Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Minutes - October 24,2000 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Samuelson asked the determination of the $5,500.00 damage claim. Wolf said the value is <br />subjective according to the individual's loss, and this tree provided a very low hanging <br />canopy of shade for thc lawn and driveway. Wolf said it would require at least $3,000.00 <br />for equipment to install a new tree similar to the cxisting damaged one. <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Dircctor Maurie Anderson agreed the value is somewhat subjective, <br />but the accepted practice is that the contractor notify the homeowner before trimming. <br />The contractor attempted to contact the Wolfs when they were home, however, a contact <br />was not made, and the contractor proceeded with the work. This work is performed in a <br />ten year cycle, and trees are not trimmed annually. There is no question the tree's fonn <br />was altered, but Anderson is unsure whether the City should compensate for this. A new <br />improvcd notification process has been initiated. <br /> <br />Wolf feels thc City has responsibility for the damage. Samuelson believes the City acted <br />in a responsible manner. LeFevere explained the City is protected by claims through <br />management by LMCIT which concluded the City did not have legal liability covered by <br />insurance. Ifthc City decides to offer compensation, it would be without LMCIT funds. <br /> <br />Hoffman supports staff recommendation for denial ofthe claim. <br /> <br />Wolf further questioned the reason to remove a branch which was not hanging over the <br />street. Moore-Sykes said the procedure was performed to maintain the ROW area, and the <br />contractor felt there was potential for obstructing the view in the ROW. Moore-Sykes <br />addcd that it appears by the photographs that the contractor was not allowed to finish the <br />job. Wolf noted his tree trimming experience and feels these limbs should not have been <br />touched. <br /> <br />Motion by Hotfman, seconded by Gunderman, to CONCUR WITH THE LMCIT <br />RULING IN THE CASE OF THREE POPLAR BRANCHES TRIMMED AT 2670 <br />14'1'11 STREET NW. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />City Planner Cary Teague presented a special use permit and 30 ft. setback variance to <br />construct a 120 ft. monopole with antennas for Verizon Wireless at 1415 1 sl A vc. N W. <br /> <br />Verizon will also construct a 20 x 11.5 ft. equipment shelter to house equipment for the <br />site. The site contains an existing 100 ft. tall monopole with antennas owncd by Sprint. <br />Verizon approached Sprint regarding the use of this existing pole, but only lower site <br />coverage was available. The monopole is needed due to existing coverage connections <br />in New Brighton for Verizon customers are inadequate and necessitate construction of the <br />120 ft. pole. Also, the topography in the area requires the 120 ft. height. <br /> <br />In regards to setbacks, the architects altered the location so that setbacks are met on three <br />sides, and only the southerly setback requires a variance. Thc pole is engineered to <br />ensure the pole bends 40 ft. from the top in the event of wind and prevents damage to <br />adjacent properties. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />ROW Tree Trimming <br />Appeal <br />Report 00-251 <br /> <br />Special Use Permit for <br />monopole - Verizon <br />Report 00-248 <br />