Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/2019LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019 LAUDERDALE CITY HALL, 1891 WALNUT STREET The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to Robert's Rules of Order and the Standing Rules of Order and Business of the City Council. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input at meetings. 1. CALL TO ORDER THE LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVALS a. Agenda b. Minutes of the February 12, 2019 City Council Meeting c. Claims Totaling $33,309.21 4. CONSENT a. January Financial Report b. Copier Lease Agreement with Metro Sales 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS 6. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS / REPORTS a. City Council Updates 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council. a. Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance 8. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEM a. PUD Concept Plan Discussion with Real Estate Equities b. Letter to FCC Chairman Regarding Proposed Cable Franchise Fee Rulemaking 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 10. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING a. Emergency Management Agreement b. Abdo, Eick, and Meyers Financial Planning Proposal c. Annual Post -Audit Presentation — March 26 d. Annual SAPD Police Report — April 12. WORK SESSION a. Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item not on the agenda. In consideration for the public attending the meeting, this portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address, and state the subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be penaitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation, as prescribed by the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. b. CTV Services and Opportunities Discussion with Executive Director Dana Healy c. Community Development Update 13. ADJOURNMENT LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 1 of 4 February 12, 2019 Call to Order Mayor Gaasch called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call Councilors present: Roxanne Grove, Andi Moffatt, Jeff Dains, Kelly Dolphin, and Mayor Mary Gaasch. Councilor absent: None. Staff present: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator; and Jim Bownik, Assistant to the City Administrator. Approvals Mayor Gaasch asked if there were any additions to the meeting agenda. Butkowski stated that she would like to add the Non -Corporate Resolution with Northland Securities to the Consent Agenda. There being nothing else, Councilor Dains moved and seconded by Councilor Grove to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Gaasch asked if there were any corrections to the meeting minutes. There being none, Councilor Dolphin moved and seconded by Councilor Grove to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2019, city council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Gaasch asked if there were any questions on the claims. There being none, Councilor Grove moved and seconded by Councilor Moffatt to approve the claims totaling $142,629.62. Motion carried unanimously. Consent Councilor Dolphin moved and seconded by Councilor Dains to approve the Consent Agenda thereby acknowledging the garbage hauler licenses and the Non -Corporate Resolution with Northland Securities. Special Order of Business/Recognitions/Proclamations A. Jim Bownik 20 -year Work Anniversary Bownik began working for the City on February 10, 1999 as the deputy city clerk. By 2001 he held the title of administrative analyst and in 2003 he became assistant to the city administrator. Mayor Gaasch presented Bownik with a plaque for his 20 years of dedicated service. Informational Presentations/Reports A. City Council Updates Councilor Dolphin stated that she and Administrator Butkowski attended a meeting at CTV to discuss the creation of a video about the Eustis/Roselawn reconstruction project. Councilor Dains shared that he attended a St. Paul Water Board meeting where they discussed potential LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 2 of 4 February 12, 2019 changes to their water leak adjustment policy. Mayor Gaasch stated that she attended a Regional Council of Mayors meeting where they discussed affordable housing and reducing homelessness. Gaasch continued to mention that she and other elected officials planned to attend a poverty simulation exercise. Finally, Gaasch shared that she attended a Metro Cities meeting where they worked on the legislative agenda. Public Hearings A. High Density Residential — Conservation (HDR -C) Zoning Ordinance The Council has been discussing the proposed zoning text for the high density residential — conservation (HDR -C) zoning over a couple of meetings. The assistant city attorney has reviewed the draftt since the last meeting. Zoning ordinance amendments require 10 -days' published notice; the notice ran in the January 22 edition of the Roseville Review for tonight's public hearing. Planning consultant Jennifer Haskamp of Swanson Haskamp Consulting provided an overview of the purpose and preparation of the HDR -C zoning ordinance. After Council discussion, Mayor Gaasch opened the floor to public comment at 8:16 p.m. The first person to approach the dais was Owen Flygare, Falcon Heights resident. He agreed that more housing opportunities are needed in the area, but has concerns about increasing traffic on Hoyt Avenue with the development of Luther Seminary's property. Wayne Sisel, 1567 Fulham Street, approached the Council. His questions for the Council were in regards to zoning and how the net land area is determined. Steve Ahlgren, 1563 Fulham Street, approached the Council. He stated that the City should continue pursuing the purchase of Breck Woods in order to protect it. Jennifer Loupe, 1589 Fulham Street, approached the Council. She inquired on how zoning would change as various plans are proposed to be built on the site. Cynthia Ahlgren, 1563 Fulham Street, approached the Council. She had a couple of questions for the Council including who would pay for a natural resources inventory and who determines what degree of slope is acceptable and allowed. Haskamp answered the questions posed by attendees. She also agreed with Councilor Moffatt's suggestion to include a cultural resources study to the list of requirements for a developer in the next draft. Thereafter, the public hearing was closed at 8:43 p.m. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 3 of 4 February 12, 2019 Discussion/Action Items A. 2019 Infrastructure Improvement Project Plans and Specifications Resolution No. 021219A In December, the Council authorized Stantec to prepare plans and specifications for the 2019 Infrastructure Improvement Project. Kellie Schlegel, the project's engineer, was present at the meeting to answer questions. Upon adoption of the resolution, the city engineer will move forward with the bidding of the project. Councilor Moffatt made a motion to adopt Resolution 021219A — A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids. This was seconded by Councilor Dolphin and carried unanimously. B. Emergency Management: Hazardous Mitigation Plan Resolution No. 021219B Last summer, staff worked with Ramsey County Emergency Management on updating the county -wide Hazardous Mitigation Plan. Included in this resolution for adoption is a letter from FEMA and the "Lauderdale" portion of the plan. After adoption, Ramsey County will be eligible for federal funding should a disaster happen. Councilor Dolphin made a motion to adopt Resolution 021219B — A Resolution Adopting the Ramsey County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan. This was seconded by Councilor Dains and carried unanimously. C. Swanson Haskamp Consulting Master Services Agreement Swanson Haskamp Consulting originally was hired to prepare the Comprehensive Plan. That process lead to an agreement to draft zoning for the high density residential -conservation zoning district. Jennifer Haskamp has been pulled into the development projects happening since the City purchased 1795 Eustis Street last year. Staff felt it would be appropriate to have an agreement that covers the additional services. A significant portion of her time will be covered through the fees paid by developers as she reviews land use applications and guides the process to ensure the City meets land use requirements and deadlines. Councilor Dolphin made a motion to enter into a Master Services Agreement with Swanson Haskamp Consulting, LLC as presented. This was seconded by Councilor Dains and carried unanimously. Set Agenda for Next Meeting Administrator Butkowski stated that the February 26 council meeting may include the High Density Residential — Conservation (HDR -C) Zoning Ordinance and a Small Cell Ordinance. Work Session A. Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 4 of 4 February 12, 2019 Mayor Gaasch opened the floor to anyone in attendance that wanted to address the Council. Steve Ahlgren, 1563 Fulham Street, approached the Council. He noted conversation he had with Metropolitan Council staff regarding the pond on Luther Seminary's property as well as his intention to reach out to Capitol Regions Watershed District. He believes Alice Hausman is working with the University of Minnesota on a way to acquire the wooded area. B. Preparing the Sale of Eustis Street Residential Lots Butkowski prepared a one-page document outlining the expectations and process for the sale of the lots on Eustis Street owned by the City. Councilors discussed their expectations and pros and cons of selling as two or three lots. Staff will finalize and distribute to builders who might be interested in putting in an offer. The goal is to receive proposals back before the second meeting in March. Adjournment Councilor Moffatt moved and seconded by Councilor Grove to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, 41424- (Alb Miles Cline Deputy City Clerk CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAUDERDALE CITY HALL 189 1 WALNUT STREET LAUDERDALE, MN 55113 651-792-7650 651-631-2066 FAx Request for Council Action To: Mayor and City Council From: City Administrator Meeting Date: February 26, 2019 Subject: List of Claims The claims totaling $33,309.21 are provided for City Council review and approval that includes check numbers 26275 to 26293. Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date User: Printed: MILES.CLINE 2/22/2019 12:11 PM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Invoice No Description Check Date Reference Check Amount ACH 43 Public Employees Retirement Association 02/22/2019 PR Batch 50400.02.2019 PERA Coordinated PR Batch 50400.02.2019 PER PR Batch 50400.02.2019 PERA Coordinated PR Batch 50400.02.2019 PER Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 43: ACH 44 Minnesota Department of Revenue PR Batch 50400.02.2019 State Income Tax ACH 45 ACH 46 26275 20 409959 409959 409959 26276 34 26277 65 15930335 26278 184 022019 022019 02/22/2019 PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Stat( Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 44: ICMA Retirement Corporation PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Deferred Comp PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Deferred Comp 02/22/2019 PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Def.( PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Defi Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 45: Internal Revenue Service PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Medicare Employee Pc PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Medicare Employer Po PR Batch 50400.02.2019 FICA Employer Portio: PR Batch 50400.02.2019 FICA Employee Portio PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Federal Income Tax Abdo Eick & Meyers LLP 2018 Audit 2018 Audit 2018 Audit 02/22/2019 PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Mec PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Mec PR Batch 50400.02.2019 FIC. PR Batch 50400.02.2019 FIC. PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Fed( Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 46: Total for 2/22/2019: 02/26/2019 Total for Check Number 26275: AFSCME MN Council 5 02/26/2019 PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Union Dues PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Uni( Allstream Inc. Fax Line Cintas January Uniforms January Uniforms Total for Check Number 26276: 02/26/2019 Total for Check Number 26277: 02/26/2019 991.76 1,144.34 2,136.10 725.04 725.04 1,338.63 1,008.18 2,346.81 276.42 276.42 1,181.82 1,181.82 1,391.78 4,308.26 9,516.21 1,500.00 1,500.00 7,000.00 10,000.00 204.64 204.64 51.74 51.74 59.82 59.81 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/22/2019 12:11 PM) Page 1 Check No Vendor No Invoice No Vendor Name Description Check Date Reference Check Amount Total for Check Number 26278: 119.63 26279 2 City of St Paul 02/26/2019 1N33266 Bi -Annual Street Lighting Electricity 15.24 Total for Check Number 26279: 15.24 26280 192 Comcast Holdings Corporation 02/26/2019 76588672 February Internet 487.61 Total for Check Number 26280: 487.61 26281 25 County of Ramsey 02/26/2019 PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Long Term Disability PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Lon, 88.99 PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Short Term Disability PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Shoi 61.76 PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Life Insurance PR Batch 50400.02.2019 Life 303.53 PRRRV-001033 Truth in Taxation Notice 160.32 RISK -001971 Insurance Processing Fee 25.00 26282 19 Ehlers and Associates Inc 79415 1795 Eustis Redevelopment 79416 Consulting Services Total for Check Number 26281: 639.60 02/26/2019 3,988.75 245.00 Total for Check Number 26282: 4,233.75 26283 134 Katrina Joseph 02/26/2019 0085 January Legal Services 925.00 26284 31 Kennedy & Graven Chartered 147110 January Legal Services 147110 TIF District 1-2 Total for Check Number 26283: 925.00 02/26/2019 3,719.00 750.00 Total for Check Number 26284: 4,469.00 26285 73 League of Minnesota Cities 02/26/2019 287292 MN Cities Stormwater Coalition Contributions 422.00 Total for Check Number 26285: 422.00 26286 76 Minnesota Government Finance Officers A: 02/26/2019 11113 2019 Membership - HB 50.00 Total for Check Number 26286: 50.00 26287 84 North Star Bank Cardmernber Services 02/26/2019 022019 Tissue Paper & Paper Towels 022019 Fire Numbers 71.91 9.56 Total for Check Number 26287: 81.47 26288 14 Rapit Printing Inc 02/26/2019 207912 Lauderdale Envelopes 266.87 26289 89 Schwaab Inc C031346 Ink Stamps Total for Check Number 26288: 266.87 02/26/2019 49.74 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/22/2019 12:11 PM) Page 2 Check No Vendor No Invoice No Vendor Name Description Check Date Reference Check Amount Total for Check Number 26289: 49.74 26290 108 Suburban Rate Authority 02/26/2019 022019 2019 Membership Assessment 452.00 26291 90 Verizon Wireless 9823273885 January Cell Phone 9823273885 January Cell Phone 9823273885 January Cell Phone 26292 7 Total for Check Number 26290: 452.00 02/26/2019 16.29 32.58 16.29 Total for Check Number 26291: 65.16 Waste Management Inc 02/26/2019 8165776-0500-8 City Hall Refuse 205.29 26293 74 Xcel Energy 625254185 1885 Fulham Street 625254185 1917 Walnut Street 625254185 1885 Fulham Street 625254185 1917 Walnut Street 625255564 1795 Eustis Street 625255564 1891 Walnut Street 625255564 1891 Walnut Street 625255564 1795 Eustis Street Total for Check Number 26292: 205.29 02/26/2019 99.75 149.39 129.68 27.26 50.00 183.00 368.76 46.42 Total for Check Number 26293: 1,054.26 Total for 2/26/2019: 23,793.00 Report Total (23 checks): 33,309.21 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/22/2019 12:11 PM) Page 3 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent X Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session Meeting Date February 26, 2019 ITEM NUMBER _January Financial Report STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Every month I provide the Council with an updated copy of the city's finances. Following are the revenue, expense, and cash balance reports for January 2019. You will notice the significant increase in the bottom line due to the payment from Ramsey County for Eustis and Roselawn. These reports represent year end journal entries made by staff. They do not include post -audit journal entries. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council acknowledges the city's financial report for January 2019. General Ledger Cash Balances User: heather.butkowski Printed: 2/13/2019 4:08:43 PM Period 01 - 01 Fiscal Year 2019 Description Account Beg Bal MTD Debit MTD Credit Current Balance Cash 101-00000-000-10100 -2,467,710.10 44,827.74 946,014.66 Change Fund 101-00000-000-10300 100.00 0.00 0.00 Cash 226-00000-000-10100 12,544.77 4,734.72 685.95 Cash 227-00000-000-10100 103,440.44 836.45 4,447.74 Cash 305-00000-000-10100 57,437.18 36.76 19,414.38 Cash 401-00000-000-10100 94,727.16 28,492.00 0.00 Cash 403-00000-000-10100 469,984.90 837,667.70 0.00 Cash 404-00000-000-10100 273,187.95 264.09 0.00 Cash 414-00000-000-10100 258,643.46 250.03 0.00 Cash 416-00000-000-10100 94,774.30 91.62 0.00 Cash 602-00000-000-10100 964,242.81 12,024.47 25,931.35 Cash 603-00000-000-10100 386,447.84 2,630.79 6,013.38 Current Assets 247,820.71 931,856.37 1,002,507.46 Petty Cash Petty Cash 101-00000-000-10200 Investments - Fair Value 101-00000-000-10410 Adj Investments Grand Total 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 3,203,382.62 836,288.25 0.00 3,203,382.62 836,288.25 0.00 3,451,503.33 1,768,144.62 1,002,507.46 -3,368,897.02 100.00 16,593.54 99,829.15 38,059.56 123,219.16 1,307,652.60 273,452.04 258,893.49 94,865.92 950,335.93 383,065.25 177,169.62 300.00 300.00 4,039,670.87 4,039,670.87 4,217,140.49 GL - Cash Balances (02/13/2019 - 04:08 PM) Page 1 Account Numb M O a\ N N p \D an cn o0 0 N 00 O Vl O 0o V) O\ p H 'd: O\ In O O I M O .- p �--i N M 0 V0 p \O O O an ON I� M p O coon- -. [� p 0 000 O� N Cf, o .--. V) cont ---„,..0 O M r —, c- 00 V) 1,421,935.99 N 00 p h N O p N n\D O p N t O 00 \O ✓ — d' M rn Dan 0o0M Lr-) p H M N M 0 p 00 N O ,--, O N co t` p 0 N N r O p r1 ,--i O N OM vi .-. p 00 Oct d' 0 p O\ r -i N. N N 000^ \ \MO \O 0▪ 000- - N N \D O ct 7 I-- ,-. r1 N \O O\ I� 0 V) 0 00 M V1 p r-1 M N M O p 00 h 0--�ONooh p O NN[�O p , r1 O N O M V1 p 00 O d• ct Oc-4 In NNNo0O \MO\O 7 N --� (V N \D 0 d' 7 N r1 N \O 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 O p 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p O O\O O O p O O oOO000N N C N 0 N .-, 00 00 c0 0 O V1 00 cF M p V) O In' d0• OM 0 M O0\ -. t o o oc M 00 Vl7 M O\ 7 H r-1 0) N 0) On N h U , aaa) a 0 O f' n0 O O O t>. U cn 44 Cd CO J N> v) "d G O ai cd y N " ^Li ..� 4) d v v'=''' a bD ti: t. y d • 0 Y y 18 o > O U N 0) a `n a • a O C4 L744F.,a �C) O a WP k0 OUO W 0 0 General Fund 0 0 ri GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) r.. • N a• , 00 M 00 O U M p O 00 O N 1-1 00 d" O 00 p V1 CN O CN p N O O 0 M p CN 00 d' vi VD VD V1 M N N 00 VD M• pI CF OO o\VD CD 00 O) O \43 r4V n OO O b O VDVD00 et 7 M M• p I et O O 00 Op l 00 b 71- CA N C O VD O VD VD 00 et 1' 0 0 0 0 O e' a1 ti) 1) c3 o .0 a) 0 m aa)i ,,, b ti oP4 v N T o U 0 •> U • c) 2 " O a1 • 0 c cl p ~ 0� E5 > D • oa t' D a a)a Ui, a/U 0gE g WrOW N GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) 0) Q YTD Balance c ( \ / 00 - \@5@ G « 00 3 x333 w / \\ / m $000 @@G § 00 / / 3 \ t \ a@@ q O a f c _ % ƒ / \ \ 5 \k g \ c00p F ƒ «aac / / kfl / 1 - @ /@5@ @ @ 7 c a£• 2 2 4 I \ % 7 f / / 3 0 e \/ \ 0 0 \• / § \ ) \ 8' .-5>' �(( 0)/ dj\ 0) 0 ;§= m g2g 6 (\ \ 0 k •"5 \ . 6) 6) ] 4=zou 4 ] \ \ \ - /c ; 7G § \\ • § j GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) CaCCS Current Period z Z 0 U U N p N v~j • O 7-1 O ti c1 00 I m O N N CO N 00 N 00 an • O M 4 a\ .-a N • O N • M a M O • p O p O O O M M M ON 00 00 CI N M 7 N 00 00 r-1 r-1 GO TIF Revenue Bonds 2018A GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) 0ON0K'000o N O '-+ p O O O p O O .-1 ✓ O O 0 a O 00 0 O c0 O CS N Current Period z O O O OO O I O co O p co co 0000 O © e~-1 N O co N 0 0 O0 O 0 0 00 O O 0 0 p .�-1 O © p co c 0001 0001 © © oho o00 o 0 0 0 O o O O 0 000 0 0 co o � O �o© oco o O o 0 00 O O N t� [-- I 0 General Capital Projects O GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) YTD Balance Current Period O O O ▪ O O O M O N O N O p O ,CT -i o rt O00 p 00 o p ,--i in p q O o en M O M O O O s.O h O\ ,--( 7r "rr M M M 0 VO pi 10 00 p 00 7 O 00 p 00 of p O, O O p O 10 N N O\ '-i ,-1 Vl V1 h mM M 0 0000 pp I 00 V O I 00 O O b O p O N N O‘ CT ,--t M 0 0 p I O O pp I 0 0 O 00 p 0o O p O 00 O O O 0, N u) m y y a) q w. o R > o O ; "G 7,71 ' G Ri on 0 • G 734 ccl oa o m cA cl N G Va) = a.) O N c) O a 4-,,a m ,_., v, U a) y to U N U d y 0)) y Fr y --� •.`moi G 0) k cd 'J k CAg4 0 a WUO W Street Capital Projects GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) +r O I N p N �O U Ln p V) O O O O tel ci V 1- O O 01 p -- c. O M p � v1 p V) O 4 p V GC cn N N b 7 M M tri' V) r O p O I CSN p In p V) V) O • O 4 Ooo ON if) N N ‘O VO OI prn O a 1oo !)) N N \O pIOpppOO p pO OpO O O O VO sV Pal M M tri. tn `n O U � -, U 0 O 0 a x " a U 0 ' 0 0w O rl a t71 U �. 0 U ,„O C4 0 t -i L) p y w q C ,•a; id g O ,W Y U 0 co U A,.:: N U Pig 0 g we UO W Park Capital Projects GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) \ \ @1 $ @| 7 7 c a e a c c / Z f S @ @ @ 5 @ @ .§ a s © a d e / \ ( U \ ƒ @ \ @ c e a o 3 @ @| @| 7 © 3£ c 3 o © / @| /| © @ a s e c 3 e \ (( L) ( ®7 \ 4 y 7 § {® - §) a)( \ \)5/ ) m\ § 7y° - &± \ / \ / j]// k )3 ) ®0 0 - /a W /\ © 3£ \\ \ ) \\ \/)\ \ga/ f § CD 0 \yg\\/\ \ \ Rosehill Tax Increment GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) PIA LI p p o N cV p O O p O �--i N o o co a p pl o a Tr o O o p o Q\ O © ON M c`1 N .-i O Op l O O pp l O O O O ton O O O N O p l O p O 6 O © p 0 o o rt N N O O p( O O O O O O O © O O O O O o © et hl N N U OA U U a)V b Ri OA cat cn Cr8 ''8 1) y 0 ; / \ ) Account Number \ \| 5 /| @ 7 cc d a3 e \ @ @y @ @ 3 3 a3 3 e @ 3 @| @ @| @ 7 3 e £3 3 5 \| 5 @| $ 7 c; o a 3 3 0 @ /| @ @ @| @ @ ac a a3 3 3 / {) f0 ƒ ®/ 0 ct ( & g a _ ) 'O o a 0.0 ;(.§ cod\ 0 a§5\ ) m/3 m \/\\ \ 0. w\ 0, 434 u w Housing Redevelopment \ GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) YTD Balance O N p N O O O N • 0 i 0 0 0 O O cn OO I M O O Op O M 6 00 0 00 ▪ O O 0 O 00 p�p ▪ 00p g el O O - O O 0 O o�p 00p O O - O O 0 O 00pl oppl 0 0 O 00 0 000 0 0 N cn N OA cn 0 0 cv = 0a O R! IDA C:1 Z 0 C N T , 4 N ai > 7 y a)41 Ar q m }O O m.. 4JN0 H C0 0 GA q a� G° > 4, 'Ca C Ow�aH 0 a W000 Account Number TIF District No. 1-2 GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) o 4 0 0 N M O N 271 id (\1 N -0'0O� 0 cd N 0 •r 0 YTD Balance Current Period • count Numb O N 00 I O CS O v.) CD p O O cs '-+ 0 • vD O rt O p M O N10\ O 7 vO Ort 0 0 L-4 O 0 N p) c 0000 0 0 0 0 p�ccoo O O N0Ln O l—O en O O r- 4\ en 00 Os Lo N N N ,-, CrN CIN eq M N Nr N N 0 t- b0 p I V1 N 0 N 0 p I d' CT O N I O O 0 CYN 0 0 O O� 0 0 —,O N N O Q O r N a\ ti 0 in M" --i i 0O '-i N vM --- ,--r N M N CD O O N -i 00\0 0 O 00,-+ OI 1-1 N NO Lo 0 ON el N N OL H O In .Y ,-+ N Ln b0 M '-1 ,-r '-i N M N 00001 0 00000 O\D 0 O L�-1 00-0 p O00v-icoca l- 0 Ln Lei s el" N O N s 0 N m 0 N 0 ,,)ti)0) 0) 0 a) g '' P4 6 a) • a IL,❑ t04 txo 0 N N 0 V mr a >, vad V] yam, p N 00 > N >1 40) 1. ^,1 CD w 0.) • W cd N N O w CU > -.' :.0 CI 0 b) bA U y 0) 0 0 .,. 0 N n014 V�iYrd WL1 V]000 W el Sanitary Sewer GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) 3 4 X 0` 0 0 0\ '9N O y m O N al) — 0 O?- -bb,— a 0❑' rOn U M M P. A. LI. U YTD Balance Current Period ii Q z OMN pI N OOMO pi �O et O -.N O �O0v10 O M M OCV oo p N VIS O tri CD p v) H - gCDCNCD cp O t M O O D p O VD h VD O p O fl L i p b 0VD.--+ N O O 00 O CD CN OI M ,t O d' 0 OI 00 Al 000ON p 00 0 CD p p N ‘.0p 7 ,-.0 0 si 0 p '-1 b v1 [ O N N d — M O ON p I M d' O O p I 00 M 0000\ p 00 CN OOO O O� N pp N O 0 0 p H N N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 pp 0 0, 0 p dam' O VO p ,. v1 VO 00 [-- ,, O p O N 1 O1-1 us 0 v 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0 0 .[ °)U U 0 1. U N '0 C w 0 0) 0 0 y❑ 0 . T 0 ++ ,7 1, O 0)) cs o 0O 00i o ai Li 0rn�� 0 .-+ .0 ...a' - d DC 0 a' .' y-- ca .' x vpC4.9U 0 g WP.v)OUO W Storm Water GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) end/Collect v cd O O p O O O O O p O O O O p O O O O O p O O 666 0 66666 0 0 OO OI O 00000) O o O O O OO O O O O O O O00 0 00000 0 0 O O 6O O O O O O O O O O p l O 0 0 0 0 p O O 6 6 p O O O O O 6 O © O O O) O O O O O 6I O O O O p O O O O O O O O 6 6 p O 6 6 6 6 6 O O 0061 O 0000 O o O 006 0 00000 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 6 6 0 6 O O CD 0aD - a 0 0 to U Li U ys,.. U T O p � A 6)03 C O4 2 G2 77i , m 1 a) t ' awxHo awaoorao 10 w w Account Numb GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) O O OR ooCD ON Current Period z 00 ON O VD VD O t. [� CN V r V1 �O O M 00unM 00o H � GL - Revenue vs Expense (02/13/2019 - 04:19 PM) LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent X Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The five-year lease on the City's copier is up in June. Staff received proposals from two venders. The best pricing came from Metro Sales, which is our current vendor. The month- ly price we pay will go up by approximately $25.00 per month due to the need to increase the capacity of the machine to accommodate the large packets we have had regularly and all of the additional scanning with the addition of Laserfiche a few years ago. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council approves entering into a five-year lease agreement with Metro Sales, Inc. and authorizes the city administrator to execute agree- ments as necessary. SOLUTION FOR: CITY 5176.00 METRO SALES INC. OF LAUDERDALE RICOH IM C3500 FEBRUARY 20, 2019 • 35 BW, FC COPIES/PRINTS PER MINUTE OUTPUT SPEED • 220 SHEET SINGLE PASS DUAL SCANNING DOCUMENT FEEDER • NETWORK PRINTING, SCANNING STANDARD (SCAN-TO-EMAIL/FOLDER/FTP) • FULL-COLOR 1 -TOUCH OPS -PANEL FOR UN -MATCHED EASE OF USE • DUPLEXING UNIT THAT REDUCES PAPER USAGE BY COPY/PRINTING ON BOTH SIDES OF SHEET • 2,300 SHEET PAPER CAPACITY FROM 5 DIFFERENT PAPER SOURCES • STANDARD COPY, PRINT, SCAN CAPABILITIES • EXTERNAL MULTI -POSITION STAPLER WITH 3 HOLE PUNCH OPTION INVESTMENT OPTIONS: atm 60 MONTH LEASE PRICE SERVICE / SUPPLY AGREEMENT: FULL SERVICE AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT INCLUDES ALL SERVICE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, PARTS, LABOR, TRIP VISITS, AND UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INCLUDING TONER - EXCLUDES STAPLES IF APPLICABLE AUTOMATED TONER DELIVERY SERVICE 0-3 HOUR ONSITE SERVICE RESPONSE TIME GUARANTEE 7 YEAR FULL REPLACEMENT WARRANTY ON NEW EQUIPMENT $30.00 QUARTERLY INCLUDES 3,000 B&W COPIES/PRINTS, WITH OVERAGES BILLING AT $0.0099 IN ARREARS NO MINIMUM COLOR COPIES/PRINTS BILLING AT $0.055 PER COPY/PRINT LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing X Discussion X Action Resolution Work Session Meeting Date February 26, 2019 ITEM NUMBER Small Cell Wireless Facilities i STAFF INITIAL 2 APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: As you know, it has been staff's goal to create a small cell wireless ordinance for some time. By small cell technology we mean the technology that enables 5G communication inclusive of the necessary infrastructure in public rights-of-way. The problem has been ever changing state laws and federal rules that make the end result difficult to produce. Mike Bradley, le- gal counsel for CTV, recently prepared a new model ordinance that addresses the most re- cent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling on aesthetics of small wireless fa- cilities. The draft included has been tailored from the model to match Lauderdale's specific needs. The goal of this meeting is to look at the draft and take public comments. Final revi- sions can be made in advance of consideration for adoption at the March 12 meeting. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: MEMO To: City Council of Lauderdale, Minnesota From: Michael Bradley, Legal Counsel Re: Small Wireless Facility Model Ordinance Date: February 26, 2019 Background The next generation of wireless services (called 5G) will require wireless providers to install a large amount of lower hanging antennas that are connected to fiber optic cable allowing wireless providers to provide significantly higher internet speeds. The facilities needed to provide 5G service are called small wireless facilities. The use of the word small is used to describe the area covered by each antenna, not the size of the facilities. Small wireless facilities include antennae, equipment cabinets, vertical conduit, power supplies, etc. Typically, small wireless facilities are attached to utilities poles, such as a light pole in the public right-of-way. Over the past 2 years, the Minnesota legislature enacted a new small wireless facility law and the FCC has released a small wireless facility order. These actions have placed new restrictions on how cities may handle applications to install small cell facilities. These restrictions include review and approval deadlines and limitations on fees. The City participated in a group of Minnesota cities to engage the municipal telecommunications law firm of Bradley Law, LLC to draft a model small wireless facility ordinance to help the city comply with the new laws and to prepare for the anticipated applications to install small wireless facilities in the City. Bradley Law submitted a model ordinance, which was subsequently customized for use by the City. The following is a high level summary of the small wireless facility ordinance Ordinance Summary • Requires all wireless providers to obtain a small wireless facility permit prior to installing any small wireless facilities in the City. • Directs the city administrator or their designee to develop a permit application form, and additional design standards, construction standards, aesthetic standards and other permit requirements. • Sets initial general standards for small wireless facilities. • Sets forth the application process from start to finish. • Mandatory conditions for all permits. • The term of all small wireless facility permits. • The process to deny or revoke a small wireless facility permit, including an appeal to the City Council or the Council's designee. • City inspection of permitted small wireless facilities. • Allowing the removal of abandoned or unauthorized small wireless facilities • Mandatory insurance provisions. • Indemnification and defense of the City requirements. • Application fees as set forth in the FCC's small facility wireless order. • Annual small wireless facility permit fees for small wireless facilities in the public right- of-way as restricted by state law to the recovery of the City's right-of-way management costs. • City -owned wireless support structure fees as limited by state law. This is for small wireless facilities collocated on city -owned wireless support structures in the public right- of-way. • Annual fees for use of city -owned property outside of the public right-of-way. • Construction of fiber optic cable and other activity in the public right-of-way remain subject to the City's existing code and permitting requirements. • Macro -Cell towers remain subject to the City's existing zoning code. Recommendation We recommend approval of the ordinance at the City's next regular City Council meeting. 2 CITY OF LAUDERDALE ORDINANCE NO. 19-0 AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A NEW CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES, ESTABLISHING GENERAL STANDARDS, A PERMITTING PROCESS, GENERAL PERMITTING CONDITIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. WHEREAS, it is anticipated that Wireless Providers will increasingly rely on accessing the Public Right -of -Way of the City of Lauderdale, Minnesota (the "City") to Collocate Small Wireless Facilities in order to provide improved service to their subscribers; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that Wireless Providers will more heavily depend on obtaining use of public infrastructure in the Public Right -of -Way, such as Utility Poles and other Wireless Support Structures, due to a much greater number of antennas being required to provide next generation wireless services; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the increased number of antennas will result in economic benefits to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the City desires through the passage of this ordinance to develop a process that will allow Wireless Providers to rapidly deploy Small Wireless Facilities while maintaining reasonable standards for the Public Right -of -Way within the City; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and beneficial for the health, safety and welfare of the community to update the City's zoning regulations for the Collocation of Small Wireless Facilities and installation or replacement of new Wireless Support Structures to accommodate Small Wireless Facilities; and WHEREAS, it is important to accommodate the growing need and demand for telecommunications services while protecting the character of the City and its neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, there is a need to establish standards for location, aesthetics, and compatibility for Small Wireless Facilities, Wireless Support Structures, and their uses; and WHEREAS, there is a need to encourage the availability of affordable, high-speed internet and cellular telephone access for businesses and residents, acknowledging that a growing number of businesses are conducted from remote or off-site locations, that educational institutions increasingly incorporate online and distance learning methodologies, and that government participation and emergency service to the general public are enhanced by fast and reliable cellular and home internet connectivity; and WHEREAS, there have been recent changes to the mandates of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and other applicable federal 1 and state laws, including, but not limited to, Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 and 237.163, that require the City to update its wireless regulations; and WHEREAS, a mechanism for the permitting of Small Wireless Facilities, Micro Wireless Facilities, and distributed antenna systems telecommunication uses is in the best interest of the citizens of the City; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAUDERDALE, RAMSEY COUNTY MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION I. Section 7-8-4 of Title 7, Chapter 8 of the Lauderdale City Code shall be amended by adding the following subsection D: D: A permit issued under this Chapter does not authorize the collocation of a small wireless facility or the installation or replacement of a wireless support structure. To collocate a small wireless facility or install or replace a wireless support structure in the public right-of-way, a person must obtain a small wireless facility permit pursuant to the city of Lauderdale City Code Chapter 7-9. SECTION II. Title 7 of the Lauderdale City Code is hereby amended to add new Chapter 9 as follows: CHAPTER 9 SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES SECTIONS: 7-9-1: Purpose 7-9-2: Definitions 7-9-3: Small Wireless Facility Permit Applications 7-9-4: Establishment of General Standards 7-9-5: Small Wireless Facility Application Review Process 7-9-6: Small Wireless Facility Permit Conditions 7-9-7: Small Wireless Facility Permit Term 7-9-8: Denial or Revocation of a Small Wireless Facility Permit 7-9-9: City Inspection of a Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure 7-9-10: Abandonment 7-9-11: Removal of a Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure 7-9-12: Appeals 7-9-13: Insurance 7-9-14: Indemnification and Defense of City 7-9-15: Fees and Costs 7-9-16: Severability 7-9-1: PURPOSE 2 A) General Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish specific requirements for obtaining a Small Wireless Facility Permit for the installation, mounting, modification, operation, and replacement of Small Wireless Facilities and installation or replacement of Wireless Support Structures by commercial Wireless Providers on public and private property, including in the Public Right -of -Way. A Small Wireless Facility Permit issued under this Chapter does not abrogate any other requirements imposed under another Title of the City Code of the City of Lauderdale, including, but not limited to, those requirements imposed by Title 8 Chapter 7 and Title 10 of the City Code of the City of Lauderdale. B) This Chapter does not apply to any Wireline Facilities, including Wireline Backhaul Facilities. A Wireless Provider must obtain a right-of-way permit pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 8 or other applicable authorization for use of the Public Right -of -Way to construct, install, replace, or modify any Wireline Backhaul Facility, such as fiber optic cable. The granting of a Small Wireless Facility Permit pursuant to this Chapter is not a grant of such authorization. 7-9-2: DEFINITIONS In this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them below: A) "Administrator" shall mean the city administrator or their designee. B) "Applicable Law" shall mean all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, rules, regulations, orders, and ordinances, as the same be amended or adopted from time to time. C) "Applicant" shall mean any Person submitting a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application under this Chapter. D) "City" shall mean the City of Lauderdale, Minnesota. E) "Collocate" or "Collocation" shall mean to install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a Small Wireless Facility on, under, within, or adjacent to an existing Wireless Support Structure that is owned privately or by the City. F) "Days" shall be counted in calendar days unless otherwise specified. When the day, or the last day, for taking any action or paying any fee falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the action may be taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding secular or business day. G) "Decorative Pole" shall mean a Utility Pole owned, managed, or operated by or on behalf of the City or any other governmental entity that: (a) is specifically designed and placed for an aesthetic purpose; and (b)(i) on which a nondiscriminatory rule or code prohibits an appurtenance or attachment, other than: (A) a Small Wireless Facility, (B) a specialty designed informational or directional sign; or (C) a temporary holiday or special event attachment; or (ii) on which no appurtenance or attachment has been placed, other than: 3 (A) a Small Wireless Facility, (B) a specialty designed informational or directional sign; or (C) a temporary holiday or special event attachment. H) "Design District" shall mean any district within the City within which architectural design elements are required. I) "Excavate" shall mean to dig into or in any way remove, physically disturb, or penetrate a part of a Public Right -of -Way. J) "FCC" and "Commission" shall mean the Federal Communications Commission. K) "Historic District" shall mean a geographically definable area, urban or rural, that possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district may also comprise individual elements separated geographically during the period of significance but linked by association or function. L) "Micro Wireless Facility" shall mean a Small Wireless Facility that is no larger than twenty-four (24) inches long, fifteen (15) inches wide, and twelve (12) inches high, and whose exterior antenna, if any, is no longer than eleven (11) inches. M) "Obstruct" shall mean to place a tangible object in a Public Right -of -Way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the Public Right -of -Way. N) "Permittee" shall mean a Person that has been granted a Small Wireless Facility Permit by the City. 0) "Person" shall mean any individual, group, company, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, society, syndicate, club, business, or governmental entity. "Person" shall not include the City. P) "Public Right -of -Way" shall mean the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane, and public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easement of the City. Q) "Small Wireless Facility Permit" shall mean a permit issued by the City authorizing the installation, mounting, maintenance, modification, operation, or replacement of a Small Wireless Facility or installation or replacement of a Wireless Support Structure in addition to Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility on the Wireless Support Structure. R) "Small Wireless Facility" shall mean: (a) a Wireless Facility that meets both of the following qualifications: (i) each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six (6) cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all its exposed elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six (6) cubic feet; and (ii) all other wireless equipment associated with the Small Wireless Facility, excluding electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer 4 switches, cutoff switches, cable, conduit, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services, and any equipment concealed from public view within or behind an existing structure or concealment, is in aggregate no more than twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume; or(b) a Micro Wireless Facility. S) "Utility Pole" shall mean a pole that is used in whole or in part to facilitate telecommunications or electric service. It does not include a traffic signal pole. T) "Wireless Facility" shall mean equipment at a fixed location that enables the provision of Wireless Service between user equipment and a wireless service network, including: (a) equipment associated with Wireless Service; (b) a radio transceiver, antenna, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration; and (c) a Small Wireless Facility. "Wireless Facility" does not include: (a) Wireless Support Structures; (b) Wireline Backhaul Facilities; or (c) Coaxial or fiber-optic cables (i) between Utility Poles or Wireless Support Structures, or (ii) that are not otherwise immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a specific antenna. U) "Wireless Provider" shall mean a provider of Wireless Service, including, but not limited to, radio communication service carried on between mobile stations or receivers and land stations, and by mobile stations communicating among themselves and which permits a user generally to receive a call that originates and/or terminates on the public switched network or its functional equivalent, regardless of the radio frequencies used. V) "Wireless Service" shall mean any service using licensed or unlicensed wireless spectrum, including the use of Wi-Fi, whether at a fixed location or by means of a mobile device, that is provided using Wireless Facilities. Wireless Service does not include services regulated under Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including a cable service under United States Code, title 47, section 522, clause (6). W) "Wireless Support Structure" shall mean a new or existing structure in a Public Right -of - Way designed to support or capable of supporting Small Wireless Facilities, including, but not limited to, a Utility Pole or a building, as reasonably determined by the City. X) "Wireline Backhaul Facility" shall mean a facility used to transport communications data by wire from wireless facility to a communications network. 7-9-3: SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY PERMIT APPLICATIONS A) Application Form. The Administrator shall develop and make publicly available a form Application. To the extent possible, the Administrator shall allow for Applications to be consolidated pursuant to this Section. A complete Application must be submitted for each Small Wireless Facility Permit desired. B) Consolidated Applications. A Wireless Provider may apply for up to 15 Small Wireless Facility Permits in a Consolidated Application, provided all Small Wireless Facilities in the Consolidated Application are located within a two-mile radius, consist of substantially similar equipment, and are to be Collocated on similar types of Wireless 5 Support Structures. The City shall review a Consolidated Application as allowed by this Chapter. If necessary, the applied for Small Wireless Facility Permits in a Consolidated Application may be approved or denied individually, but the City may not use the denial of one or more permits as a basis to deny all Small Wireless Facility Permits in a Consolidated Application. Any Small Wireless Facility Permits denied in a Consolidated Application shall be subject to a single appeal. C) Information Not Required. The City shall not require an Applicant to provide any information that: 1. Has previously been provided to the City by the Applicant in a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application, if the Applicant provides specific reference to the previous Application containing the information sought by the City and the previous information remains unchanged; and 2. Is not reasonably necessary to review a Small Wireless Facility Peiniit Application for compliance with generally applicable and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations, and to demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations governing audio frequency exposure, or other information required by this Chapter. 7-9-4: ESTABLISHMENT OF GENERAL STANDARDS. A) General Standards. The Administrator shall establish and maintain a set of standards for the installation, mounting, maintenance, modification, operation, or replacement of Small Wireless Facilities and placing new or replacement Wireless Support Structures in the Public Right -of -Way applicable to all Permittees under this Chapter (the "General Standards"). The General Standards shall include, but not be limited to, information to be required in a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application, design standards, construction standards, aesthetic standards, a form Application, permitting conditions, insurance and security requirements, and Rates and Fees. B) Design Standards. Any design standards established by the Administrator shall be: (a) reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and (b) include additional installation and construction details that do not conflict with this Chapter, including, but not limited to, a requirement that: (i) an industry standard pole load analysis be completed and submitted an the City, indicating that the Wireless Support Structure to which the Small Wireless Facility is to be attached will safely support the load, and (ii) Small Wireless Facility equipment on new and existing Wireless Support Structures be placed higher than fifteen (15) feet above ground level. The Administrator shall additionally include the following in any design standards established under this Chapter: 1. Any Wireless Support Structure installed in the Public Right -of -Way after May 31, 2017 may not exceed fifty (50) feet above ground level, unless the City agrees to a greater height, subject to local zoning regulations, and may be subject to separation requirements in relation to other Wireless Support Structures. 6 2. Any Wireless Support Structure replacing an existing Wireless Support Structure that is more than fifty (50) feet above ground level may be placed at the height of the existing Wireless Support Structure, unless the City agrees to a greater height, subject to zoning regulations. 3. Wireless Facilities constructed in the Public Right -of -Way after May 31, 2017 may not extend more than ten (10) feet above an existing Wireless Support Structure in place as of May 31, 2017. 4. If necessary to Collocate a Small Wireless Facility, a Wireless Provider may replace a Decorative Pole, if the replacement pole reasonably conforms to the design and aesthetic qualities of the displaced Decorative Pole. 5. A Wireless Provider shall comply with the City's requirements to install facilities underground, including, without limitation, compliance with Section 7-8-25 of the City Code of the City of Lauderdale. 6. All Small Wireless Facilities Collocated or Wireless Support Structures installed in a Design District or Historic District shall comply with any design or concealment or other measures required by the City. C) Construction Standards. Any construction standards established by the Administrator shall include at least the following terms and conditions: 1. Compliance with Applicable Law. To the extent this requirement is not preempted or otherwise legally unenforceable, a Permittee shall comply with all Applicable Law and applicable industry standards. 2. Prevent Interference. A Permittee shall Collocate, install, and continuously operate any authorized Small Wireless Facilities and Wireless Support Structures in a manner that prevents interference with other Wireless Facilities and other facilities in the Right -of -Way and the operation thereof. With appropriate permissions from the City, a Permittee shall, as is necessary for the safe and reliable operation, use, and maintenance of an authorized Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure, maintain trees as prescribed by standards promulgated by the City. 3. Other Rights Not Affected. A Permittee shall not construe a contract, permit, correspondence, or other communication from the City as affecting a right, privilege, or duty previously conferred or imposed by the City to or on another Person. 4. Restoration. A Permittee, after any excavation of a Public Right -of -Way, shall provide for restoration of the affected Public Right -of -Way and surrounding areas, including the pavement and its foundation, to the same condition that existed before the excavation. If a Permittee fails to adequately restore the Public Right -of -Way within a specified date, the City may: 7 a) itself restore the Public Right -of -Way and recover from the Permittee the reasonable costs of the surface restoration; or b) recover from the Permittee a reasonable degradation fee associated with a decrease in the useful life of the Public Right -of -Way caused by the excavation. A Permittee that disturbs uncultivated sod in the excavation or obstruction of the Public Right -of -Way shall plant grasses that are native to Minnesota and, wherever practicable, that are of the local eco -type, as part of the restoration required under this Section, unless the owner of the real property over which the Public Right -of -Way traverses objects. In restoring the Public Right -of -Way, the Permittee shall consult with the City of Wildlife Conservation regarding the species of native grasses that conform to the requirements of this paragraph. 5. Permittee's Liability. A Permittee is solely responsible for the risk and expense of the Collocation of the Permittee's Small Wireless Facility and installing or replacing the Permittee's Wireless Support Structure. The City neither warrants nor represents that any area within the Public Right -of -Way is suitable for such Collocation or installation or replacement. A Permittee shall accept the Public Right -of -Way "as is" and "where is" and assumes all risks related to any use. The City is not liable for damage to Small Wireless Facilities due to an event of damage to a Wireless Support Structure in the Public Right -of -Way. 7-9-5: SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. A) Eligibility for Review. An Application shall be eligible for review if the Application conforms to the General Standards adopted by the Administrator. B) Authorization. A Small Wireless Facility Permit issued pursuant to any Application processed hereunder shall authorize: (1) the installation, mounting, modification, operation, and replacement of a Small Wireless Facility in the Public Right -of -Way or City -owned property; or (2) construction of a new, or replacement of an existing, Wireless Support Structure, and Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility on the Wireless Support Structure. C) Review Process. An Application submitted pursuant to this Section shall be reviewed as follows: 1. Submission of Application. Applicant shall submit a complete Application accompanied by the appropriate application fee as set forth in Section 7-9-15 (Fees and Costs) to the City. Prior to submitting a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application, an Applicant shall inspect any Wireless Support Structure on which it proposes to Collocate a Small Wireless Facility and determine, based on a structural engineering analysis by a Minnesota registered professional engineer, the suitability of the Wireless Support Structure for the proposed Collocation. The structural engineering analysis shall be submitted to the City with the Application, and shall certify that the Wireless Support structure is capable of safely 8 supporting the proposed Small Wireless Facility considering conditions at the proposed location, including the condition of the Public Right -of -Way, hazards from traffic, exposure to wind, snow and/or ice, and other conditions affecting the proposed Small Wireless Facility that may be reasonably anticipated. 2. Application Review Period. The City shall, within sixty (60) days after the date a complete Application for the Collocation is submitted to the City, issue or deny a Small Wireless Facility Permit pursuant to the Application. The City shall, within ninety (90) days after the date a complete Application for a new or replacement Wireless Support Structure in addition to the Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility is submitted to the City, issue or deny a Small Wireless Facility Permit pursuant to the Application. If the City receives applications within a single seven-day period from one or more Applicants seeking approval of Small Wireless Facility Permits for more than thirty (30) Small Wireless Facilities or ten (10) Wireless Support Structures, the City may extend the 90 -day review period of this Chapter by an additional 30 days. If the City elects to invoke this extension, it must inform in writing any Applicant to whom the extension will be applied. 3. Completeness Determination. The City shall review a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application for completeness following submittal. The City shall provide a written notice of incompleteness to the Applicant within ten (10) days of receipt of the Application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information. Information delineated in the notice is limited to documents or information publicly required as of the date of application and reasonably related to the City's determination of whether the proposed equipment falls within the definition of a Small Wireless Facility and whether the proposed deployment satisfies all health, safety, and welfare regulations applicable to the Small Wireless Facility Permit request complies with this Chapter and applicable Standards promulgated by the City. If an Applicant fails to respond to the City's notice of incompleteness within ninety (90) days, the Application shall be deemed expired and no Small Wireless Facility Permit shall be issued. Upon an Applicant's submittal of additional documents or information in response to a notice of incompleteness, the City shall within ten (10) days of submission notify the applicant in writing of any information requested in the initial notice of incompleteness that is still missing. Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. 4. Reset and Tolling of Review Period. In the event that a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application is incomplete, and the City has provided a timely and complete written notice of incompleteness, then the applicable review period shall be reset, pending the time between when a notice is mailed and the submittal of information in compliance with the notice. Subsequent notices shall toll the applicable review period. An Applicant and the City can mutually agree in writing to toll the applicable review period at any time. 9 5. Moratorium Prohibited. Notwithstanding any Applicable Law to the contrary, including, but not limited to, Minnesota Statutes Sections 394.34 and 462.355, the City shall not establish any moratorium with respect to the filing, receiving, or processing of applications for Small Wireless Facility Permits, or issuing or approving Small Wireless Facility Permits. 6. Nondiscriminatory Processing of Applications. The City shall ensure that any Application processed under this Chapter is performed on a nondiscriminatory basis. 7. Permit Not Required. A Permittee shall provide 30 days advance written notice to the City, but shall not be required to obtain a Small Wireless Facility Permit, or pay an additional Small Wireless Facility Permit fee for: a) routine maintenance; b) the replacement of a Small Wireless Facility with a Small Wireless Facility that is substantially similar to or smaller in size; or c) the installation, placement, maintenance, operation, or replacement of a Micro Wireless Facility that is strung on a cable between existing Utility Poles, in compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code. 7-9-6: SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY PERMIT CONDITIONS A) General Conditions of Approval. In processing and approving a Small Wireless Facility Permit, the City shall condition its approval on compliance with: 1. Generally applicable and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations consistent with the City's Public Right -of -Way management; 2. Reasonable accommodations for a Decorative Pole; 3. Any reasonable restocking, replacement, or relocation requirements when a new Wireless Support Structure is placed in the Public Right -of -Way; 4. Construction of the proposed Small Wireless Facility within six (6) months from the date the Small Wireless Facility Permit is issued; 5. Obtaining additional authorization for use of the Public Right -of -Way for the construction of Wireline Backhaul Facilities or any other wired facilities; 6. Compliance with the City's General Standards; and 7. Compliance with all Applicable Law. 10 B) Generally Applicable and Reasonable Health, Safety, and Welfare Regulations. Generally applicable and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations for purposes of this Section include, without limitation, the following: 1. A structural engineering analysis by a Minnesota registered professional engineer certifying that a Wireless Support Structure can reasonably support a proposed Small Wireless Facility considering the conditions of the street, the anticipated hazards from traffic to be encountered at the proposed location, and any wind, snow, ice, or other conditions that may be reasonably anticipated at the proposed location; 2. A determination by the City that, based upon reasonable engineering judgment, a proposed Small Wireless Facility is of excessive size or weight or would otherwise subject a Wireless Support Structure to an unacceptable level of stress; 3. A determination by the City that, based upon reasonable engineering judgment, a proposed Small Wireless Facility would cause undue harm to the reliability or integrity of the City's electrical infrastructure or would likely violate generally applicable electrical or engineering principles; 4. A determination by the City that a proposed Small Wireless Facility presents an unreasonable safety hazard as specifically and reasonably identified by the City; 5. A determination by the City that a proposed Small Wireless Facility impairs the City's ability to operate or maintain the Public Right -of -Way; or 6. A determination by the City that a proposed Small Wireless Facility cannot be placed due to insufficient capacity and the infrastructure cannot be modified or enlarged consistent with the requirements of this Chapter and the City's General Standards; 7. A determination by the City that a proposed Small Wireless Facility is in violation of the National Electric Safety Code or Applicable Law. C) Authorized Use. An approval of a Small Wireless Facility Permit under this Section authorizes the Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility on an existing Wireless Support Structure to provide Wireless Services, or the installation or replacement of a Wireless Support Structure and Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility, and shall not be construed to confer authorization to: 1. provide any service other than Wireless Service; 2. construct, install, maintain, or operate any Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure in a Right -of -Way other than the approved Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure; or 3. install, place, maintain, or operate a Wireline Backhaul Facility in the Right -of - Way. 11 D) Other Permits Required. Any Person desiring to obstruct or perform excavation in a Public Right -of -Way within the City for purposes of Collocating a Small Wireless Facility or installing or replacing a Wireless Support Structure shall, consistent with Section 7-8-9 of the City Code of the City of Lauderdale, obtain the necessary permit from the City prior to conducting any such activities. E) Exclusive Arrangements Prohibited. The City shall not enter into an exclusive arrangement with any Person for use of a Public Right -of -Way for the Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility or for the installation or operation of a Wireless Support Structure. F) Unauthorized Small Wireless Facility. No Person shall install, mount, modify, operate, or replace a Small Wireless Facility in the Public Right -of -Way or on City -owned property, or install or replace a Wireless Support Structure without first obtaining a Small Wireless Facility Permit from the City. 1. If an unauthorized Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure is discovered, the City shall provide written notice to the owner of the unauthorized Small Wireless Facility within five (5) days of discovery of the unauthorized Small Wireless Facility. If an owner of an unauthorized Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure cannot be reasonably identified, the City need not provide any written notice. 2. If the owner of an unauthorized Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure can be reasonably identified, the City may remove the unauthorized Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure without incurring liability to the owner of the Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure and at the owner's sole expense no sooner than five (5) days after providing notice of the City's discovery of the unauthorized Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure to the owner. 3. If the owner of an unauthorized Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure cannot be reasonably identified, the City may remove the unauthorized Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure without incurring liability to the owner of the Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure and at the owner's sole expense. G) Relocation. The City may require a Permittee to relocate or modify a Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure in a Public Right -of -Way or on City -owned property in a timely manner and at the Permittee's cost if the City determines that such relocation or modification is required to protect public health, safety and welfare, or to prevent interference with other facilities authorized pursuant to this chapter, or to prevent interference with public works projects of the City. H) Security Required. Each Permittee shall submit and maintain with the City a bond, cash deposit, or other security acceptable to the City, in a form and amount determined by the City in accordance with the General Standards, securing the faithful performance of the 12 obligations of the Permittee and its agents under any and all Small Wireless Facility Permits issued to the Permittee under this Chapter. If, in accordance with this Chapter, the City deducts any amounts from such security, the Permittee must restore the full amount of the security prior to the City's issuance of any subsequent Small Wireless Facility Permit. The City shall return or cancel the security should the Permittee cease to operate any Small Wireless Facilities in the Right -of -Way. I) Payment of Fees Required. A Small Wireless Facility Permit shall not be issued prior to the complete payment of all applicable Fees. J) Notice of Assignment Required. A Permittee upon or within ten (10) calendar days after transfer, assignment, conveyance, or sublet of an attachment that changes the permit and/or billing entity or ownership responsibilities shall provide written notification to the City. 7-9-7: SMALL WIRELSS FACILITY PERMIT TERM. A) Term. A Small Wireless Facility Permit for a Small Wireless Facility in the Public Right - of -Way shall have a term equal to the length of time that the Small Wireless Facility is in use, unless the Small Wireless Facility Permit is revoked under this Chapter or is otherwise allowed to be limited by Applicable Law. The term for all other Small Wireless Facility Permits shall be for a period of up to ten (10) years. 7-9-8: DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY PERMIT. A) Permit Denial. The City may deny any Small Wireless Facility Permit if the Applicant does not comply with all provisions of this Chapter, or if the City determines that the denial is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare, or when necessary to protect the Public Right -of -Way and its current use. B) Permit Revocation. The City may revoke a Small Wireless Facility Permit, with or without refund, in the event of a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation, or any material condition of the Small Wireless Facility Permit. A substantial breach includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. a material violation by act or omission of a provision of a Small Wireless Facility Permit; 2. an evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of a Small Wireless Facility Permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens; 3. a material misrepresentation of fact in a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application; 4. a failure to correct, in a timely manner, Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility or installation or replacement of a Wireless Support Structure that does not 13 conform to applicable standards, conditions, or codes, upon inspection and notification by the City of the faulty condition; 5. a Permittee fails to make timely payments of any fees due, and does not correct such failure within twenty (20) days after receipt of written notice by the City of such failure; 6. a Permittee becomes insolvent, unable or unwilling to pay its debts, is adjudged bankrupt, or all or part of its Small Wireless Facilities or Wireless Support Structures are sold under an instrument to secure a debt and is not redeemed by the Permittee within sixty (60) days; or 7. a failure to complete Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility or installation, modification, or replacement of a Wireless Support Structure within two -hundred seventy (270) days of the date a Small Wireless Facility Permit authorizing such activity is granted, unless the City and the Permittee agree to extent the two - hundred seventy day period or there is a lack of commercial power or communications transport infrastructure to the installation site. C) Written Notice Required. Any denial or revocation of a Small Wireless Facility Permit shall be made in writing and shall document the basis for the denial or revocation. The City shall notify the Applicant or Permittee in writing within three (3) days of a decision to deny or revoke a Small Wireless Facility Permit. If a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application is denied, the Applicant may cure the deficiencies identified by the City and submit its Application. If the Applicant resubmits the Application within thirty (30) days of receiving written notice of the denial, it may not be charged an additional filing or processing fee. The City must approve or deny the revised application within thirty (30) days after the revised application is submitted. If Small Wireless Facility Permit or Wireless Support Structure Permit is revoked, the Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure shall be subject to removal in accordance with Section 7-9-11 (Removal of a Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure). 7-9-9: CITY INSPECTION OF A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY OR WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURE. A) Inspection Permitted. The City may inspect, at any time, a Permittee's Collocation of a Small Wireless Facility or installation or replacement of a Wireless Support Structure. The City shall determine during an inspection whether the Permittee's Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure is in accordance with the requirements of the Permittee's applicable Small Wireless Facility Permit and other Applicable Law. B) Suspension of Activities. During an inspection, if the City determines that a Permittee has violated any material term of the Permittee's Small Wireless Facility Permit or this Chapter, the City may suspend the Permittee's Small Wireless Facility Permit. The City shall provide prompt written notice of any suspension to a Permittee, including the violations giving rise to the suspension. A suspension under this Paragraph is effective until a Permittee corrects the alleged violation(s), at the Permittee's sole expense. If the 14 violation(s) are not corrected within thirty (30) days after the date of such notice, the Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure shall be subject to removal in accordance with Section 7-9-11 (Removal of a Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure). A Permittee may appeal any suspension issued under this paragraph to the City as provided in Section 7-9-12 (Appeals). 7-9-10: ABANDONMENT A) Abandoned Small Wireless Facilities and Wireless Support Structures. Where a Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure is not properly maintained or has not been used for the primary purpose of providing Wireless Services for twelve (12) consecutive months, the City may designate the Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure as abandoned. The City shall provide written notice to a Permittee within ten (10) days of the Permittee's Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure being designated as abandoned. 7-9-11: REMOVAL OF A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY OR WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURE. A) Removal Permitted. The City may remove, at Permittee's expense, or require a Permittee to remove, any Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure if: 1. The Small Wireless Facility Permit or Wireless Support Structure Permit is revoked under this Chapter or expires without renewal; or 2. The Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure is designated by the City as abandoned under Section 7-9-10 (Abandonment). B) Notice to Permittee; Time to Remove: The City shall provide written notice to the Peiurittee that it must remove a Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure under this section, including the reasons therefor. If the Permittee does not remove the Small Wireless Facility or Wireless Support Structure within thirty (30) days after the date of such notice, the City may remove it at the Permittee's expense without further notice to the Permittee. 7-9-12: APPEALS. A) Appeal. An Applicant or Permittee may have the denial or revocation of a Small Wireless Facility Permit, or fees and costs required by this Chapter reviewed, upon written request, by the City Council or its designee. The City Council or its designee shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the City Council or its designee affirming a denial, revocation, or fee shall be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. 7-9-13: INSURANCE. A) Minimum Coverage. The City shall require that each Permittee maintain in full force and effect, throughout the term of a Small Wireless Facility Permit, an insurance policy or 15 policies issued by an insurance company or companies satisfactory to the City's Risk Manager. Such policy or policies shall, at a minimum, afford insurance covering all of the Permittee's operations, vehicles, employees, agents, subcontractors, successors, and assigns as follows: 1. Workers' compensation, in statutory amounts, with employers' liability limits not less than [INSERT AMOUNT] each accident, injury, or illness; 2. Commercial general liability insurance with limits not less than [INSERT AMOUNT] each occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, including contractual liability, personal injury, products and completed operations; 3. Commercial automobile liability insurance with limits not less than [INSERT AMOUNT] each occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, including owned, non -owned and hired auto coverage, as applicable; and 4. Contractors' pollution liability insurance, on an occurrence form, with limits not less than [INSERT AMOUNT] each occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage and any deductible not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) each occurrence. B) Insurance Requirements. Each Permittee's insurance policy or policies are subject to the following: 1. Said policy or policies shall include the City and its officers and employees jointly and severally as additional insureds, shall apply as primary insurance, shall stipulate that no other insurance effected by the City will be called on to contribute to a loss covered thereunder, and shall provide for severability of interests. 2. Said policy or policies shall provide that an act or omission of one insured, which would void or otherwise reduce coverage, shall not reduce or void the coverage as to any other insured. Said policy or policies shall afford full coverage for any claims based on acts, omissions, injury, or damage which occurred or arose, or the onset of which occurred or arose, in whole or in part, during the policy period. 3. Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to provide thirty (30) calendar days advance written notice of cancellation or any material change to the City. 4. Should any of the required insurance be provided under a claims -made form, a Permittee shall maintain such coverage continuously throughout the term of a Small Wireless Facility Permit, and, without lapse, for a period of three (3) years beyond the expiration or termination of the Small Wireless Facility Permit, to the effect that, should occurrences during the term of the Small Wireless Facility Permit give rise to claims made after expiration or termination of the Small Wireless Facility Permit, such claims shall be covered by such claims -made policies. 16 5. Should any of the required insurance be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs be included in such general annual aggregate limit, such general aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limits specified herein. C) Indemnity Obligation. Such insurance shall in no way relieve or decrease a Permittee's or its agent's obligation to indemnify the City pursuant to this Chapter. D) Proof of Insurance. Before the City will issue a Small Wireless Facility Permit, an Applicant shall furnish to the City certificates of insurance and additional insured policy endorsements with insurers that are authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota and that are satisfactory to the City evidencing all coverages set forth herein. 7-9-14: INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE OF CITY. A) Indemnification of City. As a condition of issuance of a Small Wireless Facility Permit, each Permittee agrees on its behalf and on behalf of its agents, successors, or assigns, to indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless the City from and against any and all claims of any kind arising against the City as a result of the issuance of the Small Wireless Facility Permit including, but not limited to, a claim allegedly arising directly or indirectly from the following: 1. Any act, omission, or negligence of a Permittee or its any agents, successors, or assigns while engaged in the permitting or Collocation of any Small Wireless Facility or installation or replacement of any Wireless Support Structure, or while in or about the Public Right -of -Way that are subject to the Small Wireless Facility Permit for any reason connected in any way whatsoever with the performance of the work authorized by the Small Wireless Facility Permit, or allegedly resulting directly or indirectly from the permitting or Collocation of any Small Wireless Facility or installation or replacement of any Wireless Support Structure authorized under the Small Wireless Facility Permit; 2. Any accident, damage, death, or injury to any of a Permittee's contractors or subcontractors, or any officers, agents, or employees of either of them, while engaged in the performance of Collocation of any Small Wireless Facility or installation or replacement of any Wireless Support Structure authorized by a Small Wireless Facility Permit, or while in or about the Public Right -of -Way that are subject to the Small Wireless Facility Permit, for any reason connected with the performance of the work authorized by the Small Wireless Facility Permit, including from exposure to radio frequency emissions; 3. Any accident, damage, death, or injury to any Person or accident, damage, or injury to any real or personal property in, upon, or in any way allegedly connected with the Collocation of any Small Wireless Facility or installation or replacement of any Wireless Support Structure authorized by a Small Wireless Facility Permit, or while in or about the Public Right -of -Way that are subject to the Small 17 Wireless Facility Permit, from any causes or claims arising at any time, including any causes or claims arising from exposure to radio frequency emissions; and 4. Any release or discharge, or threatened release or discharge, of any hazardous material caused or allowed by a Permittee or its agents about, in, on, or under the Public Right -of -Way. B) Defense of City. Each Permittee agrees that, upon the request of the City, the Permittee, at no cost or expense to the City, shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City against any claims as set forth in this Section, regardless of the alleged negligence of the City or any other party, except only for claims resulting directly from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Each Permittee acknowledges and agrees that it has an immediate and independent obligation to defend the City from any claims that actually or potentially fall within the indemnity provision, even if the allegations are or may be groundless, false, or fraudulent, which obligation arises at the time such claim is tendered to the Permittee or its agent by the City and continues at all times thereafter. Each Permittee further agrees that the City shall have a cause of action for indemnity against the Permittee for any costs the City may be required to pay as a result of defending or satisfying any claims that arise from or in connection with a Small Wireless Facility Permit, except only for claims resulting directly from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Each Permittee further agrees that the indemnification obligations assumed under a Small Wireless Facility Permit shall survive its expiration or completion of Collocation of any Small Wireless Facility authorized by the Small Wireless Facility Permit. C) Additional Requirements. The City may specify in a Small Wireless Facility Permit such additional indemnification requirements as are necessary to protect the City from risks of liability associated with the Permittee's Collocation of any Small Wireless Facility or installation or replacement of any Wireless Support Structure. 7-9-15: FEES AND COSTS. A) Application Fees. The City shall charge a fee for reviewing and processing a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application. The purpose of this fee is to enable the City to recover its costs directly associated with reviewing a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application. 1. The City shall charge a fee of $500 for a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application seeking to Collocate up to five (5) Small Wireless Facilities. This fee shall increase by $100 for each additional Small Wireless Facility that an Applicant seeks to Collocate. 2. The City shall charge a fee of $1,000 for a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application seeking to install or replace a Wireless Support Structure in addition to Collocating of a Small Wireless Facility on the Wireless Support Structure. Commencing January 1, 2020, the City shall adjust the Application Fees annually by the consumer price index for the Minneapolis -St. Paul area. 18 B) Annual Small Wireless Facility Permit Fee. The City shall charge an Annual Small Wireless Permit Fee for each Small Wireless Facility Permit issued to a Permittee. The Annual Small Wireless Permit Fee shall be determined by the Administrator and listed in the City's Fee Schedule. The Annual Small Wireless Permit Fee shall be based upon the recovery of the City's rights-of-way management costs. C) City -Owned Wireless Support Structure Fees. The City shall charge the following fees to the owner of any Small Wireless Facility Collocated on a Wireless Support Structure owned by the City or its assigns located in the Public Right -of -Way: 1. $150 per year for rent to occupy space on the Wireless Support Structure; 2. $25 per year for maintenance associated with the space occupied on the Wireless Support Structure; and 3. a monthly fee for electricity used to operate the Small Wireless Facility, if not purchased directly from a utility, at the rate of: a) $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts; b) $182 per radio node over 100 max watts; or c) the actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the above. D) City -Owned Property Fees. The City shall charge an annual fee for collocating Small Wireless Facilities on City -owned property not located in the public right-of-way. The City shall determine a reasonable and nondiscriminatory annual fee on a per location and per request basis. [OPTIONAL PROVISION — CITY MAY WANT TO ADDRESS THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PROW INDEPENDENTLY — SUCH PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME STATE LAW FEE RESTRICTIONS AS WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURES (IN THE PROW).] E) Discretion to Require Additional Fees. In instances where the review of a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application is or will be unusually costly to the City, the Administrator, in his or her discretion, may, after consulting with other applicable City Citys, agencies, boards, or commissions, require an Applicant to pay a sum in excess of the other fee amounts charged pursuant to this Section. This additional sum shall be sufficient to recover the actual, reasonable costs incurred by the City and/or other City Citys, agencies, boards, or commissions, in connection with a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application and shall be charged on a time and materials basis. Whenever additional fees are charged, the Administrator, upon request, shall provide in writing the basis for the additional fees and an estimate of the additional fees. The City may not require a fee imposed under this Chapter through the provision of in-kind services by an Applicant as a condition of consent to use to City's Public Right -of -Ways or to obtain a Small Wireless Facility Permit. 19 F) Reimbursement of City Costs. The City may determine that it requires the services of an expert in order to evaluate a Small Wireless Facility Permit Application. In such cases, the City shall not issue a Small Wireless Facility Permit pursuant to the Application unless the Applicant agrees to reimburse the City for the actual, reasonable costs incurred for the services of a technical expert. 7-9-16: SEVERABILITY. A) Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Chapter or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Chapter or any part thereof SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale this day of , 2019. ATTEST: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator Published in the Roseville Review on the Mary Gaasch, Mayor th day of , 2019. 20 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X Action Resolution Work Session Meeting Date February 26, 2019 ITEM NUMBER STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR REE PUD Concept Plan DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Real Estate Equities will be at meeting to present their PUD Concept Plan for Council con- sideration and feedback. Jennifer Haskamp, the City's consulting planner, also will be at the meeting and included in the packet is her analysis of the PUD Concept Plan for Council con- sideration. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Al 1r STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and City Council Heather Butkowski, City Administrator CC: Daren Amundson, City Engineer, Stantec From: Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers Jennifer Haskamp Consulting City Planner Summary of Request & Background Date: February 21, 2019 RE: Application for PUD Concept Plan Review - 1795 Eustis Senior Housing Real Estate Equities ("Applicant"), is requesting General Concept Plan review of the proposed 1795 Eustis Senior Housing project ("Project") consistent with Chapter 7 Planned Unit Developments (PUD), section 10-7-7 of the City Code. The City acquired the property at 1795 Eustis Street in May of 2018 with the intent of finding a developer that would be interested in redeveloping the site. After acquisition, the City's financial consultant initiated contact with several developers particularly those that offered products that fit the City's goals for the site, including 1) that if possible the project would make the City `whole' and that a financial loss would not be incurred; and 2) if market conditions were favorable that the developer would build a senior project or there would be a senior component included in the redevelopment. After contacting several developers Real Estate Equities responded with interest in redeveloping the site, which is the basis of this Concept Plan review. The process for this Project is more complex than a traditional application process because the City is the landowner and Real Estate Equities is proposing to purchase the property and to redevelop the site with a specific development plan. As the owner of the property the City's role is more involved than a typical review process because the City will be a project partner, primarily from a financial perspective, if the proposed Project is ultimately approved and accepted. In November 2018 the Applicant presented a high-level concept plan to the City Council for initial feedback. The primary purpose of the initial meeting was for the Applicant to introduce themselves to the Council and to obtain high-level feedback regarding the scale of the type of Project the Applicant would propose for the site. The initial presentation indicated between 100 and 120 units of Senior (age - restricted) Affordable housing, and that the structure would range between three (3) and four (4) stories. After initial discussions, the City Council indicated their willingness to consider a project of that scale, and the Applicant decided to continue their efforts in a pursuing a project on the site. Since November, the Applicant has worked collaboratively with the City to prepare a more formal, site- specific Concept Plan for your review and comments. The following staff report outlines the proposed Project and provides staff's comments for your review and consideration. 1 Concept Plan Purpose Per the Section 10-7-7 of the City's PUD ordinance, the purpose of a Concept Plan review is to "receive guidance in the design of a PUD prior to submission of a formal application, the applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the City Council..." Subsection B (3) further states, "The City Council will review the concept plan application and provide feedback to the applicant regarding the suitability of the request and any suggestions for modification prior to development state approvals. No formal approval of the concept plan by the City Council is required. Any motions or resolution by the City Council to approve any part of the concept plan are advisory in nature only and shall not obligate the City to approve the development stage plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district." There is no Public Hearing required as part of a Concept Plan review. The public hearing to consider the Project will be held once the formal application for Development Stage PUD is submitted. Project Summary Applicant: Real Estate Equities Alex Bisanz, Dir. of Acquisitions Patrick Ostrom, Ian Schwickert Address/ PIDs: 1795 Eustis Street 172923330001 Applicant's Representatives: Dave Morck, AIA, Kaas Wilson Petro Megits, AIA, Kaas Wilson PJ Disch, PE, Loucks Site Size: 1.68 Acres Proposed Project Summary: 114 Senior Affordable Apartments Underground & Surface Parking Owners: City of Lauderdale Request: Concept Plan Review of 1795 Eustis Senior development; Project requires re -zoning to PUD, development approvals, and TIF. This review is for land use approvals only (TIF is separate, but related analysis) Land Use: Low Density Residential (2030) High Density Residential (2040; to be adopted) Zoning: R-1 (Suburban Residential) The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with an age -rest icted (senior) affordable apartment building. The units will be affordable at the aggregate of 65% of Area Median Income (AMI). The following Project highlights as presented in the Applicant's Overview and Concept Plans (dated 2/18/2019 and 2/15/2019; Attached) is provided: • The Unit Mix will include 89 one (1) bedroom/one (1) bathroom and 25 two (2) bedroom/two (2) bathroom units. Based on this unit mix, approximately 78% of the units are one -bedroom, and 22% are two bedrooms. 2 jLu 1r • The square footages as indicated on the Overview page do not match those indicated on Table 18- 09-C Unit Mix by Type or by Floor. However, generally, the units range between approximately 773 and 1,283 -square feet if the floor plans and table on SD_000 are accurate. • Gross rents range between $885/unit and $1,485/unit excluding parking and additional storage rates. Parking stalls can be rented at $75/stall, and additional storage at $15/space. • The Parking Schedule on sheet SD_000 indicates a total parking count of 98 (94 standard, 4 handicap accessible), and sheet C2-1 Site Plan identifies an additional 22 standard parking spaces, and two (2) handicap accessible spaces in the surface parking lot. The breakdown of stall type, as shown on these two figures, is 118 standard spaces and 6 handicap accessible spaces for a total of 124 parking spaces. This demonstrates a parking stall -to -unit ration of approximately 1.1 stalls per unit. Given the complexity of the Project, the following staff report is provided to assist the Council in discussion and review. As background the following list identifies those items (at a minimum) that are to be submitted for Concept Plan review: • Approximate building areas, pedestrian ways, and road connections • Height, bulk and square footage of buildings ■ Type number of square footage or intensities of specific land uses ■ Number of dwelling units • Generalized development plan • Staging and timing of the development The ordinance also states that additional information as suggested by the City may also be included. Because of the scale of the redevelopment, the City requested the following additional information from the Applicant for inclusion in the Concept Plan review process: • Elevations of the proposed structure comparing heights (3 and 4 stories) • Section that show topography and relationship with adjacent homes • Shadow study to show impact of structure on adjacent parcels Land Use and Zoning Consistency An important consideration in a PUD process is to determine whether a proposed Project warrants flexibility from the strict standards of the City's ordinances. Part of the review process includes consideration of the City's PUD standards related, and specifically those that address Land Use and Zoning. The following analysis regarding the ordinance standards is provided: Comprehensive Plan Review Section 10-7-4 of the PUD ordinance states, "1) The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city; and 2) The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on the project site; 4) The planned unit development provides transitions in land use in keeping with the character of adjacent land uses; 5) The proposal better adapts itself to the 3 JL 1r physical and aesthetic setting of the site and with the surrounding land uses than could be developed using strict standards and land uses allowed within the underlying zoning district..." The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan update has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their review and eventual approval. The City anticipates that the Comprehensive Plan will be approved within 60-120 days provided that final edits are minimal. Given this timeline, the following review summary assumes that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be effective at the time final development approvals would be granted for the Project. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site as High Density Residential (HDR) which permits 12.01 — 30 Dwelling Units Per Acre. The Project proposes 114 Units on 1.68 Acres which is approximately 67.8 Dwelling Units Per Acre. This exceeds the City's HDR land use designation when considering the land use designation on an individual site; however, the increased density can be accommodated within the overall land use designation if considered as a whole. Although the proposed density is significantly higher than the guided designation, staff provides the following considerations: • The City's Comprehensive Plan, and the process, regularly discussed and addressed the issue of senior housing and the desire to provide more options for the City's aging population. The proposed use is consistent with the City's stated policies and objectives. • Affordability within the housing stock, and particularly with respect to senior housing, was discussed as a priority and is identified in the Housing Chapter and the Land Use chapter. • The Project is a Senior building, which means the square -footage of individual units is smaller than if the building was not age -restricted. For example, if units were marketed to families, there would be more 2- and 3 -bedroom units which would bring the overall unit count down, and thus reduce the density. At least a portion of the increased density can be attributed to the size and type of units demanded within the senior market. Zoning Consistency The site must be re -zoned as stated within Section 10-7-4(A) to accommodate the proposed Project, and the following zoning related standards are identified, "3) The development plan with not have a detrimental effect upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located; 6) The proposal would benefit the area surrounding the project to a greater degree than development allowed within the underlying zoning district; 7) The proposal would achieve higher quality development than would otherwise occur in the underlying zoning district; and 8) The PUD will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other facilities and utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the PUD." Staff offers the following considerations regarding zoning: • The site is currently zoned R-1 Suburban Residential. The zoning permits Planned Unit Developments as a Conditional Use. The proposed re -zoning to PUD is consistent with the ordinance requirements. • The Development Stage PUD application will require the Applicant to request that the site be re- zoned and will require an application for a Conditional Use Permit per the zoning ordinance. 4 JL 117 • Although it is understood that flexibility from the strict requirements of the R-1 zoning district is requested for this Project, it is important to evaluate the extent to which the requested Project is inconsistent with the R-1 zoning requirements. The following Table Identifies the R-1 Lot and Yard Requirements compared to the proposed Project: Dimensional Requirement Lot Area (all other uses) R-1 Zoning (or MF use) 10,000 SF Lot Width (ft) Front -Yard Setback 80 Proposed Project 73,180 SF (1.68 AC)] 238.5 (Eustis) 265.0 (Spring) 10.9 (Eustis St.) 25 Rear -Yard Setback Side -Yard Setback 20 5 10.0 (Malvern St.) 11.8 (Spring St.) 55,5313 SF (75.8%)* Maximum Coverage 30% Maximum Height 25' or 2 stories Maximum Fence Height 1 8' (conflicting zoning districts) _...._._...._._..._.........._ __ __....----------...._.._—_ _ _..........._.........-- Parking Requirements 1.5 Parking Spaces/dwelling unit 53'1" (est.) Unknown 1.1 Parking space/dwelling unit *Sheet C2-1 provides Impervious Calculation, which includes the parking areas and drive aisles. A separate Coverage calculation was not provided; but would be less than what is noted. • Nearly 80% of the units are 1 -bedroom. This results in more units, but the number of people/cars/etc., is less than if the building included a higher mix of 2- and 3 -bedroom units. Therefore the increased density will not negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. • The scale of the building, and height of the building exceeds the standards of the R-1, and likely exceeds the standards that will eventually be updated and created to support the HDR. As such, some concerns particularly related to height and solar access are discussed in subsequent sections of this staff report. Site Plan and Dimensional Standards Review The proposed building is located on the north edge of the site and is a U -shape configuration. Generally, the orientation of the building is logical given the location of the existing road -network including the alleyways. As proposed, the main access into the site is from Eustis Street on the south end of the site. The secondary access is by the existing alley that runs between and parallel to Eustis Street and Malvern Street. Currently this alley includes an east -west alley connection to Malvern Street on the southwest edge of the site that will be closed and removed as part of this Project. Most traffic is projected to exit the site at the main entrance onto Eustis Street rather than using the alleyway. The Project includes 5 approximately 124 -parking stalls provided in a combination of underground and surface parking lot areas. The trash and recycling areas are proposed to be located in the underground parking lot area and are currently located near the elevators that will connect residents to the main lobby area, and ultimately their unit. The height of the proposed structure alternates between 3 and 4 stories. The western facade is 3 stories (Malvern), the north and east facades are 4 stories, with the northeast corner stepped down to 3 -stories. The maximum height of the structure on the 4 -story facade is approximately 47' 3/4" from at grade to the edge of the parapet. The following comments and considerations regarding the site plan and dimensional requirements are provided for your review: Access Comments & Considerations ■ The access -drive into the underground parking area radius appears tight. Staff would request that a turning -radius study be completed and submitted with the Development Stage PUD application for review by the City Engineer. o Verification should include review for trash/recycling hauler trucks, as well as demonstrate how the trash recycling trucks maneuver in the underground parking area for collection. • The main entrance onto Eustis Street includes the main drive aisles as well as an 11 -stall parking bay that appears tight. This area should be modeled to demonstrate that there is adequate space for both the entrance drive aisle and the parking stalls. For example, if there is any stacking of vehicles leaving the site that will occur in the southern `lane' of the exit which may block the vehicles in the parking spaces. This should be addressed in the Development Stage PUD application. • If the access/driveway locations are approved in the current configuration, the alley on the south edge of the site must be vacated as part of the PUD approval process. A separate application to vacate the alley must be submitted with the Development Stage PUD application. Parking Comments & Considerations • The Applicant should provide supporting data regarding how the parking ratio of 1.1 parking stalls per unit was derived. The City's ordinance requires 1.5 parking stalls per unit, which would result in an additional 47 parking stalls being needed. Staff is not suggesting that this is a requirement of the Project, but we do need additional information to ensure that there is adequate parking on-site. • The Overview states that parking stalls will be available for an additional monthly rent. Staff requests additional information regarding how many residents (units) are anticipated to rent stalls, and how many are projected to have cars and not rent stalls. • Snow removal should be described. Based on the surface parking areas, and general site plan, there is little to no space internal to the site for snow removal and storage. • The 11 -stall parking bay near the main entrance drive should be verified for accessibility as described in previous sections. Additionally, since this edge shares a property line with a single- family structure directly south of the parking stalls fencing detail must be provided to 6 ILU 117 demonstrate how issues such as headlights will be mitigated on this edge. This is also referenced in the landscape section notes. Height Comments & Considerations During the Comprehensive Plan process there was significant discussion regarding appropriate height of a structure on the subject site. Generally, the neighborhood and policy -makers concluded that 3 -stories would be acceptable on the site even with adjacent single-family users. This discussion is consistent with the re -guiding of the property to HDR. The current zoning is R-1 which limits the maximum height of a building to 25 -feet; however, that zoning is inconsistent with the new HDR designation so additional consideration should be given. The following considerations are provided regarding height: • Sheet SD_161 shows a height comparison of a 3 -story multi -family building with a pitched/sloped roof to a 4 -story multi -family building with a flat roof. Interestingly on the Eustis side, the 3 story with a pitched roof (to the peak) is higher than the 4 -story flat roof by a little more than 2 -feet. ■ Both structures will `feel' similar in scale and bulk, provided architectural considerations and details are included (see subsequent sections of this report). • The Spring Street elevation (north) has the greatest height and will `feel' approximately 53 -feet high at Spring Street due to the sloping topography. Because of the height, particularly along Spring Street, Staff requested a shade study be completed so that the impact of the Project could be demonstrated on adjacent parcels (Sheet SD_105). Staff provides the following comments regarding the shade study: • The winter solstice demonstrates a large/extreme shade over the properties directly north of the site through the duration of the day. Staff is concerned about this impact, particularly because the property on the northwest corner of Spring Street and Eustis Street has a solar panel installation on the detached garage. • Staff requests that the Applicant prepare a shade study based on moving the 4 -story portion of the building to the western leg (elevation) so that the potential impacts under each scenario can be evaluated. This does not require full update to the architectural package, unless it is determined that the 4 -story portion should be relocated to the western leg. • taff does acknowledge that the Applicant responded to our request to address the north and eastern facades, and that has attempted to mitigate the scale on Spring Street and Eustis Street by stepping down the `bump' out areas to 3 -stories which gives the appearance of the fourth story stepping back. However, staff would still request some additional shading study be completed as requested in previous points. Landscape Plan Staff has the following comments regarding the landscape plan provided: ■ During initial meetings with the Applicant, and the meeting with adjacent neighbors, that a fence will need to be installed along the southern edge of the site (exclusive of the alleyway). No detail regarding the fence was provided. At the meeting with adjacent neighbors they communicated a desire to be involved in the design selection of the fence materials. While staff encourages the Applicant to work with the neighbors, ultimately, the fence line will be the responsibility of the 7 JLU 117 Applicant to maintain and install. Therefore, staff requests additional detail regarding the fence, and that a fence detail be included in the Development Stage PUD application. ■ During the adjacent neighbor meeting, both neighbors indicated a desire for the planted trees (buffer) to include at least a variety of deciduous and conifers. The Hallen/Kowalewiz property line is shown as all evergreens. This should be adjusted to include a mix of species, including deciduous trees that will eventually extend beyond the fence line and provide additional interest and/or color on a seasonal basis. The proposed vegetation along the Nachreiner property line is sparse, and the coniferous shrubs removed (reconsidered). Snow, including salt, is likely to get pushed into the area and will cause the shrubs to burn out. • Details regarding the plantings along the Malvern Street and Spring Street elevations denoted to `cover garage exposure' should be detailed. Staff recommends a more diverse low -maintenance plant schedule. • Detail regarding the retaining wall is not provided and elevation drawings and perspective drawings do not accurately depict the retaining wall or its height. All drawings should be updated for consistency to clearly demonstrate the location and character of the retaining wall and proposed associated plantings. • General comments — the landscape plan is inconsistent with the perspective renderings. For example, the interior surface parking lot Landscape Plan does not indicate any trees in the median/rock cobble area (assumed to be part of the infiltration system for the underground stormwater basin). However, the perspective renderings show trees, in what appears to be tree trenches. All plans and renderings should be updated for consistency in the Development Stage PUD application. • Staff requested information regarding pet -policies, because if dogs are permitted then addition sodded/open space areas may be needed. Architectural Plan Staff provides the following comments regarding the architectural concept plans: • The added balconies on the north, east and west elevations help add dimension and texture to the facade. The balcony pattern on the west elevation (Malvern, shown on 8-a) should be adjusted to add another set of balconies on the southern end (third column of windows from the end). • There is a parapet detail shown on Elevation 1-a, 3-a, and 7-a that extends beyond the plane of the structure; but that same detail is shown below the plane on Elevation 5-a and 6-a. Staff prefers the detail to recess below the plane and that the detailing be consistently applied. • The Cultured Stone detailing on the base appears inconsistently placed particularly on the north facade. • The differentiation in material is nice and adds visual interest. However, there are several exterior materials identified on sheet SD_501 that are not represented on the plan. This key should be updated to reflect actual proposed materials, so it is clear what is being proposed. • Identified on the Exterior Material tag key is "Brick," but it is not identified anywhere on the structure. Staff would recommend consideration and discussion of the Council regarding replacing the cultured stone with brick to better match the neighborhood. ■ The color pattern is improved, and staff appreciates the attention to a more horizontal color pattern to help reduce the scale. There are some inconsistencies in pattern that should be adjusted to improve symmetry, and color with respect to the stone (or brick), CMU, siding, window details 8 JL 1r (muntins, etc.) should be thoughtfully placed to further minimize the height and massing. ■ Some minor housekeeping items to include in the Development Stage PUD application: o Update the parking plan to include all stalls in one place so that the civil and architectural sheets do not have to be referenced together. o Update the Overview to match the floor plan, or vice -versa depending on proposed unit sizes for consistency in the submittal o Colors proposed for siding, brick, metal railings, CMU, etc. o Retaining wall materials. o Lighting fixture detail should be provided, and location on facades included Engineering Review A formal engineering review was not completed as part of the Concept Plan review process. The Applicant submitted a set of preliminary civil drawings, some of which including the site plan, ALTA survey and landscape plan were referenced in this review. Staff does acknowledge a note that a stormwater plan, SWPPP and demolition plan were provided with the Concept Plan submittal. A full engineering review by the City Engineer to address the stormwater and engineering requirements will be conducted with the formal Development Stage PUD application. Action requested Staff is requesting discussion and comments regarding the Applicant's proposed Project. No formal action or approval is required. Attachments Applicant's Overview Site Plan ALTA Survey Architectural Plans Perspective Drawings Landscape Plan 9 Lauderdale City Council Presentation Rent Structure: Unit Type Set Aside SF Gross Rent Utility Allowance Net Rent 1 Bed/1 Bath 70% 779 $1,239 $78 $1,161 1 Bed/1 Bath 50% 779 $885 $78 $807 1 Bed/1 Bath 60% 779 $1,062 $78 $984 2 Bed/2 Bath 50% 900 $1,061 $95 $966 2 Bed/2 Bath 70% 1,238 $1,485 $95 $1,390 • Residents can also pay $75 for parking stalls as well as an additional $15 for storage. Project Summary: • Completed survey/title review. Continued meetings with staff to identify overall project timelines. • Updated project design/renderings • Discussing terms with lenders and investors and ready to execute with them once we get approval on TIF to move forward with term sheets. • Have met with City Engineer to discuss road construction and timeline. • Next City Council meeting to be held on February 26th in preparation for Neighborhood meeting on March 19th. Project Highlights/Amenities: Unit Finishes/Amenities: In Unit washer/dryer, solid surface countertops, 9 ft ceilings, full stainless-steel appliance package, low -flow fixtures/LED lighting, High Efficiency HVAC. Building Amenities: Full on-site management team, secure entrance with Luxor package storage system, community room, rooftop patio, fitness center, office/conference room, underground parking. Exterior Materials: Masonry, Energy Star Windows, Concrete Fibor Board, Wood Look CFB, Metal Panel Accents. Project Demand: • Marquette Advisors Report projects 1,414 additional affordable housing units needed by 2020 in Minneapolis/St. Paul submarket. • Vacancy rate in Lauderdale is 4.8%. • Market research indicates that Lauderdale and surrounding Saint Paul areas have notable production shortfalls of affordable senior housing units. Parking Data: • West Saint Paul Development (The Winslow) o Price: $65.00 • Dominium Senior Property (The Legends at Silver Lake) o Price: $80.00 • Dominium Senior Property (The Legends of Columbia Heights) o Price: $75.00 Project Investment: • TIF Request $1,480,870 • First Mortgage: $12,868,985 • Tax Credit Equity $8,882,866 • Total Development Cost $25,640,249 REE Lauderdale N 1 k 1 g 4/o �Ocy y''o 4' 00 4.0 wvd ql .afi 0 O 0 4 0 0 HO 9 a 6 9 2 2 R iQ16£.3!1i32IIH .r1-, Irv. 5 3 5 9 6 W 6A6-!..H...Ss7,356G1#P H51F0-5>919.7P5750 zan 117.510L 610Z5L/L I L550M`-.1I'ft,e.50 Id] § Real Estate Equities a Tu _ a N.'P4 MIS45LDLWAXI Real Estate Equities '1S WN3 'o o11 00 N 4 o . J 0 1S uia.iEVl 3041,-4-9A54.,40...5 .,39iLLiePRP.H3`3-0fiT81'Fol P-.413 I N went inacute n4,633 I Ists 0,11 CD .to N 0CD CO 5 .1 m3 0 W' r,A HD.Cs 35bl1-1.?4, -EM�e181,7 INDA5I MV[DS1Ulfil0031RI FM,DMrh,D]I a 3 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 20,1 0 1,1 4.44-904..1-1,...9 355t1#P.M.TM'0508I1P0Ii2A3l • nvc9slast:ulul .41n=.Hr.6,-,±31 �n 09 • W 4AERM0B5 3SELLi?%g.tl3WJEOIl`P l el sF*.J,N NEM LELCZE1RI sc•EMssey NfiJd3l 423 34111 T313JG)4t' lP!a13I °owro Wtl825196 W'AlZ2 - N 5.12:4L vo 0A, sY J 0 � LCD I <o lv/ydruIMA 6iaicH 3939'R' H3xi-aou-e Pai110I FdOS944l6lQRlRI ucq,HsseN 1,4+,doaI WNW orr NI W bilINPUIPION1 _fo iW . 0 0 al as w �4?�A '4!".d 04 sg{�H Ntl St Lt6l6lQA{R I w4MsesM1,1640.3I 4 L L5,if HIHIIIIIIIII' IIIHIIIIIHIIi yR, 3,23 a a a a-,1 alaa Va MOO•p=moniiimovEms•spooni.“.i••,0 WA.2226kle8,<<1<<=9;6g<24t;T,..<! 1•10111(.1(1 V 7 71,1-11-15.;OY 0==o 030 pags elien3 I 1 1 1 1--9 3 \ = (,) PalRovA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 004,9 I 1 1 1 0 )Werl 1 1 SI 70d V_rlisiN11^1 :1.1„: 1.1:1 1 V 01--3 (II V I ifl 1 1 1 4 L 0 (o.os ro ;0048 611013 • _ n md op.; ot ‘ori wo.o. 7 il!IrAlo- —— r -J L 11111111 - J 4 SITE PLAN LEGEND I ti g so CsJ ul 5 I lio,...1... ) 4&6111111H It)) ii11111 4 L (.5 E i - 01 t) 8 az wWI 7 nO Y U 0 ■ ■ CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER SPECIAL WATERS SEARCH MAP 5 5 Jow 5 E E c $ 5 5 5 5 • J 8< o J 3 5 z0 3„ gg O :o 5 z 0 ,11 5 5 5 5 y og 6 5 Y` P,1 trij Pp 4 aga _ M u 5 5 5 a 5 5 5 3 .5 Ee 00 ra 0 5 5 5 5 5 E 3 0 G 0 5 0510N CONTROL BU 5 d UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Samuel Trebesch 3 1 a 6 11 '. . MN ME NMI IIN !lol sum! ME* a* ErOt. ORE Ell : 1,] • - 'g I.,, so IIIIII Mi a I IIll mo Aural 1111;1/6 law* Mgt .1111.57 1 4 til , ,ig'' V I I 8 8' RiP - •,\NN - 4 ...„_.„ 6131.33.3161.1 HI- I ? 4. 13 -I 6 5 55 ;5 t t --i• "-f , I: ... • Ili t ll',1 , ll .! ! RiP y '1311...N3.6 6131.33.3161.1 HI- I ? 4. 13 -I 55 ;5 t t --i• "-f , I: ... • .ii 4 a t! tt gil ,.LoocKs .! ! L os (jnij koQ D'iu !604.9 9Pgn3 - let Ala allaek NEFIZELMIN P tow ' r 969 weAgiiii 6zi I 17 '1.' i -) I L4, 58 8 L os (jnij koQ D'iu !604.9 9Pgn3 - let Ala allaek NEFIZELMIN P tow ' r 969 weAgiiii W W i 8 1111111'i{f1I e00v><s�i?fe�k� U 0 ■ ■ B' 3 s PI E e s'_ e I I I I I I I I 1 L qualified aPa., .e 1 of - Il...n alb ��•° a ne.ou limited Il.blllry I 1 1 1 i -1i Ct. trt Lti (0.4s wo OI) 1 1% 1004s smon i I-�1 i ` 1 11 — / i11 lu t1; 4- ,L —< JAB—I 1—�!1 1—rTi �i� --iJ-1 1 1 b it li 1 I 1 51.0:ib;,.,.,,. ..... i..,., I./._l57 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date February 26, 2019 ITEM NUMBER CTV Letter to FCC Request STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Dana Healy, CTV Executive Director, is asking each city in our consortium to write a letter to the FCC chairman in regard to recent proposed rulemaking that could cut the City's fran- chise fee (even though that was recently negotiated with Comcast). The rule would allow Comcast to cut our franchise fee by the amount of "in-kind" support they provide. What this "in-kind" support is and the value of it is have not been defined. After the discussion, staff will finish the letter with council comments and provide to Dana for inclusion with her efforts with Congresswoman Betty McCollum. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Heather Butkowski From: Dana Healy <dhealy@ctvnorthsuburbs.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:28 AM To: Dave Perrault; Sack Thongvanh; Heather Butkowski; Chris Heineman; Nyle Zikmund; dean.lotter@newbrightonmn.gov; Mike Robertson; Pat Trudgeon; Mark Casey Subject: FNPRM Letter Template Attachments: Local Elected Draft Letter FNPRM.DOCX Hello City Administrators, I hope you are all warm on this very snowy day. I have attached a fun snow day activity. As you know, the FCC's FNPRM on Cable Franchising (05-311) has the potential for defunding PEG operations across the country in every state. This will strongly affect the City's Franchise Fees. Because of it's impact, we want to make sure that every community is heard from. Myself and two other Executive Directors went to visit Congresswoman Betty McCullum yesterday to have her write a letter to the Chairman of the FCC, Honorable Ajit Pai, expressing her disapproval of the FNPRM. She is supportive of the cause, but would like additional letters from leaders in the 4th district to attach her letter to. In situations like this, there is power in numbers. Currently, there has been 3,389 messages sent to congress regarding this FNPRM. I am humbly asking for all of you to update the form letter with your community media experiences, and highlight the benefits it brings to the community, print it on your city's letterhead, and PDFed back to me so I can compile them for the Congresswoman. I am trying to assemble these by March 15t. I will be approaching Council Members, nonprofit leaders, and other key individuals in the community. It would be helpful if each of you could have someone else write a letter in support, or suggestions of individuals for me to approach. If you need help with the language, please let me know. I will touch base with all of you on 2/27. Thanks! Dana Healy Executive Director, CTV North Suburbs 2670 Arthur Street, Roseville, MN 55113 651-792-7512 1 dhealy@ctvnorthsuburbs.org Check Out Our Newly Designed Website www.CTVNorthSuburb s.org Learn More About Our New Mission 1 February 26, 2019 CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAUDERDALE CITY HALL 1891 WALNUT STREET LAUDERDALE, MN 55113 651-792-7650 651-631-2066 FAX MARY.GAASCH@LAUDERDALEMN.ORG The Honorable Ajit V. Pai Chairman Federal Communications Commission 455 12th Street, Southwest Washington, DC, 20544 Dear Chairman Pai, We write to express our concern about and disapproval of the proposals and tentative conclusions set forth in the FCC's September 25 Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket 05- 311. [Describe your community and its relationship with PEG] [Describe the value of PEG in your community and which communities and interest groups view programming on the cable channels] This local presence enables the residents of Lauderdale, Minnesota to watch uniquely local programming about their community and local events and issues of interest to them. And that was the intent of the PEG provisions of the 1984 Cable Act — to enhance local voices, serve local community needs and interests, and strengthen our local democracy. By defining "franchise fee" in an overly broad fashion to include "in-kind" support, the FCC's proposals will shift the fair balance between cable franchising authorities and cable operators and will force communities to choose between franchise fees and PEG channels, — something that was never the intent of the Act. We appreciate your consideration and hope you will protect PEG channels in our community and others by choosing not to adopt many of the proposals in the Further Notice. Sincerely, Mary Gaasch Mayor LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session X Meeting Date February 26, 2019 ITEM NUMBER STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR CTV Opportunities DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Dana Healy, CTV Executive Director, is visiting with each city council in our consortium to discuss new opportunities and services CTV is offering. Some of these we have discussed already, but she wanted time to discuss more fully with the city council and generate ideas for additional collaboration. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • 1.1 City Meeting Production Quarterly Updates Neighborhood Network L 4U V) Al%vi U CU N_ E X a 2 O (0 0 o u) a) Z a _ Social Media 4417:14- 0 U 0 a. bO CU (1 U Lauderdale is currently showing city council meetings Not currently using a CTV producer a) E N (v (0 U 0) ▪ U L 0 0 L U - o O L Q 0 U (D a) aD co 0) N a) E L O 4- ON U a L L > O U o N E CTV tracking analytics to see what citizens tune in to the most through website -^ a Seasonal updates on city departments, one person from one department per video Shot on location @ department, video can be up to 5 minutes in length O O O .L O O Q. U 0) 4-1c _c U Q_. +� Q. § 0 CO -C W CD C CO O CD0- _0 _0 U O _co O = t _ co co N 0 o O .c U co '65 EN Q U OW = Q C = 0 O O O (O•— 12 C co O_ O E 3 a LL ° w_C Turnover: 2-3 Days Good for quick info for citizens, or coverage of city sponsored event Ex: Lauderdale Halloween at City Hall, or Picnic in the Park Preferable that shoot could happen in one day Two free productions for the year Turnover: 2-3 Days o� Live webcasting of events Capability for onsite and field webcasting Webcasting reaches wider amount of citizens compared to cable, more consumer friendly Additional event coverage of important info Ex: State of the City Address For Hire Productions Shoots that take an extended amount of time, multiple dates of shooting Ex: Yearly wrap up of new initiatives in Lauderdale from 2018 Turnover: 1+ week(s) Additional installs could be done at Lauderdale 0 1• L co a) a) E a) W L 0 E 0 L TO E 0 E co c To 0 L 0 a) • c 01 CO (B 'a C 1' ▪ co c z = Adding computer for graphics makes it easier for citizens to follow topics of meetings Equipment continually audited to improve workflow CTV offers on call troubleshooting for A/V equipment CD in ID CU CTV has new website with landing page for each city Video and blog content shareable with one click Cable complaints and issues can now be digitally sent to CTV Opportunities to link content from landing page onto your social media New ability to push citizens to city landing page for in depth content AI %)N Recent growth in social media presence We are sharing original content from the city website via social on weekends Cross tagging any pertinent information related to the city We are beginning to offer social media management services to their citizens Schedule a first quarterly update Review report of analytics for city meetings webstreams E O L 4 - TO U 0 u) 0- ) 0 L 0) O a) j a) L 0) W a) 4--' 0) a) I- 0 c O a) 0) ca Q 0) c c ca ,O To -oL a) -o al a) J O) +. CO O Q.. O 0) - c 0 a) c 0 Follow up on installs for city meetings Consider where outsourcing could take pressure off City ctvnorthsuburbs.o a) a) E