to be bound by the Franchise. Dated this day of , 2015. COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, INC. By: Its: SWORN TO BEFORE ME this day of , 2015. NOTARY PUBLIC 2717999v1 3 page 130 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-21 APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE FRANCHISE AND CHANGE OF CONTROL OF THE GRANTEE WHEREAS, Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. ("Grantee"), currently holds a cable television franchise ("Franchise") granted by the City of Mendota Heights , Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City is a member of the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission ("Commission"), a joint powers commission which administers and regulates the operations of the Grantee under the Franchise; and WHEREAS, Grantee owns, operates and maintains a cable television system ("System") in the City pursuant to the terms of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the Franchise is set to expire on or about March 31, 2015 ("Franchise Expiration Date") and the parties anticipate extending the term of the Franchise through March 31, 2016 by adoption of a separate extension resolution; and WHEREAS, as part of the renewal of the Franchise, the City has completed an assessment of the future cable related needs and interests of the City ("Needs Assessment"); and WHEREAS, Grantee currently collects from subscribers in the City a public, educational and governmental fee in the amount of $1.72, which will increase by 3% to $1.77 effective April 1, 2015 pursuant to exhibit B, paragraph 6 of the Franchise ("PEG Fee"); and WHEREAS, Grantee currently remits $1.20 of the PEG Fee to the Commission and retains the balance to recoup certain PEG grants previously remitted to the Commission under the Franchise; and WHEREAS, as of the Franchise Expiration Date, the Grantee will have been fully reimbursed for the PEG grants it provided to the Commission under the Franchise; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2014, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast") and Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2014, Comcast and Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter") entered into the Comcast/Charter Transactions Agreement (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which the Grantee, through a restructuring under Comcast's ownership, will become Comcast of St. Paul, LLC ("New Grantee") and immediately thereafter will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Midwest Cable, Inc. ("Midwest Cable") (the "Transaction"); and WHEREAS, on or about June 17, 2014, the City received from Grantee, FCC Form 394 - Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise ("Application"); and 1 page 131 WHEREAS, Federal law and the terms of the Franchise require that the City take action to consider the Application within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of receipt, or on or before October 15, 2014; and WHEREAS, on or about August 22, 2014, Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to extend the Application review period for sixty (60) days until December 15, 2014 to allow the City time to review the additional information concerning the qualifications of Midwest Cable provided to the City on September 30, 2014; and WHEREAS, on or about September 30, 2014, Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to a further extension of the Application review period for thirty (30) days until January 15, 2015 to allow the City to review certain service agreements related to the Transaction as well as certain SEC financial filings to be made available for review on October 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2014, Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to a further extension of the Application review period through and including February 27 2015; and WHEREAS, Section 10.5 of the Franchise requires the City's advance written consent prior to the Grantee's transfer of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, as a result of the delays in the Franchise renewal process caused by the processing of the Transaction, the Commission and the City have not been able to secure adequate PEG funding for overdue capital upgrades, and have not been able to complete the informal franchise renewal that was scheduled to be ready for City's consideration by December 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, as a result of the proposed Transaction Grantee has requested consent from the City to the proposed transfer of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the proposed Transaction, and based on information provided by Grantee and Midwest Cable and on the information received by the City from the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission ("Commission"), the City has elected to approve the proposed Transaction subject to certain conditions as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Mendota Heights as follows: , Minnesota hereby resolves 1. All of the above recitals are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 2. The Franchise is in full force and effect and Grantee is the lawful holder of the Franchise. 3. New Grantee will be the lawful holder of the Franchise after completion of the Transaction. 4. The City hereby consents and approves of the proposed Transaction subject to the below conditions. 2 page 132 a. New Grantee agreeing to assume any and all liabilities, known and unknown, under the Franchise. b. Within thirty (30) days following close of the Transaction, Midwest Cable (also to be known as Greatland Connections, Inc.) shall execute and provide the City with the Acceptance attached hereto at Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. c. Within thirty (30) days following close of the Transaction, Midwest Cable (also to be known as GreatLand Connections Inc.) shall execute and provide the City with the Corporate Parent Guaranty attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. d. Within thirty (30) days following close of the Transaction, Midwest Cable (also to be known as GreatLand Connections Inc.) shall execute and provide the City with a written guaranty in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C specifying that subscriber rates and charges in the City will not increase as a result of the costs of the proposed Transaction. e. Within twenty (20) days of the date of adoption of this Resolution, Grantee shall execute and file with the City the Acceptance and Agreement attached hereto to verify New Grantee's agreement to comply with the terms and conditions of this Resolution and the exhibits attached hereto. f. New Grantee will not raise any challenge to the data, findings or conclusions of the Needs Assessment that rests on: the fact that New Grantee and Midwest Cable, or any other parent company or affiliate of New Grantee or Midwest Cable, did not own or control the System and Franchise at the time the Needs Assessment was completed or ii. the passage of time from the date the Needs Assessment was completed and fails to recognize and account for the 12 month period of delay in processing the renewal caused by review of the Transaction. g. In the event the Transaction does not close, Grantee will not raise any challenge to the data, findings or conclusions of the Needs Assessment that rests on the passage of time from the date the Needs Assessment was completed and fails to recognize and account for the 12 month period of delay in processing the renewal caused by review of the Transaction. h. New Grantee, or if the Transaction does not close then the Grantee, commits to meet with the City and Commission staff and other City designees in person at City Hall, Commission offices, or another mutually agreed upon location, to negotiate renewal of the Franchise no less frequently than once every page 133 thirty (30) days commencing May 1, 2015 and continuing until the Franchise is renewed. Grantee and New Grantee shall continue to collect the PEG Fee (effective April 1, 2015 the PEG Fee shall be $1.77) as required by the Franchise. Due to the fact that as of Franchise Expiration Date the Grantee will have been fully reimbursed for the PEG grants it provided to the Commission (or its PEG designee) under the Franchise, Grantee and New Grantee shall not retain any portion of the PEG Fee but rather shall remit the entire PEG Fee of $1.77 to the Commission (or its PEG designee) and the Commission shall have the right, for the balance of the extended Franchise term, to use the PEG Fee for all PEG related obligations. The City, Grantee and New Grantee agree that this paragraph 4.i applies solely for the 12 month extension contemplated under this Resolution and any subsequent extension and it is not intended to be relied upon in franchise renewal negotiations. j. Consistent with the Franchise, the PEG Fee may be unilaterally increased no more than once each calendar year in the Commission's sole discretion as provided by exhibit B, paragraph 6. k. New Grantee will participate in quarterly meetings with the City's designees for the first two (2) years following the close of the Transaction to verify that subscriber issues and concerns are being addressed by New Grantee or any other entity that may have interaction with subscribers within the City. If issues are not being addressed, New Grantee agrees to meet with the City, as directed, to explain steps being undertaken to address subscriber concerns and New Grantee will provide regular and timely updates to the City to provide verification of corrective actions being undertaken to address unresolved issues. New Grantee will maintain an "escalated complaint program" similar to Comcast's current program, to escalate unresolved complaints from subscribers. A team of specifically identified employees of New Grantee shall be available to City and Commission via email and telephone for reporting issues. These specifically identified employees of New Grantee will have the ability to take actions to resolve subscriber complaints relating to billing, property or service restoration, technical appointments, or any other subscriber matters_when necessary. New Grantee will follow-up with City or Commission in writing by email (and by phone when necessary) with a summary of the results of the complaint(s). m. New Grantee shall maintain and provide (as Grantee currently provides), the commitment of free cable TV service to schools and city buildings in accordance with the requirements of the Franchise. n. New Grantee's compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 4.b through 4.m of this Resolution shall be handled under the Franchise. New page 134 Grantee shall be subject to available enforcement procedures and remedies as if these obligations were set forth in the Franchise. o. Comcast shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of adoption of this Resolution, fully reimburse the City for all of the City's reasonable costs and expenses in connection with the City's review of the proposed Transaction, including without limitation, all costs incurred by the City for experts and attorneys retained by the City to assist in the review as well as notice and publication costs ("Reimbursement"). i. The Reimbursement shall not be deemed to be "Franchise Fees" within the meaning of Section 622 of the Cable Act (47 U.S.C. §542), nor shall the Reimbursement be deemed to be (i) "payments in kind" or any involuntary payments chargeable against the Franchise Fees to be paid to the City by New Grantee pursuant to the Franchise. ii. The Reimbursement shall be considered a requirement or charge incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the Franchise. iii. It is understood that the language in this paragraph 4.o has been agreed to solely for the purpose of this Resolution and this Reimbursement, and does not prejudice any party from taking a different position regarding the Franchise Fee issues in the future. 5. In the event the proposed Transaction contemplated by the foregoing resolution is not completed, for any reason, the City's consent shall not be effective. If any of the conditions set forth herein are not met, the City's consent to the proposed Transaction shall be null and void and of no effect. This Resolution shall take effect and continue and remain in effect from and after the date of its passage, approval, and adoption. Approved by the City of Mendota Heights , Minnesota this 3rd day of March , 2015. ATTEST: CITY OF Mendota Heights MINNESOTA By: By: Its: Mayor 5 page 135 ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENT Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. hereby accepts this Resolution No. 2015-21 ("Resolution") and any Exhibits incorporated by reference in the Resolution and agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Resolution and the terms and conditions of the Franchise, as extended, referenced within the Resolution. Dated this day of , 2015. COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, INC. By: Its: SWORN TO BEFORE ME this day of , 2015. NOTARY PUBLIC 6 page 136 EXHIBIT A ACCEPTANCE BY COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, LLC TO BE FILED WITH CITY UPON CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION Comcast of St. Paul, LLC, hereby accepts City of Minnesota Resolution No. ("Resolution") and any Exhibits incorporated by reference in the Resolution and agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Resolution and the terms and conditions of the Franchise, as extended, referenced within the Resolution. Dated this day of , 2015. COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, LLC Sworn to before me this day of , 2015. Notary Public A-1 By: Its: page 137 EXHIBIT B CORPORATE PARENT GUARANTY THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of 201 (this "Agreement"), by and among GreatLand Connections Inc. (f/k/a Midwest Cable, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Guarantor"), the City of Minnesota ("Franchising Authority"), and , a ("Company"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, on or about April 1, 2000, the Franchising Authority granted a Cable Television Franchise Ordinance which is now held by Comcast of Minnesota, Inc. (the "Franchise"), pursuant to which the Franchising Authority has granted the rights to own, operate, and maintain a cable television system ("System"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Comcast/Charter Transaction Agreement dated April 25, 2014 by and between Charter Communication, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Comcast Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, ("Agreement"), the Franchise will be transferred to the Company and the Guarantor will acquire control of the Company as an indirect subsidiary of Guarantor as a result of Comcast Corporation's contribution and spin off of certain cable television systems pursuant to the Agreement ("Change in Control"); and WHEREAS, Company and Comcast Corporation have requested the consent to the Change of Control in accordance with the requirements of Section 10.5 of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. , dated 20 , Franchising Authority conditioned its consent to the Change of Control on the issuance by Guarantor of a corporate parent guaranty guaranteeing certain obligations of Company under the Franchise. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing promises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, in consideration of the approval of the Change of Control, Guarantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to provide all the financial resources necessary for the observance, fulfillment and performance of the obligations of the Company under the Franchise and also to be legally liable for performance of said obligations in case of default by the Company. This Agreement, unless terminated, substituted, or canceled, as provided herein, shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the term of the Franchise. B-1 page 138 Upon substitution of another Guarantor reasonably satisfactory to the Franchising Authority, this Agreement may be terminated, substituted, or canceled upon thirty (30) days prior written notice from Guarantor to the Franchising Authority and the Company. Such termination shall not affect liability incurred or accrued under this Agreement prior to the effective date of such termination or cancellation. GREATLAND CONNECTIONS INC. (F/K/A MIDWEST CABLE, INC.) By: Its: SWORN TO BEFORE ME this day of , 2015. NOTARY PUBLIC B-2 page 139 EXHIBIT C GUARANTY REGARDING RATES GreatLand Connections, Inc., upon closing of the proposed Transaction (as defined in the City of , Minnesota Resolution No. ), guarantees that rates and charges for cable service offered by , the Grantee in the City, will not increase as a result of the cost of the proposed transaction. GreatLand Connections, Inc. agrees that any failure to adhere to this guaranty shall be deemed a violation of the Franchise. SWORN TO BEFORE ME this day of , 2015. NOTARY PUBLIC GREATLAND CONNECTIONS, INC., By: Its: C-1 page 140 Comcast/Midwest Cable Transfer of Franchise ••s+• Moss & Barnett A Professional Association Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission February 4, 2015 Brian T. Grogan, Esq. (612) 877-5340 Brian.Grogan@lawmoss.com page 141 Comcast/TWC Merger • Comcast merger with Time Warner Cable — Announced February 12, 2014 — Comcast acquires TWC's 11.4 M cable subs — Results in Comcast controlling 34 M cable subs • Requires local, state and federal approvals • Comcast voluntarily offers to divest subs — Comcast seeks to shed 4 M cable subs — Comcast seeks to get down to 30 M cable subs ••s•* Moss & Barnett A Professional Association Comcast TWC 34 million subscribers page 142 Time Warner Cable & Comcast Footprint Tine Warner Cam r,sc CoricAr 'Hp ••'+♦ Moss & Barnett A Professional Association SNL Kean page 143 Comcast / Charter • Comcast and Charter Communications — Announced April 25, 2014 — Comcast to sell 1.4 M cable subs to Charter — Comcast and Charter to swap subs • 1.5M to Charter • 1.6M to Comcast ••s•* Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 144 Midwest Cable • 2.5 M subs to be divested to new entity — Former Comcast properties in MN, MI, IL, IN, Al and others • Twin Cities Comcast systems part of spin-off • Midwest Cable — newly created entity — After closing will be renamed "GreatLand Connections" • Midwest Cable will be publicly traded entity • New Grantee = Comcast of Minnesota, LLC • Financial review — challenging — Given lack of operating history ••s•. Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 145 Who Will Run Midwest Cable? • Separate board of directors - owned — 33% by Charter Communications — 67% by Comcast Shareholders • Midwest will initially have 9 board members • Michael Willner — President and CEO of Midwest — 40 year veteran — Insight Communications — No existing franchises under its control — Much of executive team worked at Insight • Midwest has no operating history • Substantial operations handled by Charter • • ••. Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 146 Structure After Merger Comcast Shareholders Charter Stockholders (as of the record date for the (as of immediately prior to the spin-off) transactions) Approximately % pproximately 67% Approximately % New Charter Comcast (including cash distributed from OpCo and our notes issued to Comcast) TWC • •• Moss & Barnett A Professional Association Midwest Cable OpCo (owns the Midwest Cable systems, assets and liabilities relating to the Midwest Cable systems and credit facilities) Approximately 33% Charter page 147 Charter Overview • Charter operates cable systems in MN — Duluth, St. Cloud, Marshall, Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rochester, Mankato, Winona and many others • Charter provides service to — 6.1 million subs — In 29 states • Charter is a Fortune 500 company — Employs approximately 23,000 people ••s'* Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 148 Proposed Charter + Midwest Cable (SpinCo) WA •♦ ` w • • • LIT AZ i•'•! Moss & Barnett A Professional Association • • • •• • • - . ••• 4. eco • • PJM • VIl •4 • •• • • • • • •• •_i •• 4 • ' •. ••` • • ` r • 1 • • •• • ` �•..•• R •. r 4 •� . . • • • . • • ♦•• R�.• • • • •• :::• • IL • ti b• N fi TN h. •*• NC •a ••• *1Ir SO AR W`'ic.•r• • •r • SC • • 1J5 •' -�ti SGA • • • Charter Less Divested Systems ir NY IlA • PA Lt TX lE1 •.• • •�1.1 ▪ . • •�—�;r~ • Acquired Systems •• • SpinCo Note: Larger Circles Representing Major Markets FL page 149 Local Operations • Local field operational (technical) personnel - Will be Midwest Cable employees • Government affairs personnel — Interacting with local franchising authorities — Will be Midwest Cable employees • Other operational services - Will be provided by Charter personnel ••s'* Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 150 Charter Services to Midwest • Midwest will pay Charter 4.25% of revenues — 4.25% of all voice, video and data revenues — Procurement and Programming Management Services Network Operations Engineering & IT Voice Operations Field Operations Customer Service — Billing & Collections — Marketing & Sales — Administrative and Back office Services — Other •♦s♦* Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 151 Impact on Services • Subs keep Comcast telephone numbers • Subs keep cable equipment — At least for initial transition —perhaps longer/permanently • Email — Subs will have to transition away from comcast.net — Likely to Charter's email domain • Billing — Will transition to Midwest — Online payments will require subscribers to contact bank •** ** Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 152 Financial Review • Complexity of transaction and multiple filings at SEC = delayed consultant's report • Midwest's initial debt leverage will be no greater than 5.Ox its 2014 EBITDA • Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization • i.e. how much profit is made with present assets and operations on the products sold, as well as providing a proxy for cash flow — Consistent with some other cable operators • Charter at 5.0x, • Cablevision at 5.3x, • Suddenlink at 5.7x and • Mediacom at 5.3x). • Please refer to Consultant's financial report • • ••. Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 153 Timeline for Local Action • Member Cities have right to review transfer of franchise — Under franchise, state and federal law — Approve/not approve • Official request via FCC Form 394 — Received June 18, 2014 • 120 days to issue local decision — October 18, 2014 = initial deadline — Comcast extended deadline • First to December 15th • Second to January 15th • New deadline — February 27th • Legal, technical and financial qualifications ❖* Moss & Barnett A Professional Association page 154 Resolution • Approve transaction subject to: — Written Acceptance by New Grantee - Comcast of Minnesota, LLC — Guaranty by GreatLand Connections Inc. (New name for Midwest Extension of existing Franchise • PEG funding — address grant funding — Renewal • Delayed due to transfer • Preservation of Needs Assessment • Commitment to meet and negotiate renewal — Customer service • Quarterly meetings with New Grantee for 2 years • Escalated complaint process maintained — Reimbursement of all transfer costs ••s•. Moss & Barnett A Professional Association 15 •** ** Moss & Barnett A Professional Association Questions? Brian T. Grogan, Esq. Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 877-5340 phone / (612) 877-5031 facsimile E-mail: Brian.Grogan@lawmoss.com Web site: www.lawmoss.com page 155 Pre -Merger Cable Markets Cable Provider Footprints Top 10 MSOs January 2011 Nelf kat hag 'rune WAP $:.,E -k ffrUci Chemet MI Ir13.in1 C t+e One. wEd fie- �r 5I..vita rtzus .moi 4e1aeea �rc3Genpit I prucloctnr .,y4s11 #1t -a t du Mail or ars oar_a .r; zero Mm) .,iiramur 2nifA58 1.01117&1 W#r11115318r1 limeS'iteltaB p•ar mcr + ••,•. Moss & Barnett A Professional Association ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Certified Public Accountants and Consultants Front Range Consulting, Inc. REPORT REGARDING THE SPIN-OFF OF CABLE SYSTEMS TO MIDWEST CABLE, INC. January 2015 page 158 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Introduction Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. (the "Consultants") have been retained by several LFAs1 to assist them in the financial analyses of the transfers of the cable television franchises now held by Comcast in a newly formed subsidiary of Comcast, Midwest Cable, Inc. and which are to be spun off to a new company, GreatLand Connections, Inc. ("GreatLand") assuming the Transaction is completed.2 This spin-off3 is part of a larger transaction that involves:: (i) acquisition of Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("Time Warner") by Comcast Corporation, Inc. ("Comcast"); (ii) sale of systems by Comcast to Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"); (iii) swap of systems between Comcast and Charter; (iv) spin- off of systems from Comcast to SpinCo, (v) the reorganization of Charter (collectively, the "Transactions").4 The Consultants are also assisting LFAs who have authority to review other elements of the Transaction. However, this particular report focuses on the Midwest Cable, Inc. / GreatLand Connections, Inc. spin-off. Executive Summary and Recommendations As the Transfer (that is, the spin-off from Comcast into a new independent entity, GreatLand Connections, Inc. and associated Charter transactions) is currently structured, the Consultants have been given virtually no non-public data on which to assess this transaction 2 3 4 This report is prepared for the following municipal entities: Meridian Township, MI, the City of Southfield, MI, and the Minnesota Association of Community Television Administrators (MACTA) local franchise authorities (jointly the "Participating LFAs"). The Consultants were not engaged to, and did not, perform an audit of Comcast, Time Warner, Charter or SpinCo (the "Companies"), the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion that the financial statements provide a representation of the operations for the period reviewed. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had the Consultants performed such additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This memorandum relates only to the financial analysis of the proposed spin-off of cable systems owned by Comcast to Midwest Cable, Inc. and does not extend to any financial statements of the Companies or the Participating LFAs. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Participating LFAs and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than the Participating LFAs without the express written permission of the Consultants. GreatLand Connections, Inc. is the anticipated new name of the spun off company. During the LFA review process, the spun off company has also been referred to as SpinCo, Midwest Cable, LLC and Midwest Cable, Inc. For the purposed of this Report, GreatLand, SpinCo, Midwest Cable, LLC and Midwest Cable, Inc. are all referring to the same spun off entity. This report will generally refer to the entity as Midwest Cable. We have identified the following separate but interrelated transactions (jointly the "Transactions"): (1) Comcast acquisition of Time Warner ("Acquisition"); (2) purchase of subscribers by Charter from Comcast ("Sale"); (3) system swaps between Comcast and Charter ("Swaps"); (4) transfers of Comcast systems to SpinCo (aka Midwest Cable, LLC, Midwest Cable, Inc. to be renamed GreatLand Connections, Inc.) ("Transfers") and (5) creation of the new Charter ("New Charter"). They are all interrelated as items 2 through 5 would not occur if the Acquisition is not approved. The description of the transactions is based on the 5-1 and S -1A filed by Midwest Cable, Inc. on October 31, 2014 and December 23, 2014. 1 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 159 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. notwithstanding numerous data requests and the execution of a confidentiality agreement. As part of this project, the Consultants were asked to determine whether Midwest Cable had shown, either as part of the Form 394 or through supplemental submissions, that it is financially qualified to perform as Franchisee. Neither it, nor Comcast and Charter have provided adequate information that establishes the financial qualifications of Midwest Cable. As will be explained below, without the requested data, the Consultants had to make informed estimates as to the projected financial condition of Midwest Cable after the spinoff. In its December 9, 2014 filed S-4, Charter made projections based on limited data, and Charter, Midwest and Comcast did not provide the support for those projections to the Consultants as requested. As a result, Comcast, Charter and Midwest Cable are asking the Consultants and the Participating LFAs to trust the limited projections included in the Charter S-4 and the limited pro forma estimates in Midwest Cable's S-1 as a reasonable basis to conclude that the new entity, GreatLand, will be financially capable of meeting the franchise requirements and subscribers needs. The Consultants cannot provide that assurance to the Participating LFAs without access to the requested data to allow a full and complete review of the resulting new entity and of the projections of that new entity's initial years' operations. Neither Comcast, Charter nor Midwest Cable have provided reasonable cooperation in this process. Debt One measure of financial health used in the cable industry is to compare EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortizations) as a multiple of debt. A lower multiple suggests the company has greater ability to support operations and improve its system; a high multiple may mean the company will be unable to perform as promised because of the increased fixed costs associated with long-term debt. Based on the information provided by Comcast, Charter and Midwest Cable regarding Midwest's projected debt (which Comcast and Midwest indicated may be as much as $7.8 billion) and the historical EBITDA for the systems Midwest is obtaining in the spin-off (adjusted to include new costs that will be incurred as a result of the Transfer and operating as a stand-alone company), EBITDA is projected to range from approximately 6.4 times to over 10 times multiple of debt in their initial years' of operations. Comcast's EBITDA would be about a 3 times multiple of debt post-transaction.5 5 The $7.8 billion is the most recent estimate of the debt Midwest will assume from Comcast, according to the public filings of Comcast, Charter and Midwest Cable. (See Midwest Cable's 12/23/2014 S -1/A.) To be sure, the Transfer documents suggest that Midwest Cable's debt should be limited to no more than 5 times EBITDA — a high level, and still troubling in light of other aspects of the transaction, but at least at the high end of EBITDA/debt multiples in the industry. The so called "financing" EBITDA used to calculate the amount of debt to be assumed by Midwest is different from the EBITDA estimates the Consultants have determined as the projected EBITDA determined in Attachment D to more properly reflect the ongoing operations and costs for Midwest rather than a "financing" EBITDA that excludes real costs to Midwest like costs of executive staff, CSA costs, transactional and transitional related costs. Charter's S-4 filed December 9, 2014 seems to explain Midwest's EBITDA will be based on pro forma financials. However, based on the best information available to 2 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 160 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Impact on Cash Flow • Midwest is assuming significant deferred tax liabilities from Comcast. Midwest has asserted in its S-1 in its notes to its financial statements that approximately $2.2 billion of this deferred tax liability is related to intangible cable franchise rights which will not become payable unless "... we recognize an impairment or dispose of a cable franchise ...i6 The remaining balance of $600 million is where Comcast has taken advantage of accelerated depreciation on plant assets and thereby deferring taxes Comcast would owe in the future. However, it is leaving Midwest with the duty to pay those deferred taxes, and that additional tax liability would amount to about $5.25 per sub per month. This is also likely to impact cash flow, and the ability of Midwest to provide services and fund day-to-day operations. Infrastructure • Midwest is not receiving in the spin-off basic infrastructure now used by Comcast to provide services to subscribers, such as the backbone connections used in the delivery of national programming, Internet and phone services. Hence, the "price" it is paying for the system does not include basic building blocks, which it will need to obtain in other ways. Its flexibility in this regard is limited by the debt it is obligated to acquire in the spin-off. Customer Service • As part of the Transaction, Midwest is required to contract with Charter, which will then be responsible for providing basic customer services and day-to-day operations for an initial term of 3 years. In addition, Midwest will be contracting and paying Comcast for "transition" services. The costs of providing these services to Midwest by Charter under the Charter Service Agreement ("CSA") and by Comcast under the Transition Services Agreement ("TSA") are not known (except for the CSA's 4.25% of gross revenue management fee) and are likely further eroding Midwest's income and cash flow. The 4.25% fee is estimated to be an additional expense to Midwest of approximately $200 million annually. the Consultants, Attachment D shows our calculation of pro forma EBITDA for Midwest is a range from 1,215 million to $732 million. That is, assuming the $7.8 billion is accurate, the company is incurring from approximately $1.6 to $4.1 billion more in debt than the financial analyses support. Of course, if Comcast were to limit Midwest's debt to 5 times actual pro forma EBITDA, Midwest would be in a much better position to perform. Midwest S-1 at F-14. © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 161 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Impact on Rates • Midwest has a high likelihood of cash flow difficulties — it starts day one with no cash reserves, which may require Midwest to increase cash through additional debt (if any debt could be raised), reducing/eliminating capital expenditures, eliminating services and/or raising rates.' According to the Charter S-4 projections, Midwest will have increased revenues in 2015 from 2014 of $184 million compared to Wall Street consensus programming cost increases of $179 million. Impact on Franchise Obligations • There is significant question as to whether Charter, which is taking on the management of Midwest's 2.5 million subscribers and assuming significant new debt, will be in a position to perform in a manner that satisfies Midwest's franchise obligations. However, we have seen nothing, for example, that suggests that Midwest can perform if Charter does not; that Midwest can terminate the CSA if Charter fails to satisfy franchise obligations for customer service. While Charter and Midwest continue to maintain that the CSA is not yet final, the CSA does ensure Midwest will have significant expenses and it does not guarantee that Charter can or will be in a position to perform. From a review of the draft CSA, it appears that Midwest has limited "outs" if Charter does not perform adequately under the CSA for the first 3 years and Charter has virtually no incentive to ensure that it provides adequate services under the CSA. Midwest's financial qualifications do not improve significantly if examined over the long term as compared to the short term. The charges under the CSA, the fee of 4.25% of total revenue plus costs for services provided, will continue for at least 3 years. The charges for services provided by the TSA are anticipated to diminish over the first 18 months, but that will require Midwest to have available funds to invest in needed accounting and management computer systems and training and backbone delivery systems for products such as voice, email and Internet. Additionally, Comcast is transferring $600 million in deferred tax liability to Midwest that may add over $159.57 million a year in income tax expense for 3 to 4 years. As discussed in this report in detail, little information was provided and the typical response from Comcast, who, as its owner, was speaking for Midwest Cable, was that all needed information was publically available or "Midwest Cable does not yet own these properties and has not yet established definitive plans for future operations." The last statement is curious since Comcast did and does own these systems, has control of the data and is the guiding force behind the plans for the spin-off of Midwest Cable. The Consultants have been advised that Midwest will have a $750 million line of credit in addition to the initial debt from the spin-off. 4 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 162 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. It should be noted that the original financial information contained in the FCC Form 394 as filed (and presented as Exhibit 6 to the filing) has changed materially. Comcast filed amended financial data on August 25, 2014 and September 3, 2014 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in the form of S-4/As. Without explanation in these filings or to the Participating LFAs, the anticipated initial debt was reduced from $8.8 billion to $7.8 billion, reduced transferred deferred taxes from $3.053 billion to $2.859 and reduced initial start-up cash from $600 million to $300 million. Comcast did not notify the Participating LFAs of these changes and did not refile or amend the original FCC Form 394s.8 By letter of September 30 to the Participating LFAs' counsels, it was made clear the reductions to the initial start-up debt were needed because revisions had caused Midwest Cable's anticipated income and EBITDA to drop significantly. The amounts for deferred taxes and cash were further changed in the October 31, 2014 S-1 filed by Midwest Cable, Inc., reducing deferred taxes to $2.836 billion and cash to zero. Both Midwest and Charter have provided some limited new information in Midwest's S-1, S -1/A and Charter's S-4 (filed on December 9, 2014) but have not provided the Consultants with any supporting information to verify their assertions regarding the going forward revenues, expenses and resulting EBITDA notwithstanding the various requests by the Consultants for that supporting data. Comcast/Charter/Midwest did provide a confidential letter to the Consultants on December 11, 2014 that reiterated the Charter projections contained in the December 9, 2014 Charter S-4 as well as some "averaged" Wall Street consensus forecasts for Midwest.9 If the Transaction was approved, from a financial perspective the Consultants recommend the Participating LFAs obtain protections to reduce or protect against the risks identified above; that ensure that customers will receive adequate service, and that there will be adequate remedies if Charter fails to perform; and that ensures that the Participating LFAs have a remedy if Midwest and or Charter do not perform. For Participating LFAs that have significant past performance issues, it may be appropriate to ensure that Comcast either resolves non- compliance issues prior to consummating the Transfer, or otherwise addresses non-compliance in a way that will not burden Midwest Cable. In addition, the Participating LFAs may wish to ensure that the deal does not change prior to consummation in a way that may harm consumers; and may need to ensure that revenues are not diverted to Charter, and are fully recognized in franchise fees. For example, the management fees paid to Charter should not be deducted from gross revenues before 8 We are not aware of any LFA anywhere that received an amendment to the filed 394. e Attachment G contains the redacted version of the December 11, 2014 letter. 5 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 163 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. computing franchise fees due to the Participating LFAs.10 The Consultants realize that other non-financial conditions and/or agreements might outweigh or mitigate the impact of the possible financial conditions. The Consultants understand that these non-financial conditions/agreements could involve renewal and extensions of current franchise agreements, PEG financial commitments and channel placements and customer service standards. Overview of Transaction Detailed below is a summary chart showing the Comcast -Time Warner -Charter -Midwest Cable transaction. Comcast Comcast to sell — 1.4 M cable subs to Charter Comcast and Charter to swap subs (1.5M to Charter, 1.6M to Comcast) Comcast acquiring Time Warner's — 11.4M cable subs Time Warner co NNN )5. \ 'o6/P'j,, '06s�Cot/ h Charter New Charter formed, debt increasing from $14.1B to $21.86, buys — 33% of SpinCo in exchange for Comcast shareholders getting 13% ownership of Charter. A SpinCo As explained above, the Acquisition is the initial transaction in a series of transactions that are all part of the same deal. When Comcast announced the Acquisition, it also explained that it would divest systems and subscribers to reduce its footprint to 30% or less of MVPD subscribers.11 Comcast proposes to accomplish this through the sale of systems to Charter and the spin-off of systems to a new company, identified as SpinCo (aka Midwest Cable d/b/a 10 The Consultants are not aware of Midwest Cable or Charter making such a claim at this time. However, protections can be made to prevent this in the future by specifically addressing it in the definition of gross revenues for franchise fees and PEG. 11 See Comcast's Public Interest Benefits Summary of February 13, 2014. 6 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 164 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. GreatLand Connections, Inc.). In addition, Comcast is "swapping" systems with Charter to consolidate its holding in certain areas of the country. (See the public disclosure of April 28, 2014, "Comcast and Charter Reach Agreement on Divestitures".) As explained above, we refer to the composite of all of the transactions as the Transactions. SpinCo was recently created by Comcast to effectuate the spin-off of these 2.5 million subscribers from Comcast into this new, to be publically traded cable company. One reason Comcast has proposed this new SpinCo was to bring down the number of video subscribers that Comcast controls to under 30% of the marketplace, a prior FCC threshold no longer in effect. In the SpinCo structure proposed, Comcast will have no direct ownership of SpinCo as Comcast's contribution of 2.5 million subscribers will be accomplished by a spin-off of SpinCo. Existing Comcast shareholders will receive SpinCo (Midwest Cable) stock, initially owning 100%. Charter Communications will swap 13% of its ownership shares with SpinCo shareholders resulting in Charter Communications owning 33% of SpinCo. In this fashion, Comcast Corporation has no attributable interest in SpinCo or in Charter. The SpinCo structure also includes the Charter Service Agreement ("CSA") between Charter and Midwest Cable to allow Charter to assumedly provide much of the engineering, technical, accounting, billing, etc. support functions for Midwest Cable. This is turn would make Midwest Cable potentially a very small employee -based company compared to a traditional cable company. For this service support, Charter will charge Midwest Cable a service fee of 4.25% of its gross revenues plus the cost of the services rendered. Unlike franchise fees that are only applied to cable gross revenues, this service fee will be applied to all gross revenues including data and VoIP revenues. Additionally, Midwest Cable will also have a Transition Service Agreement ("TSA") with Comcast to provide specified transitional services to Midwest Cable for periods of up to eighteen (18) months. Comcast has stated that charges to Midwest Cable for the TSA -based services will be at Comcast's incremental costs of providing the services. Midwest Cable will also have a Separation Agreement with Comcast that will address legal matters regarding the spin-off and tax and debt issues. Midwest Cable will have to secure new debt to pay Comcast for the debt associated with the spun -off 2.5 million subscribers, which is reported to be approximately $7.8 billion, although it is limited to 5 times Midwest Cable's "financing" EBITDA. In its May 2014 S -4/A and the original FCC Form 394, Comcast identified this new debt level to be acquired by Midwest Cable to be $8.8 billion. As currently described in filed documents, the new debt to be acquired by Midwest Cable is estimated to be approximately $7.8 billion based on a 5.0 times estimated 2014 EBITDA.12 This is a substantial reduction in the debt that Midwest Cable will be issuing and, as described more fully below, includes potential contingencies that Charter will have to participate in additional financing if Midwest Cable is unable to secure this new debt. Essentially the debt being issued by Midwest 12 See Charter's S-4 filed December 9, 2014. © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 165 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Cable will allow Comcast to lower its own debt as the Midwest Cable debt will be exchanged for current Comcast debt. Should Midwest's "financing" EBITDA not support the level of $7.8 billion, since it is limited to 5 times by the terms of the Transactions, any reduction will be absorbed by Comcast in the spin-off. Review Methodology The Consultants have employed a seven step approach to its financial review of the Transactions that include: 1) a review of publicly available information on the Transactions, 2) a review of the FCC Form 394s filed with each of the Participating LFAs, 3) an initial assessment of the financial impacts of the Acquisition, 4) a development of an initial and follow-up data requests related to the Form 394 and underlying documents, 5) an assessment of the data provided by the companies to the data requests, 6) an independent assessment of the resulting financial impacts of the Acquisition and 7) providing this report to the Participating LFAs explaining our analyses and conclusions. In addition, the findings of this report have been discussed with Comcast, Midwest Cable and Charter prior to release. Consideration of the Franchisor The Franchisor may consider many aspects of the transaction of the transfer. When the transfer is to a different company, these considerations include the "legal, financial, technical and character qualifications of the transferee." In the case of a transfer of interest, the franchisor may consider the public interest impact of the transaction if that is permitted by local franchise or state law. For example, the language of Comcast's current franchise with one Minnesota city states: 121.(d). For the purpose of determining whether it shall consent to a transfer, except as federal law prohibits it from doing so, the city may inquire into the qualification of the prospective transferee, and the company shall assist the council in any such inquiry. The proposed transferee must show financial responsibility as determined by the city and must agree to comply with all provisions of the franchise. A request for a transfer will not be granted unless the council determines, in light of the record before it, including the transfer application, that: 121.(d).(1). there will be no adverse effect on the public interest, or the city's interest; 121.(d).(2). the transferee will agree to be bound by all the conditions of the franchise and to assume all the obligations of its predecessor; and 121.(d).(3). any outstanding compliance and compensation issues have been resolved or are preserved to the satisfaction of the city. 121.(e). The consent or approval of the council to any transfer shall not constitute a waiver or release of the rights of the city, and any transfer shall, by its terms, 8 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 166 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. be expressly subordinate to the terms and conditions of the franchise and any amendments or agreements related thereto. 121.(f). In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the council will not approve any transfer prior to substantial completion of the system upgrade required by Article III. 121.(g). In no event shall any transfer be approved without transferee becoming a signatory to the franchise, and any amendments or agreements related thereto. As the above referenced franchise states and Federal law also suggests, a franchising authority may consider franchise compliance in connection with a transfer, and the effect of the transaction on competition in the provision of cable services. One of the key elements of any transfer review is a consideration of the "financial, technical and legal" qualifications of the franchise holder post -transaction. Section 617 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ("Cable Act"), 47 U.S.C. Sec. the FCC developed a form that specifies the initial information companies 537 to trigger applicable deadlines for review of a proposed acquisition or merger. The FCC -required information is focused on permitting localities to assess the financial, technical and legal qualifications of the franchise holder post- transaction.13 Section 617 states: A franchising authority shall, if the franchise requires franchising authority approval of a sale or transfer, have 120 days to act upon any request for approval of such sale or transfer that contains or is accompanied by such information as is required in accordance with Commission regulations and by the franchising authority. If the franchising authority fails to render a final decision on the request within 120 days, such request shall be deemed granted unless the requesting party and the franchising authority agree to an extension of time. Additionally, the Code of Federal Regulations states in 47 CFR § 76.502: Time limits applicable to franchise authority consideration of transfer applications. a) A franchise authority shall have 120 days from the date of submission of a completed FCC Form 394, together with all exhibits, and 13 While the FCC's form is focused on financial, technical and legal qualifications, it does not override local requirements or substantive standards for review. An application for a transfer should include the specific information required by the form, as well as information required by local ordinances and franchises governing transfers. © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 167 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. any additional information required by the terms of the franchise agreement or applicable state or local law to act upon an application to sell, assign, or otherwise transfer controlling ownership of a cable system. b) A franchise authority that questions the accuracy of the information provided under paragraph (a) must notify the cable operator within 30 days of the filing of such information, or such information shall be deemed accepted, unless the cable operator has failed to provide any additional information reasonably requested by the franchise authority within 10 days of such request. c) If the franchise authority fails to act upon such transfer request within 120 days, such request shall be deemed granted unless the franchise authority and the requesting party otherwise agree to an extension of time. From the perspective of local franchising authorities and consumers, the financial issues surrounding a merger or other transfer has less to do with whether someone may profit from a transaction and more to do with the potential impact of the transaction on current and future operations and cable subscribers. If, for example, a company pays too much for a cable system, it may be forced to raise rates, reduce franchise obligations, cut back on day-to-day customer services or take other steps to cut costs or increase revenues to achieve its targeted financial results. If, for example, a company is required to assume debt as part of a transaction, that could affect the company's ability to issue debt in the future, and may limit the company's ability to finance service or system expansions, upgrades and improvements. If, for example, a transaction has significant "transition costs" - costs associated with changing over internal systems, changing out customer premises equipment, making the systems operationally and administratively consistent, training and severing employees, etc. — the company must have enough cash on hand and sufficient cash flow to cover normal expenses but also the expected expenses and losses that can be anticipated to accompany the transaction, while maintaining debt service covenants and ratios that will allow the company to obtain any needed additional debt for equipment, system expansions and operational changes. Otherwise, the company is either likely to become financially unstable, or must respond with actions that affect the quality (and price) of cable services immediately and into the future. One should not and cannot just assume that a deal involving experienced cable operators is a sound deal particularly when these cable operators are merging established companies, each with its own established traditions and methodologies. Experienced cable operators can and do go bankrupt, as was the case with Adelphia Communications filing bankruptcy in 2002 and Charter in 2009. Complicating Circumstances in this Transaction In this case, the financial analyses are complicated by at least three factors. First, we need to analyze the financial position of Midwest Cable after the Spin-off. Midwest Cable -owned subsidiaries will own the local systems, and if the Spin-off results in insufficient 10 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 168 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. cash flow, it will impact Midwest Cable's borrowing capabilities, redirects capital resources to transitional operations, etc. As a result, customers and franchise obligations may suffer. Financial detail of the spun off company has only been provided in summary and based on internal accounting allocations when these systems were part of Comcast, not as if Midwest Cable is a separate operating company. The emphasis included in the outside auditor's report, by Deloitte & Touche, LLP, dated October 24, 2014 contain the following caution: "As discussed in Note 1 [to the audited financial statements], the Company [Midwest Cable] is an integrated business of Comcast Corporation and is not a stand-alone entity. The accompanying combined financial statements reflect the assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses directly attributable to the Company, as well as allocations deemed reasonable by Comcast Corporation management, and do not necessarily reflect the combined financial position, results of operation, and cash flows that would have resulted had the Company been operated as a stand-alone entity during the periods presented." (Midwest Cable S-1 dated October 31, 2014, page F-2) As discussed below, the overall concern is that the data presented initially and as revised by Comcast and Midwest Cable are NOT financial statements reflecting Midwest Cable as a separate operating company but rather an allocation of what Midwest Cable financial results were as part of Comcast using Comcast "shared" services, management team, programming contracts, etc. Second, the Transactions also include the acquisition of former Time Warner and Comcast franchises in the Sale and Swaps between Comcast and Charter. Charter's operating efficiencies will be impacted as it transitions new systems from Time Warner and Comcast into "new" Charter and also provides services for systems that will be owned or operated by Midwest Cable. Midwest Cable will be dependent upon Charter for a multitude of day-to-day operating activities. To the extent new Charter struggles with the increased debt load it will acquire as part of these acquisitions and the integration of these new franchises into new Charter, the level of services being provided by new Charter to Midwest Cable could be impacted. A recent S -1/A filed by Liberty Broadband, a 26% owner of Charter explains the risk factors. Among other things, "Charter has a significant amount of debt and may incur significant additional debt, including secured debt, in the future, which could adversely affect its financial health and ability to react to changes in its business." Liberty goes on to note that "If current debt amounts increase, the related risks that Charter faces will intensify." The proposed transaction does increase Charter debt. With respect to the Comcast -Charter -Midwest deal, the S -1/A states: "Charter's management will be required to devote a significant amount of time and attention to the process of integrating the operations of the acquired assets with Charter's pre -Comcast Transactions operations. There is a significant degree of difficulty and management involvement inherent in that process. These difficulties include: 11 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 169 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. • integrating the operations of the acquired assets while carrying on the ongoing operations of the businesses Charter operated prior to the Comcast Transactions; • integrating information, purchasing, provisioning, accounting, finance, sales, billing, payroll, reporting and regulatory compliance systems; • integrating and unifying the product offerings and services available to customers, including customer premise equipment and video user interfaces; • managing a significantly larger company than before consummation of the Comcast Transactions; • integrating separate business cultures; • attracting and retaining the necessary personnel associated with the acquired assets; • creating uniform standards, controls, procedures, policies and information systems and controlling the costs associated with such matters; and • the impact on Charter's business of providing services to GreatLand Connections, Inc. which will also face the foregoing difficulties. Charter and Comcast have agreed to provide each other with transition services in connection with the transferred systems and relevant assets. Providing such services could divert management attention and result in additional costs, particularly as Charter starts up infrastructure and staff to take over transitional services and provides transition services to Comcast for former Charter systems. In addition, the inability to procure such services on reasonable terms or at all could negatively impact Charter's expected results of operations. If Charter's management is not able to effectively manage the integration process, or if any significant business activities are interrupted as a result of the integration process, Charter's business could suffer and its liquidity, results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely impacted. Of course, the fact that these risk factors exist does not mean that Charter believes it will fail, or that it will be unable to address the risk factors. Some of the risks are common to any transaction, and not just this one. But the statement of risk factors does recognize that there are likely to be significant additional costs associated with the transactions that are not reflected in historical data, and it does suggest that there is reason for an LFA to approach the transaction cautiously. Third, the company refused to provide meaningful information regarding future costs to Midwest Cable or to Charter, or information regarding expected cash flows, despite repeated requests. As part of a financial analysis, the Consultants will typically seek information sufficient to allow the Consultants to evaluate the company's (in this case, Midwest Cable) operations against standard industry metrics, and to determine (i) the impacts on cash flow from each of these deals and (ii) what sort of cash flows would be required to meet operational 12 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 170 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. and capital expenses of the resulting company and generate the sort of free cash-flow/return on investment expected in the industry. All that has been presented in the FCC Form 394 and made available in public filings are pro forma historical financials (balance sheet, income statement and a simplified cash flow for the first time in the S-1) showing Midwest Cable before the spin-off as operated by Comcast with limited pro forma adjustments from the spin-off (primarily the addition of the debt and the inclusion of the Charter Service Agreement gross revenue fee). No start-up or transition costs have been identified, and no information has been provided as to the costs that Charter will charge Midwest (remember, Charter recovers costs plus 4.25% of gross revenues under its deal with Midwest). Not only is information missing with respect to costs that clearly will be incurred, but the analysis is based on Comcast's performance as operator of the system. That is, the financial information does not show if cash flow will be generated that will allow Midwest Cable to cover transitional and integration costs, without significant impact on rates, consumer service and investment throughout the spun off systems serving the Participating LFAs. Charter's December 9 filed S-4 shows some projected financial data for Midwest Cable. This data cannot be analyzed by Consultants since the supporting detail has not been provided. However, Charter's projections show the following: Midwest Cable Projected14 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenue ($MM) $4,625 $4,809 $5,050 $5,378 $5,728 $6,043 EBITDA $1,558 $1,575 $1,609 $1,713 $1,825 $1,925 CapEx ($MM) $735 $818 $808 $753 $773 $786 Cash Flow Before Finance and Tax (EBITDA less CapEx) ($MM) $823 $757 $801 $960 $1,052 $1,139 These Charter projections appear to be projections of what Charter believes the financial results of Midwest will be as a stand-alone entity as opposed to the financial results of Midwest as part of Comcast but cannot be reviewed or verified by the Consultants because Charter has refused to provide supporting detail. Analysis of projected financials and cash flow would provide a basis for conclusions on shifts in revenues, expenses and capital budgets from the Transactions. Changes in revenues could signify rates increases above historical levels. Expense changes could identify changes in services, increased costs for the Transactions or discontinuation of some operations. Capital shifts from investment in customer premises equipment to distribution plant might suggest problems in providing enhanced services in legacy Comcast systems. Simply put, the financial 14 Charter S-4 of December 9, 2015. 13 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 171 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. information provided to the Participating LFAs in the FCC Form 394, the multiple Comcast S- 4/A's and the Midwest S-1 and S -1/A provide historical financial information on what Midwest Cable would look like as part of Comcast and not as a standalone entity. The Midwest S-1 and S -1/A contain financial information related to "shared" facilities costs from Comcast that will not continue after the spin-off and may or may not be replaced by new costs to Midwest Cable and/or part of the Charter Service Agreement ("CSA") and the Comcast Transition Service Agreement ("TSA"). It appears unlikely that Midwest would be able to replicate Comcast's performance, but the "financial qualifications" showing made by the company effectively is based on the assumption that Midwest Cable will be able to do so. Efforts to Obtain Additional Information Comcast filed with the SEC Form S -4/A on May 23, 2014 and established a data link on its website for "public information" associated with the Transactions. The S -4/A contained basic information about the Transactions, including the anticipated spinoff of Midwest Cable, e.g., balance sheets and income statements in summary form showing Comcast, the adjustments to spinoff Midwest Cable, the adjustments associated with the Swaps with Charter, the adjustments associated with the Sale to Charter and the resulting financials of Comcast after the Transactions. The FCC Form 394s for the transfer of the franchise from Comcast to Midwest Cable was filed with the Participating LFAs on or about June 17, 2014 and relied on the same data as in the May 23 S -4/A. Each of the Participating LFAs within 30 days provided a letter to the identified contact at Comcast explaining the deficiencies in the filed 394 and requesting additional information on the transfer and the financial aspects of the transaction. Comcast responded on or about July 28, 2014 providing no financial information typically stating "(t)he requested information falls outside the scope of this proceeding" and to refer the Participating LFAs to a website of publically available information which contained copies of SEC and FCC filings. Comcast's non-financial responses typically included statements such as: • "We disagree with the suggestion in your letter that the Application was incomplete or inaccurate." • "Midwest Cable does not yet own these properties and has not yet established definitive plans for future operations." • "At this time, Midwest Cable has not developed any specific plans that would impact operations or facilities for the member communities served by the Commission." • "This request exceeds the scope of permissible review of the Form 394 because it seeks information about broadband services, which are outside the Commission's regulatory authority." • "We can assure you, however, that if any change is made, it will be undertaken in manner that minimizes disruption to existing subscribers." 14 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 172 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. • "Midwest Cable does not have any current plans to change ..." On behalf of the Participating LFAs, the Consultants sent a follow-up request to Comcast, Charter and Midwest Cable on August 13, 2014. Without making any promises or commitments to providing additional information, Comcast and Midwest Cable by letter of August 22, 2014 granted each of the Participating LFAs "a 60 -day extension to December 15, 2014, to complete review of the pending Form 394 Application." On August 25, 2014, without any notice to the Participating LFAs, Comcast filed a SEC Form S - 4/A that contained significant changes to the financial aspects of the spinoff of Midwest Cable, e.g., initial start-up debt was decreased from $8.8 billion to $7.8 billion, operating income was decreased by 11.8%. The Consultants provided an additional request on September 3 to address questions raised by the August 25 S -4/A. The August 25 S -4/A was further corrected by Comcast's S -4/A filed September 3, 2014. On September 30, 2014 Comcast (without responding to the August 13 request) explained that due to the 11.8% reduction in carve out "Operating Income" and the resulting flow-through to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) that Midwest Cable could not support the original start-up debt of $8.8 billion requiring it to be decreased to $7.8 billion.15 Comcast acknowledged that the "enterprise value" of Midwest Cable had decreased to $13 billion from the $14.3 billion amount put forth by Comcast in April 2014. Comcast also revealed for the first time narrative describing generally the "transition services" Comcast would provide to Midwest Cable "on an incremental cost basis." No additional information was provided on what those costs would be. As previously explained in public documents, the letter explained that Charter would provide services to Midwest Cable under the "Charter Services Agreement" ("CSA") and stated "Charter will provide a variety of services to Midwest Cable in exchange for cost reimbursement at actual economic cost with no markup." Again, no specific cost data was provided since the CSA had not been finalized. The letter stated that the Midwest Cable S-1 filing with the SEC was "expected to be filed by October 31, 2014." Finally, the letter stated that "Comcast and Midwest Cable are together granting an additional one- month extension to January 15, 2015." The Participating LFAs jointly responded to Comcast's September 30 letter on October 10, 2014. The Participating LFAs' October 10 letter again included financial requests of Comcast, Midwest Cable and Charter, basically the August 13 requests updated to reflect the information in Comcast's September 30 letter, and explained that "it is very important" the October 31 response to the LFAs "include responses to pending data requests" and a revised Exhibit 6 to the filed FCC Form 394. Comcast responded by letter dated October 21, 2014 making it clear is $8.2 of the $8.8 billion was to be paid to Comcast and $600 million retained by Midwest Cable as start-up cash. The S -4/A shows all of the $7.8 billion going to Comcast and there has not been any explanation of the resulting $400 million reduction in the payment to Comcast or the lack of any start-up cash for Midwest Cable. 15 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 173 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. that the requests would not be specifically responded to, that it was planning to publicly release the audited and unaudited financial statements in the Midwest Cable Form S-1 by October 31, 2014 and that, upon execution of "an appropriate confidentiality agreement," these documents could be provided to the Consultants.16 The confidentiality agreement ("CA") was executed on October 24. The Midwest Cable, Inc. "audited" combined financial statements as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 were provided plus the condensed combined financial statements for the 6 months ended June 30, 2014. Since these documents were made public 7 days later, the only thing executing the CA did was allow the Consultants to view them a week early. As it turned out these was nothing new or meaningful in these documents. No financial information was provided on Midwest Cable's costs from Comcast under the transition agreement and no financial information was provided on Charter's charges to Midwest Cable. No adjustments were made to reflect Charter's costs. For example, Midwest Cable will be receiving programming under Charter's contracts and at Charter's costs, which are different than Comcast's programming and Comcast's costs, but no adjustment was made or even discussed in these financials. The Consultants immediately responded back to Comcast requesting more detail and pro forma data for the calendar year 2014. On October 31, Midwest Cable filed its S-1 with SEC that included the financial data provided to the Consultants on October 24. No additional financial information or explanations were provided that had not already been made public. On November 7, Comcast emailed the TSA (see Attachment C) by and between Comcast Corporation and Midwest Cable, Inc., 48 Statements of Work ("SOWs") prepared in connection with the TSA and the CSA (see Attachment B) by and between Midwest Cable, Inc. and Charter Communications Operating, LLC. These documents again described the services that would be provided but did not provide any cost data that had not already been made public.17 The TSA and CSA are current drafts of these documents and have not been signed by either party and according to the S-1 are subject to material changes. Attachment A provides samples of each of the documents referenced in the above discussion. The publicly available information provided directly to the LFAs, or made available on the web by the companies has been provided to meet requirements of Federal regulatory agencies and shareholders. It is not designed to meet the needs of the Participating LFAs trying to assess the financial impacts of the Acquisition, Sale, Swaps and Transfers, and as suggested above, in this 16 It should be noted that starting with the Participating LFAs initial response to the 394 by letters generally dated on or around July 17, Comcast was told that the Consultants were willing to execute a confidentiality agreement with Comcast to protect confidential information from release. The October 21 letter was the first time Comcast had responded to the offer. 17 The TSA, SOW and CSA are not included in Attachment A. 16 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 174 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. case clearly omits information relevant to an analysis of Midwest's capabilities as a standalone company. In sum: the Participating LFAs made requests of Comcast/Charter/Midwest Cable for the required additional information. However, Comcast largely did not provide any additional detail and, again, only referenced the publically available information. As we explain below, the Consultants therefore developed an analysis of Midwest's position based on the information that was provided, adjusted conservatively for costs that Midwest will incur. The Consultants had a conference call with Comcast, Midwest Cable and Charter on December 15, 2014 to discuss this report. While criticisms were made by Comcast and Charter, little additional information was provided in the call or in subsequent correspondence. This report, where appropriate, addresses the comments of Comcast, Midwest Cable and Charter. Changes were made based on clarifying information provided. Overview of Midwest Cable Midwest Cable, Inc. was created as an operating subsidiary of Comcast Corporation18 as part of the overall Transactions to house the cable systems that were being transferred to Midwest Cable assuming the approval of the merger. Midwest Cable, following the spin-off, will issue classes of common stock to each shareholder of Comcast's Class A, Class A Special and Class B common shareholders shares of Midwest Cable Class A and Class A-1 common stock. The Class A-1 will be converted in New Charter common stock whereby the Comcast shareholders will own approximately 13 percent (13%) of New Charter. After all of these technical and complicated stock transactions, the resulting ownership of Midwest Cable will be approximately sixty-seven percent (67%) will be owned by Comcast's three current classes of common stock and approximately thirty-three percent (33%) owned by New Charter directly.19 The shares of Midwest Cable will be publically traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol "GLCI." Midwest Cable will be a separate stand-alone company with its own Board of Directors and Management team with two major caveats: first, the initial Board is appointed by Comcast and Charter, and second New Charter will be responsible for providing most of Midwest Cable's day-to-day operations under the Charter Service Agreement. Midwest Cable presented the following chart of the post Transaction ownership structure in its S-1. 18 Midwest was formed in May 2014 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast. 19 As the shareholders of Comcast will own 13% of New Charter, the real ownership of Midwest Cable by Comcast shareholders will be 67% plus approximately 4% (New Charter's 33% times Comcast shareholders' 13%) or over 71% of Midwest Cable. 17 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 175 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Structure Following the Transactions Comcast Shareholders Ian �f the regard plate for the r pin -i ff) Charter Stockholders (as or Immediately prior to the transactional. Conicast {indu�inl; sash distributee ervi- c Ca and er.r rrorac Ice uaa,o CnmcaM1 TINC 5ploCct OPEO {owns theSpinCI sYsler n. Imes and lixhlItrlaaralatdn®tothq.Spinco am;, and MAC riciirl710 Charter Midwest presented the following map in its S-1 depicting where approximately 90% of its 2.5 million subscriber base will reside. 18 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 176 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Minneapolis -:5t. Paul 2 WIzGonlin 1 GI and Rapids -Kala Hattie creels Misstep Arlrartsas Lansing Flint-5aginaly-Bay City 7 Indianaiclis '--Ft."4Nalioe • Tennessee f414ati,sipPI 4Uana Ietlalarna Weal Virglrria Tri -Cities iTN ii 1111, 10. Nr , Carotin thattandoga Sough Careiln�� Geafgia Vr The three largest clusters for Midwest Cable appear to be in the metropolitan areas including and surrounding Detroit (28%), Indianapolis (14%) and Minneapolis -Saint Paul (22%). The Board of Directors initial make-up is very interesting as Comcast has appointed three (3) of the Board members, New Charter has appointed three (3) members and Comcast has selected three (3) members from a list presented by New Charter. Mr. Michael S. Willner (previously CEO of Insight Communications, which was sold to Time Warner in 2012) will serve as President and CEO of Midwest Cable. Mr. Thomas M. Rutledge (currently President and CEO of Charter Communications) will become the Chairman of the Board of Midwest Cable. The September 30, 2014 letters sent to the Participating LFAs details other executive management employees that are to be part of Midwest Cable. As a result, it is not unreasonable to assume that the direction of Board of Directors and the executive management team will be greatly aligned with the strategy being used by Comcast and Charter. 19 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 177 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Midwest in its S-1 has identified "risks" associated with this Transaction. They identified the following risk factors: • We currently face a wide range of competitors, and our business and results of operations could be adversely affected if we do not compete effectively. • Newer technologies and services are driving changes in consumer behavior, which may increase the number of competitors we face and adversely affect our businesses. • Our programming expenses may increase materially following the spin-off. • Programming expenses for our video services are increasing, which could adversely affect our businesses. • We face risks inherent in our commercial business. • Our business depends on keeping pace with technological developments. • We are subject to regulation by federal, state and local authorities, which may impose additional costs and restrictions on our businesses. • Changes to existing statutes, rules, regulations, or interpretations thereof, or adoption of new ones, could have an adverse effect on our business. • Tax legislation and administrative initiatives or challenges to our tax positions could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. • A decline in advertising expenditures or changes in advertising markets could negatively impact our businesses. • We rely on network and information systems, properties and other technologies, and a disruption, cyber attack, failure or destruction of such networks, systems, properties or technologies may disrupt or have an adverse effect on our business. • Weak economic conditions may have a negative impact on our business. • We may be unable to obtain necessary hardware, software and operational support. • We may be unable to maintain intellectual property protection for our products and services. • Our cable system franchises are subject to non -renewal or termination. The failure to renew a franchise in one or more key markets could adversely affect our business. • The effect of changes to healthcare laws in the United States may increase the number of employees who choose to participate in our healthcare plans, which may significantly increase our healthcare costs and negatively impact our financial results. Midwest has identified additional risk factors associated with the Transaction. They identified the following risk factors. 20 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 178 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. • We have no operating history as a separate company and may be unable to maintain our operating results at historical levels after becoming a stand-alone company. • As a stand-alone company, we expect to expend additional time and resources to comply with rules and regulations that do not currently apply to us. • Our historical and pro forma financial information may not be indicative of our future results as a separate company. • The combined post -distribution value of Comcast, our and New Charter shares of common stock may not equal or exceed the pre -distribution value of Comcast shares of common stock. • The transactions are subject to certain conditions, and therefore the transactions may not be consummated on the terms or timeline currently contemplated. • After the transactions, certain members of management, directors and stockholders may face actual or potential conflicts of interest. • The indemnification arrangements we entered into with Comcast in connection with the transactions may require us to divert cash to satisfy indemnification obligations to Comcast. In addition, Comcast's indemnity to us may not be sufficient to insure us against the full amount of liabilities for which it will be allocated responsibility, and Comcast may not be able to satisfy its indemnification obligations to us in the future. • Transfer or assignment to us of certain contracts and other assets may require the consent of a third party. If such consent is not given, we may not be entitled to the benefit of such contracts and other assets in the future. • Our financial results may be impacted in the event we no longer receive services from Comcast or Charter. • If the spin-off and SpinCo merger, together with certain related transactions, do not qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes, holders of Comcast common stock and Comcast could be subject to significant tax liability. • If the spin-off is taxable to Comcast and Comcast is not at fault or is not otherwise indemnified by New Charter under the tax matters agreement, we will generally be required to indemnify Comcast; the obligation to make a payment on this indemnification obligation could have a material adverse effect on us. • We may be affected by significant restrictions following the spin-off and SpinCo merger in order to avoid triggering significant tax -related liabilities. Finally Midwest has identified several risk factors associated with their indebtedness. 21 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 179 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. • In connection with the transactions, we expect to incur indebtedness, which could adversely affect our financial condition and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under anticipated agreements governing our indebtedness. • We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service our indebtedness and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness, which may not be successful. • We may not be able to access the credit and capital markets at the times and in the amounts needed and on acceptable terms. • The terms of the agreements governing our indebtedness are expected to restrict our current and future operations, particularly our ability to respond to changes or to take certain actions, which could harm our long-term interests. In any S-1, "risk factors" are identified to alert potential stockholders as to risks associated with a transaction, and, in many, risk factors are common to any merger. However, what the risks do show is what may happen if a company has excessive debt, is undercapitalized, has insufficient operating capital, or lacks the infrastructure and resources necessary to provide services itself. The question, then is whether the companies have shown that the Transfer is structured in such a way that there no real risk of non-performance or failure to perform as now required or as may be required to meet future needs, and no significant risk of harms to subscribers (in the form of increased rates, reduced services or poor customer service). Four significant aspects of Midwest Cable's new structure will be: (1) issuance of approximately $7.8 billion of new debt20, (2) entering into the Charter Service Agreement, (3) entering into the Comcast Transition Service Agreement and (4) assuming approximately $600 million in deferred tax liability associated with non -intangible assets. Midwest Cable has presented in its S-1 that the shareholder equity on a book basis at the time of spin-off be approximately a negative $2 billion. This negative equity coupled with the $10.6 billion of long term liabilities (debt and deferred taxes) suggests a new company saddled with a significant hill to climb before shareholders will see positive earnings results.21 Impacts to the Participating LFAs could be difficulty in funding needed equipment, upgrades and promised franchise -related expenditures, fixing non-compliance issues and increases in rates. The two service agreements, the CSA22 and the TSA,23 are very important in understanding the management of Midwest Cable on a stand-alone basis. Midwest Cable will enter into a service 20 See note 5 above. 21 A more complete discussion of the debt level and deferred taxes is contained in the following section discussion Midwest's Financial Qualifications. 22 23 See Attachment B. See Attachment C. 22 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 180 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. agreement, the TSA, with Comcast to provide a multitude of transitional services to Midwest Cable as it transitions from being Comcast owned and managed systems to a stand-alone entity at the time of spin-off. The S-1 description24 of the TSA is: The nature and scope of the transition services will be as set forth in the transition services agreement and will otherwise be substantially consistent with the nature and scope of such services as provided by Comcast and its subsidiaries to the SpinCo systems immediately before the effective date of the spin-off. If, after the effective time of the spin-off, we identify additional services that are not provided under the transition services agreement (other than because Comcast and we agreed that those services would not be provided), and certain other conditions are met, Comcast and its subsidiaries will provide those services as they can reasonably provide and those services that Comcast and its subsidiaries provide will become transition services under the transition services agreement. Promptly following entry into the transition services agreement, we and Comcast will develop a joint migration plan, which will target completion of the migration of certain transition services to us or our designees by not later than the first anniversary of the effective date of the spin-off. In consideration for the transition services, the transition services agreement will provide that we will reimburse and pay to Comcast and its subsidiaries their actual, incremental costs (without overhead allocation) of providing the transition services (including in connection with the migration of the transition services). While there has been no presentation of the estimated costs associated with this TSA included in the financial data supporting this Transaction, we find the inclusion of the incremental cost language and no overhead allocation to be a positive position for Midwest Cable. Having said that, many of the items that Comcast will be providing will only allow Midwest Cable to have a limited time to decide whether to include these services under the CSA or require Midwest Cable to internally provide these services. For example, if Comcast was providing any general accounting services to Midwest Cable for a fixed time period, Midwest Cable will be required if not covered by the CSA to develop these internal accounting systems to replace those being provided by Comcast under the TSA. This will require capital and significant management time and effort to take an empty shell company and bring it up to a fully functioning stand-alone company. Historically in the cable industry, mergers and acquisitions occurred where the surviving party was already a functioning operating company with all necessary back-office operations. That is not the case with Midwest Cable. The financial information provided about Midwest Cable in this spinoff does not reflect these potentially significant start-up costs that will be required. Additionally, the S-1 contains the following caveat: 24 See pages 68 and 69 of the Midwest S-1. 23 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 181 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. The terms of the transition services agreement have not yet been finalized; changes, some of which may be material, may be made to the terms of the transition services agreement before it is finalized, including to the terms described above. You should read the full text of the transition services agreement, which will be filed with the SEC as an exhibit to the registration statement into which this prospectus is incorporated. As a result, the Consultants caution the Participating LFAs that this TSA needs to be fully understood especially with respect to the ongoing costs to Midwest Cable and the efforts Midwest Cable will need to accomplish in order to self -provision these TSA services within the estimated one-year term of the TSA. These costs to Midwest Cable could be significant and may result in capital expenditures and operational expenses to be diverted from day to day operations, like franchise compliance, in order to get this start-up company fully functioning. The CSA is a much different agreement. Instead of being short-term in nature the CSA is for a minimum of three (3) years with automatic renews for one year periods. The services to be provided under the CSA include: • Corporate Services; • Network Operations; • Engineering and IT; • Voice Operations • Field Operations Support Services • Customer Service; • Billing and Collections • Product Services; • Marketing Services; • Sales; • Business Intelligence; and • Intellectual Property Licensing. From this list it would appear that the CSA will cover virtually all of the day-to-day operations except for HR, Legal, Finance and Accounting and Government Affairs. The CSA provides the following compensation terms for Midwest Cable payments to Charter. In consideration for the services, the Charter services agreement will provide that we will pay to Charter and its subsidiaries the actual, economic costs of providing the services, without markup, which will comprise any direct costs incurred in providing the services and, subject to certain exceptions, an allocated portion of the compensation and overhead expenses incurred in providing the services. We will also reimburse Charter and 24 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 182 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. its subsidiaries for out-of-pocket costs incurred in providing the services. In addition, in consideration for certain rights, including the rights to purchase goods and services, and the rights to obtain programming services, under Charter's third party procurement and programming agreements, we will pay Charter a services fee equal to 4.25% of our gross revenues. Different from the TSA which provides for incremental costs without overhead, the CSA provides for a flat percentage of gross revenues (including non -cable revenues) at 4.25 % plus direct costs, out-of-pocket costs and allocated overhead expenses. Based on 2013 gross revenues, Midwest Cable has estimated the 4.25% service to be approximately $190 million exclusive of any direct and allocated overhead costs. It does appear that Midwest Cable will be relying on new Charter's programming agreements to provide the necessary video programming to the Midwest Cable systems. While there has been no estimate of the potential programming cost increases provided by Comcast, Charter or Midwest Cable as a result of Midwest Cable subscriber's losing the expected lower programming costs from Comcast to the new Charter programming costs, sources from Wall Street reportedly estimate the increase to programming to be around $179 million in Midwest Cable first year of operation. If this $179 million is correct, that would mean that each video subscriber will cost Midwest approximately $6.00 per month or approximately 8% to 10% more. It is likely that if the programming costs under the CSA are greater than as part of Comcast, Midwest Cable will likely be incented to raise prices for its products to produce the same net income as it would have under Comcast ownership. In fact the Midwest S-1 states: Prior to the spin-off, programming expenses for our video services were our largest single expense item, even with the benefit of lower rates obtained by Comcast due to its scale as being the nation's largest cable operator. Following the spin-off, we will not receive the benefit of Comcast's lower programming rates. We expect that we will obtain our programming primarily through Charter's programming arrangements, as well as through some direct relationships with programmers. As a result, our programming expenses may increase materially due to the loss of benefits attributable to Comcast's scale. The CSA has the same caveat as quoted above in that it is not final and may be revised. In the S- 1, Midwest Cable also describes a second service agreement with Charter that will reverse the roles of the CSA, that is, Midwest Cable providing services to Charter. It is intended to have the same cost reimbursement procedures as the CSA with the notable exception of the elimination of the 4.25% gross revenue fee. Additionally, the S-1 discusses a Separation Agreement between Comcast and Midwest Cable that addresses many corporate transactions and regulatory approvals required as part of the Transfer. Part of the provisions of the Separation Agreement relate to the issuance of the $7.8 billion in new debt to Midwest Cable. The S-1 states: 25 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 183 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. The separation agreement will also provide that we [Midwest Cable] and Comcast will use reasonable best efforts to cause us to incur new indebtedness in an aggregate amount equal to 5.0 times the 2014 EBITDA of the SpinCo systems (as such term is defined by our financing sources for purposes of the financing). The indebtedness will consist of (i) credit facilities to be used to fund cash distributions to Comcast and for our general corporate purposes, and (ii) notes newly issued by us to Comcast, which notes will be used to enable Comcast to complete a debt -for -debt exchange whereby one or more financial institutions are expected to conduct a third -party tender offer for certain of Comcast's publicly -traded debt securities, which is referred to as the "debt tender offer", and will then exchange the tendered debt securities of Comcast for our new notes held by Comcast, which is referred to as the "debt -for -debt exchange." Essentially what will take place is that Comcast will be able to retire its current debt by $7.8 billion and have that become long term debt of Midwest Cable. The $7.8 billion is the latest Comcast estimate of the debt that will be assumed by Midwest Cable, and based on the language above, appears to be based on the 2014 performance of the systems that will be spun - off: that is, the EBITDA, with small adjustments, seems to be based on the performance of the systems as part of Comcast. But the actual EBITDA of the systems post -transaction will be based on Midwest's revenues and costs, which will be affected by the costs of the CSA. Likewise, the financial position of the company as measured by EBITDA as a multiple of debt will be based on Midwest Cable's costs and revenues, not Comcast's costs and revenues. Overview of Charter/New Charter The Consultants have analyzed the current financial picture of Charter Communications as part of the Midwest Cable review because of the significant impact Charter will have on the day-to- day operations of Midwest Cable's systems under the CSA. Under the proposed Transaction, Charter will be swapping with Comcast approximately 1.5 million subscribers, acquiring approximately 1.4 million subscribers from the combined Comcast and Time Warner and managing the Midwest Cable properties covering approximately 2.5 million subscribers. As a result, Charter will be growing from its current 4.4 million subscriber to 5.7 million subscribers and then manage another 2.5 million Midwest Cable subscribers resulting in Charter owning or managing almost double its current subscriber amounts. As we have concluded in the Report on the Comcast Time Warner acquisition, substantial changes in subscribers served from the "Swaps", subscriber growth from the "Purchase" and the 2.5 million of Midwest Cable will require significant senior management attention to assimilate acquired systems into the Charter -way and will also require management attention to properly execute the CSA. Because of these Transactions' impacts and the inter -company relationship with Midwest Cable, the financial qualification of New Charter is an important component of assessing the 26 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 184 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. overall financial qualifications of Midwest Cable.25 Charter emerged from bankruptcy 5 years ago, in November 2009. One of the largest changes to Charter was the restructuring and lowering of its debt levels. If these Transactions are completed, Charter will be returning to a total debt level that is close to its pre -bankruptcy level. Currently, Charter has about $14 billion in long term debt and will be acquiring another $8 billion in long term debt to fund the acquisition of the Comcast -Time Warner 1.4 million subscriber systems. On a per video subscriber basis after the proposed Transactions, Charter will have approximately $22 billion in long term debt and approximately 5.7 million subscribers or $3,900 of debt per video subscriber. This high level of debt does expose New Charter to substantial interest rate risk and a large portion of the long term debt in due within the next five (5) years. New Charter will have a different subscriber base than current Charter. Current Charter has approximately 4.4 million subscribers across the country. Only approximately one-third (1/3) of those current subscribers will exist in new Charter owned and managed systems. Charter will be faced will a difficult task of integrating two-thirds (2/3) of its owned and managed subscribers into the new Charter day-to-day operations and corporate processes. Table 1 below shows the make-up of new Charters subscribers. Table 1 Subscriber Sources26 Subscribers Current Charter Subscribers 4.4 million Current Charter Subscribers Swapped to Comcast (1.6) million Remaining Current Charter Subscribers 2.8 million Comcast Subscribers Swapped to New Charter 1.5 million New Charter Purchased Subscribers from Comcast 1.4 million New Charter Subscribers 5.7 million New Charter Managed Subscribers (Midwest Cable) 2.5 million Total New Charter Owned and Managed Subscribers 8.2 million Of primary concern to Midwest Cable will be the ability of new Charter to provide at least the same level of day-to-day services to Midwest Cable subscribers as Comcast is currently providing. While the CSA does provide Charter almost $200 million in additional revenues 25 26 The technical and legal qualifications are also important, but as noted above, this report is focused on a financial review of the transaction. See April 28, 2014 Investor Presentation 27 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 185 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. (under the 4.25% gross revenue portion alone), Charter's management structure and back- office systems could be over taxed by the addition of another 2.5 million managed subscribers, while incorporating the almost 3 million new subscribers acquired. Such pressures could affect new Charter's performance under the CSA. From what has been presented in the CSA, it does not appear that there are any performance standards that new Charter must meet in order to get the payments. As a result, Charter will have financial incentives to limit the resources devoted to providing services pursuant to the CSA, and Midwest Cable appears to have no simple mechanism for ensuring that Charter will perform to standards required under the franchise (and no obvious way to correct service deficiencies using its own employees). To be sure, the companies argue that because Charter owns a significant stake in Midwest Cable, it will have an incentive to ensure that the company does well. In short, there is no assurance in the deal documents that Charter will perform adequately, and Midwest Cable, because of its obligations under the CSA, may not have the financial wherewithal or the ability to deliver adequate services. Midwest Cable Financial Qualifications The Consultants relied on publicly available information and their 40+ years of combined experience in preparing this analysis. Typically, evaluations of cable companies are driven based on cash flow, i.e., the cash generated by the entity indicate its financial health. As noted above, in this case, Comcast, Charter and Midwest Cable have not provided any meaningful cash flow analyses relative to system cash flow after the Spin-off is completed, and instead have relied on historical data based on Comcast's performance. The Comcast's latest S -4/A of September 3 and Midwest Cable S-1 of October 31, 2014 provide the most update and detailed historical financial data publically available. The S-1 provides a simplified cash flow that simply shows that Midwest Cable has no cash because it is all transferred to Comcast. This is also shown on Midwest Cable's balance sheet in the S-1 with no cash shown for any period. On December 9, 2014, Charter filed a S-4 that contained information concerning Midwest Cable. As discussed above on page 14 and shown in the table, Charter prepared projections based on the historical data from the Comcast S -4/A and Midwest Cable S-1 plus some adjustments associated with Midwest Cable as a stand-alone company taking service under the CSA. The Consultants have not been provided detail supporting the projections. Of major concern is the lack of support for programming cost changes and the cost adjustments related to Charter providing services under the CSA. While historical data for Charter shows it has higher operational costs per subscriber than Comcast, the adjustments Charter has made in its projections for Midwest Cable seem to indicate that costs under the CSA, the TSA and Midwest Cable's executive staff will be about the same amount as the costs of Comcast that are being replaced. The Consultants do not believe that is logical or supportable. Attachment F to this report shows the higher costs per subscriber that Charter incurs compared to Comcast. With respect to total operating expenses, Charter incurs between $18 to $22 more costs per subscriber than Comcast. Assuming Charter's costs will replace the current Comcast costs, 28 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 186 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Midwest will see additional pressure to raise rates and/or reduce services in order to achieve its EBITDA goals. Throughout this review, the Consultants have notified the Participating LFAs and, through the requests for information, Comcast and Midwest Cable that additional information needed to be provided. We also pointed out that the FCC Form 394 filing was premature. These concerns have been verified over the course of this review. • Charter will providing services at "actual economic cost with no markup" generally described in the documents provided, but the agreement for these services is still not final and the costs that Midwest Cable must bear from this agreement are still not known. Midwest Cable will pay Charter a "management fee" of 4.25% but it is still unclear how that fee will interact with the services provided at cost. Our assumption is that it will not have any impact, that no services are included for that fee. • Comcast will be providing "transitional services" but those, again, are only generally described. And, again, the agreement is not final and the costs to Midwest Cable are unknown. • The financial data of Exhibit 6 provided in the filed FCC Form 394 has changed dramatically in documentation from Comcast and Midwest Cable. Start-up cash has decreased from $600 million to zero. Debt has decreased from $8.8 billion to $7.8 billion. Annual net income based on 2013 data has decreased from $705 million to $272 million. While the latest S-1 pro forma (estimated) net income does now include an adjustment for Charter's management fee, it still does not include any cost changes from the spinoff and the associated changes. It does not include any transitional costs and it does not include Charter's service costs or programming costs, which apparently will be passed through to Midwest Cable. It does not include Comcast's charges for transitional services. It does not even include adjustments for to reflect the addition of executive management personnel to Midwest Cable hired earlier this year. None of these costs are specifically estimated in any of the documentation provided to date. In addition, while the Consultants have repeatedly requested such data and support, no documentation or support for the adjustments shown to the financials in the S-1 to reflect pro forma Midwest Cable have been provided. Exhibit 6 to Form 394 As stated above, Exhibit 6 contained the same financial information as in the May 23 S -4/A of Comcast. The unaudited pro forma financial information presented was "to give effect to the spin-off of cable systems serving approximately 2.5 million current Comcast subscribers into the newly formed public entity." Comcast was asked specific questions about the Exhibit by the LFAs. Comcast's response to the development of the financial information was: 29. With respect to Exhibit 6, please provide: 29 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 187 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. a. The methodology used, including all assumptions made by Comcast, Time Warner and/or Charter, by Comcast to allocate the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the historical Comcast systems and those systems that are anticipated being spun -off that are currently Time Warner systems. Included, but not limited to, in the response should be the identification of the records used by Comcast to include current Time Warner systems; RESPONSE: The cable systems that will comprise Midwest Cable are all legacy Comcast systems. Midwest Cable will not include any Time Warner or Charter cable systems. The cable systems' historical accounting records are maintained as part of Comcast's consolidated records. The accounting operating ledgers considered in preparation of the analysis underlying Exhibit 6 involve cable systems destined for Midwest Cable and no other cable systems. These accounting records serve as the base for the combined Midwest Cable financial statements. For those operating ledgers which are not fully comprised of cable systems that will be spun -off, an allocation methodology was adopted so as to properly represent the historical assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the particular systems being spun -off to Midwest Cable. The allocations were primarily based on the relative number of subscribers, however other allocations were used on particular accounts if deemed more reasonable. b. The methodology used, including all assumptions and appraisals (whether in-house or prepared by a third party), by Comcast to estimate: i. Property and equipment, net of $1.957 billion; RESPONSE: Property and equipment value is based on the historical cost of the underlying asset. Property and equipment is comprised of the historical assets on the operating ledgers of the cable systems that will be included in the spin-off Transaction, as well as other assets that were deemed to be part of the historical operations of the cable systems. The value of these assets was based on the historical cost of the underlying asset with no fair value adjustment. To the extent allocations were used to value assets associated with these particular cable systems, a variety of methodologies were employed to best allocate the assets at issue. Plant, for example, was allocated based on the total pro -rata amount of plant miles. Customer premises equipment and vehicles, however, were based on specific identification. Land and buildings were based on the preliminary shared asset list. ii. Franchise rights of $6.231 billion; and RESPONSE: Franchise rights were allocated based on the estimated fair value of Midwest Cable compared to the overall "cable communications" segment of Comcast. iii. Goodwill of $1.391 billion; RESPONSE: Goodwill was allocated based on the estimated fair value of Midwest Cable related to the overall "cable communications" segment of Comcast. 30 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 188 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. c. Please provide support for the amount shown for "Deferred Taxes" of $3.053 billion that explains in detail the pro forma valuation at "Spin -Off"; RESPONSE: Deferred taxes is a preliminary estimate based on the difference between the estimated book basis of the assets to be included in the spin-off Transaction (exclusive of non-deductible goodwill), and the estimated tax basis of these assets. d. An explanation regarding the plans of Comcast and/or Midwest Cable to change any asset depreciation rates for the properties being dedicated to Midwest Cable; RESPONSE: There is no plan to change any asset depreciation rates at the current time. The basis used in spin-off scenarios is the historical cost basis of those assets and liabilities. e. Detailed support for the identified shared facilities cost of approximately $245 million; RESPONSE: The $245 million cost does not reflect shared facilities cost, but is an estimated allocation of overhead costs. These overhead costs include administrative support, technical support, and other back-office rules that are not performed at a regional level. f. A list of and explanation regarding any known and measurable costs similar to the "share facilities" costs that Comcast has failed to include in Exhibit 6 - the explanation should include the reasoning for not including the costs in Exhibit 6; and, RESPONSE: The shared facilities list is still being refined. g. A list of and explanation regarding any other estimable costs, such as, but not limited to, transaction costs and integration costs, that have not been included in Exhibit 6 — the explanation should include the reasoning for not including the costs in Exhibit 6, an identification of the costs and estimates of the amounts for calendar years 2014 and 2015. RESPONSE: It is not possible to calculate those future costs at the current time. (Response to 29 of the July 17, 2014 letter of Bradley Hagen & Gullikson, LLC on behalf of its clients.) Clearly, Comcast's responses show that financial data of Exhibit 6 were estimates and Comcast anticipated they would change. The changes that have occurred thus far are very significant. In Midwest Cable's filed S-1 total assets decreased $1.4 billion, primarily driven by the adjustments to intangible assets due to the $1 billion decrease in debt. Equity decreased from a negative $1.933 billion to a negative $2.029 billion. Seventy-five percent (75%) of Midwest Cable's assets of $9.043 billion are $6.802 billion of intangible assets consisting of franchise rights of $5.561 billion and goodwill of $1.241 billion. Since Midwest Cable was required to "pay" Comcast $7.8 billion for the spinoff, the amount of intangible assets is a function the debt amount and needed to "balance" the financial 31 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 189 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. statements. Otherwise, the only other balancing item would have been equity and lowered equity at start-up to a negative $8.831 billion. Midwest Cable describes its franchise rights in the S-1 as follows: Our largest asset, our cable franchise rights, results from agreements we have with state and local governments that allow us to construct and operate a cable business within a specified geographic area. The value of a franchise is derived from the economic benefits we receive from the right to solicit new customers and to market new services, such as advanced video services and high-speed Internet and voice services, in a particular service area. The amounts recorded for cable franchise rights are primarily a result of cable system acquisitions. Typically when cable systems are acquired, the most significant asset recorded is the value of the cable franchise rights. Often these cable system acquisitions include multiple franchise areas. We currently serve approximately 950 franchise areas in the United States. The value of our cable franchise rights represents the aggregate value for the cable systems attributable to our operations, which were previously components of two of Comcast Cable Communication's divisions. Analysis of Exhibit 6 to Form 394 The Consultants review of Exhibit 6 noted the above deficiencies. In order to present a more appropriate representation of the pro forma operations of Midwest Cable going forward, the Consultants created the financial statements included as Attachment D. We have included the balances from the 5-1, S -1/A and the S-4 as reported by the companies and no adjustments were made to the Balance Sheet. For the income/expense statement, again we used the nine- month S -1/A data as of September 30, 2014. The amounts were increased to show annualized pro forma revenues and expenses. We then made adjustments to reflect: • Charter's advertising revenue, made on a per sub basis times Midwest Cable's 2.5 million subs (because Charter, and not Comcast's advertising performance is more likely indicative of the performance of the system post -transfer); • Charter's expenses, made on a per sub basis times Midwest Cable's 2.5 million subs; • The decrease in the Charter service fee due to the reduction in revenues; • Estimated amounts of Midwest Cable funded transition costs; and, • Elimination of the Comcast shared asset costs. 32 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 190 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. The adjustments to advertising revenue and to expenses were based on Charter's per subscriber amounts27 times Midwest Cable's number of subscribers or 2.5 million. (See Attachments D and F.) Since the adjustment decreased advertising revenue, it was necessary to make a minor reduction to Charter's management fee. The largest two components of the adjustment to reflect Charter's level of expenses were to programming expenses and other operating administrative and general. At the spin-off, Midwest Cable will be providing programming under Charter's programming contracts and paying the same fees for programming as Charter. Since these costs are more than Comcast's programming expenses an adjustment was required. The Consultants have used both the per subscriber programming costs from the trend reports and the Wall Street Consensus estimate on Exhibit D in Scenarios A and B, repectively. The increased programming costs range from approximately $15 per subscriber per month (Scenario A) to approximately $6 per subscriber per month (Scenario B). On a per subscriber basis, Charter's other operating administrative and general expenses are higher than Comcast's expenses. Charter will be providing these types of services and charging Midwest Cable for these services at cost. This adjustment is to reflect those costs. The Consultants have also addressed a concern raised by Comcast et al in their December letter that the Consultants have not eliminated the Comcast overhead included in the S-1 operating expenses of Midwest. Because the Consultants have not used any of the S-1 operating expenses (programming, other operating and advertising expenses) the Consultants have not included any legacy overhead expenses from Comcast in Exhibit D. The Consultants have also addressed the potential that the Charter trend reports include corporate overhead allocations of Charter by including an adjustment in Scenario B to reduce other operating and advertising costs by an estimated $200 million from the amounts shown in Scenario A. The Consultants would have been able to use an amount supported by the data instead of an estimate had Comcast/Charter/Midwest provided the information requested. In addition, Midwest Cable has an executive staff under contract, for example the S-1 states Mr. Willner will receive an annual salary of $1.5 million and be eligible for bonuses up 150% of his base or an additional $2.25 million. No adjustment was made in the Midwest Cable's S-1 or in Charter's pro forma S-4 calculations to reflect the additional costs of the executive staff or any other employees of Midwest. Our income statement also excludes any adjustment regarding this in order to present a conservative analysis. As shown in Attachment D, the effect of our adjustments reduces operating income from an annualized S -1/A amount of $907 million to between $201 million and $685 million, reduces annualized S -1/A net income from $304 million to between ($126) million and $168 million, and reduces EBITDA from an annualized S -1/A amount of $1.560 billion to between $732 million and $1,215 million. 27 The per subscriber amounts were derived from Charter's 3rd Quarter Trend Reports from its website. 33 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 191 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. We have also provided a simplified cash flow statement that shows cash from the pro forma operations of ($330 million) to ($36 million). We have used the same projection of capital expenditures as Charter. (See the table on page 14 above.) Midwest Cable will need to increase capital expenditures in the first year of the spin-off to replace equipment and software provided by Comcast. As reported in the Charter S-4, Charter is estimating Midwest capital expenditures to be between $753 million and $818 million for years 2015 through 2019. It is also simplified in that we do not know additional funding sources that will be accessed by Midwest Cable in the form of lines of credit and or short term debt. None of that information has been provided by Comcast, Charter or Midwest Cable. EBITDA With these adjustments, we are able to estimate post -Transfer EBITDA for Midwest Cable in Attachment D. The adjustments significantly reduce EBITDA as opposed to the EBITDA figures Comcast provided based on its past performance. As part of the Transaction, Midwest is required to assume debt up to 5 times EBITDA. The S -1/A data does not reflect the costs that Midwest would be incurring if the Transaction were in place today — it reflects Comcast's costs with some adjustments. However, Midwest's costs (because of its agreements with Charter and Comcast) will reflect Charter's costs plus transitional costs from Comcast. Charter's costs alone are higher than Comcast's. (See Attachment F.) Adjusted to reflect Charter's costs, and reasonable assumptions with respect to costs Midwest will incur but which were not included in the S -1/A data, Midwest's debt at $7.8 billion will be roughly between 6.4 and 10.7 times EBITDA per Scenarios B and A, respectively, of Attachment D, exceeding normal industry parameters, which include roughly three times cash flow for Comcast, and at the higher end, five times for companies like Charter. The basis of the funding of the spin-off has been publically discussed by Comcast and Charter as 5 times the SpinCo systems' 2014 EBITDA, presumably because any higher multiple would be inconsistent with industry metrics, and imply significantly greater risks. As noted above, the companies themselves reduced the estimated EBITDA for Midwest Cable that were revealed in the August S -4/A of Comcast and resulted in a reduction of Midwest Cable's debt from $8.8 billion to $7.8 billion. But, using the announced criteria of 5 times EBITDA, our forward-looking analyses in Attachment D, Scenarios A and B, show Midwest Cable can only afford between $3.6 billion and $6.1 billion in debt. Deferred Tax Liability At spin-off, Midwest Cable has a deferred income tax liability of $2.838 billion that has been transferred by Comcast, comprised of $2.238 billion related to intangible assets and $600 million associated with tangible assets. This liability recognizes that Comcast has realized income tax benefits (typically such benefits are in the form of accelerated depreciation for income purposes) associated with the assets transferred to Midwest but that Midwest Cable will be required to "pay back" those benefits in the form of higher income taxes in the future. The following table illustrates how deferred taxes are created from the timing differences of 34 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 192 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. book depreciation and tax depreciation and how the amount is reversed over the life of the associated asset. Table 2 Example The following assumes a company purchases an asset on day 1 of month 1 of year 1 for $1,000. The asset has a 5 year book life with annual depreciation of $200. For income tax purposes, the company can depreciate the asset $500 in year 1, $300 in year 2 and $200 in year 3, so that for income purposes the asset is fully depreciated at the end of year 3. For book purposes, the asset is not fully depreciated until the end of year 5. This results in an income tax benefits in years 1 and 2 and increased income tax expense in years 4 and 5 when actual taxes paid are compared to book income tax expense. Line No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Accounting value (a) Purchase at 01/01/Year 1 1,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Purchase at 01/01/Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Tax value 1,000 Difference Accounting less Tax Depreciation (300) (100) 0 200 200 0 Accounting Net Accounting Depreciation Value (b) (c) 200 800 200 600 200 400 200 200 200 0 0 0 1,000 Tax Depreciation 500 300 200 0 0 0 1,000 Deferred Tax @39% (117) (39) 0 78 78 0 Net Tax Value 500 200 0 0 0 0 Deferred Tax Asset (Liability) (117) (156) (156) (78) 0 0 35 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 193 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. Line Accounting Net Accounting No. Accounting value Depreciation Value 23 0 0 A simple comparison of deferred incomes taxes of Comcast to net plant at December 31, 2013 yields a ratio of 1.0629 ($31.595 billion divided by $29.588). For Midwest Cable the same ratio at spinoff is 1.4728. (See Attachment E.) For Midwest to have the same ratio, deferred taxes would need to be reduced to $2.048 billion. Midwest Cable shows net plant of $1.926 billion and annual depreciation expense of $512 million. This yields and average book life of the net plant of 3.76 years ($1,926 divided by $512). Assuming the deferred income tax liability associated with tangible assets would be recovered ratably over the remaining life of the assets, Midwest Cable would have increased income tax expense of $159.57 million per year, $63.80 per subscriber per year. This is $5.32 per subscriber per month in increased costs. Again, Comcast realized the benefits of accelerated depreciation, i.e., $600 million in tax savings, but Midwest Cable will have to pay for it. Comparison of Comcast Costs to Midwest Cable Attachment E to this report shows comparisons of financial information of Midwest compared Comcast, Time Warner and Charter. Comcast's net property and equipment per subscriber is almost twice the amount per subscriber of Midwest - $1,413 to $770, respectively. However on debt supporting the investment Comcast's level is 87% of Midwest - $2,728 per subscriber for Comcast to $3,120 per subscriber for Midwest. As shown by the ratio of "Debt to Assets net of Franchise Rights and Goodwill", Comcast's ratio is .6971 dollars of debt per dollar of assets net of franchise rights and goodwill. Midwest's ratio is 5 times higher — 3.4806 dollars of debt per dollar of assets net of franchise rights and goodwill. Impacts on Rates It appears that the Wall Street Consensus has estimated the programming increases by moving the Midwest subscribers to Charter's programming cost will result in approximately $179 million of additional programming expense to Midwest notwithstanding normal programming increases.28 According to the Kagan projections provided by Comcast/Charter, video revenues for the first nine months of 2014 are approximately $1.660 billion for Midwest. Annualized for the full 12 twelve months suggests a video revenue of approximately $2.213 billion for Midwest. To recover the estimated impact of the $179 million programming cost changes would require annual rate increase of approximately 8% (or approximately $6.00 per subscriber per month), in addition to the normal rate increases the industry has seen of approximately 5% to 7% annually. This could result in a significant rate increase as a result of this transfer. It does 28 See Charter S-4 and Midwest S-1. 36 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 194 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. not appear that Charter's 2015 estimated EBITDA has fully reflected this impact. It would appear logical that for Charter's estimated growth in EBITDA to occur in 2015, that Charter is estimating that they will be able to lower the operating costs of Midwest below the estimated $300 million of Comcast overhead29 currently included in the Midwest financials notwithstanding the almost $200 million of the Charter management fee (4.25% fee) which is not logical. As a result, the actual rate increases will have to likely be more than the recovery of the Comcast to Charter programming costs and if not implemented will result in much lower 2015 EBITDA than Charter is projecting in its S-4. New Charter In order to fund its portion of the Transactions, Charter, which has recently emerged from bankruptcy, is reorganizing and taking on 50% more debt, i.e., increasing its debt from $14 billion to $22 billion. The reorganized Charter is being referred to as "New Charter". New Charter will have responsibility for acclimating to 2.9 million former Comcast and Time Warner subscribers (1.5 million in Swaps and 1.4 million purchased), incurring the costs of this transition, taking on the management of Midwest Cable and providing services to Midwest Cable. New Charter is also banking on Midwest Cable's ability to pay its bills. Any financial difficulty of Midwest Cable will also result in financial concerns for New Charter. New Charter will not be in a position to assist Midwest Cable financially due to its increased debt load and may not be in a position to satisfactorily perform the services under the CSA. OTHER ISSUES Non-compliance. As suggested above, Midwest Cable will have little cash on hand to address any issues associated with franchise non-compliance, and may not have significant funds available to correct any current system deficiencies. This will make it important for localities to ensure that there is some mechanism in place that ensures non-compliance issues will be addressed. Changes to the Transfer Our report and the accompanying analyses are based on the transfer as presented in the filed FCC Form 394 with subsequent adjustments addressed in publically available documents. It is possible before the transfer actually takes place, the parameters of the deal may change. For example, the companies may realize that Midwest cannot afford such a substantial amount of 29 Comcast has suggested in its December 11 letter that the $300 million of included Comcast overhead should be removed from the calculation of EBITDA. (See Attachment G.) We disagree. Our adjustment (b) in Attachment D restates operating expenses to Charter's cost per subscriber and eliminates any pre-existing Comcast costs in operating expenses. 37 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 195 Report on Spin -Off to Midwest Cable, Inc. debt and changes will be made. It is not possible for us to contemplate or plan for such changes, so this report does not address them, and in any action taken with respect to the transfer, a locality may wish to ensure that the if there are additional changes, those are also subject to local review so that the impact of the changes may be taken into account. Conclusion / Recommendations The Consultants have identified financial impacts that suggest Midwest Cable may be incurring debt levels that exceed the industry norm of 5 times EBITDA. As described above, financial conditions should be considered by the Participating LFAs. Also, the Participating LFAs should consider the complete lack of any financial information that was requested but refused to be provided by Comcast and Charter in reviewing this Transaction. Our analyses described above and in Attachments D, E and F are based on the straightforward adjustments to historical data of the spun -off Midwest Cable, Inc. The only pro forma adjustment made, shown in Midwest Cable's S -1/A, is for the 4.25% management fee from the CSA. No footnotes in the S -1/A explain the impacts to historical costs from adopting Charter's programming costs (only that costs will increase) or of the CSA or the TSA or of adding its own executive staff and other employees. Neither Midwest Cable, Comcast nor Charter have provided adequate information that established Midwest Cable's financial qualifications. All information provided, publically and the very limited additional information provided in the response to a small portion of our requests, show the debt assumed in the S -1/A is high compared to EBITDA, show Midwest with no cash at start-up and with limited ability to acquire cash absent reductions in spending or increases in rates resulting in little, if any, working capital.30 All of these factors point towards a stand-alone company that may experience a difficult financial future, at least in the short term, without reductions to capital expenditures, customer services, franchise obligations and other cash conserving activities and or rate increases to support its obligations under the anticipated debt load and the agreements under the CSA and TSA for management fees and cost reimbursement. 30 The Consultants recognize that Midwest as a business has a revenue stream and necessary expenses and expenditures. We have not done a working capital analysis to determine if the inflow of cash is sufficient and properly timed to meet the day-to-day cash needs of the company. 38 © Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. page 196 The attachments to this Report were not included due to the volume of the material. A copy of the attachments are available by contacting NDC4 staff, attention — Jodie Miller. page 197 ••i•i Moss & Barnett REPORT Regarding the Proposed Transfer of Control of the Cable Franchise and Cable System from Comcast to Midwest Cable (GreatLand Connections Inc.) February 4, 2015 Submitted by: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. Yuri B. Berndt, Esq. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (P) 612-877-5000 (F) 612-877-5999 www.lawmoss.com page 198 INTRODUCTION This report has been provided by Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association, for the purpose of evaluating a request from Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. ("Grantee"), the current holder of the Cable Franchise ("Franchise") in the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission ("Commission"). The Commission is a joint powers commission which administers and regulates the operations of the Grantee under the Franchise. The Commission includes the member cities of Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "City"), to approve a proposed transfer of control ("Transfer") of the Franchise to Midwest Cable, Inc. (hereinafter "Midwest Cable" or "Midwest"). The Grantee currently owns, operates and maintains a cable television system ("System") in the City pursuant to the terms of the Franchise. On February 12, 2014, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast") and Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby Comcast would acquire the cable systems and franchises held by TWC among other assets. On April 25, 2014, Comcast and Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter") entered into the Comcast/Charter Transactions Agreement (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which the Grantee, through a restructuring under Comcast's ownership, will become Comcast of Minnesota, LLC ("New Grantee") and immediately thereafter will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Midwest Cable (the "Transaction"). Note: See pages 3, 4 and 5 of this Report for diagrams of the Transaction.' What is happening to the Twin Cities Comcast cable systems? Comcast's proposed acquisition of TWC will (if approved) result in the total combined number of cable subscribers to be controlled by Comcast to exceed 30 million nationwide. In an effort to reduce that number and make the Transaction more acceptable to federal regulators, Comcast voluntarily agreed to divest itself of 3.9 million cable subscribers nationwide. Part of this proposed divestiture was accomplished with the system swaps between Comcast and Charter that results in Charter acquiring an additional 1.4 million cable subscribers. The remaining 2.5 cable subscribers to be divested by Comcast will be controlled by a new publicly traded entity, Midwest Cable. In Minnesota, Comcast's only cable subscribers exist in the Twin Cities market (and small portions of western Wisconsin). As a result, the Twin Cities market was selected, along with other markets in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and some southern states, to be included in the divestiture transaction. What this means is that Comcast will be leaving Minnesota and will no longer own the cable systems serving the Twin Cities or the City. Rather, the System will be owned by Midwest Cable. Because Midwest Cable is newly created, it will require third party assistance to address many operating issues such as programming agreements, customer service, billing, technical support and related issues. Charter will be assisting Midwest Cable with many of these issues via a "services agreement" that will be more fully explained in this Report. 'All diagrams are derived from Midwest Cable Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014. 1 2718383v1 page 199 What will be the name of the new cable operator serving the City? In initial communications with the City, Comcast referred to the proposed new cable operator entity as SpinCo. Shortly thereafter the name was changed to Midwest Cable. Midwest Cable remains the name as of the date of this Report, but following close of the Transaction, the name will change to GreatLand Connections Inc. ("GreatLand"). For purposes of this report all references will be to Midwest Cable. The Transaction initially provides for Comcast's creation of Midwest Cable and Comcast's contribution of systems (and related business assets and holdings) serving approximately 2.5 million existing Comcast subscribers to Midwest Cable. Midwest Cable is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast. Following the contribution, Comcast will spin-off the Midwest Cable stock to its public shareholders and Midwest Cable will become an independent, publicly traded corporation and its name will change to GreatLand. Approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the equity and voting shares of Midwest Cable will be held by Comcast shareholders and one-third of the equity and voting shares will be owned by Charter. See page 5 of this Report for a diagram of the transaction. Timing for Action by the City On or about June 17, 2014 the City received from Grantee, FCC Form 394 - Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise ("Application"). Federal, state and local law, including the terms of the Franchise, provide the City with authority to consider the Application. The time period for such a review is typically one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of receipt of the Application, in this case on or before October 15, 2014. On or about August 22, 2014 Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to extend the Application review period for sixty (60) days until December 15, 2014 to allow the City time to review additional information concerning the qualifications of Midwest Cable which was provided to the City on September 30, 2014. On or about September 30, 2014 Comcast and Midwest Cable agreed to a further extension of the Application review period for thirty (30) days until January 15, 2015 to allow the City to review certain service agreements related to the Transaction as well as certain SEC financial filings to be made available for review on October 31, 2014. The current deadline for action on the Application is February 27, 2015. What can the City consider? Pursuant to the City's Franchise, this proposed Transfer is prohibited without the written consent of the City. Federal, state and local law provides the City with a right to examine the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the proposed New Grantee and Midwest Cable. Following review of the Application additional questions were sent on the City's behalf to Comcast seeking supplemental information regarding the qualifications of New Grantee and Midwest Cable. The Transaction is complicated to describe because certain operational responsibilities will be contracted for by Midwest Cable. Both Comcast and Charter will provide certain transition services and ongoing services to Midwest Cable which will be more fully described herein. 2 2718383v1 Structure Following the Comcast/TWC Merger but Before the Transactions Comcast Shareholders Charter Stockholders r 2718383v1 Comcast TWC 3 Charter New Charter page 200 ( page 201 Structure Following the Spin -Off and the Charter Reorganization but Before the Midwest Cable Merger Comcast Shareholders (as of the record date for the spin-off) Comcast (including cash distributed from OpCo and our notes issued to Comcast) TWC 2718383v1 Midwest Cable OpCo (owns the Midwest Cable systems, assets and liabilities relating to the Midwest Cable systems and credit facilities) 4 Charter Stockholders (as of immediately prior to the transactions) New Charter Charter Merger Sub Charter Structure Following the Transactions Comcast Shareholders (as of the record date for the spin- off) page 202 Charter Stockholders (as of immediately prior to the transactions) Approximately Approximately Comcast (including cash distributed from OpCo and our notes issued to Comcast) TWC 2718383v1 Midwest Cable OpCo (owns the Midwest Cable systems, assets and liabilities relating to the Midwest Cable systems and credit facilities) 5 Approximately 33% Charter page 203 APPLICABLE LAW In addition to the Franchise requirements which are not specially set forth herein, the following provisions of Federal law and State law govern the actions of the City in acting on the request for approval of the Transaction. Federal Law The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Cable Act"), provides at Section 617 (47 U.S.C. § 537): Sales of Cable Systems. A franchising authority shall, if the franchise requires franchising authority approval of a sale or transfer, have 120 days to act upon any request for approval of such sale or transfer that contains or is accompanied by such information as is required in accordance with Commission regulations and by the franchising authority. If the franchising authority fails to render a final decision on the request within 120 days, such request shall be deemed granted unless the requesting party and the franchising authority agree to an extension of time. The Cable Act also provides at Section 613(d) (47 U.S.C. § 533(d)) as follows: (d) Regulation of ownership by States or franchising authorities. Any State or franchising authority may not prohibit the ownership or control of a cable system by any person because of such person's ownership or control of any other media of mass communications or other media interests. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State or franchising authority from prohibiting the ownership or control of a cable system in a jurisdiction by any person (1) because of such person's ownership or control of any other cable system in such jurisdiction, or (2) in circumstances in which the State or franchising authority determines that the acquisition of such a cable system may eliminate or reduce competition in the delivery of cable service in such jurisdiction. Further, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has promulgated regulations governing the sale of cable systems. Section 76.502 of the FCC's regulations (47 C.F.R. § 76.502) provides: Time Limits Applicable to Franchise Authority Consideration of Transfer Applications. (a) A franchise authority shall have 120 days from the date of submission of a completed FCC Form 394, together with all exhibits, and any additional information required by the terms of the franchise agreement or applicable state or local law to act upon an application to sell, assign, or otherwise transfer controlling ownership of a cable system. (b) A franchise authority that questions the accuracy of the information provided under paragraph (a) must notify the cable operator within 30 days of the filing of 6 2718383v1 page 204 such information, or such information shall be deemed accepted, unless the cable operator has failed to provide any additional information reasonably requested by the franchise authority within 10 days of such request. (c) If the franchise authority fails to act upon such transfer request within 120 days, such request shall be deemed granted unless the franchise authority and the requesting party otherwise agree to an extension of time. State Law Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 provides: Sale or Transfer of Franchise. Subd. 1. Fundamental corporate change defined. For purposes of this section, "fundamental corporate change" means the sale or transfer of a majority of a corporation's assets; merger, including a parent and its subsidiary corporation; consolidation; or creation of a subsidiary corporation. Subd. 2. Written approval of franchising authority. A sale or transfer of a franchise, including a sale or transfer by means of a fundamental corporate change, requires the written approval of the franchising authority. The parties to the sale or transfer of a franchise shall make a written request to the franchising authority for its approval of the sale or transfer. Subd. 3. Repealed, 2004 c 261 art 7 s 29 Subd. 4. Approval or denial of transfer request. The franchising authority shall approve or deny in writing the sale or transfer request. The approval must not be unreasonably withheld. Subd. 5. Repealed, 2004 c 261 art 7 s 29 Subd. 6. Transfer of stock; controlling interest defined. Sale or transfer of stock in a corporation so as to create a new controlling interest in a cable communication system is subject to the requirements of this section. The term "controlling interest" as used herein is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes actual working control in whatever manner exercised. 7 2718383v1 page 205 TECHNICAL REVIEW The technical qualification standard relates to the technical expertise and experience of New Grantee and Midwest Cable to own, operate and maintain the System in the City following the closing of the Transaction. In this case, since Midwest Cable will become the ultimate parent of New Grantee, our focus is on the technical qualifications of Midwest Cable. In such a review, the standard of review is that the City's consent shall not be "unreasonably withheld." Because Charter will be providing considerable support to Midwest Cable, we have also outlined below certain qualifications of Charter and have attempted to clarify which entity will provide services in the City. Background Qualifications of Midwest Cable Midwest Cable is a newly created entity. Midwest Cable has no operating history that the City can review nor does it have any existing franchises under its control. Midwest Cable will initially have nine board members. Midwest Cable's Executive Management Team will include the following cable and communications industry executives: 1) Michael Willner, President and CEO; 2) Leonard Baxter, Vice President, Chief Administrator Officer; 3) Matt Siegel, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and 4) Keith Hall, Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs. Mr. Willner, a forty year cable veteran, is the former President and CEO of Insight Communications. Many members of the Midwest Cable executive team are former Insight Communications executives that worked under Mr. Willner. Midwest Cable will employ regional managers and for certain cable systems, local area managers, who will responsible for overseeing the local cable system operations of Midwest Cable. Responses to Supplemental Information Comcast and Midwest Cable provided an identical letter dated September 30, 2014 to all Twin City area jurisdictions (through legal counsels for each of the jurisdictions) rather providing a response to each of the specific questions raised by the City. Below is a summary of the information provided in the Comcast/Midwest Cable correspondence dated September 30, 2014. 1. Will Midwest Cable have local Twin City employees? All local system field operational (technical) personnel will be Midwest Cable employees. All government affairs personnel interacting with local franchising authorities will also be Midwest Cable employees. Other operational services will be provided by Charter personnel as described below. 2. What transition services will Comcast provide? During the first year following the close of the Transaction, Comcast will provide the following "transition services" to Midwest Cable. Some of these services will transition to Midwest Cable more quickly than others. a. Facilities and Asset -Based: Network operating center ("NOC") for fiber and outage monitoring; national -route fiber leases; Internet Protocol TV ("IPTV") infrastructure and support; call centers and specialized customer care activities (e.g., home security monitoring). 8 2718383v1 page 206 b. Software Platforms: Billing systems; customer websites and service portals; provisioning and telephony platforms; customer premise equipment support systems; voicemail and email platforms; network support tools; data warehouse; human resources and accounting systems. c. Marketing and Sales: Transition from Comcast/Xfinity branding to the Midwest Cable and Charter co -branded "Spectrum" product offering — including all of the associated market and employee -facing markings, as well as national sales channels for residential, commercial and advertising sales. d. Customer -Facing Transition Services: Call center support; billing systems support; provisioning of video; voice and data services; voice operations/call completion; X1 platform support; customer identity management; and email/voicemail continuity support. 3. What services will Charter provide in the Twin Cities? For an initial three (3) year term (with optional one year extensions) Midwest Cable will contract with Charter to provide certain marketing and operational services. Midwest Cable will pay Charter a fee of 4.25 percent of Midwest Cable's total revenues (voice, video and data revenues) in return for these services. Charter background - Charter currently operates cable systems throughout Minnesota in such cities as Duluth, St. Cloud, Marshall, Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rochester, Mankato, Winona and many others. Charter provides service to more than 6.1 million customers in 29 states in which it currently operates. Charter is a Fortune 500 company and employs approximately 23,000 people. a. Procurement and Programming Management Services. Charter will provide programming management services to Midwest Cable including negotiating and entering into video programming agreements. Charter will provide procurement management services to Midwest Cable. Examples of such goods and services are: product hardware, software licensing and employee cellular service. b. Network Operations. Charter will provide Midwest Cable: (i) telecommunications services that previously depended on Comcast in a shared service model including: network connectivity for all services including voice, video and data, Video On Demand, CPE software and provisioning management, network security and interface with law enforcement, authentication of services and network monitoring and outage detection. c. Engineering & IT. Charter will provide Midwest Cable the Corporate Engineering services previously provided by Comcast including: architectural design standards, product technical roadmaps and standards and technical roadmaps and standards. Charter will provide Midwest Cable IT services including: (i) software for back office functions including managing customer transactions and provisioning of services; (ii) management information services for accounting, billing, activity 9 2718383v1 page 207 analysis, labor management, budgeting and financial analysis; and (iii) management of data centers. d. Voice Operations. Charter will provide origination services to Midwest Cable including processing phone subscriber orders for phone installations at the subscriber's home or business. These services include: order fulfillment and provisioning and local number management and portability. e. Field Operations. Charter will support Midwest Cable under by providing field operations services including: dispatch, plant database software systems, predictive network failure software and maintenance prioritization, technician activity and productivity reporting, warehouse standards and CPE handling standards, tools, requirements and standards for technician communications, plant design and construction standards and fleet management. f. Customer Service. Charter will support Midwest Cable by providing customer care services directly or through its vendors. These services include call center services for call answering, monitoring and dispositioning related to inbound sales, billing, repair, and retention for all products and services sold by Midwest Cable, including video, voice and data, online chat for sales, service and billing, online customer care portals for self-help and service and customer identity management. g. Billing & Collections. Charter will provide billing and collections services. These services include: customer billing and billing system management, collection of customer receivables and cash management and customer disconnect support. h. Product. Charter will provide Midwest Cable with: (i) customer facing product development definitions/standards/software and planning for all business and consumer products; (ii) change planning and project management services; and (iii) website hosting, video content management and web mail hosting. Any customer facing products bearing a Charter brand name shall be co -branded with Midwest Cable's brand name in such a manner that it is clear to the consumer of such products that Midwest Cable is the party providing services to the consumer. J• 2718383v1 Marketing & Sales. Charter will support Midwest Cable by providing: (i) marketing services and database support to enable mass, direct and online marketing activities; (ii) analysis of sales channel(s) performance; and (iii) development and all customer and non -customer facing messaging. Charter will support Midwest Cable by providing: (i) program design and management tools that maximize economic sales to nonsubscribers by door-to- door sales representatives; (ii) sales channel reporting; and (iii) program design for maximizing growth in MDU environment. Administrative and Back office Services. As requested by Midwest Cable, Midwest Cable may leverage administrative services from Charter, including leveraging the associated platforms and practices, in areas including but not limited to accounts payable, general ledger, database systems, and payroll administration. 10 page 208 4. Will Xfinity cable services remain available? Cable services will eventually be transitioned from Xfinity branding to Charter's "Spectrum" brand. Midwest Cable customer invoices will identify products and services as being "Spectrum by Midwest Cable."2 The products and services may also be co- branded as "Midwest Cable and Charter," in certain markets. 5. Customer E -Mail Transition. Post -closing, customers will continue to use their Comcast email account until they migrate to a Midwest Cable email account. Comcast customers will not indefinitely retain their existing "@comcast.net" email address after migrating to the Midwest Cable service, as Comcast owns that domain. However, emails sent to the customer's former "@comcast.net" email address will be automatically forwarded to the customer's new Midwest Cable email address for an "ample period of time" that is mutually agreeable to both companies. It is not clear if the email domain will be owned by Charter or Midwest Cable. 6. Phone Number Continuity. The Transaction will not require any change in customer phone numbers. Existing Comcast telephone customers will be able to keep their current phone numbers permanently. 7. Customer Equipment. Customers will be able to continue to use their current premises equipment after the Transaction closes. Midwest Cable will rely initially on Comcast for transition services to support the X1 platform. Midwest Cable ultimately will deploy the Spectrum product suite developed by Charter, which will include a cloud -based user interface similar to the one X1 provides. The Spectrum guide is designed to improve significantly television search and discovery functionality. Of critical importance here, the Spectrum product is designed to accommodate current subscriber equipment (including deployed X1 boxes). Accordingly, Customers who already have X1 equipment should be able to continue using that equipment even after Midwest Cable transitions to the Spectrum offering. After the transition, Midwest Cable video customers will also have authenticated access to programming at no extra charge via the Spectrum TV App — which is compatible with the Apple iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch running iOS6 or higher; all Amazon KindleFire devices (excep for the first generation KindleFire); and all tablets and phones running Android 4.0 and above. 8. Customer Billing. Customers will begin to see bills (at the same time of the month) from Midwest Cable and not Comcast. Approximately 15% of the customers pay online, directly from their bank (whether via recurring payments or one-time). These customers are the only customers that will be required to do anything to adjust their billing arrangements as they 2 Recall that Midwest Cable's name will change to GreatLand Connections Inc. Presumably, the branding will be tied to the name GreatLand not Midwest Cable. 11 2718383v1 page 209 will be required to update their on-line banking information to direct payments to Midwest Cable rather than to Comcast. This would not occur for several months after close, and Midwest Cable will notify customers of the change — targeting customers who pay in this fashion with messaging. 9. Continuation of an Internet Access Support Program for Low Income Households. Midwest Cable will continue to offer Internet Essentials and, over time, may make changes to properly serve this important constituency. 12 2718383v1 page 210 FINANCIAL REVIEW Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. (the "Consultants") were retained by the City to assist the City in the financial analyses of the transfer of the cable franchise currently held by Comcast. Please refer to the Consultants' Report Regarding the Spin-off of Cable Systems to Midwest Cable, Inc., dated January 2015 provided to the City on or about January 20, 2015 and attached hereto as Exhibit A. Moss & Barnett has prepared a Resolution and Guaranty approving the Transfer and provided it to the City for the City's review and consideration - attached hereto as Exhibit B. 13 2718383v1 page 211 EXHIBIT A Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. Report Regarding the Spin-off of Cable Systems to Midwest Cable, Inc. A-1 2718383v1 EXHIBIT B Transfer Resolution and Guaranty B-1 2718383v1 page 212