HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 04181996 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
ioiass
Box: 20
Folder: PL PACKETS 1996
Document: PL PACKET 04181996
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
APRIL 18, 1996
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. ROLL CALL.
III. APPROVAL OF APRIL 18, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
IV. APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.
V. DESIGNATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
a. Variance Request -- The Village Commons,'Nedegaard Construction
VII. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL PERMITTED USES CHANGES.
a. Draft of Memo to Council re: Recommendations
VIII. HOUSING MAINTENANCE/ BEAUTIFICATION PLAN
a. Identify Task Force
IX. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN --_ -
a. -RFP -
b. Budget for 1997
X. STAFF UPDATE.
a. Vacation, 5-14 thru-5-22
b. Volunteer Dinner, 4-30 at 6:30p.m.
XI. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
XII. ADJOURNMENT.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 16, 1996
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant
ITEM: Variance Request for Lots 8 and 10 of the Village
Commons; 3925-8 and 3925-10 Fordham Drive
BACKGROUND:
Bruce Nedegaard, President of Nedegaard Custom Home contacted Staff to inform us that
the surveyor determined that the hearth rooms of the twin home units on lots 8 and 10
could not be built as planned because each unit extends nine feet into the rear yard
setbacks of the lots. In a letter submitted to Staff, Mr. Nedegaard explained that without
the hearth rooms for these units, he will be unable to sell them. The hearth rooms were
designed as additional living space with a fireplace and built in cabinetry. These features
cannot be incorporated into the floor plan without the inclusion of the hearth room.
The ordinance states that the rear setbacks for twin homes is to be 25 feet from the
property line. If the hearth rooms are built, they will be 16 feet from the property line.
Lot 8 is situated directly south of the Evergreen Townhomes complex and Lot 10 is
southeast of the Reid property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission of the 9 foot
variance requests for Lots 8 and 10. The Minnesota Statutes require that requests for
variances meet the following "undue hardship" criteria:
1. The )ropertv cannot be put to reasonable use Mr. Nedegaard has stated in his
letter that=if the requests`for the variances are denied, he will not be able to sell the
units. Since the replatting of the lots were approved based on a survey showing
proper lot lines and twin home footprints within setbacks, denial of the variance
requests would not allow the property to be put to its intended or reasonable use.
2. Circumstances causin the hardship were not created by the owner. Because the
request for 9 foot variances is based on an error apparently made by their surveyor,
the circumstances causing this situation were not created by Mr. Nedegaard.
3. The variance will not alter the character of the locality. If granted, the variances
will not cause an alteration of the established residential character of the area.
Strict enforcement of the setback requirements would therefore cause undue hardship.
416stapt
NEDEGAAQD CUSTOM HOME6
1814 NORTHDALE BLVD. COON RAPIDS,MN 55448 (612)757-2926 FAX 757-0649
March 14, 1996
Attn: Kim
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Enclosed is the application for a variance on lots 8 and 10 of the Village Commons.
3925-8 and 3925-10 Fordham Drive.
Our land surveyor just informed us that the hearth room could not be included as part of
the home on lots 8 and 10. Unfortunately since this is a major part of the home, we feel it
would be difficult if not impossible to'sell these homes without the hearth room.
The hearth room is a 14 x 12 room that has a gas fireplace with built in cabinetry
surrounding it, including a built in tv cabinet above the fireplace. This room is like a
family room/sitting room area. Without the hearth room there is only one living area, that
being the living room and there would be no area for the fireplace.
Therefore, a variance on lots 8 and 10 is being requested, these are two of the nicest lots
we have and not including the hearth room would make these lots difficult if not
impossible to sell. We have included this hearth room as part of the twinhome since we
knew we would be building them, and to go back and tell people they can't be part of
their home would definitely keep them from buying.
Sincerely,
'i , A,
Bruce A. Nedegaard
President
FELn ® A DIVISION OF NEDEGAARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
�� LIC. NO. 0002068 �i .`yn�
i
i
v COMMONS .
LLAGE
i
OF LOT 7 S 89° 1.4 ' 47 " W 380 . 94
dq
127. 19
t
O to �_ N
'f' - - TY EASEMENT
0 0 ( �DRA ; NAGS SAN U I L I {�
25 Nw a
8 o
ry
C-3
d1 �
25
;360 20 10`W V) �2 ti 29 DRAINAGE AND 'T I L I T
EASEMEN - .
81.20
? Sao 2a -mss 76.
o q /................ ... . . Os•30
E n
MAR. -04'.96 (MON) 14: 19 CITY OF ST. ANTHON TEL:612 181 9323 P. 002
Fee: klo-�
(R-1............$ 50.00
Other.........$100.00)
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
Petition for Variance
Applicant: Rrticp A Nedegaard / Nede aard Construction
Address:_ 1814 Ain Ehfin 1 a R1��rl , Cnon Raj i ds Phone: 757-2926
55448
Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.): Owner
Street address and/or legal description of property petitioned for variance:
3925-8 Fordham Drive, St. Anthony Lot 8, Blk 1 - The Village Commons
3925-10 Fordham Drive, St. Anhtony Lot 10, Blk 1 - The Village Commons
Zoning district in which property is located:
Request:
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be
satisfied for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional
sheets, if necessary.
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical
conditions of the parcel of land involved, the proposed variance would relieve an
undue hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the
applicable ordinance be strictly enforced.
2.. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct
extraordi iary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other
property in the vicinity or zoning district.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by City Ordinance and has not been .
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Signature of Applicant
* 100 . 000's
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
VARIANCE PETITION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, at 7:05 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road (enter northeast
corner) for the following purpose:
Applicant: Bruce Nedegaard/Nedegaard Construction
Coon Rapids, MN
Property Address: Lot 8, Blk 1 - The Village Commons (3925-8
Fordham Drive)
Lot 10, Blk 1 - The-Village Commons (3925-10
Fordham Drive)
Proposal: Request for two setback variances (a total of 9
feet) to allow construction of a 14' X 12' hearth
room on units 8 and 10 of The Village Commons
Anyone wishing to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at
said time and place. Questions regarding this matter may be referred to the
Management Assistant 789-8881. Auxiliary aids are available upon request at
least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk at 789-8881 to make
arrangements.
Kim Moore-Sykes
Management Assistant
Publish: St. Anthony Bulletin
April 3, 1996
a
o �
GAMING ' ' Our Grand Op e in Jbva Success!
JANUARY hank you to all of the
members who attended our
r •� ;�
Gross Receipts S106,385.00 T Grand Opening! It was a great
Prizes Paid S 87,790.00 success! Nearly 60 members joined us for
specialty coffee and cake. " '��'
Net Receipts 5 18,595.00 Pe Y � -���•_ '- ••;r.:: .
Actual Receipts S 18,575.00 Thank you to those who donated
Cash Short (20) to our special celebration. It was all - -
delicious and everything looked great!
Actual Expenses S 15,716.64 Coffee was donated by our new chamber
Requested for March S 19,982.00 member,TheBru House,cake wasdonated
Physical Inventory S 783,00 The ribbon cutting!Pictured above from left to
as of 1/31/96 by Erickson's and our festive Grand right-Jim Beran, Executive Director, Matt
Opening sign was donated byThe Graphic Fulton, New Brighton City Manager, Curt
Basement. Ackerman-Priority Financial Services&1995
Please join us for the next coffee Chamber President,Mayor Bob Benke,Repre-
Charitable Giving break to be held at Irondale High School, sent& ative Skip Carlson,Charlie Hall-Mermaid
Donations were approved to the following March 21 from 7:00 to 8:30 a.m.Members Chamber Board member.
organizations: are encouraged to stop by and see the If your business would like to host a
facilities and services offered to students coffee break,please call the Chamber
Neew w Brighton ighton Parks&Recreation community.Ir High School-Scholarships and the it office at 631-1906.
Ralph Reeder Community Education
All members are invited to attend the Business Retention Survey
monthly Membership Meeting held at
the Mermaid at 11:30 a.m. on the third By Matt Fulton,New Brighton City Manager
Thursday of the month. Charitable In 1995,acomprehensive business retention 1.There exists high facility ownership within
Giving recipients are decided at this survey was conducted that involved over the New Brighton Business community.40%
meeting. 90% of New Brighton's approximate 500 of businesses started here.
businesses and industries. The purpose of
the survey was to: 2.New Brighton's businesses are optimistic
about business outlook.
1. Identify and personally contact each
p7beew Brighton Area Chamber of C member of the business community. 3.60%of firms have sales less than 1 million
News is published monthly from the offices at dollars,although 65 firms have sales over 6
929 Fifth Avenue NW,Suite 500,New Brighton, 2.Understand the issues and opportunities million dollars.
MN 55117 facing each individual business.
Phone:(612)631-1906 4.Employment in the community is estimated
Fax:(612)631-0087 3.Maximize the efficient utilization of the at 5,519 full time jobs, 1365 part-time and
community's resources to assist in ensuring 470 temporary with most jobs being in a job
Hours:8 e m.rA 4:30 p.m.Monday-Friday the company's success. category requiring technical skills.
President:Jim Beran
4. Identify immediate needs and concerns 5. Job areas most likely to expand include
Asst Gaming Manager/Bookkeeper: of the business regarding the local business sales,skilled,clerical,and other professional.
Ann Griffin climate.
Newsletter Editor: 6. 152 firms could generate youth
Carrie Hollenkamp 5. Provide the information necessary to employment opportunities.
The Chamber's Mission:To improve the develop strategic actions for supporting
overall business climate of the New Brighton economic development expansion and 7. Businesses responded very favorably to
area by stimulating economic growth,promoting retention within the community. Police and Fire services.
civic development and enhancing political action 8. Businesses expressed strong interest in
and education interests. The project was jointly supported by the technology issues.
The Chamber offers' City ofNew Brighton and the New Brighton
oxmbcr cm-ax=bw Area Chamber of Commerce.It was part of This study provided a wealth of information
a larger study area that includes 5 other that will be very helpful in providing the
Member Lists S15 525 Northwest Suburbs. Key findings of the framework for future economic development
Certificate of origin N/C 520 study include: activities. For more information contact the
Business Classified 520 $30 City Manager's Office or the Chamberoffice.
r LMC
Cities¢ro ot;Ing ota ;tce Citie e tin
Citi¢s promoting¢scallence S
Number 9 INIarch 8, 1996
U.S. West challenges local authority to manage
public rights-of-way
Ann Higgins such circumstances and set aside local tion to argue against further consider-
regulations.The League obtained a ation of this matter by the state
Cities face a direct challenge to copy of the petition from the city of St. regulatory agency.
their authority to manage local rights- Paul,one of four cities whose ordi- The Telecommunications Act of
of-way from U.S.West,the largest nances and actions U.S. West argued 1996 incorporates language originally
local exchange provider in the state. went beyond the authority granted to adopted by an overwhelming majority
The regional bell operating company cities under state law. in the U.S.House of Representatives.
with service territory in 13 other states U.S.West believes that Minnesota The Barton-Stupak Amendment was
across the nation,is attempting to win Chapter 237 gives MPUC"exclusive
support from the Minnesota Public jurisdiction"to regulate public rights- See U.S. West,page 4
Utilities Commission(MPUC)that the of-way within cities,despite the fact
telephone industry was not able to that state law also establishes local
obtain in the federal 1996 Telecommu- authority to enact regulations over the
nications Act signed into law at the end location of telecommunications
of February.The far-reaching changes equipment and facilities"on,below,or The League sends the t.o ..
Bulletin to the mayor and to,the
in the telecommunications law enacted above...streets alleys or other public administrator or clerk. Be sure to
by the 104th Congress clearly protect grounds." route It to your counclimembers
local government authority to manage The League has conferred with and department heads.
public rights-of-way and to receive representatives of the Suburban Rate '•_'`
reasonable compensation for their use. Authority and the Minnesota Associa-
On February 23,U.S.West filed a tion of Community Telecommunica-
petition with the MPUC for expedited tions Administrators to prepare a
proceedings to intervene in actions response to this unprecedented action. -
taken b cities to require the telephone F`
Y 9 P The LMC Telecommunications Task
company to comply with local ordi-
P Y P Y Force has been asked to make recom- _.
nances when usinc,and maintaining a -''
o g mettdations on a coordinated plan of
presence in public rights-of-way in action to protect cities' interests in this _' =
delivering telecommunications matter.Local cable franchise authori-
services.The petition calls on the ties are also considering possible
MPUC to take exclusive jurisdiction in courses of action,including interven-
Page 5—Senate tax bill Page 3—Fireworks requirements
The 348-page Senate tax bill Fireworks season may seem a
would eliminate city HACA and long way off, but cities should plan
establish a property taxpayer trust now to meet new state
fund. requirements.
U.S. West,
Senate tax bill includes manager continued from page 1
compensation disclosure supported by the National League of
Cities and a coalition comprised of the
Joel Jamnik U.S. Conference of Mayors,the
A provision of the Senate Omnibus Tax Bill would impose additional National Conference of State Legisla-
requirements for local governments at their annual tax notification cures and the National Governors
hearings.Under current law,the hearing must include a discussion of the Association. In speaking to the
percentage increase in property taxes proposed,if any,'and the specific amendment on the House floor,
purposes for which property tax revenues are being increased. Representative Stupak emphasized that
The new provision,added in committee by Senator Linda Runbeck regard for local government authority
(R-Circle Pines),states that"at the hearing,information must be presented and the importance of avoiding billions
that separately states the job title and salary of the city clerk/administrator of dollars in unfunded mandates at the
or manager and each of the unelected full-time permanent employees of local level made it essential that
the taxing authority at the department head level paid by the taxing language be inserted in the telecommu-
authority for the current year."Jr nications legislation to protect local
authority to manage the public rights-
of-way.
The language provides that
managing public rights-of-way is not a
barrier to entry.The language was
intentionally added to overcome other
provisions that would have limited
cities ability to manage public rights-
7 of-way.Representative Stupak under-
4M Fund Update stood that road design,safety concerns,
construction bonds,insurance,short-
An investment.alternative sponsored by and long-term road and utilit:
Telecommunications Seminar Notes
Chris Makowske
February 22, 1996
Vast Public Resource - Public Property (Public Rights-of-Way)
Balance: Cities police powers ("control and manage") vs. "cannot obstruct proliferation"
Federal Law: Nothing shall prohibit state and local governments from managing public rights
of way and from charging reasonable fees.
Recommended to adopt an ordinance:
1. Plan to manage public rights of way.
2. Expand permitting oversight:
• Maintenance permits - cover the administrative cost of permits (inspection, filing)
• Fee for diminution.of value of right of way (cuts in streets)
• Rent- for occupying public property
3. Set fee schedule.
Broaden our definition of utilities: Cable, AT&T, US West, US Sprint, etc., personal
communications systems, data transmission, etc., Open Video Services (phone company with
cable).
Recommend adding a Telecommunications Plan as part of the comprehensive planning process:
• Do an assessment of existing telecommunications utilities over rights of way.
• Action/Implementation plan. "ABC Fiber will go down XYZ street."
• Remember this becomes an economic development issue for people working at home,
attracting new businesses, keeping existing businesses, updating, and include public
information, education, and government access (institutional connections) in mind.
Change 5% franchise fee to a non-discriminatory, non-competitive fee reflecting what is fair,
just and reasonable.
1. Permit fee.
2. Initial cut fee to offset decrease in useful life (based on linear foot of cut)
3. Fair rental value of rights of way occupancy and use of public utility polls (all share equally
in maintenance)
_ i
ALL PA4ZS
• 1100 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis. MN 55402-3397
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. (612) 3 7-7000- ,
Attorneys At Lau-
CABLE TELEVISION CLIENT UPDATE
TO: Cable Television Franchising Authorities and Other Interested Persons
FROM: Adrian E. Herbst, Esq. (612) 347-7053
Ann M. Ladd, Esq. (612_) 347-7124
Theresa M. Harris, Esq. (612) 347-7131
Anthony S. Mendoza, Esq. (612) 347-7055
DATE: February 16, 1996
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the first major overhaul of our nation's
• telecommunications law. Because we know that this Act will impact many of the things you do,
including oversight of your cable television franchise and control of your local rights-of-way,
we have prepared the following overview of the Act.
Before the Act was passed, there was speculation about whether local governments would
lose control of their rights-of-way, whether the local franchising of cable systems would change,
and whether local governments would be allowed to charge a franchise fee payment for use of
the rights-of-way. Additionally, there was considerable controversy about local control of
zoning and restrictions on the use of rights-of-way and other properties for placement of cellular
equipment, including antennaes.
On the whole, the news from Washington is good. The Act retains local control,
franchise fees can still be imposed on cable services, and the Act permits similar fees to be
charged to other users of the right-of-way. Cities have not lost their zoning power, although the
FCC will develop certain restrictions and standards that will impact some local government
controls. Cable rates are being further deregulated. Hopefully, the increased competition which
the Act allows will keep downward pressure on rates for all telecommunications services.
The following overview of the Act includes a description of the new Telecommunications
Act's impact on local units of government. It also discuss the next challenge for municipalities,
the FCC's rulemaking procedures based upon the Act.
• Please call us at any time if you have any questions.
FREDRIKSON & BI'RON, P.A.
Attorneys At Lau'
•
Cable Television Franchising Authorities and Other Interested Persons
February 16, 1996
Page 2
SUMMARY OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 ;
I. General Policy. The stated purpose of the Act is to provide "a competitive, de-
regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector
deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services
to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition..."
H. Key Provisions. Every American will feel the effect of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 in some way. Some of the Act's key provisions are:
A. Telephone Service.
1. Competition for Local Service. No longer will most consumers be
forced to purchase local telephone service from a Regional Bell Operating •
Company (RBOC) (i.e. US WEST, Ameritech, NYNEX). The
Telecommunications Act allows other telecommunications providers to
compete for this business.
2. Interconnection Requirements. Most telecommunications providers must
interconnect their facilities with those of other telecommunication's
providers.
3-. Competition for Toll Service. Local telephone companies are not the
only ones who will be facing new competition. Long distance providers
will as well. The Act allows RBOCs, which have been barred from'
providing interstate long distance services since 1984, to compete in the
long distance market. RBOCs must be certified to provide long distance
service pursuant to rules to be released by the FCC.
B. Effect on State and Local Governments.
1. Preservation of Regulatory Powers. The Telecommunications Act
preserves the rights of state and local governments to "manage the public
rights-of-way" and to require "fair and reasonable compensation from
telecommunications providers for the use of public rights-of-way on a
nondiscriminatory basis. The Act also preserves state and local •
governmental rights to preserve and advance universal service, ensure the
continued quality-of telecommunications services, safeguard the rights of
consumers and protect the safety and welfare of citizens.
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A..
Attorneys At Lau,
Cable Television Franchising Authorities and Other Interested Persons
February 16, 1996
Page 3
2. Regulation of Services. The Telecommunications Act creates three
categories of local governmental regulatory powers. These categories are
distinguished by the type of telecommunications service that is subject to
regulation.
a. Cable Services. The Act sets forth new provisions and
modifies old provisions regarding the manner in which
local governments regulate cable services. Areas affected
are: calculation of franchise fees, rate regulation, customer
premises equipment compatibility, certain customer service
requirements and more. Also, the Act creates differences
with . respect to how local governments regulate cable
operators providing telecommunications services (versus
those cable operators that strictly provide cable services).
• b. Open . Video Systems. The Act creates a separate
regulatory category called Open Video Systems (OVS) for
companies offering video programming services on .a
common carrier basis. The FCC will be issuing rules
setting forth the procedures for how companies can become
certified to provide video programming services pursuant
to this provision. Local governments can impose
requirements similar to cable, including public,
educational, and governmental (PEG) access and
institutional network requirements on OVS providers.
C. Telecommunications Services. Everything.not falling into
one of the first two categories is probably a
"telecommunications service. Local governmental
regulatory authority would be subject generally to the
provisions discussed in section IIB.1 above
(nondiscriminatory, competi tively neutral management of
public rights-of-way etc.).
d. Zoning Authority Over Telecommunications Facilities.
The Telecommunications Act preserves the rights of local
governments to zone "private wireless services." The Act
• preempts, however, local governmental regulation of
"direct-to-home satellite services."
L
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
•
Cable Television Franchising Authorities and Other Interested Persons
February 16, 1996
Page 4
_ C. Miscellaneous Services Provided By RBOCs.
L Manufacturing -by RBOCs. RBOCs were previously barred from
manufacturing telecommunications equipment. The Telecommunications
Act allows RBOCs to manufacture such equipment if they are authorized
to provide long distance service.
2. Electronic Publishing by RBOCs. Although RBOCs will be prohibited
from directly providing electronic publishing, they will have the ability to
provide electronic publishing through "separated" affiliates or through
certain approved joint ventures.
3. Alarm Monitoring and Telemessaging. Six years after the Act, RBOCs
will be able to enter the alarm monitoring and telemessaging businesses.
4. Competitive Safeguards. There are several features of the Act designed
to prevent monopolistic control by RBOCs, including creation of a joint
federal/state board to' preserve universal service for consumers, new
provisions regulating corporate subsidiary structures, and new accounting
and reporting rules.
D. Video Programming Services Provided by Telcos. As discussed earlier,
telephone companies can now provide video programming services via "open
video platforms." Certain of these provisions do not directly impact the
regulatory powers of local governments. Other important provisions are:
a. Separate Affiliates. If a common carrier intends to provide video
programming directly to subscribers, it must do so through a
separate subsidiary that maintains- its own books, records -and
accounts.
b. Limits on Interconnection Requirements. Local telephone
companies providing OVS services shall not be required to make
capacity available on their telecommunications systems to others
who would.use such capacity to provide cable services.
C. Section 214 Exemption. OVS providers will not be required to
apply for section 214 permits from the FCC prior to constructing
or operating OVS systems to the extent such systems provide video
programming.
• J
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
•
Cable Television Franchising Authorities and Other Interested Persons
February 16, 1996
Page 5
d. Anti-trust Provisions. The Act places restrictions on local
telephone companies with respect to ownership of cable operators
operating within the telephone company's -local service area..
Certain rural areas are exempt from these restrictions.
E. Programming Content.
1. Cable Services. Cable operators may refuse to transmit programming
that contains obscene or indecent material or nudity. This provision no
doubt will be affected.by a case being heard in the United States Supreme
Court regarding censorship of cable programming. .
2. The "V-Chip". The Act requires manufacturers of television equipment
to install a device that would allow parents to block violent or sexually.
explicit programming on their televisions.
3. Internet Censorship. The Act also imposes new restrictions on the
content of programming transmitted over computer on-line services, like
the Internet. These provisions are already being challenged in court by
civil liberty organizations.
F. Broadcasters.
1. Broadcast Spectrum Flexibility. The Act contemplates issuance of
licenses relating to high definition television services.
2. Broadcast Ownership. The Act eliminates entirely any.restriction on the
number of stations that can be owned by one company in one local area.
The Act also increases the cap on the percentage of broadcast stations that
can be owned by one entity on a national basis from 25 percent to 35
percent.
G. Utilities.
1. New Competitors in the Telecommunications Industry. Certain types
of public utilities were previously barred from offering
telecommunications service to the public. The Act lifts those restrictions,
• allowing such companies to offer telecommunications services, subject to
a FCC certification process and general FCC jurisdiction.
2. Pole Attachment Costs. The Act changes existing provisions regarding
pole attachment requirements and creates new provisions regarding fair
v
FREDR11;SON & BYRON, P.A.
Attomeys At law
Cable Television Franchising Authorities and Other Interested Persons
February 16, 1996
Page 6
compensation for access to pole space. Further, the Act ensures that
telecommunication providers will have access to existing rights-of-way
conduits, poles and other facilities owned by utilities.
III. General Comments. The Telecommunications'.Act of 1996 will provide both challenges
and opportunities for local government.- As technologies continue to develop and
converge, both state and federal governments will be involved in ongoing rule making.
Technological change will outpace regulations. ' It will be an enormous job for those
operating at all levels of government to keep track of the changes and to develop
legislation and rules that protect the public interest.
Local government needs to 'be involved both in influencing rules that affect local
communities, and also in' recognizing areas in which the FCC may forbear from
regulation, allowing state and local laws and rules to become effective without fear of
preemption. There should be local involvement in telecommunications planning both •
initially, as rules are first.adopted, and on an ongoing oversight basis.
A major objective for any municipality should be to retain local control over the public
rights-of-way to protect citizens and enhance the quality of life for its residents. To
monitor telecommunications providers .who provide services to municipal residents
through the public rights-of-way, municipal governments should consider implementing
ordinances or resolutions that govern these providers in a uniform and consistent way.
We have already begun, at the request of many clients, to develop guidelines and
suggested regulatory ordinances to help implement the new Telecommunications Act of
1996. We would be glad to talk with you about your needs, and encourage you to begin
telecommunications planning today.
502271
•
COPY OPP
J115
BERNICK AND LIFSON
A PROFESSIONAL AS S OCIATIO14
• ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSS A. SUSSMAN SUITE 1200. THE COLONNAOE tALSO AOMITTEO IN WISCONSIN
NEAL J. SHAPIRO 3300 WAY2ATA BOULEVARD 'ALSO CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
SAUL A. BERNICK
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416-1270
THOMAS O. CREIG HTON LEGAL ASSISTANTS
SCOTT A. LIF$ON JO BROWN -
TELEPHONE 16121 346-1200
DAVID K. NIGHTINGALEt JOAN M. SCHULKERS
PAUL J. OUAST* FACSIMILE (612) 346-1003 KATHRYN G. MASTERMAN
THERESA M. KOWALSKI
REBECCA J. HELTZER
ROBERT J. V. VOSE Comparison of Rights-of-Way Ordinances
Bernick and Lifson, P.A.
Ordinance
Compared to:
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)/
Suburban Rate Authority (SRA)
Ordinance
i
In late 1994 and early 1995, many public officials and municipal representatives became
concerned about the potential for a dramatic increase in the demand for public property for new
telecommunications facilities and systems. Concern centered around the uncertain scope of
• municipal regulatory authority over providers other than cable television service providers;
particularly telephone companies and other newly emerging video and data transmission service
providers. Efforts to amend and clarify state law were unsuccessful requiring action at the local
level.
Bernick and Lifson, legal advisor to many Minnesota municipalities and municipal
consortia, along with the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) and League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC),. determined to draft ordinances for use throughout the state. Bernick and Lifson's
Ordinance goes somewhat further in developing a permitting scheme to collect compensation for
use of the right-of-way. However, in general, effort was made to maintain uniformity between
the Ordinances so that any municipality's ordinance which might subsequently be subject to
litigation could be mutually defended and the resultant decision afforded precedential weight.
I. Scope of Ordinances. Both Ordinances similarly govern telecommunications providers,
equipment, and facilities using public rights-of-ways (PROW). For example, neither
version covers gas mains or electric lines which should be governed by already existing
ordinances and specific franchises or other permits.
II. Permits. Both. Ordinances generally require a permit whenever a telecommunications
provider installs, repairs or moves any facilities or equipment on' PROW. Both
Ordinances provide that the City shall inspect the permitted work once completed and
1
both contain similar requirements regarding security and/or bonds guaranteeing
completion of the work. •
A. Bernick and Lifson. The B&L Ordinance further provides or requires that:
1. separate permits be issued for each distinct location where a disturbance
of PROW will occur;
2. the provider indicate with specificity the location of its facilities, the
nature of the work requiring a permit (repair, installation, relocation,
etc.), and that the permits include suitable health, safety and welfare
requirements;
3. each permit must be applied for at least 2 weeks prior to starting work;
P PP P
4. that permits be displayed or available at work sites and that failure to
procure such permit is a misdemeanor;
5. provides for an administrative appeals procedure in the event application
for the permit is denied (appeal to City Council).
B. LMC/SRA. Provides nothing further with respect to Permits; see general
provisions above.
III. Permit Fees. Both Ordinances provide that applications for permit be accompanied b Y •
a fee in an amount set by the City.
A. Bernick and Lifson. The B&L Ordinance provides for a "non-permanent
occupancy permit" not to exceed three (3) months (for repairs, relocation, etc.)
and a "permanent occupancy permit". In addition the B&L Ordinance provides
for the payment of a permit fee which incorporates three (3) components:
1. an administrative fee covering the expenses of reviewing and issuing the
permit, inspecting the site, maintaining appropriate records, and such costs
which may be incurred by the City to return the PROW to its prior
condition;
2. . a fee for the decrease in the useful life or value of the PROW should the
same not be returnable to its prior condition;
3. a fee for use of the PROW based on the area of PROW occupied and the
duration of the occupancy, or, in the case of indefinite occupancy, a
permanent occupancy fee requiring periodic (annual) payments.
2
.il
• B. LNIC/SRA. Contemplates a one-time payment not to exceed the amount expected
to cover the City's costs of administration, inspection, and enforcement.
IV. Restoration and Relocation. Both Ordinances require that the company promptly
restore the property to the same or better condition than existed prior to the work; both
provide that 'the City may complete restoration at company's expense, if the company
does not complete; and both provide that the City must approve any relocation of
facilities, equipment, etc.
Both Ordinances also provide that the City may require relocation, at company expense,
in the exercise of City's police power. In all other cases (where relocation is not within
City's police power) the expenses may be apportioned by agreement between the
company and City.
A. Bernick and Lifson. The B&L Ordinance provides nothing further with respect
to restoration and relocation.
B. LMC/SRA. Provides that in the event a Court determines that City required
relocation was not within the police power authority of the City, such relocation
shall be at the expense of the City.
V. Company Default. Both Ordinances provide that in the event a permitted company is
in default under its permit the City may terminate the permit, and take such action as is
• necessary to abate or cure any condition caused by the default, at company's expense.
VI. Indemnification. Both Ordinances provide for indemnification of the City for any
claims relating to facilities located in the PROW.
VII. Other Conditions. Both Ordinances provide that facilities, equipment, etc. must be
placed in a location and in such manner (above or below ground) as is designated by the
City in the permit. Such location must not endanger or interfere with the customary
traffic, travel and use of the affected PROW and a permitted company must take
reasonable precautions to ensure that the facilities, etc. do not endanger or damage
persons or property.
A. Bernick and Lifson. The B&L Ordinance specifically provides that if a company
obstructs or alters any street or other PROW used for traffic, the company will
guard such obstruction and use appropriate signs and warning Iights to protect the
public.
B. LMC/SRA. Provides nothing further with respect to other permit conditions.
VIII. Applicability to Existing Facilities. Both Ordinances provide that companies must
comply with such Ordinance upon the effective date thereof and that the City may adopt
suitable regulations and schedules for administration of the permits.
3
_ � Y
v
BERNICK AND LIFSON
A PROFC3910NAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW •
ROSS A. SUSSMAN SUITE 1200. THE COLONNADE ,ALSO AOMITTEO IN WISCONSIN
NEAL J. 3MAPIRO 3300 WAYZATA B.OULEVARO 'ALSO CERTIFIEO PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
SAUL A. BERNICK* MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55-416-1270
THOMAS O. CREIGHTON LEOAL ASSISTANTS
SCOTT A. LIFSON JO BROWN
TELEPHONE (0121 546-1200
OAVIO K. NIGHTINGALE* JOAN M. SCHULKERS
PAUL J. OUAST' FACSIMILE (6121 SAIS-1003
KATHRYN G. MASTERMAN
THERESA M. KOWALSKI -
REBECCA J. MELTZER
ROBERT J. V. VOSE -
ORDLN CE
CITY OF (COUNTY, STATE)
An ordinance governing the construction, installation, operation, repair, maintenance,
removal, and relocation of Facilities and equipment used for the transmission of
telecommunications or related services in the Public Ground of the City of
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORDAINS:
SECTION 1
DEFINITIONS
Subdivision 1. The terms defined in this Section have the meanings given them. •
Subdivision 2. Company. A natural or corporate person, business association or other
business entity including partnerships and sole proprietorships, political subdivision, public or
private agency of any kind, its successors and assigns, who or which seeks to, or is required to
construct, install, operate, repair, maintain, remove or relocate Facilities in the City.
Subdivision 3. Director. The Director of Public Works (or equivalent position at the
City).
Subdivision 4. Facilities. Communications lines or equipment of any kind, including, but
not limited to, lines or equipment for the transmission of audio, video, or data, or other similar
communications services, not otherwise governed by (any state law granting exclusive jurisdiction
to the state level), including all trunks, lines, cables, wires, optical.fibers or other fiber optic
cables, laser equipment, circuits, physical connections, switching equipment, wireless
communication equipment of all kinds, towers, and any necessary appurtenances owned, leased
or operated by a Company on, over, in, under, across or along any Public Ground.
Subdivision 5. Public Ground. Highways, roads, streets, alleys, sidewalks, skyways,
public ways, utility easements and public easements in the City.
•
u'
• SECTION 2
PERMIT PROCEDURE
Subdivision 1. Permit Required. A Company may not construct, install, repair, remove
or relocate Facilities, or any part thereof, or otherwise open or disrupt any Public Ground without
first obtaining a permit from the City. The City shall require a separate permit of a Company for
each location where construction, installation, or other disturbance of the Public Ground is to
occur, or for each convenient subdivision of construction, installation or other related work for
which the City determines in its sole discretion a permit is required. Each permit shall state
specifically the locations of any Facilities, and the nature of the work necessitating the permit, and
shall contain reasonable regulations and conditions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
populace of the City. I
-
Subdivision 2. Application. Application for a permit shall be made to the Director. A
Company shall apply for a permit or renewal of a permit a minimum of two (2) weeks before
starting work and must submit detailed plans for street or sidewalk use and pedestrian safety on -
major projects. This provision or portions thereof may be waived by the City in the event of an
emergency.
Upon application by a Company for a permit authorizing construction, installation, repair,
removal, or relocation of Facilities, or other disturbance of Public Ground, the City may deny or
approve such application. Denial of a permit shall be accompanied by a written statement of the
• reasons for such denial. Denial of a permit shall be appealable to the City Council which shall
issue detailed findings in the event such denial is sustained. An appeal of denial shall be heard
at the first regularly scheduled Council meeting and any findings issued within thirty (30) days
of such meeting.
Subdivision 3. Issuance of Permit. If the Director determines that the applicant has
satisfied the requirements of this ordinance the Director may issue a permit to the Company.
Subdivision 4. Permit Fee. A Company shall make a permit fee payment for each permit
requested in an amount determined by the City. The permit fee shall include an application fee
for administrative costs, plus an additional amount to be computed according to the portion of
public right-of-way being occupied, computed by the length of area in fifty-foot increments, and
the duration of the permit. To the extent that a company applies for a permit to indefinitely or
permanently occupy a right-of-way, City shall set a permanent occupancy fee requiring periodic
permit payments payable at such times as determined by City, but in any event at least annually.
The City shall establish a table of permit fees, which table shall be subject to approval by
the City Council and a copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk. The
table of fees shall be amended annually and may be amended at other times as deemed necessary
by the City.
•
2
L
The permit fee shall be determined so as to fully reimburse the City for all costs incurred •
as a result of the construction, installation or other work approved by a permit, including but not
limited to the costs for administrative processing of the application, engineering, inspection, and
for any costs incurred in returning, the Public Ground to its original condition. Should the
construction, installation or other work approved by the permit decrease the useful life or value
of the Public Ground, or should the same not be returnable to its original condition, the City may
recover such decreased value, damage, cost or fees from the permit fee.
Subdivision 5. Term of Non-Permanent Occupancy Permit. The maximum period allowed
for a non-permanent occupancy permit to perform installations or repairs shall be three (3)
months. Construction, installation or other opening, disturbance, or obstruction of Public Ground
beyond the period covered by each permit, including construction, installation, repair or other
opening of Public Grounds covered by a permanent occupancy permit, shall require obtaining a
new permit with payment of applicable fees. Application for such permit shall be subject to the
same review as the original permit application.
Subdivision 6. Security for Completion of Work. Prior to commencement of work, the
Company must deposit with the City security in the form of certified check, letter of credit, or
construction bond, in a sufficient amount as determined by the Director for the completion of the
work. If more than three work projects are to be constructed during a calendar year, the applicant
may, in lieu of individual securities, deposit $ with the City in a form satisfactory
to the Director. The securities will be held until the work is completed plus a period of
months thereafter to guarantee that restoration work has been satisfactorily completed. The •
security will then be returned to the Company with interest if held for a sufficient length of time
to be required by law and then interest at the applicable statutory rate.
Subdivision 7. Inspection of Work. When the work is completed, the Company must
request an inspection by the Director. The Director will determine if the work has been
satisfactorily completed and provide the Company with a written report of the inspection and
approval.
Subdivision 8. Permit to be Displayed. Permits shall be available at all times for ease of
inspection on the indicated work site or at a site mutually agreed upon by City and a Company.
Subdivision 9. Penaltv. Failure to secure required permits prior to beginning
construction, excavation, installation, or work of any kind in Public Ground shall constitute a
misdemeanor under this Ordinance.
SECTION 3
RESTORATION AND RELOCATION
Subdivision 1. Restoration. Upon completion of the work contemplated by a permit, the
Company must restore the general area of the work, including the pavement and its foundations,
• to the same or better condition than existed prior to commencement of the work necessitating a
permit. The work must be completed as promptly as weather permits. If the Company does not
promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and
restore the Public Ground to the same condition, the City may put it in the same condition at the
expense of the Company. The Company must, upon demand, pay to the City the direct and
indirect cost of the work done for or performed by the City, including, but not limited to, the
City's administrative costs.
To recover its costs, the City will first draw on the security posted by the Company and
then recover the balance of the costs incurred from the Company directly by written demand.
This remedy is in addition to any other remedies available to the City.
Subdivision 2. Company Initiated Relocation. The Company must give the City written
notice prior to a Company initiated relocation of Facilities. A Company initiated relocation must
be at the Company's expense and must be approved by the City, such approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
Subdivision 3. �City Required Relocation. The Company must promptly, with due regard
for seasonal working conditions, permanently relocate its Facilities whenever the City in writing
requires such relocation. If the relocation is a result of the proper exercise of the City's police
power in grading, regrading, changing the location or shape of or otherwise improving Public
Ground or constructing or reconstructing a public service or utility system therein, the relocation
• will be at the expense of the Company. In other cases, the Company and City may by written
agreement apportion the costs of relocation between them. If such relocation is done without an
agreement first being made as to who is to pay the relocation cost, the relocation of the Facilities
by the Company is not to be construed as a waiver of its right to reimbursement for its relocation
costs. If the Company claims reimbursement for the relocation costs, it must notify the City
within 30 days after receipt of the City's request for the costs.
Subdivision 4. Relocation Where Public Ground Vacated. The vacation of Public Ground
does not deprive the Company of the right to operate and maintain.its Facilities in the City. If the
vacation proceedings are initiated by the City, the City must pay the relocation costs. If the
vacation proceedings ate initiated by the Company, the Company must pay the relocation costs.
If the vacation proceedings are initiated by other persons, the Company must pay the relocation
costs unless otherwise agreed to by.City, Company and the other persons.
SECTION 4
COMPkNL Y DEFAULT
Subdivision 1. Notice. If the Company is in default in the performance of the work or
occupancy authorized by the permit, including, but not limited to, restoration requirements or
permanent occupancy fee payments for more than 30 days after receiving written notice from the
City of the default, the City may terminate the rights of the Company under the permit, subject
4
to City's absolute right to revoke at any time in the exercise of City's police powers. The notice •
of default must be in writing and specify the provisions of the permit under which the default is
claimed and state the grounds of the claim. The notice must be served on the Company by
personally delivering it to an officer thereof at its principal place of business in Minnesota or by
certified mail to that address.
Subdivision 2. Citv Action on Default. If the Company is in default in the performance
of the work or occupancy authorized by the permit, the City may, after the above notice to the
Company and failure of the Company to cure the default, take such action as may be reasonably
necessary to abate the condition caused by the default. The Company must reimburse the City
for the City's reasonable costs, including costs of collection and attorney fees incurred as a result
of the Company default. The security posted under Section 2, Subdivision 6, will be applied by .
the City first toward payment for such reimbursement.
SECTION 5
INDEMNIFICATION
i
Subdivision 1. c e. The Company will indemnify, keep and hold the City, its elected
officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any and all claims and actions
on account of injury or death of persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction,
installation, maintenance, repair, removal, relocation or operation of the facilities affecting public
ground, unless such injury or damage is the result of the negligence of the City, its elected •
ofcials, employees, officers or agents. The City will notify the Company of claims or actions
and provide a reasonable opportunity for the Company to accept and undertake the defense.
Subdivision 2. Claim Defense. If a claim or action is brought against the City under
circumstances where indemnification applies, the Company, at its sole expense, shall defend the
City if written notice of the claim or action is given to the Company within a period wherein the
Company is not prejudiced in the defense of such claim or action by lack of such notice. The
Company shall have complete control of such claim or action, but it may not settle without the
consent of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third
parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the City. In defending any
action on behalf of the City, the Company is entitled to assert every defense or immunity that the
City could assert in its own behalf.
SECTION 6
OTHER CONDITIONS OF USE
Subdivision 1. Use of Public Ground. Facilities must be located, constructed, installed,
maintained or relocated so as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the usual and
customary traffic, travel, and use of Public Ground. The Facilities are subject to additional
conditions of the permit as established therein, including, but not limited to, (i) the right of
inspection by the City at reasonable times and places; (ii) the obligation to relocate the Facilities •
5
• pursuant to Section 3, Subdivisions 3 and 4; and (iii) compliance with all applicable regulations
imposed by the Public Utilities Commission and other state and federal laws and
regulations.
Subdivision 2. Locatio . The Facilities must be placed in a location and in such manner
as is designated in a permit by the City. The City may designate whether Facilities shall be placed
above ground or in subsurface conduits.
Subdivision 3. Emergencv Work. A Company may open and disturb the surface of Public
Ground without a permit where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of its
Facilities. In such event, the Company must request a permit not later than the second working
day thereafter and comply with the applicable conditions of the permit. '
Subdivision 4. - Street Improvements. Paving or Resurfacing. The City will give the
Company written notice of plans for street improvements where permanent paving or resurfacing
is involved. The notice must contain (i) the nature and character of the improvements; (ii) the
streets upon which the improvements are to be made; (iii) the extent of the improvements, the time
when the City will start the work; and (iv) if more than one street is involved, the sequence in
which the work is to proceed.
Subdivision 5. Company Protection of Facilities. A Company must take all reasonable
measures to prevent its Facilities from causing damage to persons or property. A Company must
• take all reasonable measures to protect its Facilities from damage that could be inflicted on the.
Facilities by persons, property, or the elements. The Company must take all reasonable protective
measures when the City performs work near the Facilities.
Subdivision 6. Guarding of Obstructions or Danvers. If a Company shall obstruct any
Public Ground, such Company shall keep such obstruction or obstructions properly guarded at all
times. From sunset to sunrise, all obstructions must be warded by a sufficient number of warning
lights placed in such manner that they will give proper warning of said obstruction. The City may
require any other restrictions or safety regulations as may be in the public interest. .
Subdivision 7. Prior Service Connections. In cases where streets are at final width and
grade and the City has installed underground sewer and water mains or other utilities and service .
connections to the property line abutting the streets prior to a permanent paving or resurfacing of
the streets, and the Facilities are located under such street, a Company may be required to install
service connections prior to the paving or resurfacing, if it is apparent that service will be required
during the five year period following the paving or resurfacing.
6
t
SECTION 7
EFFECTIVE DATE ANI) APPLICABILITY TO EXISTING FACILITIES •
The Director is authorized and directed to prepare suitable regulations and schedules for
the administration of permits issued under this ordinance.
Passed and approved
•
Prepared by:
Thomas D. Creighton and Robert J. V. Vose
BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A.
5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1200
- - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
(612) 546-1200
CkVOS6—h1ekfft0 11wd.0Wn 09115193 Mzftm
7 •
BERNICK AND LIFSON
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
• ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSS A. SUSSMAN SUITE 1200, THE COLONNADE -tALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN
ALSO CERTIFI EO PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
NEAL J SHAPIRO 5500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
SAUL A. BERNICK' MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416-1270
LEGAL ASSISTANTS
THOMAS O. CREIGHTON
JO BROWN
SCOTT A. LIFSON TELEPHONE (612) 546-1200
DAVID K. NIG MTINGALEt JOAN M SCHULK ERS
.
FACSIMILE 1612) 546-1003 - KATHRYN G. MASTERMAN
PAUL J. OUAST'
THERESA M. KOWALSKI
REBECCA J. HELTZER
ROBERT J. V. VOSE
Three Aspects of Rights-of-Way Permit Fee
I. Administrative Costs
Pursuant to the police power authority, municipalities have an obligation to ensure the public's
safety, health and welfare, which includes aesthetic considerations. Street cuts, major excavations
on public property, and installation of telecommunications lines, equipment and facilities implicate
the municipalities' obligations in this regard. Municipalities are allowed, by clear precedent, to
recoup the actual administrative costs incurred in reviewing, investigating and permitting
telecommunications providers that will perform work in public property.
II. Diminution in Value of the Public Property
•
Rights of ways (streets)with less than 3 cuts have a useful life of approximately 26 years based on
a study by the City of San Francisco. The useful life is reduced to 18 years with 3-9 cuts and to 13
years with 9 or more cuts. There is a very real cost to utility/telecommunications use of public
property.
Public payment for Repair of streets with shortened useful lives due to cuts by telecommunications
providers amounts to a governmental subsidy to such providers. The public need not subsidize
private industry for its use of public property.
III. Rent
A recent MNDOT study entitled "Indirect Costs of Utility Placement and Repair Beneath Streets"
determined that the total value of public easements in Minneapolis might be estimated at a value of
$2.2 billion,or$5.70 per sq. ft. The value of land of course varies from city to city and city to small
town or other municipality.
Jurisdictional Comparison- The following are examples of the per foot, per year"rent" charged
of telecommunications providers for use of public property.
St. Louis, MO - $1.65 (`95-'96) + annual CPI
• Addison, TX - $1.00 (`93) + $1,000 per street crossing and initial acceptance fee
Fort Worth, TX - $1.00 (`85) +acceptance fee
Phoenix, AR- $.60 (?) + annual CPI, 4 dark fibers and 40 free connections •
Des Moines, IA - $1.0.0 (pre 1988); once customers connected, switches to 3% of gross.
IV. Conclusion
Telecommunications.providers should be required to pay the full amount of actual administrative
costs, diminution of the value of public property, and a rental fee, all of which is otherwise borne
by the public as a subsidy.
•
C:\VOSE\RES EARCMRIGHTS.W AY\HANDOUT.00I •
Briefing Materials for
Members of Congress
in Consideration of
H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995
LOCAL RIGHTS OF WAY MANAGEMENT:
Coordination Essentials and Cost Analyses
Prepared by the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
on behalf of
National Leaque of Cities
National Association of Counties
U.S. Conference of Mayors
June 1995
SUN 1ARY
One of the primary responsibilities of local government is to build and maintain streets
and sidewalks (public rights of way) to safely and efficiently carry traffic in the community's
commercial and residential districts. Above the surface, vehicular and pedestrian traffic is
transitory in nature. The direction, routing, and speed of such traffic can be easily altered
according to the community's changing needs.
Below the surface, however, a variety of users place permanent facilities that cannot
easily be removed, repaired, or relocated. Among the facilities permanently placed within the
public rights of way are water mains, natural gas pipes, sewage systems, power lines, high-
pressure steam ducts, telephone wires, and cable television system cables. Right of way is a
limited public resource that must accommodate every users' unique system design, specific
space and depth requirements, and particular maintenance techniques and schedules. The
result is a complex underground system crowded with numerous users all providing essential
utilities to the community.
Given the volatility of the gas, water, power, and steam facilities that coexist with the
telecommunications facilities in the public rights of way, any user's facility placement,
maintenance, and repair work creates a potential public safety hazard. Public safety is also a
concern when surface traffic is rerouted or when the street or sidewalk is improperly
repaired. In order to protect the public safety as well as the existing facilities of other users,
local governments must encourage safe and efficient rights of way practices through effective
management processes.
There are many factors that must be addressed during the ongoing management process,
including: obtaining proof of compliance with all electrical, construction, and engineering
standards; coordinating road cuts, facility locates, and map updates of multiple users; assigning
short-term road repair responsibilities; and setting long-term road maintenance goals. Local
governments use these procedures to protect the facilities of all rights of way occupants and to
develop safe and efficient streets and sidewalks.
As more users seek to enter the rights of way, public safety concerns intensify and
management costs escalate. With each additional entrant into the rights of way, local governments
face increased road replacement costs. Local governments and citizens also face indirect costs such
as increased travel time, loss of access and trade to local businesses, and increased noise pollution
and visual intrusion. The rent occupants pay to local governments for the permanent use of the
rights of way helps to defray only a portion of these costs. Without the ability to receive fair and
reasonable compensation for the use of the public rights of way from all private users, local
governments will be forced to raise taxes in order to cover the increased rights of way costs
associated with telecommunications competition.
NATOA, June 1995
COMPLEX AND CROWDED
RIGHTS OF WAY
Below the surface, a variety of users place permanent facilities that cannot easily be
removed, repaired, or relocated. Among the facilities permanently placed within the public
rights of way are water mains, natural gas pipes, sewage systems, power lines, high-pressure
steam ducts, telephone wires, and cable television system cables. Right of way is a limited
public resource that must accommodate every users' unique system design, specific space and
depth requirements, and particular maintenance techniques and schedules. The result is a
complex underground system crowded with numerous users all providing essential utilities to
the community.
TYPICAL SUBSURFACE FACILITIES
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHA Hghtvay/Utility Guide, June 1993.
Typical Typical
Item Dimension Typical Materials Cover Typical Locations Other Clues
Water Mains 100 to 1200 rnm Steel,cast iron,plastic 3.0 m Under street.and sidewalks Manholes,shut-off valve plates,hydrants,knowledge that
0 to 48 in.) wood,concrete,asbestos, Ito 10 fl) buildings use piped-in water,water company records
cement,stone work
Water 12 to 150 mm Steel,cast iron,plastic, 2.4 m(to 8 ft) From streets toward Shut-off valve plates,knowledge that buildings use piped-in
Distribution (0.5 lip 6 in.) asbestos,.cement.copper twril.hngs water
.rues
lies Mains 50 to 750 mm Steel,cast iron,plastic 1.8 m(to 6 ft) I In der streets and sidewalks Manholes,shut-of valve plates,knowledge that buildings
(2 to 30 in.) use piped-in gas,gas company records
Gas 12 to 150 mm Steel,cast iron,plastic, 1.5 to(to 5 ft) From streets toward Shut-off valve plates,knowledge that buildings use piped-in
Distribution (0.5 to 6 in.) copper buildings gas,visible service entrance or meter,gas company records
Linea
Sewer Mains 150 to 1200 mm Cast iron,vitrified clay, 6.1 in Under streets and sidewalks Manholes and cleanout openings,knowledge that buildings
(6 to 48 in.) asbestos cement,plastic (to 20 ft) and along property lines are served by sewers,lift stations,municipal records
coated steel,bituminixed
fibre,concrete,stone work
Sewer Linea 75 to 150 mm Cast iron,vitrified clay, 1.8 m(to 6 ft) From buildings toward Clcanouts,traps,knowledge that buildings are served
0 to 6 in.) asbestos cement,plastic mains by sewer
coated steel,bimminucd
Fibre,concrete
Electric Conduit: Conduit: asbestos cement, 1.5 m(to 5 ft) Under streets and sidewalks Manholes,transformers.visible connections to
Power 25 to 125 mm steel,concrete,plastic and along property lines aerial plant,electric company records
Lines in (1 to 5 in.) Cable: insulated copper or
Conduit Cable: aluminum
25 to 50 mm
(1 to 2 in.)
Buried 12 to 50 mm Insulated copper or aluminum 13.1 to Along streets,under Visible connections to poles,to buildings,to underground
Power Lines (0.5 to 2 in.) (to 4.fill sidewalks,along property transformers,electric company records
lines,toward buildings
Telephone Conduit: Conduit: plastic,clay, 3.6 m Under streets and sidewalks. Manholes,visible connections to aerial plant.
Cable in 90 to 125 mm(3.5 to asbestos,cement,steel, (to 12 ft) along property lines telephone company records
0-nduil 5 in.,commonly 4 in.) concrete,wood
100 mm,Cable: 1010 Cable: insola(cd copper or
100 mm(0.3 u)4 in.) aluminum,lead sheath,coaxial
Iluned 12 to I mm Insulated copper ar 1.2 m(to 4 fl) Along streets and roads. Pedestals,closures,visible connections to aerial plant,
'telephone (0.5 to 4 in.) aluminum,coax along rights-of-way telephone company records
Cahlc
Buried 10 nun(0.3 in.) Insulated copper,or 0.6 in(to 2 ft) Between buildings and Pedestals,service entrances on buildings,telephone company
Wire aluminum cables records
table TV Cable 1.3 cm(0.5 in.) Insulated copper,or 0.5 m(to 2 ft) Between buildings and Service entrance on buildings,visible connection to
aluminrun cables distribution,cable TV company records
Source: APWA Subsurface Utility Facilities Detection Techniques and Detection Devices.
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OIL LOCAL STREET
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHA Highway/Utility Guide, June 199-1.
3
x a
10' thin. 12'-16' (E) 12' - 16'(E) 10' min.
Utility Easement . Utility Easement
(Front and/or (Front and/or
rear yard) rear yard)
6' 6• 6'min.(D)
3'
'min.(D)
1.5'Zone(C) Pavement Width 1.5'Zone(C)- _15� 4' l'
�--� 26' -53' Back To Back
o 0 S' S'
S' 5' t a4 I I 6'
I g I I
T ra f c S ' ° (F)Tcic/S rn
(F,G) (F)Tele/ ----- - — —__ CATV 3'
M (F.C)
Storm sewer±4' — Gas 3' Elec.4
Elec. CATV 3' I ^— Footing main- — ——— — — — u Fo ►n8 stn O O
3'i4' i 3' _ —_ _ _ _I II Scrvtce Line * Service Line 3' 4' 3'
Min. -----
Gas 3'(Alt.)--� I I Storm Sewer(Alt.) Watermain 5'
I I Strut Light Cablc/Elcctric Note:Alternatives used when
5.1 Al , utility easements do not exist.
Service ire r �crvi cZinc
c
1 — Sanitary Sewer 8'
GENERAL NOTES:
(A)ROW width varies(see Design Standards). eliminate the coupling between the anchoring too and valve. For maintenance purposes,
(B)Unless otherwise approved,the following apply to utilities in the ROW: the min.distance between centerline of valve box to face of hydrant must be 15'. Stop
1. Utilities arc normally buried. When overhead utilities arc allowed and cross the boxes should be located V from ROW tine in area without sidewalks.
roadway,the minimum vertical clearance for main cable is 20 foci and service cable (E)Puking Area Widths. Varies by roadway classification(see Design Standards).
is 18 feet. Jurisdiction may require wider parking area for future widening.
2. Telephone,cable TV and water are on cast and south side of road (F)Utility Easements-Telephone,Fiber Optics,Cable T.V.,Electric and Gas Lines:
3. Gas,electric and sanitary sewer are on west and north side of road Located in front or rear yard easements on local and minor collector routes. For major
(C)Storm Sewers: Normal clearance for intake is 1.5'from back of curb. When collectors and arterials,they may be placed in ROW upon approval of the Jurisdiction.
combination manholes and intakes are used,clearance increases to 5'. Normally,telephone and cable T.V.lines arc placed in tear yards;fiber optics,electrical
(D)Watermains,Valves and Hydrants. Normal watermain location is 4'back of curb. For lines and gas lines in front yards. Placement of electric lines in rear yards depends
on
combination manholes and intakes,this distance wiU increase to a minimum of 6'. For transformer locations and requires approval of the electric company and Jurisdiction.
local streets and minor collectors with limited ROW,use a 6'900 anchoring elbow o (G)Electric Recommended bury for electric cable is 4'. Minimum bury for electric fines is
per the National Electric Safety Code.
Note: 1 m=3.28 ft
PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS
Given the volatility of gas, water, power, and steam facilities that coexist with
telecommunications facilities in the public rights of way, any user's facility placement,
maintenance, and repair work creates a potential public safety hazard. Public safety is also a
concern when surface traffic is rerouted or when the street or sidewalk is improperly
repaired. In order to protect the public safety as well as the existing facilities of other users,
local governments must encourage safe and efficient right of way practices through effective
management processes.
RIGHT OF WAY
MANAGEMENT ESSENTIALS
Tnere are many factors that local government must address in its role as trustee and landlord
of the public rights of way, including: obtaining proof of compliance with all electrical,
construction, and engineering standards; coordinating road cuts, facility locates, and map updates of
multiple users; assigning short-term road repair responsibilities; and setting long-term road
maintenance goals. Local governments uses standard right of way management procedures to
protect the facilities of all right of way occupants while continuing to meet its historical mandate to
develop safe and efficient streets and sidewalks.
1 1 �
!11
�'` l�� :+.� �� • - 1 �"r'�ll�.,p.I`'i Q�=:�'�Y•Ja ��•rJ!i�:..'��=_`::`'1`'ntir�6�
,vz�..w..e�sti��s; � •• �»t-�. -.tir::_..-e ca+�•_ '����a�('.�T • • • ',•
fr {•.s--iii•-S.r !'-.'
L7
ry,�`sT- {."`. - 4�•t ��vf'[r�1 1ya•� �..1--..`
pit
Me�yt''� � ^. ti� a� �J .�`cl:-:�•rJ'r -y ��i : y�'3 flc�'`Z ��r'�`..f
.-•4 r„s �t� ` Y ' f ..T,t F�;�'-',�.,,,� t'"�' ..may�;t'.TL�-y.'1•'`„ cc..�
' N z♦ s ti rte Vl.••1�,..I{ .y i•.•r 1 t�t.
J�s� r ` � Y j'r �-rt.y 'f��A-Lr-..,'r�•.,� `�TiSI� �� /� J
-a'j s _=t• w. 1 -t - r<s _„ry'K.`�-a.y cz t �:" •v�$ t�
� ^ ., � r r� r' .,1 r� � �v�t��-.. •ter>�
t•� I arr �k}�.�. lY �� i .=ry t.
F4l � � _ � I,a ��T l 4 1•~yI'%.'.J�GL�K' Y
L
�'`l��'.rf�'�>�f r.,. �r�Ya.Y ��r v �,+���r��x%'tjr'. �+�4,! .•,�`.S�w..r. 4
1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 / 1 1 •
DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF
ENTRY INTO THE RIGHTS OF WAY
As more users seek to enter the rights of way, public safety concerns intensify and
management costs escalate. With each additional entrant into the rights of way, local governments
face increased road replacement costs. Local governments and citizens also face indirect costs such
as increased travel time, loss of access and trade to local businesses, and increased noise pollution
and visual intrusion. The rent occupants pay to local governments for the permanent use of the
rights of way helps to defray only a portion of these costs. Without the ability to receive fair and
reasonable compensation for the use of the public rights of way from all private users, local
governments will be forced to raise taxes in order to cover the increased rights of way costs
associated with telecommunications competition.
RIGHT OF WAY VALUE, COST AND FEE COMPARISON
Source: Greater Metro Cable Consortium
Estimated Figures for the Denver Metro Area
($000°s)
— _ $5.37 Billion
5,000,000
M_ ,__�__-=T_
600,000
.-
°t- 6505 Million
500,000— $483 Million
r..
400,000
300,000 =sz--
200,000
100,0008�� -=
$38.5 Million * $73 Million
II �a'�III
p
it il!�
Total Local Fair Rental Fees and Charges Maintenance
Acquisition Value (Annual) Paid by ROW Users Expenditures
Value of ROW of Unimproved (Federal, State,
(Unimproved) ROW Property and Local)
* GMCC Jurisdiction
General Fund Balance
Share of Cost
Acquisition Value: Extrapolated from actual property acquisition costs in representative cases.
Fair Rental Value: 9.% of Acquisition Value. Based on estimates from regional property valuation experts.
Fees and Charges: Annual revenues received from private, permanent users of the rights of way.
Maintenance: Local costs estimated from actual rights of way maintenance budgets of local jurisdictions.
As this graph indicates, the taxpayer-funded rights of way acquisition and maintenance costs dwarf
the relatively small contribution of private occupants of the public rights of way. Competition in the
telecommunications market will necessarily force these costs to increase.
Without the ability to charge all users fair and reasonable rent for the use of public property, local
governments will be forced to raise taxes to cover these increased costs.
Direct Costs of Utility-Related Road Work
• Excavation and Backfill.
• Pipe and Pipelaying.
• Pavement Reinstatement.
• Temporary Utility Service Diversions.
• Traffic Diversions and Traffic Control.
Courtesy: Dr. Raymond L. Sterling, University of Minnesota, Indirect Costs of Utility Placement and Repair Beneath
Streets, August 1994.
Utility Cuts Dramatically Reduce the Useful Life of a Street
0
L4
100
g0
a 80 '
pv? o
Uso
40 --
30
20
G� 0 5 10 15 20 25 ' 30 - IT 40
Age (Years)
I—< 3 Cuts —3 -9 (I-Lis — >9 Cuts I
Streets with 3-9 utility cuts are expected to require re-surfacing every 18 years. This represents a
30% reduction in service life relative to streets with less than 3 cuts.
Streets with more than 9 cuts are expected to require re-surfacing every 13 years. This represents
a 50% reduction in service life relative to streets with less than 3 cuts.
Courtesy: City of San Francisco.
Increased User Costs .
• Increased travel time, reduced street network availability and capacity.
• Increased pavement roughness.
• Increased vehicle maintenance and fuel costs.
Economics
• Loss of access and trade to local businesses.
Safety Considerations
• Increased vulnerability to accidents for workers, pedestrians, and motorists.
Environmental Impacts
• Increased noise and air pollution from idling vehicles.
• Increased construction material disposal.
• Increased visual intrusion.
Courtesy: City of Austin and Dr. Raymond L. Sterling, University of Minnesota, Indirect Costs of Utility Placement
and Repair Beneath Streets, August 1994.
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING M I UTES
3 MARCH 19, 1996
4 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
5 The meeting was called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Bergstrom at 7:01
6 p.m.
7
8 H. ROLL CALL.
9 Commissioners present: Chair Bergstrom, Commissioners Delmonico, Gondorchin, Horst,
10 Makowske,and Thompson. Commissioner Franzese arrived at 7:03
11 p.m.
12 Commissioners absent: None.
13 Also present: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant; Michael Mornson, City
14 Manager; and Cathy Sorensen, Recording Secretary.
15 III. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 19,-1996,PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
16 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Makowske, to approve the Planning Commission Agenda for
17 March 19, 1996, as presented.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 20, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.
22 Page 3, Line 12,change "Commissioner Gondorchin stated that there are natural low land areas and
23 water will still flow in spite of development."
24 Motion by Makowske,seconded by Horst,to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February
25 20, 1996, as corrected.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 V. DESIGNATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE.
29
30 Commissioner Delmonico was appointed as the Planning Commission representative for the
31 Tuesday, March 26, 1996, City Council meeting.
32 VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
33
34 Subdivision of Lane- St. Anthony Health Center/Chandler Place
1 �>
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 1995
Page 2
1 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes, Management
2 Assistant, read the report to the Commission:
3 Mike Miller, owner and partner of Chandler Place and St. Anthony Care Center, 3700 Foss Road,
4 is requesting that Lots 8, 9, 10, 11,and 13 that comprise this property,be replatted to form two lots,
5 proposed Lots 1 and 2. This request is being made primarily to avail himself and the partnership of
6 lower bond interest rates for Chandler Place. Initially, the plan was to combine the lots into one
7 large lot, but an addition is being planned and drawings for that addition could not be completed in
8 time to meet the deadline for the refinancing requirements of HUD.
9 Also,this property is classified as Torrens property, which means that if the owners of the Chandler
10 Place and St. Anthony Care Center want to continue with metes and bounds legal description, they
11 will require the approval of the City Council to forego the platting process. Ramsey County has to
12 be advised as well and their approval process may take an additional two to three months.
13 Staff recommends the approval of the proposed subdivision of land. Not only will replatting allow
14 the partnership to take advantage of lower bond interest rates, it will allow for the creation of lots
15 that conform to the lot requirements of the City Code. This recommendation is based on the
16 condition that the owners provide a final plat according to the requirements of the City Ordinance
17 for consideration by the City Council at the March 26 City Council meeting.
18
19 Chair Bergstrom inquired what the difference is between Torrens and fee simple property. Ms.
20 Moore-Sykes explained that the County must first decide if they will allow the property to be divided
21 without a plat. She stated she does not fully understand the difference between Torrens and fee
22 simple property.
23 Chair Bergstrom inquired if the County has decided yet if they will require a plat. Ms. Moore-Sykes
24 stated they have not yet heard from the County as of yet.
25 Mr. Mike Miller of Chandler Place and St. Anthony Care Center,stated he is a partner with his wife,
26 mother-in-law, and 14 other individuals. He stated St. Anthony Care Center was built in 1966, and
27 that Sage Company manages the complexes, in addition to 14 other nursing homes. He stated the
28 Care Center has a annual payroll of 3.8 million, and is likely St. Anthony's largest employer. Mr.
29 Miller stated the Care Center and Chandler Place can serve 430 clients, with 134 nursing home beds
30 and 119 apartments.
31 Mr. Miller stated there were two reasons for the subdivision request; (1)to take advantage of lower
32 interest bond rates and refinancing; and, (2)to allow for the creation of lots that conform to the lot
33 requirements of the City Code to allow for an expansion and redesign of the Care Center.
S
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 1995
Page 3
1 Mr. Miller gave an overview of the expansion plans. He stated they plan to redesign the current
2 four-bed wards into two-bedroom semi-private rooms, as well as expand the health care center into
3 a two-story structure for assisted living clients.
4 Mr.Miller stated the current lot line divides the current health care center in half,which is the reason
5 for the subdivision request. He stated the survey was completed two weeks ago, but are delays in
6 completing the easement language and legal description. He stated it will be replatted by the
7 Tuesday, March 26th City Council meeting so it can be refinanced.
8 Mr. Miller noted that variances may be needed at a future point, and stated ground breaking may
9 occur in late summer. He showed an overhead of the proposed plan, and described the U-shaped
10 courtyard, a segregated area for Alzheimer's patients, hospice wing, and the 20 units of assisted
11 living apartments. Mr. Miller showed an overhead of the north elevation,and noted the exterior will
12 be all brick with a scalloped front and metal roof with covers for the air handling system. He also
_ 13 offered photographs of the current four-bed wards for review.
14 Commissioner Thompson inquired what the cost was per day for the health care center. Mr. Miller
15 replied the cost ranged from $60 to $140 per day, depending on the level of care an individual
16 needed. He noted that the cost of the addition will increase each client's cost by $4 per day.
17 Mr. Miller noted that lot coverage will likely be over the 50 percent code requirement, and that the
18 plan is deficient by eight parking stalls.
19 Mr. Miller stated they are approximately 30 days from a variance request, and are currently working
20 with the Rice Creek Watershed. He showed an overhead of the proposed property division, and
21 stated a final site plan should be completed within the.week. He stated survey crews are completing
22 a topographical survey now, and that should answer any drainage issues that may arise.
23 Commissioner Makowske inquired how it would affect Mr. Miller's plans if the City Council
24 approved the subdivision but were not able to approve the variance request. Mr.Miller stated he was
25 not requesting a variance now,but can complete the-refinancing with the subdivision approval. He
26 stated the variance is not contingent upon the refinancing.
27 Commissioner Makowske clarified that the Commission was approving a preliminary plat.
28 Mr.Miller noted the partnership owns all parcels included in the subdivision request. Commissioner
29 Makowske reiterated that he wanted to clarify that an approval of the preliminary plat would not
30 negatively affect the Care Center if a subsequent variance was not approved. Mr. Miller stated there
31 would be no issue.
32 Commissioner Horst stated he assumed the lot line would be split, and inquired where the buildings
33 will be with respect to the 50 percent lot coverage requirement. Mr. Miller stated he did not know
i
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 1995
Page 4
1 how the buildings would meet the 50 percent lot coverage. He stated that either project will be
2 within the lot coverage requirements,but will exceed the lot coverage with any additions.
3 Discussion was held on the minimum lot size in an R4 district. Mr. Morrison, City Manager, stated
4 the center was built in 1967,and therefore would be grandfathered into the codes. He stated that the
5 center is located on six lots now, and the subdivision would create two lots, which is an
6 improvement.
7 Commissioner Gondorchin stated that the replatting makes sense and should proceed, but noted he
8 is concerned with other issues that will have to be addressed later, as there are so many unknowns
9 at this time.
10 Mr. Momson inquired when Mr. Miller would be applying for a variance. Mr. Miller replied it
11 should be in May, as they are currently changing architects. Mr. Morrison stated a concept review
12 will be scheduled before the public hearing on the variance. He also noted a decision will be needed
13 by the City Attorney if a conditional use permit is needed on the expansion portion of the nursing
14 home, as nursing homes are permitted only through conditional uses. Mr. Miller stated an addition
15 was completed in 1971,and a conditional use permit was needed for the addition only. Mr. Momson
16 requested that Mr. Miller share any information he has regarding that expansion.
17 Chair Bergstrom stated a concept review is requested when there are "significant" variance requests
18 so the Commission and Council fully understand the intent; he noted they are very informal. Mr.
19 Miller stated that is why he was giving the overview this evening as well,to show the partnership
20 is only doing this for the refinancing; they have no intentions of selling the land.
21 Commissioner Makowske inquired if a hardship must be identified for plat approval. Chair
22 Bergstrom replied that hardships are only needed in a variance. Commissioner Gondorchin noted
23 that the Commission is only making a recommendation to the City Council.
24 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
25 Motion by Franzese,seconded by Makowske,to approve the preliminary plat for St. Anthony Health
26 Care Center/Chandler Place as presented,with conditions of that the final plat meet the ordinances
27 and stipulations placed by the City Council.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 Commissioner Gondorchin noted a letter from Mr. John Madden, 3701 Foss Road (attached). He
31 stated Mr. Madden is in full support of the health care center expanding, but is concerned with
32 increased traffic on Foss Road.
y
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 1995
Page 5
1 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if it was proposed to move the curb cut for the expansion. Mr.
2 Miller noted that the existing facility's loading dock is off of 37th Avenue,and is hard for semitrucks
3 to maneuver. He stated the new expansion will allow truck deliveries in front.
4 Commissioner Gondorchin stated that Foss Road has a posting for no truck traffic. Mr. Miller stated
5 the redesign will decrease the driveway use as a shortcut access for employees as well as general
6 traffic. Mr. Miller stated he will contact Mr. Madden regarding his traffic concerns.
7 Chair Bergstrom stated there are many concerns regarding the health care center expansion, such as
8 lot coverage,parking, setbacks,traffic,and storm water retention. Mr. Miller stated the onsite pond
9 acts as a holding pond, and could be dredged deeper if needed.
10 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired how the parking stalls are calculated. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated
11 that parking stalls are calculated as one stall per five nursing homes beds, and employee parking
., 12 sufficient for the largest shift.
13 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired when the Center is short on parking. Mr. Miller stated that
14 parking reaches capacity once a month during the Chamber of Commerce meetings, and on events
.15 such as Mother's Day. He did note they have an agreement with the principal of the Wilshire Park
16 Elementary school to use their parking lot during evenings and weekends if needed. He also noted
17 the gazebo will likely be relocated or eliminated, and that area could be used for parking if needed.
18 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he encourages the redevelopment of the center,but noted there are
19 a number of issues that will have to be addressed. Mr. Miller stated they are the only nursing home
20 in St. Anthony, and that most nursing homes exceed the 50 percent lot coverage requirement.
21 Commissioner Franzese inquired when the lot coverage issue should be addressed,and if a precedent
22 would be set regarding an allowable percentage of land improvements with respect to the retention
23 pond. Mr. Miller he will be meeting with Mr. Hamer and Ms. Moore-Sykes after the topography
24 is completed to discuss the lot coverage and the issues regarding the catch basins, drainage, and
25 underground cisterns.
26 Chair Bergstrom suggested Mr. Miller review the traffic concerns and the short cut street through
27 his property. Mr. Miller agreed, and suggested telling his employees to enter and exit on Chandler
28 Street, as well as installing speed bumps.
29 Discussion was held on Mr. Miller's options it the legal description is not complete by the City
30 Council's meeting.
31 Commissioner Franzese inquired why there is a moratorium on new nursing homes. Mr. Miller
32 stated the intent is that nursing home beds will be used if they are available, but will be paid for by
33 the state, not by private funds.
34
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 1995
Page 6
1 VII. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL PERMITTED USES CHANGES.
2 a. Draft of Memo to Council of Recommendations
3 Chair Bergstrom reviewed a draft memo to the Council of recommendations on proposed conditional
4 permitted uses changes (attached). Discussion was held on the proposed changes.
5 Commissioner Makowske stated a library should be considered the same as a church or school in
6 an R-1 district. Commissioner Gondorchin noted libraries are normally open through evening hours,
7 unlike a church or school.
8 Discussion was held on drive-in and drive-through establishments. It was decided to discourage
9 drive-in establishments, such as an A&W restaurant. Commissioner Gondorchin suggested adding
10 language that states onsite dining must be available at a drive-in establishment.
11 Discussion was held on whether to include the language of"alcoholic" beverages in permitted uses
12 in a commercial district. Commissioner Makowske cited Slick's Bar as an example of this permitted
13 use. The decision was made to word the language as "beverages, including alcohol," as part of the
14 text.
15 Discussion was held on adding a general statement regarding companies that may pose an
16 environmental concern, such as bus stations. Commissioner Horst noted that if bus stations are
17 precluded, the City could be discouraging potential business. He cited American Monarch as an
18 example, and stated that the City cannot assume a company is going to be a problem.
19 Chair Bergstrom stated the City can require a conditional use permit, which is not the same as
20 precluding a company.
21 Commissioner Makowske stated the language should be reviewed, as he was uncomfortable with
22 stating as a specific use.
23 Commissioner Franzese cited as an example an application for a storage materials company on Foss
24 Road. Commissioner Delmonico noted that OSHA laws are designed to protect the environment as
25 well.
26
27 VIII. DISCUSSION OF CITY CODE SIGN CHANGES.
28 Commissioner Makowske presented an overview of the City Code Sign Changes to the Commission.
29 Discussion was held on the flow chart.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 1995
Page 7
1 IX. GOAL SETTING RETREAT -3/8/96.
2
3 Chair Bergstrom stated that a goal setting retreat was held March 8 and 9, 1996,to discuss the City's
4 overall goals for the future. -
5 Chair Bergstrom noted how impressed he continues to be with the quality of staff.that is working
6 in St. Anthony.
7 Chair Bergstrom explained the retreat was conducted in general sessions,as well as through surveys,
8 questionnaires, and individual workgroups.
9 Chair Bergstrom noted discussion was held on the transitional planning that will be needed when
10 three key department heads retire within the next three years: Larry Hamer,Public Works Director;
11 Richard Engstrom, Chief of Police; and Richard Johnson, Fire Chief.
12 Chair Bergstrom stated that specific charges to the Planning Commission will include beautification
13 of the City and maintenance of the residential properties. He continued that the City Council has
14 asked the Planning Commission to give some thought on how to address City beautification and
15 housing maintenance, such as City code changes. Chair Bergstrom stated that after the minutes are
16 distributed, the Planning Commission will be asked to share their thoughts on these issues and to
17 outline a plan.
' 18 Chair Bergstrom stated the City will be getting input from youth groups and senior groups to
19 develop activities for the two age groups. He shared a comment from Councilmember Faust that
20 youth is an economic redevelopment issue, and that focus should be placed on this age group.
21 Chair Bergstrom stated other goals the City identified are increased communication to the residents
22 through newsletters,videos,and cable. He also noted that road improvement projects and city-wide
23 maintenance issues were discussed.
24 X. STAFF UPDATE.
25 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that a public hearing is scheduled for the April Planning Commission
26 meeting to discuss the Nedegaard Village Commons variance.
27 Mr. Momson stated the subdivision of Apache Plaza for the New Market location may also be on
28 the April agenda. He stated this will be needed for refinancing reasons.
29 XI. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
30 Commissioner Gondorchin stated the City has a good housing maintenance code now, but it needs
31 to be enforced. He continued that he is not sure what the solution is, but suggested a City official
32 whose specific charge is to enforce the housing maintenance code.
i
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 1995
Page 8
1 Chair Bergstrom stated the City is now trying to set a verifiable number or threshold for housing
2 issues.
3 Commissioner Gondorchin suggested promoting a spring clean-up, or sponsoring a lawn and
4 landscape contest as ideas to help beautify the neighborhoods.
5 Chair Bergstrom noted that the City is reluctant to move past sending notices, as then there is
6 mediation and court costs.
7 Commissioner Delmonico stated that the majority of the problem housing is rental property. He
8 stated that Minneapolis implemented a"eyes of the City"program where all City employees reported
9 code violations.
10 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired of the status of the Perino property. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated
11 the owner has obtained financing and has hired a contractor. Commissioner Gondorchin inquired
12 if there was any additional settlement from the City. Ms. Moore-Sykes replied she was unsure. She
13 stated the owner has proposed to do much of the work himself.
14 Commissioner Franzese stated that most individuals do not want government involvement; they
15 want as few laws as possible. She suggested establishing laws as needed, then fining.
16 Commissioner Franzese stated she was happy to hear that services will be offered for youth and
17 senior groups.
18 Commissioner Franzese stated that school population has increased with preschool attendance.
19 Commissioner Franzese said that budget cuts are occurring in many school districts.
20 Commissioner Franzese inquired of the status of the American Monarch building. Ms.Moore-Sykes
21 stated she had no further information at this time, but stated there may be a concept review in the
22 future.
23 Commissioner Makowske stated he attended a telecommunications seminar on February 22nd, and
24 reported that the telecommunications act may change how public rights-of-way are managed and
25 maintained. He stated the seminar suggested that rights-of-way should be leased to cable and
26 telecommunication companies,not used at no cost. He stated he is unaware how St. Anthony views
27 its rights-of-way or water tower space for antennas. Commissioner Makowske reviewed different
28 aspects from the seminar, including how a plan for rights-of-way should be handled and included
29 in the City's comprehensive plan, and a fee scheduled established.
30 Chair Bergstrom noted that the New Brighton Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey on
31 business retention.
/ f
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 1995
Page 9
1 IX. ADJOURNMENT.
2 Motion by Franzese, seconded by Makowske, to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5 Respectfully submitted,
6 Cathy Sorensen
7 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial
y
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
3 MARCH 12, 1996
4 I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL.
5 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by
6 Mayor Ranallo.
7 II. ROLL CALL.
8 Councilmembers Present: Ranallo, Marks (Arrived 7:10 P.M.), Enrooth, Wagner, and
9 Faust.
10 Also Present: Michael Morrison, City Manager and William Soth, City Attorney.
11 111. APPROVAL OF MARCH 12, 1996 COUNCIL AGENDA.
12
13 Motion by Wagner, second by Enrooth to approve the March 12, 1996 Council Agenda as
14 presented.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 27, 1996 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
. 17 MINUTES.
18 Motion by Wagner, second by Faust to approve the February 27, 1996 Council Meeting
19 Minutes as presented.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 V. LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS.
22 Motion by Enrooth, second by Wagner to approve the following licenses:
23 Contractors License:
24 Bissonett Construction Services, Inc., Bloomington, MN/remodeling at 2500
25 Highway 8 (Northgate)
26 Kraus Anderson Construction Company, Minneapolis, MN/Renewal
27 Garbage Haulers License:
28 -Vasko Rubbish Removal Inc., St. Paul, MN/Commercial/Renewal
29 Aspen Waste Systems Inc., St. Paul, MN/Commercial/Renewal
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 12, 1996
Page 2
1 Service Station License:
2 Apache Amoco, 3700 Silver Lake Rd/Renewal
3 St. Anthony Unocal Inc., 2812 27th Avenue NE/Renewal
4 Stop 'N' Go, 2400 37th Avenue NE/Renewal
5 Cigarette License:
6 American Amusement Arcades/location Stonehouse &Apache Wells/Renewal
7 St. Anthony Liquor/location SAVI & SAVII/Renewal
8 Apache Amoco, 3700 Silver Lake Rd/Renewal
9 Snyder Drug Stores, 2900 Pentagon Drive/Renewal
10 Stop 'N' Go, 2400 37th Avenue NE/Renewal
11 Bench License:
12 U.S. Bench Corporation, Minneapolis, MN/Renewal
13 Heating License:
14 Northland Mechanical Contractors, Inc., New Hope, MN/working at Northgate.
15 Beer Retail Off-Sale License:
16 Stop 'N' Save, 3259 Stinson Blvd/Renewal
17 Stop 'N' Go, 2400 37th Avenue NE
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19 VI. PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS.
20 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Enrooth to approve the following claims:
21 A. St. Anthony Community Services in the amount of$4,426.00 for the position of
22 Sr. Citizen Coordinator for Sally Cain for 419 hours at the hourly rate of$18.11.
23 B. Dorsey & Whitney in the amount of$1,400.60 for legal services rendered through
24 1/31/96.
25 C. Superior Ford, Inc. in the amount of$18,558.00 for squad car stock#1422 and of
26 $18,558.00 for squad car stock#1423.
27 D. CDP Imaging Systems in the amount of$14,500.00 for copy machine less trade-in.
28 E. 4 pages of Verified Claims as presented by the Finance Director.
29 Morrison indicated the squad cars are already in use.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 12, 1996
Page 3
1 VII. REPORTS.
2 A. Mayor.
3 Mayor Ranallo.reported recently he'had a meeting with Falcon Heights to discuss
4 police. They stated they were pleased with the police service they have received in
5 the past and questioned whether the contract would be renewed. Mayor Ranallo
6 indicated he felt an agreement could be reached.
7 B. Councilmembers.
8 Wagner reported his attendance at the Community Services Advisory Meeting. He
9 stated Community Services has been overwhelmed with registrations and reported
10 it should be a good semester. He also attended the Merchants Association Meeting
11 and reported a tentative Antique Auto Show is in the planning stages.
12 Faust had nothing to report.
13 Enrooth announced there were be a Village Festival Meeting next Monday (March
14 18). All is going well and there may not need to be a meeting held every month.
15 The Committee questioned how parking would be addressed.
16 C. Ci , Manager.
17 Morrison reported there will be a joint meeting with the School Board on March 19
18 at 6:00 P.M. An agenda will be provided prior to the meeting at the Senior High
19 School.
20 Marks arrived at 7:10 P.M.
21
22 Mornson recently attended a meeting with the MCTO regarding possible cutbacks
23 in services. They proposed cutting out Saturday service to Apache. He requested
24 Council provide their comments on the sheets provided which will in turn be faxed
25 to the MCTO.
26 Mornson presented the Council with copies of an article in the Star Tribune
27 regarding Property Tax Freezes. Mayor Ranallo indicated he spoke with people at
28 the League and they may be looking at a levy limit rather than a tax freeze. They
29 are looking at freezing employee wages.
30 Mornson provided a report prepared by the County for Council review prior to the
31 April 9, 1996.6:30 P.M. Board of Review. The report shows home sales for 1995.
32 Mayor Ranallo requested Mornson to obtain information on 1996 home sales.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 12, 1996
Page 4
1 VIII. PUBLIC HEARING.
2 A. Preliminary Approval of the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Refunding Revenue
3 Bonds Relating to Chandler Place (Resolution 96-023).
4 Mr. Mike Miller, Administrator of Chandler Place was present
5 to address Council concerns.
6 Mayor Ranallo opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.
7 Mr. Miller reviewed the first year Chandler Place housing bonds are up for
8 reissuance. They want to pay off the bonds and are working on HUD guaranteed
9 tax exempt re-issuance. He requested the City authorize re-issuance of the bonds.
10 He stated this would only affect the Chandler Place building as it stands today.
11 Wagner stated the City has not received interest on the note in 10 years and stated
12 he would prefer the cash deposit option to the Letter of Credit. Mornson reported
13 the details will be negotiated. Wagner asked for the timetable of the project. Mr.
14 Miller stated they received expansion approval today. He does not anticipate any
15 problems and hopes groundbreaking will occur this summer.
16 Mornson stated typically in such an agreement as this one, options are offered. In
17 this instance, the Partnership will, at the closing of the refunding, pay the Obligee
18 on the TIF Loan $500,000 plus either a Letter of Credit in the amount of$100,000
19 or an additional cash deposit of$100,000 in exchange for a full satisfaction of the
20 TIF Loan together with accrued interest thereon. Wagner stated he would prefer
21 the cash deposit. Mornson stated he will review and come back to Council with a
22 recommendation.
23 Mr. Miller noted the first payment is due in December 1996.
24 Mayor Ranallo closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
25 Motion by Wagner, second by Marks to adopt Resolution 96-023, regarding
26 preliminary approval of the issuance of multifamily housing refunding revenue
27 bonds relating to Chandler Place.
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29 B. 1996 Community Development Block Grant Funds (Resolution 96-022)
30 Mayor Ranallo opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 12, 1996
Page 5
1 Marks commented this was discussed during a Council Work Session and is
2 straight-forward.
3
4 Mayor Ranallo closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
5 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to adopt Resolution 96-022, regarding 1996
6 Community Development Block Grant Funds.
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8 IX. NEW BUSINESS.
9 A. Resolution 96-021, re: Minnesota Police Recruitment System.
10 Mornson provided a staff report for Council review. Enrooth questioned whether
11 the City.had a choice. Soth stated the City does not have a choice.
12
13 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to adopt Resolution 96-021, regarding
14 Minnesota Police Recruitment System.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
17 A. Ordinance 1996-001, re: Amend Sewer and Water Ordinances ( 3nd reading).
18 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to accept the third reading and adopt-
19 Ordinance 1996-001, relating to minimum charges for sewer and water services,
20 amending Sections 605.05 and 610.03 of the St. Anthony 1993 Code of
21 Ordinances.
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
24 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 P.M.
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 Respectfully submitted,
27 Debbie Wolfe
28 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 12, 1996
Page 6
1
2 Mayor
3 ATTEST:
4 City Clerk
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
3 MARCH 26, 1996
4 I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL.
5 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor
6 Ranallo.
7 II. ROLL CALL.
8 Councilmembers Present: Ranallo, Marks (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Enrooth, Wagner, and Faust._
9 Also Present: Michael Morrison, City Manager.
10 Mayor Ranallo welcomed journalism students of St. Thomas College who were in attendance at
11 the meeting this evening. He explained the students were here to observe how a City Council
12 meeting is conducted.
13
14 III. APPROVAL OF MARCH 26, 1996 COUNCIL AGENDA.
15 Motion by Enrooth, second by Wagner to approve the March 26, 1996 Council Agenda with the
16 following changes:
17 Under IX. New Business add: E. Request by Knights of Columbus to distribute Tootsie Rolls
18 for donation in the City of St. Anthony.
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20 IV. APPROVAL OF MARCH 12, 1996 COUNCIL MINUTES.
21 Motion by Wagner, second by Enrooth to approve the March 12, 1996 Council minutes as
22 presented.
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24 V. LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS.-
25 Motion by Enrooth, second by Wagner to approve the following licenses:
26 Contractors License:
27 Reliable Tree Service, Fridley, MN/Renewal
28 Berwald Roofing Co. Inc.,North St. Paul, MN/Renewal
29 Lone Oak Tree Service, Minneapolis, MN/Renewal
30 Mark Youngdahl & Associates, Inc., Stillwater, MN/Renewal
31 Nedegaard Construction, Inc., Coon Rapids, MN/Renewal
32 Timco Construction, Inc., Brooklyn Park, MN/Renewal j
33 Amusement Devices License:
34 St. Anthony Liquor Stores/8 Devices/Renewal i
35 AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., Apache Plaza/14 Devices/Renewal for 45.days
Aw..
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 2
1 Garbage Haulers License:
2 Twin City Sanitation, Inc./Residential & Commercial/Renewal
3 Waste Management- Blaine/Residential & Commercial/Renewal
4 Service Station License:
5 Murphy's Service Center, 3501 -29th Avenue NE/Renewal
6 Dick's St. Anthony 66 Service, 2700 Kenzie Terrace/Renewal
7 Don's Apache Auto Wash, 3725 Stinson Boulevard/Renewal
8 Cigarette License:
9 Apache New Market/Renewal
10 Murphy's Service Center/Renewal
11 Vending Machine License:
12 AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., Apache Plaza/Renewal for 45 days only
13 Bowling Alleys License:
14 AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., Apache Plaza/Renewal for 45 days only
15 3.2 Beer Retail Off-Sale License:
16 Apache New Market, 2508-38th Avenue NE/Renewal
17 3.2 Beer Retail On-Sale License:
18 Minneapolis Parks & Recreation, Gross Golf Course/Renewal
19 AMF Bowling Centers, Inc, Apache Plaza/Renewal for 45 days only (closing April 30,
20 1996)
21 Motion carried unanimously.
212 VI, PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS,
2.1 Motion by Wagner, second by Enrooth to approve the following claims:
N4". ' A. North Suburban Cable Commission in the amount of$9,406.50 for 1996 Contribution.
25 B. League of Minnesota Insurance Trust in the amount of$1,710.23 for Claim No.
26 04213009, James Pirino.
27' C. Foster, Ojile. Wentzell & Brever in the amount of$2,400.00 for legal services rendered
28 for the month of March 1996.
29 D. 4 pages of Verified Claims as presented by the Finance Director.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31 VII. REPORTS.
1
32 A. Plarming Commission Meeting - March 19. 1996.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 3
1 1. St. Anthony Health Center, 3700 Foss Road, Replat Request.
2
3 Planning Commissioner r-Delmonico was present to report on the Planning Commission
4 meeting of March 19, 1996. He reported Mr: Miller, owner and partner of Chandler Place
5 and St. Anthony Care Center, 3700 Foss Road is requesting to replat six lots into two
6 lots. The request is being made for two reasons. The first is to avail himself and the
7 partnership of lower bond interest rates for Chandler Place. The second is to allow
8 creation of lots which will conform to City Codes to allow for future expansion. Mr.
9 Delmonico reported the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City
10 Council approval of the preliminary plat for St. Anthony Health Care Center/Chandler
11 Place as presented, with conditions that the final plat meet the ordinances and stipulations
12 placed by the City Council.
13 City Attorney William Soth noted the conditions set forward in his letter of March 15,
14 1996. He also noted the First Amendment to Declaration of Easements and Real
15 Covenants submitted this evening. He stated he would need to review the Declaration
16 and City Council approval tonight, if granted, should be subject to that review. He
17 explained the intention of the Declaration was to create parking easements, for the benefit
18 of both parcels, over the two parcels and that they be recorded so there is permitted
19 parking for both. He noted the other question for consideration was if the Council wanted
20 to approve the request and waive the required platting. Mr. Soth stated this was included
21 in the Section 1500.8 of the Ordinance.
22 Councilmember Wagner asked if the proposed addition would consist of assisted-living
23 apartments or a nursing home.
24 Mr. Miller reported the new addition is two story. The lower level will be a nursing
25 home and the upper level will consist of assisted-living units operated by Chandler Place.
26 Mr. Miller stated he had received approval for the subdivision without replatting from
27 Ramsey County.
28 Mr. Soth asked if this property was separately owned by two entities.
29 Mr. Miller stated the property was owned by the same partners. They are attempting to
30 refinance the property and have to close by June 1, 1996. The original intent was to
31 refinance the entire property including Chandler Place, St. Anthony Care Center and the
32 proposed addition. They were not allowed to refinance the proposed addition because
33 they do not have plans drawn yet.
34 Mr. Soth explained the risk involved with granting the subdivision without replatting is
35 that although it is not the current intent of the two parties who own the land, once the
36 property is separated it could be sold as two properties.
v
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 4
1 City Manager Morrison noted this proposal did actually improve the property as it created
2 two lots instead of the current six lots.
3 Mr. Soth explained the request before the Council tonight could be granted subject to
4 final review by the City Attorney of the Declaration documents and the Title documents.
5 Mr. Miller asked if the easements were required as part of the approval.
6 Mr. Soth stated there were two types of easements. One type is a utility easement. This
7 _easement was not required on this property. The second type is a parking easement to
8 ensure that both lots can be used by both owners.
9 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Enrooth to approve the subdivision without platting for
10 St. Anthony Health Center, 3700 Foss Road subject to City Attorney review and approval
11 of the Title Documents and the First Amendment to Declaration of Easements and Real
12 Covenants.
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14 B. Councilmembers.
15 Wagner reported there was a request before the City Council tonight to allow the Shriners
16 to distribute Vidalia Sweet onions at the Stonehouse Restaurant parking lot in late April
17 or early May. A portion of the donations received will be given to'the Shriners Hospital.
18 Motion by Enrooth, second by Faust to allow the Shriners to sell onions as a fund raiser
19 at the Stonehouse Restaurant in late April or early May.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 Faust reported he will be attending a Municipal Financial Workshop being held for
22 elected officials by the League of Minnesota Cities this Friday.
23
24 C. Mayor.
25 Mayor Ranallo had no report.
26 D. City Manager.
27 City Manager Momson noted the City is required to submit an action plan as part of the
28 Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act by June 30, 1996. This action plan has
29 not yet been initiated as the Metropolitan Council will be conducting workshops on this
30 issue and City Manager and Managaement Assistant will attend these workshops. There
31 will also be an additional workshop regarding the grants and loans which are available in
32 conjunction with the Livable Communities Act.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 5
1 Morrison noted a handout which had been distributed to the Councilmembers which
2 compared the actual selling price of ten homes in St. Anthony with the assessed values of
3 these homes. Momson reminded Councilmembers that the Board of Review meeting is
4 scheduled for April 9, 1996 at 6:30 P.M.
5 Mayor Ranallo stated he would like this handout included as an overhead at the Board of
6 Review meeting.
7 Mayor Ranallo reported his attendance at a joint meeting of the School Board and the
8 City Council on March 19, 1996. There was a presentation by the Mayor, the
9 Superintendent and the Council also visited the construction of the new library.
10
11 VIII. PUBLIC HEARING.
12 A. Resolution 96-024, re: Vacate Easement for Apache Plaza Redevelopment.
13 Mayor Ranallo opened the public hearing at 7:29 P.M.
14 Mornson reported the City Council had previously vacated easements around Apache
15 Plaza that were no longer necessary. As St. Marie Corporation has worked at completing
16 the,plat they have discovered another easement located near the Super Valu store. It is
17 not necessary to vacate this easement but it is appropriate action and will bring the
18 records up-to-date.
19 Bob Franklin, Reporter of the Star and Tribune and part time teacher at St. Thomas
20 College thanked the City Council for allowing his students to attend the meeting tonight
21 to observe municipal government in action. He asked the Council to explain some
22 background and the history of Apache Plaza.
23 Mayor Ranallo explained the history of Apache Plaza from it's inception 30 to 40 years
24 ago. He explained the process which is occurring with the redevelopment currently.
25 Councilmember Marks arrived at 7:35 P.M.
26 Mayor Ranallo explained the drainage issues at Apache Plaza.
27 St. Thomas student asked who owned the land around Apache Plaza.
28 Mayor Ranallo stated all the land had been owned by Kenny Lee and was sold to Apache
29 Corporation many years ago.
30 Mayor Ranallo closed the public hearing at 7:40 P.M.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 6
1 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve Resolution 96-024, regarding vacating
2 certain easements dedicated in the plats of Apache Plaza and Apache Plaza 5th Addition.
3 Motion carried unanimously-
4 IX. NEW BUSINESS
5 A. Request by Shriners to Sell Onions as a Fund Raiser at the Stonehouse in Late April or
6 Early Maw
7 This request was considered previously under VII. Reports.
8 B. Resolution 96-025, re: Change Date of a Regular Council Meeting.
9 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve Resolution 96-025, regarding changing
10 the date of the Regular Council meeting scheduled for June 11, 1996 to June 10, 1996.
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12 C. Resolution 96-026. re: Installation of"No Parking' signs on Penrod Lane.
13 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve Resolution 96-026, regarding
14 installation of"No Parking At Any Time" signs on Penrod Lane.
15 Enrooth asked if any input had been received from residents in the area. Mornson noted
16 the only response the City had received had been from Autotraac.
17 Lisa Richers, 3103 Edgemere, explained the problem was that there were vehicles parked
18 on both sides of driveways and this resulted in difficulty seeing when pulling out of
19 driveways and also the inability to back out of the driveway without an immense amount
20 of maneuvering.
21 Mayor Ranallo noted there were also two places in the City where residents were doing
22 business in their homes and people were parking on the street. He reported the staff is
23 checking into this issue.
24 Wagner noted he lived in this area and the street is very crowded.
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 D. Resolution 96-027, re: Installation of"No Parking" signs on 39th Avenue N.E. and on
27 Stinson Boulevard.
28 Motion by Marks, second by Faust to approve Resolution 96-027, regarding installation
29 of"No Parking At Any Time" signs on 39th Avenue N.E. and on Stinson Boulevard.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 7
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2 E. Request by the Knights of Columbus to Distribute Tootsie Rolls in the City of St. .
3 Anthony.
4 Mr. Joe Check, member of the Knights of Columbus of Fridley, stated they will be
5 holding their annual tootsie roll drive and all the funds collected are passed on to the
6 handicapped and retarded. The dates of the drive are April 26, 27, and 28th. They are
7 requesting to be allowed to distribute tootsie rolls at New Market, the liquor store at
8 Apache Plaza and the liquor store and grocery store at St. Antony Shopping Center. Mr.
9 Check reported last year the drive collected $16,197.81 and expenses were $1,897.50.
10 Motion by Wagner, second by Marks to allow the Knights of Columbus to distribute
11 tootsie rolls for donation at New Market, the liquor store at Apache Plaza and the liquor
12 store and grocery store at St. Anthony Shopping Center in the City of St. Anthony on
13 April 26, 27, and 28, 1996.
14 Mayor Ranallo noted all funds collected by the Knights of Columbus are contributed to
15 needs of people in the immediate area.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17 Professor Franklin asked Mayor Ranallo to provide more detail about the benefits of the
18 redevelopment of Apache Plaza to the City of St. Anthony.
19 Mayor Ranallo explained how the redevelopment of Apache Plaza would increase the tax
20 base of the City of St. Anthony.
21 St. Thomas student asked if a future use had been determined for the New Market
22 building.
23 Mayor Ranallo stated this had not yet been determined.
24 St. Thomas student asked how long it would take for the tax base to recover.
25 Mayor Ranallo stated it would depend on what other businesses locate in Apache Plaza.
26 The current projection is 15 years.
27 X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None.
28 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
29 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 P.M.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 26, 1996
Page 8
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2 Respectfully submitted,
3 Lorri Kopischke
4 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
5
6 Mayor
7 ATTEST:
8 City Clerk