HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-17 Council Packet CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
6:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL
6:00 p.m. I. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Approval of Agenda
Estimated
times
6:00 p.m. II. Council/Staff Reports
A. Mayor McComber
B. Councilmember Dougherty
C. Councilmember Liljegren
D. Councilmember Runk
E. Councilmember Swenson
F. Staff
• Recycling Award (pg.3)
6:05 p.m. III. Visitors/Public Comment
This is an opportunity for the public to address the Council with questions or concerns on issues not part of the regular agenda(Please
limit comments to 3 minutes in length).
6:05 p.m. IV. Consent Agenda(Roll Call Vote)
A. Approve Bills & Investments
B. Approve City Council Minutes—September 12, 2017 (pg. 5)
C. Approve City Council Worksession Notes— September 12, 2017 (pg. 9)
D. Adopt Resolution Approving Abatement of Special Assessments to MN
Department of Transportation(pg. 11)
6:05 p.m. V. Public Hearings
None
6:05 p.m. VI. Old Business
A. Set Council Teambuilding and Goal Setting Meeting
6:05 p.m. VII. New Business
A. Stillwater Crossing—Design Guidelines Review(pg. 15)
B. Consider Letter of Support—Washington County TED Application(pg. 35)
C. Right of Way—Ordinance Review(pg.37)
6:30 p.m. VIII. Other Council Items or Announcements
6:30 p.m. IX. Adjourn
Please mute or silence any cell phones,computers or other devices during meeting—Thank You.
Page 1 of 84
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 2 of 84
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date September 26, 2017
Agenda Item Recycling Award
Time Req. 0
Agenda Placement Staff Reports
Originating Department/Requestor Ad m tration/Jennifer Pinski
Requester's Signature
Action Requested Receive Information
Background/Justification(Please indicate any previous action has been taken or if other public
bodies have been advised).
See Attached.
Page 3 of 84
September 14, 2017
Mike and Colleen Nolde
14161 Upper 54th Street North
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Dear Mike and Colleen:
Thank you for participating in the City's recycling program. As an incentive to
recycle and to increase fire prevention awareness, the City rewards two
residents each month with their choice of an award of $25.00 or a fire
extinguisher and/or smoke detector(s).
Your residence was checked on Thursday, September 14, to determine if you
had your recycling bin out with your regular garbage. Your recycling was out
and ready for collection; therefore, you are one of this month's winners.
Please contact me at 439-4439 to let me know your choice of award.
On behalf of the Oak Park Heights City Council, thank you for participating in
the City's recycling program.
Congratulations!
Jennifer Pinski
City Clerk
Page 4 of 84
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date September 26, 2017
Agenda Item Approve City Council Minutes—September 12, 2017
Time Req. 0
Agenda Placement Consent
Originating Department/Requesto:�Ar Admi istr tion/Jennifer Pinski
Requester's Signature '
Action Requested Approve
Background/Justification(Please indicate any previous action has been taken or if other public
bodies have been advised).
See Attached.
Page 5 of 84
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
I. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Approval of Agenda: Mayor McComber
called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Dougherty,
Liljegren, Runk, and Swenson. Staff present: City Administrator Johnson, City
Attorney Vierling, Finance Director Caruso, Police Chief DeRosier, and City
Engineer Mann. Absent: City Planner Richards.
Mayor McComber moved Old Business Item A. to the Visitors/Public Comment
section of the Agenda, added"Accept Donation to Police Dept. from Kwik Trip"
to the Consent Agenda as Item H., and added"TIF 1-2 Certification"to New
Business as Item G.
Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Councilmember Liljegren, moved to
approve the Agenda as amended. Carried 5-0.
II. Council/Staff Reports:
A. Mayor McComber: She reported she attended the Fire Advisory
Committee meeting on September 11 and the Kwik Trip Ribbon Cutting
on September 12, and she would be attending the Coalition of Utility
Cities meeting on September 13. She reported she was asked to join the
Metro Cities Housing Policy Committee and would be attending that
meeting. She also stated there was a LMC Mayor for a Day contest, and a
link was on the City's website, and the Fall Clean-up was scheduled for
Saturday, September 30 from 7:30 a.m. — 1:00 p.m. at the Andersen
parking lot.
B. Councilmember Dougherty: He reported the next Planning Commission
meeting was set for September 14, and they would be discussing the
accessory structures ordinance.
C. Councilmember Liljegren: He reported the next Parks Commission
meeting was set for Monday, September 18.
D. Councilmember Runk: He reported that he would be attending the
Convention and Visitor's Bureau meeting on September 13 and the
Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization meeting on
September 14.
E. Councilmember Swenson: He reported that the next Cable Commission
meeting was set for September 18.
F. Staff. City Administrator Johnson reported that the mountain bike trail
ribbon cutting was set for September 18 at 6:30 p.m. at Valley View Park.
Page 6 of 84
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2017
Page 2 of 3
III. Visitors/Public Comment:
A. Consider Resolution Recogmizing the Contributions of Mr. Terry Zoller:
Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Councilmember Liljegren, moved
to approve the Resolution. Roll call vote taken. Carried 5-0. Mayor
McComber presented Mr. Zoller with a plaque and read the Resolution.
Phil Hoey from Hy-Vee presented the City Council with a concept plan for a
proposed Hy-Vee store. He requested feedback from the City Council. Mayor
McComber explained the public hearing process.
Roger Tuckner from Century Power was present at the meeting and stated he had
concerns with the potential annexation of the land Hy-Vee was purchasing. He
also asked about the purchase of the City land by the hotel. City Administrator
Johnson stated he would provide him with a copy of the Purchase Agreement.
W. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Bills & Investments
B. Approve City Council Minutes—August 22, 2017
C. Approve City Council Worksession Notes—August 22, 2017
D. Schedule Hearing to Show Cause on October 10, 2017 for Chipotle
Alcohol Compliance Violation
E. Schedule Hearing to Show Cause on October 10, 2017 for Walmart
Alcohol Compliance Violation
F. Schedule Hearing to Show Cause on October 10, 2017 for Eagles Club
Alcohol Compliance Violation
G. Authorize Staff to Renew Contract with Safe Assure
H. Accept Donation to Police Dept. from Kwik Trip
Councilmember Runk, seconded by Councilmember Dougherty, moved to
approve the Consent Agenda. Roll call vote taken. Carried 5-0.
V. Public Hearings: None
VI. Old Business:
A. MOVED TO VISITORS/PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION
VII. New Business:
A. Adopt Resolution Approving 2018 Proposed Budget and Proposed Tax
Levies: Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Councilmember Liljegren,
moved to approve the Resolution. Roll call vote taken. Carried 5-0.
B. Schedule Public Comment/Hearing Meeting for Truth in Taxation:
Councilmember Runk, seconded by Councilmember Swenson,moved to
schedule the TNT for December 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Carried 5-0.
Page 7 of 84
City Council Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2017
Page 3 of 3
C. Water Main—Osgood Ave—Replacement—CSAH 24 Project 2018:
Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Councilmember Liljegren, moved
to approve the recommendation to replace the water main. Carried 5-0.
D. Approve Replacement of Weather Siren—City Hall Location: Police
Chief DeRosier reported that he received a quote from Federal Signal in
the amount of$12,500 for the siren and from Nelcom for the installation
labor in the amount of$5,366.12. He recommended replacement using
funds from the 2016 general fund balance as recommended by the Finance
Director.
Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Councilmember Liljegren, moved
to replace the siren as recommended. Carried 5-0.
E. Approve Appointment to Planning Commission: Councilmember
Dougherty, seconded by Councilmember Runk, moved to appoint David
White to the Planning Commission to fill the rest of Robin Anthony's
term. Carried 5-0.
F. Consider Council Teambuilding and Goal Setting Meeting: Mayor
McComber requested the City Councilmembers check their calendars for
January and set a date at the next City Council meeting.
G. TIF 1-2 Certification: City Administrator Johnson explained the
Resolution. Councilmember Runk, seconded by Councilmember
Dougherty, moved to approve the Resolution. Roll call vote taken.
Carried 5-0.
VIII. Other Council Items or Announcements: None
IX. Adiourn: Councilmember Runk, seconded by Councilmember Liljegren, moved to
adjourn at 6:46 p.m. Carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted, Approved as to Content and Form,
Jennifer Pinski Mary McComber
City Clerk Mayor
Page 8 of 84
P,"-
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date September 26, 2017
Agenda Item Approve City Council Worksession Notes—September 12, 2017
Time Req. 0
Agenda Placement Consent
Originating Department/Requestor dmi .stration/Jennifer Pinski
Requester's Signature
Action Requested Approve
Background/Justification(Please indicate any previous action has been taken or if other public
bodies have been advised).
See Attached.
Page 9 of 84
0
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION NOTES
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 12,2017
Present: Mayor McComber, Councilmembers Dougherty, Liljegren, Runk and Swenson; City
Administrator Johnson; City Attorney Vierling; Finance Director Caruso; Police Chief DeRosier; City
Engineer Mann; and City Clerk Pinski. Absent:None.
1. Call to Order: Mayor McComber called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
2. 2018 Budget Discussion: Finance Director Caruso reviewed the summary of budget changes
since the last worksession.Councilmember Swenson asked about the generator replacement fund.
City Administrator Johnson suggested the City could look at the 2016 general fund balance and
allocate funds from there. Swenson stated many organizations were looking into leasing
generators. Mayor McComber suggested that discussion could be added to the goals meeting.
No action was taken.
3. 2017 Goals Update: City Administrator Johnson provided a spreadsheet with an update on the
2017 goals.
No action was taken.
4. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
Page 10 of 84
. y
W,
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date September 26, 2017
Agenda Item Title Resolution Approving Abatement of Special Assessments To
MN Department of Transportation
Agenda Placement Consent
Originating Department/Requ��est""o``r_Finance — Betty Caruso, Finance Director
Requestor's Signature_ a
Action Requested Adopt Resolution to Abate Assessments to MNDOT- Storm Water
Charges — St. Croix River Crossing Areas.
Background/Justification (Please indicate any previous action, financial implications including
budget information and recommendations).
In accordance with MN Statute 435.19 - No special assessments shall be levied against the
real property of a governmental unit if such property is used or to be used for highway rights-
of-way, unless the assessment is for storm sewers and drain systems.
MNDOT has contested the charges the City has assessed for delinquent storm water utility
on the properties that they eventually used for the Bridge project. The City maintained that
the properties were not being "used" for highway rights-a-way at the time and we continued to
bill storm water utility charges.
Now that the St Croix River Crossing is complete we have identified the properties that are
strictly highway right-of-ways and cannot be utilized for any other type of development.
Therefore, we should remove the related charges on these properties.
In order to remove the delinquent amounts that have been certified to the County for
collection, the County requires that the Council adopt a resolution abating the assessment.
The amounts that have been identified are listed on the proposed Resolution for Abatement.
Page 11 of 84
RESOUTION 17-
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA
A RESOULTION APPROVING ABATEMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO
MN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHREAS,the City Staff has prepared and submitted to Washington County Auditor-Treasurer Department
the certifications of special assessments to be levied in the calendar years 2005 through 2017,and,
WHEREAS, it has been determined that,the storm sewer utility charge are charged against the properties
owned by MN Department of Transportation during the years 2005 through 2017 and subsequently the
properties have been used for highway right-a-ways with the St Croix River Crossing Bridge;and
WHEREAS, MN Department of Transportation did not pay these charges and city staff levied the
delinquent storm utility charges as an assessments on properties 34-030-20-34-0038,34-030-20-34-0037,
and 03-029-20-12-0005,and,
WHEREAS, an additional sum of 10% was attached to said assessment by Washington County Auditor-
Treasurer,and,
WHEREAS,the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights has determined that the special assessment
mentioned above should be abated from the mentioned properties in accordance with MN Statute
435.19.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington
County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the special assessment, including 10%charge attached by Washington County Auditor-
Treasurer,as well as any interest incurred be abated from the following properties for the
years LISTED:
COLLECTION
Parcel# YEAR PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL
34-030-20-34-0038 2005 813.45 81.35 894.80
34-030-20-34-0037 2013 405.00 40.50 445.50
2014 540.00 54.00 594.00
2015 540.00 54.00 594.00
2016 540.00 54.00 594.00
2017 594.00 59.40 653.40
03-029-20-12-0005 2014 175.56 17.56 193.12
2015 100.32 10.03 r 110.35
2016 100.32 10.03 110.35
2017 100.32 10.03 110.35
2. That City Staff be directed to complete the abatement process to have special assessments
removed on the listed properties.
Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights this 26th day of September 2017.
Mary McComber, Mayor
Attest:
Page 12 of 84
1
w
7 g ��
oo
. h
P.M
Acs
w
a �
o 0� nil
<N
Me
DO-
,
•' / " it �.
r d
t
� _ I
i
;m
r p
, 7
7A
_ 6
�r t
r � g
LAm,
,
,
r
r
k
dd
•
i
w� w
t�
}} r L
sM
!: ..•
� i i Page 13 of 84 .'
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 14 of 84
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date September 26 2017
Time Required: 10 Minutes
Agenda Item Title: STILLWATER CRO lNG IGN GUIDELINES REVIEW
Agenda Placement New Business
1 /
Originating Department/Requestor: Eric ohns Administrator
Requester's Signature
Action Requested Discussion Possibl ction
Background/Justification(Please indicat, f anv previous action has been taken or if other public bodies
have advised): l�
Please see the attached from City Planner Scott Richards:
1. Planning Report dated September 6t',2017
2. Planning Commission Resolution—Unsigned.
3. Proposed City Council Resolution
Page 15 of 84
TPC3601 Thurston Avenue N,Suite 100
Anoka, MN 55303 ENCLOSURE
Phone: 763.231.5840
Facsimile. 763.427.0520
TPC0Plann1ngCo.corn
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: September 6, 2017
RE: Oak Park Heights — Stillwater Crossing Shopping Center - Design
Guidelines Review— 5988 Osgood Avenue North
TPC FILE: 236.02— 17.05
BACKGROUND
Eric Bjelland of Midwest Retail Ventures LLC has made application for Design
Guidelines/Site Plan Review for the building at 5988 Osgood Avenue North. The
application consists of requests for Design Guideline and site plan review for an exterior
remodel of the building. The exterior improvements will include fagade upgrade, a trash
enclosure, and a screened smoking area. The site layout will not change.
EXHIBITS
The review is based upon the following submittals:
Exhibit 1: Applicant's Narrative
Exhibit 2: Site Plan
Exhibit 3: Elevation Diagrams
Exhibit 4: Smoking Area Fence Plan
Exhibit 5: Trash Enclosure Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant's narrative for the project is found as Exhibit 1 .
Background. Stillwater Crossing has been on the south west corner of Highway 36
and Osgood since the 1960's. The property serves local businesses that need vehicle
access to these thoroughfares and benefit from the visibility to the North and East.
Page 16 of 84
Lighting. No lighting plans were included as part of the application. The Applicant has
indicated that the wall light fixtures may be changed, but not at this time. If new wall
light fixtures are to be installed, lighting specifications will need to be submitted, the
fixtures shall be full cut off, and be consistent with Section 401.15.6.7 of the Zoning
Ordinance as it relates to lighting requirements.
Trash Storage. Currently, the dumpsters for the building are placed on the west side of
the building and are not screened. A plan has been submitted for dumpster screening
on the west and south sides. The other two sides of the enclosure are screened by the
building.
Smoking Area. A designated smoking area has been proposed for a corner of the
building. The area will be fenced and accessed only from sidewalk. No alcohol
consumption shall be allowed on the smoking area in that the license for Carbone's will
not allow it. The area should be signed to prohibit alcohol consumption in this area.
Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utilities. No changes are proposed to the
parking lot or site that would require review and approval.
Signage. The elevation diagrams indicate the signage locations for the tenants. The
signs will be required to comply with the Zoning Ordinance size and lighting
requirements. Staff will approve the sizes and lighting specifications for the signs at the
time of permitting.
Design Guidelines
Architectural Guidelines
Facade Treatments
The building after renovation will have a definite base, middle and top. The
facades will feature differences in materials, horizontal and vertical lines, and a
varied roof line to provide architectural interest.
Ground Level Expression
This is a one-story building with excellent visibility to Highway 36. The entrances
to the building will be clearly visible.
Transparencv
The existing windows and door locations are not changing with this renovation
and the transparency will not change.
Entries
The building features a raised parapet for the door entry points.
Roof Desiqn
The roofline is broken with varying parapet heights giving interest to the building
appearance.
3 Page 17 of 84
1. If any trees or landscaping is added to the site, the plan shall be subject to review
and approval of the City Arborist.
2. All light fixtures shall be full cut off, and be consistent with Section 401.15.13.7
of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to lighting requirements.
3. The Planning Commission shall comment on the building design and building
materials. The Applicant shall provide building material samples for Planning
Commission review.
4. All mechanical equipment on the roof or on the site shall be fully screened in
accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. All signs shall be designed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for
size and internal illumination.
6. No alcohol consumption shall be allowed on the exterior smoking area. The area
shall be signed to prohibit alcohol consumption in this area.
pc: Julie Hultman
5 Page 18 of 84
Stillwater Crossing, LLC
1660 South Highway 100, Suite 210
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Stiillwater Crossing— Project for Fall, 2017
Background: Stillwater Crossing has been on the SWC of Hwy 36 and Osgood since the 1960's.
The property serves local businesses that need vehicle access to these thoroughfares and
benefit from the visibility to the North and East.
Fagade Renovation: The fagade renovation will enhance the visibility from Hwy 36, improve
the building sign visibility and upgrade the overall look while preserving the rock features in the
lower fagade.
Smoking Area: As the smoking cliental is primarily from Carbone's pub, we are requesting to
move the bike rack further east and create screened smoking area with access from both the
sidewalk and Carbone's pub.
Trash/Recycling Enclosure: The center currently uses 2-8 yard bins for recycling and refuse.
We propose to build an enclosure behind Liquor Time to the south of transformer. This
location will not take up any parking stalls. The design is to have it open on the back so
Carbone's and Liquor Time's employees can access the bins without opening the gates, thereby
keeping the bins screened except when the trucks come to remove the trash/recycling.
Page 19 of 84
- - -
ORM-AVO
ti__�."_ I'
W 14
� � x
r
r - _
� Q
api`• E
4 LG le ySZ. R�
S
ro
d,
w
b�
N
" D
� o
A
n
A N
O �
Z �
� o
CD
0
Page 20 of 84
IV
• Y A5.6 II �, IhW'�j J
i51a:'M��
li� 111■222
A',y �e
Milli
1�
R'
.;r'� '�'•'—_ ,''•:iii=
IIII _Iji w� Illa�,ti'!Ili "� '
A.+ iii 1 `;�,',,��, 1 II''''•"•--
it, 1 II I.i'V, ..- __ �-■ '.1•Y---
r„
,i r X111!:
MONO
EMS
Yli�` � '1113
--
f
1001
l�Afa 1
�..-
1NY --
YO
pg.
I�9 11r
1 � wr�� 'V�_I I • �-�
IRF
{ I a N15r
0 0 o z
n
Z
-11
z
z
� � b
;-
r r�
rn •�
D
V'
e � �
/Z] A
rn
� A D
� rn -
� z
c�
rn
b
z
`� Page 22 of 84
i'-U, 30"
i
I
70
I r-
Z
- o
70 =
cli
Fr4f L----
D o
--I
L----
m o�
o_
ry n
o?
S O A Vt ��ti q a W• y L a
i O ~ m
�O �•za�m
z� �, n arnz
z z n
O C m n -•
m W m
a a'
coNc SLAB y �
4'-0" 44' 0' 3'-9'• 3� �
t.J
k,
I rl YIOII� I I 'I
a 70 TF
��
72; Ln
V e 7Q
rn ..qq W V
`CLEAR
�.
n
1.1-H R1
Y
:�
� � age 2 of 84
A RECOMMENDING RESOLUTION
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
REQUEST FROM MIDWEST RETAIL VENTURES LLC, OWNERS
OF THE STILLWATER CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER, FOR
DESIGN GUIDELINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW AN
EXTERIOR REMODEL OF THE BUILDING, LOCATED AT 5988
OSGOOD AVENUE, SHOULD BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights has received a request from Midwest Retail
Ventures LLC, owners of the Stillwater Crossing Shopping Center, for Design Guideline
and Site Plan review to allow an exterior remodel of the building, located at 5988 Osgood
Avenue; and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto,the Planning
Commission of Oak Park Heights makes the following findings of fact:
1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as
follows,to wit:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
and
2. The applicant has submitted an application and supporting documentation
to the Community Development Department consisting of the following items:
SEE ATTACHMENT B
and
3. The property is zoned B-2 General Business District in which the
shopping center is a permitted use; and
4. The Applicant has provided a plan for exterior improvements to Stillwater
Crossing Shopping Center that will include a fagade upgrade, a trash enclosure and a
screened smoking area; and
5. A Design Guideline and Site Plan review is required to allow the exterior
site and building improvements; and
Page 24 of 84
6. City staff prepared a planning report dated September 6, 2017 reviewing
the request; and
7. Said report recommended approval of the request,based upon a review of
the Design Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance; and
8. The Planning Commission considered the request at their September 14,
2017 meeting, took comments from the Applicant, and made the following
recommendation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
A. The application submitted by Midwest Retail Ventures LLC, owners of the
Stillwater Crossing Shopping Center, for Design Guideline and Site Plan review to allow
an exterior remodel of the building, located at 5988 Osgood Avenue, should be approved
and affecting the real property as follows:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
Be and the same as hereby recommended to the City Council of the City of Oak Park
Heights for approval with the following conditions:
1. If any trees or landscaping is added to the site, the plan shall be subject to review
and approval of the City Arborist.
2. All light fixtures shall be full cut off, and be consistent with Section 401.15.B.7
of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to lighting requirements.
3. The Planning Commission was favorable to the building design and building
materials.
4. All mechanical equipment on the roof or on the site shall be screened in
accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and as approved by City
Staff.
5. All signs shall be designed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for
size and internal illumination.
6. No alcohol consumption shall be allowed on the exterior smoking area. The area
shall be signed to prohibit alcohol consumption in this area. No direct access
shall be allowed to the smoking area from the interior of the building.
2
Page 25 of 84
Recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of Oak Park Heights this 14''day
of September 2017.
Jim Kremer, Chair
ATTEST:
Eric A. Johnson, City Administrator
3
Page 26 of 84
ATTACHMENT A
w
Site Plan &Design Guidelines Review
To Make Exterior Site Improvements
At Stillwater Crossings Shopping Center
5988 Osgood Ave.N.
Washington County GEO Codes: 04.029.20.12.0024
04.029.20.12.0025
Legal Description: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 2, St. Croix Mall PUD,2nd Addition
Physical Address: Osgood Ave. N. & 60th St.N.
1
Page 27 of 84
ATTACHMENT E
Y
r ,
D�tC
Site Plan &Design Guidelines Review
To Make Exterior Site Improvements
At
Stillwater Crossings Shopping Center
5988 Osgood Ave. N.
Application Materials
• Application Form
• Fees
• Plan Sets
• Written Narrative and Graphic Materials Explaining Proposal
• Proof of Ownership or Authorization to Proceed
Planning Commission Review & Recommendation: September 14,2017
Page 28 of 84
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
REQUEST FROM MIDWEST RETAIL VENTURES LLC, OWNERS
OF THE STILLWATER CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER, FOR
DESIGN GUIDELINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW AN
EXTERIOR REMODEL OF THE BUILDING, LOCATED AT 5988
OSGOOD AVENUE, BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights has received a request from Midwest Retail
Ventures LLC, owners of the Stillwater Crossing Shopping Center, for Design Guideline
and Site Plan review to allow an exterior remodel of the building, located at 5988 Osgood
Avenue; and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto, the Planning
Commission of Oak Park Heights recommended that the request be approved with
conditions. The City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights makes the following
findings of fact and resolution:
1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as
follows,to wit:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
and
2. The applicant has submitted an application and supporting documentation
to the Community Development Department consisting of the following items:
SEE ATTACHMENT B
and
3. The property is zoned B-2 General Business District in which the
shopping center is a permitted use; and
4. The Applicant has provided a plan for exterior improvements to Stillwater
Crossing Shopping Center that will include a facade upgrade, a trash enclosure and a
screened smoking area; and
Page 29 of 84
5. A Design Guideline and Site Plan review is required to allow the exterior
site and building improvements; and
6. City staff prepared a planning report dated September 6, 2017 reviewing
the request; and
7. Said report recommended approval of the request,based upon a review of
the Design Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance; and
8. The Planning Commission considered the request at their September 14,
2017 meeting, took comments from the Applicant, and recommended the application
with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES
THE FOLLOWING:
A. The application submitted by Midwest Retail Ventures LLC, owners of the
Stillwater Crossing Shopping Center, for Design Guideline and Site Plan review to allow
an exterior remodel of the building, located at 5988 Osgood Avenue, should be approved
and affecting the real property as follows:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
Be and the same as hereby approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights
with the following conditions:
1. If any trees or landscaping is added to the site,the plan shall be subject to review
and approval of the City Arborist.
2. All light fixtures shall be full cut off, and be consistent with Section 401.15.B.7
of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to lighting requirements.
3. The Planning Commission was favorable and the City Council approves the
building design and building materials.
4. All mechanical equipment on the roof or on the site shall be screened in
accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and as approved by City
Staff.
5. All signs shall be designed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for
size and internal illumination.
6. No alcohol consumption shall be allowed on the exterior smoking area. The area
shall be signed to prohibit alcohol consumption in this area. No direct access
shall be allowed to the smoking area from the interior of the building.
2
Page 30 of 84
Approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 26th day of September
2017.
Mary McComber, Mayor
ATTEST:
Eric A. Johnson, City Administrator
3
Page 31 of 84
ATTACHMENT A
rte-
Site Plan & Design Guidelines Review
To Make Exterior Site Improvements
At Stillwater Crossings Shopping Center
5988 Osgood Ave.N.
Washington County GEO Codes: 04.029.20.12.0024
04.029.20.12.0025
Legal Description: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 2, St. Croix Mall PUD,2nd Addition
Physical Address: Osgood Ave.N. & 60d' St. N.
1
Page 32 of 84
ATTACHMENT B
a-
Site
Plan& Design Guidelines Review
To Make Exterior Site Improvements
At
Stillwater Crossings Shopping Center
5988 Osgood Ave.N.
Application Materials
• Application Form
• Fees
• Plan Sets
• Written Narrative and Graphic Materials Explaining Proposal
• Proof of Ownership or Authorization to Proceed
Planning Commission Review& Recommendation: September 14, 2017
Page 33 of 84
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 34 of 84
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: September 26h,2017
Agenda Item Title Consider Letter of Support—Washington County TED Application
Time Required 5 minutes
Agenda Placement New Business
Originating Department/Request . E ' Cily Administrator
Requester's Signature
Action Requested: Discussiond Possible Action.
Background/Justification(Pl /sendicate any previous action, financial implications including budget
information and recommendations).
Washington County has requested that the City, along with other local jurisdictions — provide a general letter of
support for their application to Minnesota Department of Transportation's Transportation Economic Development
Program (TED) to fund improvements at the Manning / STH 36 interchange. The County is seeking $7,000,000
from this fund. The overall cost is estimated to be$25,000,000 with a possible construction in 2021.
Carefully note, the proposal as City Staff understands - does begin to engage the possibility of both north and
south frontage and likely suggests local cost shares. There would need to be significant dialogue to determine
their practicality and feasibility or to accomplish these in general. However, we do know that major improvements
to the main line elements are needed and the City's letter of support (Draft enclosed) can be viewed from that
larger position as benefitting the City, the area and under a larger grant concept.
If desired by the Council, Staff may send a supplemental letter to the County outlining concerns with any
assumptions of local cost shares so that the County may intemally understand that any such south frontage
roadway funding would likely need to be from other Non-City sources and/or would need to be a COUNTY
HIGHWAY.
Page 35 of 84
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Od Pzk Blvd,D1-B=2007.Oak Parc HidjW.'fit 550I2-Flue(651)439°-4431-Fax(551)439-0574
9-19-17
Wayne Sandberg
Washington County Engineer
11660 Myeron Road North
Stillwater Ndn 55082
RE: SWpoat for Transportation Economic Development program fumng for the
Tram Higbway{TFC 35/Coarnty State Aid Highway(CSAH)36fi inning Avenue
Interchange Project
Dear Mr.Sandberg:
The City of Oak Parts Heights generally supports Washington County's application to the
Transportation Economic Development(l:•ED)program for Ruxhng for improvements to the TH
36/CSAR 15/Manning Avenue interchange.
We understand this program is designed to help meet the State's transportation and economic
development needs by there strategic transportation investments that which then leverage
substantial private investment that create and preserve high-wage jobs_
For several years,the City of Gals Park Heights,Washington County,and MnDCT have been
working to address safety, mobility issues and to enhance quality economic development
opportunities along the TH 36 Cwndor. Improvements to this interchange are anticipated to
substantinUy aid in those efforts to create high rage jobs.
If you have any questions,comments,or concerns,please do now Hesitate to contact nne
Kind Regards,
409 A—
City Administrator
Cc:Ann Pung-Terwedo,Senior Planner
Page 36 of 84
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Funding Application
Transportation Economic Development Program
APPLICATION COVER SHEET
Project Name:Trunk Highway 36/CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue)Interchange Project
Project location:Intersection of TH 36 and CSAH 15
Amount Requested:$7,000,000
State Fiscal Year Construction Will Start:2021
Anticipated Calendar Year(s)of Construction:2021
Applicant:Washington County
Primary Contact Person:Nathan Arnold
Title:Engineer II
Address: 11660 Myeron Road
City:Stillwater
Zip Code:55082
Contact Phone:651-430-4384
Contact Email:nathan.arnold@co.washington.mn.us
Are you also requesting funding through the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development's Transportation Economic Development Infrastructure(TEDI)Program? Yes, for a
separate project.
If YES,what is the amount of your request to DEED?Click here to enter text.
Transportation Economic Development Program Application 1
Page 37 of 84
TED APPLICATION FORM
Project Summary
1. Provide a brief summary of the project that includes the types of improvements, roads and other
transportation facilities affected,and how the project is consistent with the purpose of the TED
program.
Washington County is leading the Trunk Highway(TH)36 and CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue)
Interchange Project,in cooperation with MnDOT,the Cities of Stillwater, Grant, Lake Elmo, and
Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater Township. The project location is the existing at-grade
signalized intersection of TH 36 and Manning Avenue. TH 36 is a principal arterial roadway that
runs east-west approximately 20 miles in length from I-35W in Roseville to the Wisconsin
border at Stillwater. TH 36 connects with Wisconsin State Highway 35 via the St. Croix
Crossing Bridge,which opened in August 2017. The St. Croix Crossing Bridge connects TH 36
with Wisconsin, and acts as a regional gateway.
Within the project area, TH 36 is a four-lane divided expressway section.North of TH 36,
Manning Avenue is a four-lane roadway and classified as an A-Minor Expander_ Manning
Avenue is the primary regional roadway connecting southern Chisago County and northern
Washington County to TH 36. The traffic volumes have increased to the point where traffic
demand is exceeding the capacity of the at-grade intersection creating extended periods of heavy
congestion, and an unacceptable level of peak hour service. The opening of the St. Croix
Crossing Bridge is expected to exacerbate this capacity issue.
The project preserves existing capacity along TH 36 by constructing an interchange at the
existing signalized intersection and investigating the opportunity of adding a frontage road south
of TH 36 to make a local connection to County State Aid Highway(CSAR) 151 Stillwater
Boulevard to Manning Avenue. This project eliminates an at-grade intersection along TH 36, and
helps achieve the freeway vision of this important interregional corridor. The selected
interchange design would not preclude the expansion of TH 36 from four to six lanes, if desired
by the region in the future.This intersection change would be combined with local street
improvements to enhance traffic safety in the corridor. The existing frontage road north of TH 36
will be connected, or rerouted,to accommodate the new interchange design. To maximize
efficiency for regional traffic flow,reduce traffic conflict points, and to minimize or eliminate
local municipal cost share,relocation or elimination of the southern neighborhood street
connection will be considered during the course of project development.
A continuous 10-foot trail will run along the east side of Manning Avenue and will replace the
existing,well-worn bituminous segment along this corridor.To improve trail system
connectivity, a local access connection to the existing trail on the west side of Manning Avenue
south of TH 36,will be constructed.
The total cost of the TH 36 and Manning Avenue Interchange Project is estimated to be$25
million. Washington County is requesting$7 million from the Transportation Economic
Development Program for construction,design, and right-of-way acquisition. It is expected that
Transportation Economic Development Program Application 2
Page 38 of 84
local agencies will provide$5 million and State Aid will provide$6 million.Washington County
has already secured$7 million in federal grant funding for this project which must be spent by
2021.
Economic Benefits
2. How does the proposed transportation improvement support economic development?
The proposed TH 36/CSAR 15 (Manning Avenue)project will solve capacity issues at the
existing intersection and greatly improve access and safety to the surrounding areas. These
improvements will create opportunities for new development in the project area as well as along
the entire TH 36 corridor. In the spring of 2017,Lakeview Hospital purchased 68 acres of land
located in the northeast corner of the TH 36 and Manning Avenue intersection.The hospital
plans to develop and use this land for the creation of a medical campus. The preliminary concept
master plan includes the construction of a hospital,medical office building,wellness and senior
housing as well as earmarking land for further future complementary health,wellness and
commercial development. The immediate hospital expansion is anticipated to create 225 new
healthcare jobs. The construction of the TH 36 and CSAH 15 interchange project creates a
network that can safely and efficiently support the hospital campus traffic growth and necessary
access.
The improvements to the TH 36/CSAH 15 intersection will enhance the regional transportation
network and provide improved access to the Gateway Area. This project addresses significant
capacity and safety issues while also creating opportunities for economic development in the
area.Daily and commercial traffic is anticipated to increase throughout the corridor since the
opening of the St. Croix Crossing Bridge in August 2017. The bridge allows TH 36 to serve as
an interregional corridor,providing access to Washington County,the Twin Cities Metro and
Wisconsin. Washington County anticipates the increased traffic and interchange project will
continue to spur economic development in the TH 36 corridor and surrounding area.
Transportation Economic Development Program Application 3
Page 39 of 84
3.Complete Table A indicating the business or businesses that will create or retain jobs as a result of this
project.
Table A: Economic Analysis Data Table
Company #of Jobs in 2017 Average #of Average #of Jobs Average Types of Amount of Timing of
Wages in Jobs in Wages in in 2022 Wages in Positions Investment investment in
2017 2022 2022 with the 2022 with added/retain in Building& Building&
without without project the ed Equipment Equipment
the the project project
project
.E7(QI)T��2 100 s+5000 100 4$6, bo ;150 S6b 000 Engineers ..$1,00;= 12/W/1�
Lakeview 863 $53,187 900 $61,111 1,125 $61,333 Healthcare $75,000,0 10 years
Hospital (including related 00-
casual I position $100,000,
employees) 000
Notes,Assumptions and Additional Information on Table A: Enter text here.
4. Describe the level of confidence that the jobs projected to be created or retained in Table A will
actually occur by 2022.
The projections w/o the project as it relates to employee growth in 2022 is directly related to
projected volumes in current service-line growth. If Lakeview Hospital continues its' growth to
projected volumes,job growth will continue proportionately.
5. If any of the businesses are relocating,are they relocating from somewhere else in Minnesota or from
another state or country?If relocating from within the state, please explain.
N/A
6.Which specific communities and populations are likely to benefit from the job creation/retention?If
specialized skills are needed,describe how the businesses propose to meet their labor needs?
The current communities Lakeview Hospital's employees live in will continue to benefit from
Lakeview's projected job growth. All types of positions will be created i.e.entry level non-clinical as
well as clinically trained positions.
7.What opportunities will be lost if the proposed project is delayed or rejected?
The TH 36/CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue)Interchange Project creates many opportunities for
economic development in the TH 36 corridor. Development associated with the Lakeview
Hospital expansion is at risk for loss if the interchange project is delayed or rejected.This would
mean the loss of future living wage, specialized skill jobs for Washington County. The
Page 40 of 84
Lakeview Hospital expansion is anticipated to serve as a catalyst for more development in the
TH 36 corridor. A delay or rejection of this project will put that future development and job
opportunities at risk. Furthermore, this project solves many access and safety issues, any delay
or rejection will continue to put current users needlessly at risk.
Transportation Benefits
8. Describe the need for the transportation improvement and what issues(i.e.safety, mobility,access,
etc.) it will address?
The TH 36/CSAR 15 (Manning Avenue)Interchange Project addresses the issues of safety,
mobility and access for the existing intersection. Currently,traffic volumes at the intersection of
TH 36 and Manning Avenue have increased to the point where traffic demand is exceeding the
capacity of the at-grade signalized intersection, in turn resulting in extended periods of heavy
congestion, and an unacceptable level of peak hour service. Traffic demand is anticipated to
continue to grow. The opening of the St. Croix Crossing Bridge has allowed TH 36 to act as an
interregional gateway and it continues to attract more users to the TH 36 corridor.
The existing capacity issues create many safety hazards for the intersection. The TH 36 and
Manning Avenue intersection is considered a sustained crash location. Between 2011 and 2015
there were 56 crashes at the intersection. Removing the signal and creating a grade separated
intersection will no longer require TH 36 traffic to stop at the intersection. The removal of the
signal will lower the risk of conflict with pedestrians or other vehicles.
There are access and mobility issues for existing traffic due to the existing roadway system in the
area that forces trucks and automobiles to use TH 36 to continue on CSAH 15 for local trips
from the north or south. Traffic will be able to freely move throughout the intersection improving
travel time reliability.To maximize efficiency for interregional traffic flow,reduce traffic
conflict points, and to minimize or eliminate local municipal cost share,relocation or elimination
of the southern neighborhood street connection will be considered during the course of project
development.
9. Briefly describe how the project is consistent with relevant local, regional and state plans.
Applicants are encouraged to consult with their Area Transportation Partnership and/or Metropolitan
Planning Organization.ATP and/or MPO approval will be required for final project approval.
Regional
This project supports both the Metropolitan Council's Thrive 2040 and Transportation Policy Plan 2040
strategies which includes the following:
Goal A.Transportation System Stewardship,Goal: Sustainable investments in the transportation
system are protected by strategically preserving maintaining and operating system assets.
Page 41 of 84
The proposed improvements will help preserve and enhance mobility along the existing TH 36 corridor
provides an important regional/interstate link to efficiently and cost-effectively connect people and freight
to destinations.These benefits will be enhanced due to the opening of the St. Croix River Crossing Bridge
in August 2017.A grade separated interchange and the associated access closures at Manning Avenue
would remove an at-grade intersection along TH 36 and will provide safe and efficient connections across
TH 36.The interchange concept and associated improvements along TH 36 will also improve travel time
for existing and future freight along the corridor.
Goal B.Safety and Security
The interchange and associated improvements will maximize the existing capacity along TH 36 by
removing the signalized intersection at CSAH 15. Furthermore,the proposed improvements will
remove bicycling and pedestrian conflicts by providing safe and efficient connections across TH 36.
Goal C.Access to Destinations
The TH 36 Corridor provides an important link to job centers to Minneapolis and the whole central
Twin City Metropolitan Region with the majority of Washington County workers commuting
outside the county for work.The St. Croix River Valley and western Wisconsin are becoming more
popular as tourist destinations due to the historic,natural,scenic and cultural values of the area.
Freight access has recently improved with the completion of the St. Croix Crossing Bridge.
TH 36 is a principal arterial providing east-west connections between the northeastern suburbs and
downtown Minneapolis.MnDOT has and will continue to manage and operate TH 36 to maximize
safety and mobility and this project will help preserve the performance of the existing system.
Goal D.Competitive Economy
TH 36 is a main access route for travelers and freight between downtown Minneapolis and the
northeastern suburbs including parts of western Wisconsin and beyond. The future interchange will
involve an investment aimed at preserving highway capacity and improving mobility to an existing
system.This plan is to invest in transportation choices,based on the full range of costs and benefits,
to slow the growth of congestion and serve the region's economic needs.
Goal E.Healthy Environment
Increase mobility will reduce transportation emissions and improved air quality for the region.
Construction of the interchange and access improvements will result in improved traffic flow
conditions along TH 36,which will result in fewer vehicles stopped idling at the existing signalized
intersection.
Bike and pedestrian improvements will be considered as the interchange is designed as well as
accommodation for future transit opportunities along the TH 36 Corridor.
Goal F.Leveraging Transportation to Guide Land Use.
The interchange concepts for TH 36/Manning Avenue will be coordinated with proposed adjacent
land development.The cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights have been partners on the TH 36
Corridor studies and have been planning for new development along this segment of the highway
corridor.For example,the City of Stillwater has been coordinating with Stillwater Township over
the last 20 years on an annexation/staging plan for urban development along CSAH 15/Manning
Avenue.The northeast corner of the intersection is planned for land uses which would provide
quality living wage jobs.Access to this area has been managed in anticipation of an interchange.
Page 42 of 84
Therefore,the proposed interchange improvements would improve accessibility to this job center,
enhance connections between developments and provide improved access to the City of Stillwater
and northern Washington County.
The conceptual interchange will be further developed to a staff approved layout and will undergo
environmental review for the purposes of identifying and officially mapping the required right-of-
way.The existing and planned land uses in the study area will be integrated into the conceptual
interchange designs,which will result in a cost-effective solution to the identified transportation
issues(heavy congestions,crashes)that characterize the existing at-grade intersection.The
construction of the interchange supporting roadway improvements,and access closures will balance
the needs of a growing travel demand due to existing and planned land use development.
Local
Washington County
This project supports Washington County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Goals and
Strategies which includes the following:
Goal 4-1.Develop and maintain a roadway system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of
people and goods.
• Manage access from local roads and state highways to the county system appropriately for each
functional class.
• Utilize traffic management techniques to improve the operations and safety and extend the life of
the county roadways
• Pursue federal,state,regional,and local funding.
Goal 4-3. Use effective transportation planning to accommodate existing and planned land uses,while
preserving natural,cultural,and historic resources.
• Coordinate with other agencies to promote a well-balanced transportation system.
• Coordinate roadway planning and design activities with local communities,adjacent counties,
and MN/DOT.
This project has the support of Washington County as it is being led by the county and was adopted into
the Washington County 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan.This project can be found on page 77 of
the CIP.
City of Grant
The City of Grant has the following goal and policies from the City of Grant 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Goal:
• Maintain a transportation network at reasonable cost and adequate to meet the safety,health,and
welfare needs of the community.
Policies:
• Work with Washington County and MN/DOT to assure that appropriate roadway improvements
are constructed to best serve Grant and the surrounding communities without unduly
compromising the rural character of Grant.
• Encourage a road system designed to move through traffic to major arterial roads and discourage
it on quiet rural-style roads within neighborhoods.
City of Lake Elmo
The City of Lake Elmo is supportive of the project and included an interchange replacing the at-grade
intersection of TH 36 with Manning Avenue(CSAR 15)in their 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This project
aligns with the follow City comprehensive plan goal and policies.
Page 43 of 84
GOAL: Safety-The main criteria for safety is reducing the potential for traffic crashes and provide for
safe transportation throughout the City.In addition,safety can reflect providing compatible land uses with
their adjacent transportation facilities and providing an efficient transportation system that does not
impose undue delay.
Policies:
• The City will support grade-separation of Trunk Highway 36 from the current at-grade
intersections in pursuit of the City goals to provide safe and adequate service to Trunk Highway
36 for residents and businesses while minimizing back tracking to gain access and while
minimizing pass through traffic on local roadways.
• Vehicular trips,originating primarily within Lake Elmo,will be encouraged through planning or
infrastructure improvements by local,County, State,or Federal Agencies.
• The focus of motorized transportation planning and resulting infrastructure will be trips with
origins and/or destinations within the City servicing Lake Elmo residents and businesses.
City of Oak Park Heights
The City of Oak Park Heights is supportive of this project as it aligns with the following goals and
policies from the City of Oak Park Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Goals:
• Goal 1:Approach transportation in a comprehensive manner,giving attention to all modes while
providing safe and convenient movement of all persons and vehicles
• Goal 2: Coordinate transportation planning and implementation with state,county,and other local
jurisdictions.
• Goal 3:Develop a system of priorities for improving the various elements of the transportation
network emphasizing the highest possible standards of safety and efficiency
• Goal IA:Resolve issues related to the Highway 36 improvements and St.Croix River Crossing
with the result being construction of the highway and bridge in a manner acceptable to the City of
Oak Park Heights and affected jurisdictions.
Policies:
• Consider all modes of transportation and related facilities as a system to be coordinated and
related on a comprehensive basis.
• Plan transportation facilities to function in a manner compatible with adjacent land use.
• Work with Washington County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MN/DOT)and
the Metropolitan Council to discuss the ways and means by which their long term transportation
planning goals can be met to satisfy both regional and local needs.
Stillwater Township
Stillwater Township is supportive of this project as it aligns with the following goals and policies from
the Stillwater Township 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Goals:
• Provide a safe,efficient transportation system to complement land use development
• Provide access and mobility
• Encourage safety,scenic values,and economy in travel
• Work with other jurisdictions to plan and update roadway system
• Plan for long range maintenance of the roadway system
Policies
• Coordinate road networks and construction with other public services to minimize costs
• Use access management to promote a safe and effective road network
Page 44 of 84
• Consider transportation impacts when making land use decisions
City of Stillwater
The City of Stillwater is supportive of this project as it aligns with the following goals and policies from
the City of Stillwater 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Goals:
• Goal 1:Provide efficient and environmentally sound transportation.
• Goal 2:Develop a coordinated transportation system that provides for local as well as area-wide
traffic
• Goal 4: Support construction of the new interstate bridge and TH 36 corridor improvements to
provide for regional traffic demands and to relieve cut-through traffic Downtown and in
residential areas.
Objectives:
• Work with MN/DOT and Washington County to study and improve state highways and county
roads where needed.
• Plan new development areas to coordinate with planning for the roads that provide access to the
development sites,i.e.,CR 15,CR 12,CR 64,TH 96,TH 36.
Policies:
• Policy 3: Work with other governmental agencies on a new TH 36 bridge,TH 36/CR 15
improvements and the planning and construction of a Frontage Road between CR 15 and CR5.
• Policy 4: Work with MnDOT,County,local government agencies and local businesses/
employers to address transportation management methods to relieve bridge traffic c congestion
concerns.
• Policy 5: Ensure that planned transportation infrastructure,capacity and access will accommodate
proposed land use and development
10. Complete Table B below estimating the effect the project will have on the annual number of crashes.
For this table,estimates are requested for a base year and a forecast year for both build and no build
scenarios. The base year should be the first year of full operations after completion of construction. For
the crash statistics assumed in the no build base year,please use a five or ten year historical average if
available. The recommended forecast year is 20 years after the completion of construction,but any
forecast year at least 10 years after construction will be accepted(note:analysis will be based on a 20
year forecast.MnDOT staff will extrapolate to 20 years for any forecast less than 20 years). If you need
assistance with this table,please contact your city or county engineer or local MnDOT staff.
What is your base year?2022
What is your forecast year?2042
Table B:Crash Count Analysis
Page 45 of 84
Gash Type Number of Number of Crashes Number of Number of Crashes in
Crashes in Base in Base Year—Build Crashes in Forecast Year—Build
Year—No Build Scenario Forecast Year—No Scenario
Scenario Build Scenario
(K)Fatality 1 0 1 0
(A)Serious Injury 0 0 0 0
(B)Moderate Injury 5 2 7 3
(C)Minor Injury 14 6 18 8
(0)Property Damage Only 35 22 43 28
Methodology used for the no build base year estimate:
r 5 year average C' 10 year average C' Other,please specify: Click here to enter text.
Notes on Table B:
Crash data for years 2011-2015 was obtained from MnDOT to complete the crash analysis.
Appropriate crash reductions were identified from the CMF Clearinghouse for implementing an
interchange. Future year no build crashes were estimated based on traffic volume growth. For
build years,the appropriate crash reductions were applied to the no build crashes.
11.Complete Table C below estimating the impact of the project on the movement of people and goods.
For this table, estimates are requested for a base year and a forecast year for both build and no build
scenarios. The base year should be the first year of full operations after completion of construction. The
recommended forecast year is 20 years after the completion of construction,but any forecast year at
least 10 years after construction will be accepted(note:analysis will be based on a 20 year forecast.
MnDOT staff will extrapolate to 20 years for any forecast less than 20 years). Estimates are requested for
the affected road network,not just within the project boundaries. If you need assistance with this table,
please contact your city or county engineer or local MnDOT staff.
What is your base year?2022
What is your forecast year?2042
Table C:Traffic Forecast
Page 46 of 84
Metric Base Year—No Base Year— Forecast Year— Forecast Year—
Build Scenario Build Scenario No Build Build Scenario
Scenario
Annual Average Daily Traffic(vehicles Manning N of 36: Manning N of Manning N of 36: Manning N of
per day) 17100 36:17400 20400 36:21500
TH 36 E of TH 36 E of TH 36 E of TH 36 E of
Manning:41600 Manning:42400 Manning:52500 Manning:55500
Manning S of 36: Manning S of Manning 5 of 36: Manning 5 of
425 36:425 Soo 36:500
TH 36 W of TH 36 W of TH 36 W of TH 36 W of
Manning:39200 Manning: Manning:50300 Manning:53600
40000
Manning Ave Manning Ave Manning Ave
Bridge:0 Manning Ave Bridge:0 Bridge:11000
Bridge:8650
Vehicles Miles Traveled(miles per day) 322000 323000 408000 411000
by Automobiles on the Affected
Network
Vehicles Miles Traveled(miles per day) 8250 8270 10450 10540
by Commercial Trucks on the Affected
Network
Vehicles Hours Traveled(hours per 9000 8950 11400 11250
day)by Automobiles on the Affected
Network
Vehicles Hours Traveled(hours per 230 230 290 290
day)by Commercial Trucks on the
Affected Network
Notes on the methodology used in Table C.
Forecasts are based on the Twin Cities Regional Activity Based Travel Demand Model
(December 2016), which was modified to include additional detail in the project area.Thrive
MSP 2040 demographic forecasts were also incorporated in the modified TDM. Year 2040 No
Build Scenario roadway improvements were reviewed for consistency with Metropolitan
Council's Transportation Policy Plan, and forecasts were developed using standard validation
and adjustment processes. Year 2040 Build roadway improvement assumptions were
Page 47 of 84
incorporated to the modified TDM, and model outputs were analyzed to determine traffic pattern
shifts. Model VMT and VHT were also used, and were modified to reflect high-level estimates
of signal delay.Note that this modeling effort is PRELIMINARY and is subject to change based
on final interchange design and local roadway changes.
12. Describe the extent to which the project supports intermodal connections or multimodal
transportation, now or in the future.
Currently,non-motorized safety and accessibility is an issue at the TH 36/Manning Avenue
intersection.A pedestrian crosswalk is in place at the TH 36/Manning Avenue intersection a
crossed the west leg(TH 36)and the south leg(Manning Avenue). A county-owned trail is
located along the east side of Manning Avenue to the north, and a housing development owned
trail is located on the west side of Manning to the south.
This project will support improved bicycle and pedestrian movement by facilitating safer non-motorized
travel across TH 36 by constructing a grade separated interchange at Manning Avenue. Sidewalks will be
incorporated along the Manning Avenue overpass to connect the local street and trail system.
Page 48 of 84
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date September 26.2017
Time Required: 10 Minutes
Agenda Item Title: RIGHT OF WAYAN REVIEW
Agenda Placement New Busine
Originating Department/Requ or: son Citv Admitfistrator
Requester's Signature
Action Requested Discussion sible Action
Background/Justification(Please dicate if any previous action has been taken or if other public bodies
have advised):
During the most recent session of the MN Legislature,there was a significant push by cellular companies
to seek rather large authorities to operate in Public Right of Ways for the SMALL CELLULAR
INFRASTRUCTURE. While the Legislature and the Governor did sign into law significant changes on
how the City and other public entities may engage and regulate the placement for these facilities,it is vital
that cities, including Oak Park heights, evaluate its current ROW Ordinances and ensure that such rules
adequately the City's ROW for use of public facilities and to ensure a clear path of review for these small
cellular wireless carriers when they may submit an application.
Scott Richards has prepared a proposal for a price NOT TO EXCEED $4,500 that would evaluate and
update the City's ROW ordinances relative to these issues and is enclosed. Staff would recommend a
prompt review of these matters and to authorize this to move forward. At this time, the City does have
adequate funding in the 2017 Planning Budget to address this study—Acct 101-40500-103.
Please See the attached Information:
1. Proposal from Scott Richards
2. Information Memo- Summary of issues from the LMC dated 9-13-17.
3. Current City R.O.W.Ordinance
Page 49 of 84
TPC3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100
Anoka, MN 55303
Phone:763.231.5840
Facsimile:763.427.0520
TPQ§P1anningCo.com
September 21, 2017
Eric Johnson
City Administrator
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N.
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
RE: Oak Park Heights— Planning Services— Small Cell Technology
TPC FILE: 236.01-17.03
Dear Mr. Johnson:
As you are aware, a law was enacted during the 2017 legislative session that would allow
small cell wireless equipment to be placed on City owned infrastructure in the public right
of way. As introduced, the bill would have allowed wireless companies unregulated
access to the public right of way, but the League of Minnesota Cities strongly opposed
the bill and negotiated new language to maintain some local control. The resulting bill
language preserves local authority over access to the public right of way. Please find
attached an Information Memo from the League that was distributed on September 13,
2017, and discusses cell towers and small cell technologies.
The City will need to make changes to its Regulation of Public Rights of Way, Chapter
704 of the City Code, to address small cells. Additionally, the City will need to develop a
permit application that would lay out the terms and conditions for the small cell provider.
Finally, the City should review its regulations found in Section 401.15.P Antennas to add
the regulation of small cells on private property.
The City of Bloomington has already made changes to its Right of Way Ordinance and
developed a draft permit application. Staff will review this example as well as others as
they become available. Staff will also work closely with the City Attorney on the proposed
language and conformance with State Law.
We pleased to submit this schedule and budget for amendments to the City Code,
including sections of the Regulation of Public Rights of Way and Antenna regulations. A
permit application to install small cells in the right of way will also be developed. TPC,
Inc proposes to complete this work for a not to exceed fee of $4,500.00. This would
include drafting the changes, working with the Planning Commission on the
recommended language and final City Council approval. The fee would include the
recommending Resolution and Ordinance.
Page 50 of 84
Eric Johnson
Small Cell Technology
Page 2
The proposed schedule for this work is as follows:
September 26, 2017: City Council acceptance of proposal and budget.
October 12, 2017: Planning Commission discussion of small cell technologies
and changes to City Code.
November 9, 2017: Planning Commission review of draft language, revisions.
December 14, 2017: Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation.
December 26, 2017: City Council review of Planning Commission recommendation
and approval of the amendment Ordinance.
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit 1: League of Minnesota Cities — Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies
and Distributed Antenna Systems— September 13, 2017
This signed letter shall serve as the contract for the accessory building amendment
planning services.
Signed: Signed:
Scott D. Richards Eric Johnson
Planning Consultant City Administrator
THE PLANNING COMPANY LLC City of Oak Park Heights
Page 51 of 84
`J
INFORMATION MEMO
I"�INNEsoTA Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies
CITIES & Distributed Antenna Systems
Learn about large and small cell tower deployment and siting requests for small cell, small wireless
and distributed antenna systems(DAS) technology. Better understand the trend of the addition of
DAS, small wireless or small cell equipment on existing utility equipment. Be aware of common gaps
in city zoning, impact of federal and state law, reasons for collocation agreements and some best
practices for dealing with large and small cell towers, small wireless facilities and DAS.
RELEVANT LINKS: I. Deployment of large cell towers or antennas
47 U.S.C.§253(commonly A cell site or cell tower creates a"cell"in a cellular network and typically
known as Section 253 of supports antennas plus other equipment, such as one or more sets of
Telecommunications Act). transceivers, digital signal processors, control electronics, GPS equipment,
47 U.S.C.§332(commonly primary and backup electrical power and sheltering. Only a finite number of
known as Section 332 of calls or data can go through these facilities at once and the working range of
Telecommunications Act)
the cell site varies based on any number of factors, including height of the
FCC website. antenna. The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) has stated that
cellular or personal communications services(PCS)towers typically range
anywhere from 50 to 200 feet high.
The emergence of personal communications services,the increased number
of cell providers, and the growing demand for better coverage have spurred
tj requests for new cell towers, small cell equipment, and distributed antenna
.r systems(DAS)nationwide. Thus, some cellular carriers,
telecommunications wholesalers or tower companies,have attempted to
quickly deploy telecommunications systems or personal wireless service
facilities,and, in doing so, often claim federal law requires cities to allow
construction or placement of towers, equipment, or antennas in rights of
way. Such claims generally have no basis.Although not completely
unfettered, cities can feel assured that, in general, federal law preserves local
zoning and land use authority.
A. The Telecommunications Act and the FCC
47 U.S.C.§253(commonly The Telecommunications Act of 1996 represented America's first
known as Section 253 of (TCA) ep
Telecommunications Act). successful attempt to reform regulations on telecommunications in more
47 U.S.C.§332(commonly than 60 years, and was the first piece of legislation to address internet
known as Section 332 of access. Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher
Telecommunications Act). quality in American telecommunications services and to encourage rapid
deployment of new telecommunications technologies.
This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice.consult your attorney for advice concerning specfc situations.
145 University Ave.West www.imc.org 9/13/2017
Saint Paul,MN 55103-2044 (651)281-1200 or(800)925-1122 ®2017 All Rights Reserved
Page 52 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
FCC website interpreting The FCC is the federal agency ed with creating rules and policies under
Telecommunications Act of g Y char g
1996. the TCA and other telecommunications laws.
The FCC also manages and licenses commercial users(like cell providers
and tower companies),as well as non-commercial users(like local
governments). As a result, both the TCA and FCC rulings impact
interactions between the cell industry and local government.
The significant changes in the wireless industry and its related shared
wireless infrastructures, along with consumer demand for fast and reliable
service on mobile devices,have fueled a frenzy of requests for large and
small cell/DAS site development and/or deployment.As a part of this, cities
find themselves facing cell industry arguments that federal law requires
cities to approve tower siting requests.
47 U.S.C.§253(section 253 Companies making these claims most often cite Section 253 or Section 332
of Telecommunications Act). of the TCA as support. Section 253 states"no state or local statute or
47 U.S.C.§332(cx7). regulation may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any
entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."
FCC 09-99,Declaratory
Ruling(Nov.18,2009). Section 332 has a similar provision ensuring the entry of commercial mobile
services into desired geographic markets to establish personal wireless
service facilities.
47 U.S.C.§253(cxe) These provisions should not,however,be read out of context. When
(section 253 of
Telecommunications Act). reviewing the relevant sections in their entirety, it becomes clear that federal
47 U.S.C.§332(cx7). law does not pre-empt local municipal regulations and land use controls.
Specifically, the law states"[n]othing in this section affects the authority of
FCC 09-99,Declaratory a state or local government to manage the public rights of way or to require
Ruling(Nov 18,2009). fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights of
way ..."and that"nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of
... local government ... over decisions regarding the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities".
Sprint Spectrum v.Mills, Courts consistently have agreed that local governments retain their
283 F.3d 404(2nd Cir.
2002). regulatory authority and,when faced with making decisions on placement of
USCOCofGreater Missourt towers,antenna or new telecommunication service equipment on city
Y. till.Of Marlborough,618 facilities,they generally have the same rights that private individuals have to
F.Supp2009). .Zd 1055(E.D.Mo. deny or permit placement of a cellular tower on their property. This means
2009). p p rty,
cities can regulate and permit placement of towers and other personal
Rulingg(Nov.(FCC No 18,2009).99,Declaratory wireless service facilities, g,includin in most situations(though some state
law restrictions exist regarding regulations of small wireless support
structures), controlling height,exterior materials, accessory buildings, and
even location. Cities should be careful to make sure that local regulations
don't have the effect of completely banning all cell towers or personal
wireless service facilities. Such regulation could run afoul of federal law(not
to mention state law as well).
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 2
Page 53 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
Some cellular companies try to gain unfettered access to city right of way by
Vertical Broadcasting v. claiming they are utilities. The basis for such a claim usually follows one of
Town of Southampton,84 F. two themes—either that, as a utility, federal law entitles them to entry; or, in
Supp.2d 379(E.D.N.Y.
2000). the alternative, under the city's ordinances,they get the same treatment as
other utilities. Courts have rejected the first argument of entitlement, citing
to the specific directive that local municipalities retain traditional zoning
discretion.
B. State law
Paging v.Bd.of Zoning In the alternative,the argument that a city's local ordinances include towers
Appealsfor Montgomery as a utility has, on occasion and in different states,carried more weight with
Cty.,957 F.Supp.805(W.D. a court. To counter such arguments, cities may consider specifically
Va.1997). excluding towers,antenna, small cell, and DAS equipment from their
ordinance's definition of utilities. The Minnesota Department of Commerce,
in a letter to a wireless infrastructure provider,cautioned one infrastructure
company that its certificate of authority to provide a local niche service did
not authorize it to claim an exemption from local zoning. The Minnesota
Department of Commerce additionally requested that the offending company
cease from making those assertions.
Letter from Minnesota In Minnesota,to clear up confusion about whether wireless providers
Department of Commerce to represent telecommunications right-of-way users under state law and to
Mobilitie. address concerns about deployment of small wireless technology,the
Minn.Stat.§237.162 Legislature amended Minnesota's Right-of-Way User statutes, or Minnesota
Minn.Stat.§237.163 ROW Law, in the 2017 legislative session to specifically address small
Chapter 94,Art. 9,2017
Regular session. wireless facilities and the support structures on which those facilities may
Minnesota Public Utilities attach.
Commission,Meeting
Agenda(Nov.3,2016).
Because of these amendments, effective May 31, 2017 additional specific
state statutory provisions apply when cities,through an ordinance, manage
their rights of way,recover their right-of-way management costs(subject to
certain restrictions),and charge rent for attaching to city-owned structures in
public rights of way.Rent,however, is capped for collocation of small
wireless facilities. State law defines"collocate"or"collocation"as a means
to install, mount,maintain,modify,operate, or replace a small wireless
facility on,under,within,or adjacent to an existing wireless support
structure that is owned privately or by a local government unit.
Minn.stat.§237.162. The Minnesota ROW Law allows cities to require telecommunications right-
Minn.Stat.§237.163 of-way users to get a permit for use of the right of way; however, it creates a
Chapter 94,Art 9,2017 separate permitting structure for the siting of small wireless facilities.
Regular Session.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo. 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 3
Page 54 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
Because of the recent significant changes in the state law and the specific
requirements for deployment of small wireless facilities that do not apply to
other telecommunications right-of-way users, cities should work with their
city attorneys to review and update their ordinances.
C. Limitations on cities' authority
1. Federal law
Although federal law expressly preserves local governmental regulatory
authority, it does place several substantive and procedural limits on that
authority. Specifically, a city:
USCOCQfGreaterMissouri . Cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
v. Till.Of Marlborough,618
F.Supp.2d 1055(E.D.Mo. equivalent Services.
2009). . Cannot regulate those providers in a manner that prohibits or has the
Minnesota Towers Inc.v. effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications services or
City of Duluth,474 F.3d personal wireless services.
1052(8 Cir.2007).
• Must act on applications within a reasonable time.
NL Colorado Cellular,4 v. o Must document denial of an application in writing supported b
City of North Platte,764 PP � g PP Y
F.3d 929(8th Cir.2014) "substantial evidence."
(denial of CUP for tower
must be`5n writing"but need
not be a separate finding
from the reasons in the
denial).
Smith Comm. Y. Washington proof that the local zoning authority's decision furthers the applicable local
Cly,Ark.,785 F.3d 1253(8th
Cir.2015)(substantial zoning requirements or ordinances satisfies the substantial evidence test.
evidence analysis involves Municipalities cannot cite environmental concerns as a reason for denial,
whether the local zoning
authority's decision is however,when the antennas comply with FCC rules on radio emissions. In
consistent with the applicable the alternative, cities can request proof of compliance with the FCC rules.
local zoning requirements
and can include aesthetic
reasons).
Bringing an action in federal court represents the recourse available to the
cellular industry if challenging the denial of a siting request under federal
law.Based on the limitations set forth in the federal law on local land use
and zoning authority,most often,when cities deny siting requests,the
challenges to those denials claim one of the following:
FCC 09-99,Declaratory • The municipal action has the effect of"prohibiting the provision of
Ruling,Nov.18,2009.
personal wireless service."
Tower and Antenna Siting . The municipal action unreasonablydiscriminates among providers of
FAQ sheet from FCC. P g
functionally equivalent services(i.e., cell providers claiming to be a type
T-Mobile West V.Crow, of utilityso the can et the same treatment as a utility under cit
No.CV08-1337(D.AZ. y g ty y
Dec.16,2009). ordinance).
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo. 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 4
Page 55 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
2. State law
Minn.Stat.§237.162 In addition to mirroring some of the federal law requirements, such as the
Minn.Stat.§237.163
Chapter 94,Art. 9,2017 requirement of equal treatment of all like providers, state law permits cities,
Regular Session. by ordinance,to further regulate"telecommunications right-of-way users."
Minnesota's Telecom ROW Law expressly includes wireless service
providers as telecommunications right-of-way users,making the law
applicable to the siting of both large and small,wire-lined or wireless
telecommunications equipment and facilities, in the rights of way.
See further discussion of State lawp laces additional restrictions on the permitting and regulating of
state law restrictions in
Section 11-A,below small wireless facilities and wireless support structure placement.
Accordingly, cities should work with city attorneys when drafting, adopting,
or amending their ordinance.The Telecom ROW Law still expressly
protects local control, allowing cities to deny permits for reasonable public
health,welfare, and safety reasons,with no definitions of or limitations on
what qualifies as health,welfare, and safety reasons.
D. Court decisions
Minnesota Towers Inc.v. The 8d'U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals(controlling law for Minnesota)
Cid+of Duluth,474 F.3d
1052(8"Cir.2007).Smith recognizes that cities do indeed retain local authority over decisions
Comm. V. Washington Cty, regarding the placement and construction of towers andpersonal wireless
Ark.,785 F.3d 1253(8th Cir.
2015). service facilities.
Voicestream PCS11 Corp.v. The 8th Circuit also has heard cases where a carrier or other
City of St.Louis, No.
4:04CV732(E.D.Mo.August telecommunications company argued they are a utility and should be treated
3,2005)(city interpretation as such under local ordinances. Absent a local ordinance that includes this
of city ordinance treats
communication facility as a type of equipment within its definition of utilities, courts do not necessarily
utility). deem cell towers or other personal communications services equipment
functionally equivalent to utilities.
USCOC of Greater Missouri Additionally, courts have found that the federal law anticipates some
Y. Vill.Of Marlborough,618 disparate application of the law, even among those deemed functionally
F.Supp2d 1055,1064 (E.D. equivalent.For example, courts determined it reasonable to consider the
Mo.2009)(TCA explicitly
contemplates some location of a cell tower when deciding whether to approve tower
discrimination amount construction(finding it okay to treat different locations differently), so long
providers of functionally
equivalent services). as cities do not allow one company to build a tower at a specific location at
the exclusion of other providers.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 5
Page 56 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
E. City approaches
Regulation of placement of cell towers and personal wireless services can
For regulation of occur through an ordinance. The Minnesota ROW Law provides cities with
telecommunications right-of- comprehensive authority to manage their rights of way.With the unique
way users,see Appendix A,
Sample ordinances and application of federal law to telecommunications and the recent changes to
Agreements• state law, along with siting requests for locations both in and out of rights of
way,many cities find having a separate telecommunications right-of-way
user ordinance (in addition to a right-of-way ordinance)allows cities to
better regulate towers and other telecommunications equipment, as well as
collocation of small wireless facilities and support structures.
Some cities also have modified the definitions in their ordinances to exclude
cell towers,telecommunications,wireless systems,DAS, small cell
equipment, and more from utilities to counter the cell industry's requests for
equal treatment or more lenient zoning under the city's zoning ordinances.
In addition to adopting specific regulations,many city zoning ordinances
recognize structures as conditional uses requiring a permit(or many of these
regulations include a provision for variances, if needed).While cities may
require special permits or variances to their zoning for siting of large cell
facilities, under state law, small wireless facilities and wireless support
Minn.Stat.237.163,Subd.2 structures accommodating those small wireless facilities are deemed a
(f),Chapter 94,Art.9,2017 permitted use. The only exception to the presumed,permitted use for small
Regular Session.
wireless is that a city may require a special or conditional land use permit to
install a new wireless support structure in a residentially zoned or historic
district. Cities will want to review their zoning to make sure it complies with
the Minnesota ROW Law.
II. Deployment of small cell technologies and
DAS
Small cell equipment and DAS both transmit wireless signals to and from a
defined area to a larger cell tower. They are often installed at sites that
support cell coverage either within a large cell area that has high coverage
needs or at sites within large geographic areas that have poor cell coverage
overall.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 6
Page 57 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
Situational needs dictate when cell providers use small cell towers, as
opposed to DAS technology. Generally,cell providers install small cell
towers when they need to target specific indoor or outdoor areas like
stadiums,hospitals, or shopping malls.DAS technology,alternatively,uses a
roe' small radio unit and an antenna(that directly link to an existing large cell
tower via fiber optics). Installation of a DAS often involves cell providers
using the fiber within existing utility structures to link to its larger cell tower.
i Cities sometimes are asked to provide the power needed for the radios,
which the city can negotiate into the leasing agreement with the cell
provider.
A. Additional zoning and permitting needs under
state law
Minn.stat§237.162. Historically,many cities' ordinances address large cell sites,but not small
Minn.Stat§237.163.
Chapter 94,Arc. 9,2017 cell towers or DAS: With the recent changes to state law, cities should work
Regular session. with their city attorney to review their ordinances in consideration of the
See Appendix A,Sample
Ordinances and Agreements. new statutory permit process for the siting of small wireless facilities.
See League FAQ on Cities can charge rent(up to a cap for small wireless siting)under the statute
Minnesota 2017 for placement of cell technology or DAS on existing or newly installed
Telecommunication Right of sunnort structures, like poles or water towers; and, also, can enter into a
Way User Amendments(July
2017). separate agreement to address issues not covered by state law or ordinance.
Cities should work with their city attorney to get assistance with drafting
these agreements and any additional documents,like a bill of sale(for
transfer of pole from carrier to city), if necessary.
See Appendix A,Sample The terms and conditions of these agreements, called collocation
Ordinances and Agreements agreements, for siting of small wireless facilities,most likely will mirror
agreements formerly referred to as master licensing agreements, often
including provisions such as:
• Definitions of scope of permitted uses.
• Establishment of right-of-way rental fee(note statutory limitations).
• Protection of city resources.
• Provision of contract term(note statutory limitations).
• Statement of general provisions.
• Maintenance and repair terms.
• Indemnity provisions.
• Insurance and casualty.
• Limitation of liability provision.
• Terms for removal.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 7
Page 58 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
State law does not require a separate agreement, and some cities have chosen
to put these provisions in their ordinance or permit instead. For cities that
choose to have a separate agreement in place,they must develop and make
that agreement publicly available no later than November 31, 2017 (six
months after the effective date of this act)or three months after receiving a
small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service provider.
The agreement must be made available in a substantially complete form;
however,the parties to the small wireless facility collocation agreement can
incorporate additional mutually agreed upon terms and conditions. The law
classifies any small wireless facility collocation agreement between a local
government unit and a wireless service provider as public data,not on
individuals, making those agreements accessible to the public under
Minnesota's Data Practices Law.
Minn.Stat.§237.162 Additionally,the new amendments to Minnesota's Telecom ROW Law set
Minn.Stat.§237.163
Chapter 94,Art. 9,2017 forth other requirements that apply only to small cell wireless facility
Regular session. deployment. The 2017 amendments changed Minnesota's ROW Law
significantly,the details, of which, can be found in the League's FAQ on
Minnesota 2017 Telecommunication Right of Way User Amendments(July
2017).However, after the amendments,the law now generally provides:
See League FAQ on . A presumption of permitted use in all zoning districts except in districts
Minnesota 2017 P P P g P
Telecommunication Right of zoned residential or historical districts.
Way User Amendments(July
2017). . The requirement that cities issue or deny small wireless facility requests
within 90 days,with a tolling period allowed upon written notice to the
applicant,within 30 days of receipt of the application.
• An allowance to batch applications(simultaneously submit a group of
applications),with the limitation to not exceed 15 small wireless requests
for substantially similar equipment on similar types of wireless support
structures within a two-mile radius.
• Rent not to exceed$150 per year with option of an additional$25 for
maintenance and allowances for electricity, if cities do not require
separate metering.
• The limitation that cities cannot ask for information already provided by
the same applicant in another small cell wireless facility application,as
identified by the applicant, by reference number to those other
applications.
• A restriction that the height of wireless support structures cannot exceed
50 feet, unless the city agrees otherwise.
• A restriction that wireless facilities constructed in the right of way may
not extend more than 10 feet above an existing wireless support structure
in place.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo. 9113/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 8
Page 59 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
• A prohibition on moratoriums with respect to filing,receiving, or
processing applications for right-of-way or small wireless facility
permits; or issuing or approving right-of-way or small wireless facility
permits. For cities that did not have a right-of-way ordinance in place on
or before May 18,2017, the prohibition on moratoria does not take effect
until January 1,2018,giving those cities an opportunity to enact an
ordinance regulating its public rights-of-way.
NOTE: These additional state law requirements do NOT apply to collocation
on structures owned, operated maintained or-served by municipal utilities.
Also,the small wireless statutory requirements do not invalidate agreements
in place at the time of enactment of the 2017 amendments(May 31,2017).
47 U.S.C.§332(commonly The siting of DAS or new small cell technologies also must comply with the
known as Section332 of
Telecommunications Act). same restrictions under federal law that apply to large cell sitings.
Specifically, a city:
FCC 09-99,Declaratory • May not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
Ruling(Nov.18,2009).
equivalent services.
FCC 14-153,Report&Order • May not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of
(October 21,2014). prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
• Must act on applications within a reasonable time.
• Must make any denial of an application in writing supported by
substantial evidence in a written record.
Because of the complexities in the state law and the overlay of federal
regulations, some cities have found it a best practice to adopt or amend a
telecommunications right-of-way ordinance separate from their general
right-of-way management ordinance.Cities that do not choose to adopt
separate ordinances, at a minimum, should work with their attorney to
review and amend their existing right-of-way ordinances, if necessary,to
accommodate for telecommunications right-of-way users and the recent state
law amendments for small wireless facilities.For example, since state law
now recognizes small wireless facilities as a permitted use,zoning
ordinances that require conditional use permits for these facilities likely will
need amending.
Since wireless providers seek to attach their small cell and DAS equipment
to city-owned structures,many cities choose to have a separate agreement in
place to address terms and conditions not included in ordinances or permits.
Minn.Stat.§237.163, If the city chooses to do so,the law requires the city to have these
Subd.3a(f). agreements available in a substantial form so applicants can anticipate the
Chapter 94,Art. 9,2017
Regular session. terms and conditions.Again, cities should work with the city attorney to
See Appendix A,Sample draft a template agreement governing attachment of wireless facilities to
Ordinances and Agreements. municipally owned structures in the right of way.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 9
Page 60 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
With the nationwide trend encouraging deployment of these new
technologies, if a city denies an application,it must do so in writing and
provide detailed reasonable findings that document the health,welfare, and
safety reasons for the denial. With the unique circumstances of each
community often raising concerns about sitings, cities may benefit from
proactively working with providers.
B. Modifications of existing telecommunication
structures
Section 6409(a)of the If a siting request proposes modifications to and/or collocations of wireless
Middle Class Tax Relief and
Joe Creation Act of 2012, transmission equipment on existing FCC-regulated towers or base stations,
codifiedat 47 U.S.C.§1455. then federal law further limits local municipal control. Specifically, federal
law requires cities to grant requests for modifications or collocation to
FCC Public Notice AD 12- existing FCC-regulated structures when that modification would not
2047(January 25,2013).
"substantially change"the physical dimensions of the tower or base station.
FCC 14-153,Report&Order The FCC has established guidelines on what"substantially change the
(October 21,2014). physical dimensions"means and what constitutes a"wireless tower or base
station."
FCC Public Notice AD 12- Once small cell equipment or antennas gets placed on that pole,then the pole
2047(January 25,2013). becomes a telecommunication structure subject to federal law and FCC
regulations.Accordingly,after allowing collocation once,the city then must
comply with the more restrictive federal laws that allow modifications to
these structures that do not substantially change the physical dimensions of
the pole, like having equipment from the other cell carriers.
FCC Public Notice AD 12- Under this law, it appears cities cannot ask an applicant who is requesting
2047(January 25,2013).
modification for documentation information other than how the modification
City of Arlington Texas,eL impacts the physical dimensions of the structure. Accordingly,
al.V.FCC,et.al.,133 S.Ct.
1863,1867(2013)(90 days documentation illustrating the need for such wireless facilities or justifying
to process collocation the business decision likely cannot be requested. Of course, as with the other
application and 150 days to
process all other applications, siting requests, state and local zoning authorities must take prompt action on
relying on§332(cx7XBxii)). these siting applications for wireless facilities(60-day shot clock rule).
This model ordinance and Two wireless industry associations,the WIA(formerly known as the PCIA)
other information can be
found at National and CTIA, collaborated with the National League of Cities,the National
Association of Counties Association of Counties,and the National Association of
Website. Telecommunications Officers and Advisors to: (1) develop a model
ordinance and application for reviewing eligible small cell/DAS facilities
requests under federal law; (2)discuss and distribute wireless siting best
practices; (3)create a checklist that local government officials can use to
help streamline the review process; and(4)hold webinars regarding the
application process.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 10
Page 61 of 84
RELEVANT LINKS:
111. Moratoriums
The cellular industry often challenges moratoriums used to stall placement
of cell towers, as well as small cell/DAS technology,until cities can address
regulation of these structures. Generally,these providers argue that these
moratoriums do one of the following:
• Prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services.
• Violate federal law by failing to act on an application within a reasonable
time.
Minn.Stat.§237.163,Subd. State law now prohibits moratoriums with respect to: (1) filing,receiving, or
2(d).Chapter 94,Art. 9,
2017 Regular session. processing applications for right-of-way or small wireless facility permits; or
(2)issuing or approving right-of-way or small wireless facility permits. For
cities that did not have an ordinance enabling it to manage its right-of-way
on or before May 18,2017,the prohibition on moratoria does not take effect
until January 1,2018, giving those cities an opportunity to enact an
ordinance regulating its public rights-of-way.
IV. Conclusion
With the greater use of calls and data associated with mobile technology,
cities likely will see more new cell towers, as well as small cell
technology/DAS requests. Consequently, it would make sense to proactively
review city regulations to ensure consistency with federal and state law,
while still retaining control over the deployment of structures and the use of
rights of way.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 11
Page 62 of 84
Appendix A: Sample Ordinances and Sample Agreements
Many cities address cell towers in their ordinances already.For informational purposes only,
the links below reference some telecommunications facilities ordinances in Minnesota.
PLEASE NOTE,these ordinances reflect each city's unique circumstances and may pre-date
the 2017 Legislative Session which,then,would not have considered the amendments to Minn.
Stat. §§ 237.162, 237.163 when drafted.
Sample Telecommunications Ordinances
Revised Model Right-of-Way Ordinance
City of Edina(predates 2017 amendments)
Ordinance: (Chanter 34: Telecommunications)
City of Brainerd
Memo to Planning Commission from City Planner,July 13,2017 Re: Draft Ordinance:;
Section 35:Anetennas and Towers
City of Minneapolis
Ordinance: (Amendment to Ordinance to accommodate Small Cell/DAS equipment)
CPED Staff Report, City of Minneapolis regarding Amendment
City of Bloomington
Ordinance: (Part II City Code,Chapter 17: Streets and Rights-of-Way)
Ordinance: (No.2017-16.Amending Section 14.03 of the City Code Concerning the Permit
Fee
Permit: Small Cell Permit
Sample Collocation Agreement for DAS/Small Call
Texas City Attorney Association
Addendum to Local Gov. Code, Chapter 283
San Antonio,Texas
Boston,Massachusetts
San Francisco,California
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/13/2017
Cell Towers,Small Cell Technologies&Distributed Antenna Systems Page 12
Page 63 of 84
704
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS.
WASHINGTON COUNTY MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATION OF
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND THE REGULATION OF PUBLIC WAY PERMITS
GOVERNMING RIGHT-OF-WAY USERS PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICE
THE COUNCIL OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ORDAINS:
Sections 701.01 through 704.09 of Chapter 704 of the Oak Park Heights Code of Ordinances
(hereafter "this Code") is hereby repealed in its entirety, and is replaced by the following, to read as
follows:
Sec. 704.01. Findings, Purpose, and Intent.
This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified
in Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.16,237.162,237.163,237.79,237.81,and 238.086(the"Act")and
the other laws governing applicable rights of the City and users of the right-of-way. This Section shall
also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050—7819.9950 where possible. To the extent
any provision of this Section cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules,the
interpretation most consistent with the full delegation of statutory and common law police power is
intended.
Sec. 704.02. Election to Manage the Public Rights-of-Way
Pursuant to the authority granted to the City under state and federal statutory, administrative and
common law,the City elects and has previously elected pursuant Minnesota Statutes,section
237.163 subd. 2(b), to manage rights-of-way within its jurisdiction.
Sec. 704.03. Definitions.
The following words,terms and phrases,when used in this article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Applicant means any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way.
City means the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. For purposes of this ordinance,the
term"City"means its elected officials, officers,employees and agents.
Construction Performance Bond means a performance bond, or other form of security
posted to ensure the availability of sufficient funds to assure that right-of-way excavation
and obstruction work is completed in accordance with the terms of the right-of-way permit,
i
Page 64 of 84
or other applicable state law or local regulation.
Delay Penalty means the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right-of-way
construction.
Department means the department of public works of the City
Department Inspector means any person authorized by the director to carry out inspections
related to the provisions of this chapter.
Director means the City Administrator or his designee.
Developer means any person or entity seeking to develop vacant or occupied land for
commercial,business or residential purposes by subdivision,re-development,platting,or
reconstruction of existing improvements in whole or part.
Emergency means a condition that poses a clear and immediate danger to life or health,or of
a significant loss or damage to property.
Equipment means any tangible asset used to install,repair, or maintain facilities in any
right-of-way.
Excavate means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part
of a right-of-way.
Excavation permit means the permit which,pursuant to this article,must be obtained before
a person may excavate in a right-of-way. An excavation permit allows the holder to
excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit.
Excavation permitfee means money paid to the City by an applicant to cover the costs as
provided by ordinance or building code.
Facility means any tangible asset in the right-of-way required to provide utility service.
Five-year project plan shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next
five years.
Local Representative means a local person,or designee of such person, authorized by a
registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters
within the scope of this article.
Management Costs means the actual costs the city incurs in managing its rights-of-way,
including,but not limited to, such costs as those associated with registering applicants;
issuing,processing, and verifying right-of-way permit applications; inspecting job sites and
restoration projects; maintaining, supporting,protecting, or moving user facilities during
right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring work
inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and
revoking right-of-way permits.
a
Page 65 of 84
Obstruct means to place any tangible object in a right-of-way so as to hinder free and open
passage over that or any part of the right-of-way.
Obstruction Permit means the permit which,pursuant to this article,must be obtained
before a person may obstruct a right-of-way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open
passage over the specified portion of that right-of-way by placing equipment described
therein on the right-of-way for the duration specified therein.
Obstruction Permit Fee means money paid to the City by a permittee to cover the city's cost
of supervising house or building moving.
Patch or Patching means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A
patch consists of the compaction of the sub base and aggregate base, and the replacement,
in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the
excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement
is included in the City's five-year project plan.
Permittee means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way has
been granted by the City under this article.
Person means any natural person or corporation,business association or other business
entity including,but not limited to, a partnership, a sole successor or assign of any of the
foregoing, or any other legal entity.
Probation means the status of a person that has not complied with the conditions of this
article.
Probationary Period means one year from the date that a person has been notified in writing
that they have been put on probation.
PUC means the state public utilities commission.
Registrant means any person who has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in
any right-of-way, or in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use,the right-of-
way or place its facilities in the right-of-way.
Restoration Cost means the amount of money paid to the City by a permittee to achieve the
level of restoration as required by the City.
Restore or Restoration means the process by which a right-of-way is returned to the same
condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation.
Right-of-Way Permit means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit,or
both, depending on the context,required by this article.
Right-of-Way User means(1)a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by
Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subd. 4; or(2)a person owning or controlling a facility
in the right-of-way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who
has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way.
3 Page 66 of 84
Service or Utility Service means and includes(1)those services provided by a public utility
as defined in Minn. Stats. 216B.02, subds. 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications
right-of-way user,including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a
cable communications system as defined in Minn. Stats. Chapter.23 8.02, subd. 3; (4)
natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the City; (5)
services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stats.,
Chapter 308A; and(6)water,and sewer,including service laterals, steam, cooling or
heating services.
Service Lateral means an underground facility that is used to transmit, distribute,or furnish
gas, electricity, communications, or water from a common source to an end-use customer.
The term"service lateral"also means an underground facility that is used in the removal of
wastewater from a customer's premises.
Supplementary Application means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the
right-of-way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued.
Telecommunication Right-of-Way User means a person owning or controlling a facility in
the right-of-way,or seeking to own or control a Facility in the right-of-way,which is used
or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data
information. For purposes of this Section, a cable communication system defined and
regulated under Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to
providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as
defined in Minn. Stats. Sec.216B.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency
organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association
organized under Minn. Stats. Chap. 308A, are not telecommunications right-of-way.
Unusable Facilities means facilities in the right-of-way which have remained unused for
one year and for which the registrant is unable to provide proof that it has either a plan to
begin using the facilities within the next 12 months or has a potential purchase or user of the
facilities.
Utility Permit means the permit which,pursuant to this section,must be obtained before a
person may excavate in a right of way. A utility permit allows the holder to excavate that
part of the right-of-way described in such permit.
Sec. 704.04.
"Service or Utility Service" means and includes (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined
in Minnesota Statutes 216B.02, subdivisions 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way
user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications system
as defined in Minnesota Statutes, chapter. 238.02, subdivision 3; (4) natural gas or electric energy or
telecommunications services provided by the City; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric
association organized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 308A; and (6) water, sewer, including service
laterals, steam,cooling or heating services."
Sec. 704.05. Permit Requirement.
(a)Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this Code,no person may obstruct or excavate any
4
Page 67 of 84
right-of-way without first having obtained the appropriate right-of-way permit from the director to do so.
(1)Excavation Permit An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the
right-of-way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion
of the right-of-way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified
therein.
(2)Obstruction Permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open
passage over-the specified portion of right-of-way by placing equipment described therein on the
right-of-way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not
required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project.
(3)Overhead Facilities. Permits for installation,repair or other work on above-ground facilities
within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Section 237.163, sudb. 6(b)(4)will be obstruction permits,
notwithstanding the need for excavation,provided the excavation is augured or hand dug for the
purpose of placing a pole type structure.
(b)Permit Extensions. No person may excavate or obstruct the right-of-way beyond the date or dates
specified in the permit unless such person makes a supplementary application for another right-of-way
permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and a new permit or permit extension is granted.
(c)Delay Penalty. Notwithstanding subsection(b) of this section, the City shall establish and impose a
delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction,patching, or restoration.
The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by City Council resolution.
(d)Permit Display. Permits issued under this article shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise
available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the director or his
designee.
Sec. 704.06. Undergrounding.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the health, safety and general
welfare of the public and is intended to foster (i) safe travel over the right-of-way, (ii) non-travel related
safety around homes and buildings where overhead feeds are connected and (iii) orderly development in
the City consistent with its Comprehensive Plan, City Design Guidelines and City Council policies as
adopted from time to time. Location and relocation, installation and reinstallation of Facilities in the
right-of-way or in or on other public ground must be made in accordance with this section and is intended
to be enforced consistently with state and federal law regulating right-of-way users,to the fullest extent of
the City's statutory and common law authority.
Subd.2. Undergrounding of Facilities. All Facilities newly installed, constructed or
otherwise placed in the public right-of-way or in other public property held in common for public use
must be located and maintained underground pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section and in
accordance with applicable construction standards, subject to the exceptions below. Above-ground
installation, construction, modification, or replacement of existing meters, gauges, transformers, street
lighting, pad mount switches, capacitor banks, re-closers and service connection pedestals shall be
allowed. These requirements shall apply equally outside of the corporate limits of the City coincident
with City jurisdiction of platting, subdivision regulation or comprehensive planning as may now or in the
future be allowed by law.
5
Page 68 of 84
Subd. 3. Undergrounding of Permanent Replacement, Relocated or Reconstructed
Facilities. If the City finds that one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 704.060 subd. 1 would be
promoted, the City may require a permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of a Facility to be
located, and maintained underground, with due regard for seasonal working conditions. For purposes of
this subdivision, reconstruction means any substantial repair or relocation of or any improvement to
existing Facilities. Undergrounding may be required whether a replacement, relocation or reconstruction
is initiated by the right-of-way user owning or operating the Facilities, or by the City in connection with
(1)the present or future use by the City or other local government unit of the right-of-way or other public
ground for a public project, (2)the public health or safety, or(3)the safety and convenience of travel over
the right-of-way. Subject to Subdivision 4 below, all relocations from previously placed underground
facilities shall be to another underground location.
Subd.4. Exceptions to Undergrounding. The following exceptions to the strict application
of this Subdivision shall be allowed upon the conditions stated:
A. Technical/Economic Feasibility; Promotion of Policy. Above-ground installation,
construction, or placement of Facilities shall be allowed in residential, commercial and
industrial areas where the council, following consideration and recommendation by the
planning commission,finds that:
1. Underground placement would place an undue financial burden upon the
landowner or City ratepayers or would substantially deprive the landowner
of the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; or,
2. Underground placement is demonstrated to be not technically feasible due
to topographical, subsoil or other existing conditions which adversely affect
underground Facilities placement; or,
3. Failure to promote the purposes of undergrounding. The right-of-way user
clearly and convincingly demonstrates that none of the purposes under
Section 704.060 would be advanced by underground placement of Facilities
on the project in question, or the City determines on its own review that
undergrounding is not warranted based on the circumstances of the
proposed undergrounding.
B. Temporary Service. Above-ground installation, construction, or placement of
temporary service lines shall only be allowed:
1. During new construction of any project for a period not to exceed three (3)
months;
2. During an emergency in order to safeguard lives or property within the
City;
3. For a period of not more than seven (7) months when soil conditions make
excavation impractical.
C. Facilities Subject to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 216B.243 and chapter 216E.
Facilities that are subject to certificate of need and siting and routing requirements
of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission are exempted from this section to the
extent that the City's undergrounding authority is preempted by law.
6
Page 69 of 84
Subd. 5. Developer Responsibility. All owners of land, applicants seeking to plat real
property, or developers seeking to develop and build upon land within the City are responsible for
complying with the requirements of this Subdivision, and prior to final approval of any plat or
development plan, shall submit to the Director written instruments from the appropriate right-of-way
users showing that all necessary arrangements with said users for underground installation of such
Facilities have been made.
Sec. 704.07. Registration and Right-of-Way Occupancy.
(a) Registration. Each person who occupies,uses, or seeks to occupy or use the right-of-
way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right-of-way, including persons with
installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment,must
register with the director. Registration will consist of providing application information
and paying a registration fee.
(b) Registration prior to work. No person may construct, install,repair,remove,relocate,
or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or any part thereof in any right-of-way
without first being registered with the director.
(c) Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a
City ordinance permitting persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in
the area of the right-of-way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting
or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the
right-of-way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits under this article or satisfy
any other requirements for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens
under this article.
Sec. 704.08. Registration Information.
(a) Information required. The information provided to the director at the time of
registration shall include, but not be limited to:
(1)Each registrant's name, Gopher One Call registration certificate number, address
and e-mail address,if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers.
(2)The name, address and e-mail address,if applicable, and telephone and facsimile
numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be available at
all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an
emergency shall be provided at the time of registration.
(3)A certificate of insurance or self-insurance:
a.Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the registrant by an insurance
company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota,or a form of self-
insurance acceptable to the director;
b.Verifying that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including
death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the use and occupancy of
the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and
Page 70 of 84
placement and use of facilities and equipment in the right-of-way by the registrant, its
officers, agents, employees and permittees, including,but not limited to,protection
against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities
and collapse of property;
c.Naming the City as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein
are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such
coverages;
d. Requiring that the director be notified 30 days in advance of cancellation of the
policy or material modification of a coverage term;
e. Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage,workers
compensation and umbrella coverage established by the director in amounts sufficient
to protect the City and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this
article..
(4)The City may require a copy of the insurance policies.
(5)If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate of corporation that has been
recorded and certified to by the secretary of state pursuant to state statutes.
(6)A copy of the person's order granting a certificate of authority from the state public
utilities commission or other applicable state or federal agency,where the person is lawfully
required to have such certificate from said commission or other state or federal agency.
(b) Notice of changes. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed in subsection
(a)of this section current at all times by providing to the director information as to
changes within 15 days following the date on which the registrant has knowledge of any
change.
Sec. 704.09. Reporting Obligations.
(a) Operations.
(1) Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each
year,file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with
the director. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the director
and shall contain the information determined by the director to be necessary to
facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and
obstructions of rights-of-way.
(2) The plan shall include,but not be limited to,the following information:
a. The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects
to be commenced during the next calendar year(in this section,a"next-year
project"); and
a
Page 71 of 84
b. To the extent known,the tentative locations and estimated beginning and
ending dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next
calendar year(in this section, a"five-year project").
The term "project" in this section shall include both next-year projects and five-
year projects. By January 1 of each year the director will have available for
inspection in the director's office a composite list of all projects of which the
director has been informed in the annual plans. All registrants are responsible for
keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by
February 1, each registrant may change any project in its list of next-year projects,
and must notify the director and all other registrants of all such changes in said list.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may, at any time, join in a next-year
project of another registrant listed by the other registrant.
(b) Additional next-year projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing,the director will not deny an
application for a right-of-way permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the
City if the registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the
project.
Sec. 704.10. Issuance of Permit; Conditions.
Subd. 1. Permitlssuance. If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this chapter,the city shall
issue a permit.
Subd.2. Conditions The city may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and
the performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary
to protect the right-of-way and its current use.
Sec. 704.11. Permit Fees. [Note: Sample fee schedules included in the appendix; also note that
Minn.Rule 7819.1000 establishes requirements for establishing fees.]
Subd. 1. Excavation Permit Fee. The city shall establish an Excavation permit fee in an amount
sufficient to recover the following costs:
(a)the city management costs;
(b)degradation costs, if applicable.
(c) escrow fee to secure the payment of City"out of pocket"expenses.
Subd.2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The city shall establish the obstruction permit fee and shall be in an
amount sufficient to recover the city management costs.
Subd.3. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without
payment of excavation or obstruction permit fees. The city may allow applicant to pay such fees within
thirty(30)days of billing.
9
Page 72 of 84
Subd.4. Non Refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the city has revoked for a breach
as stated in Section 1.22 are not refundable.
Subd. 5. Application to Franchises Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise,management costs may
be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right-of-way user in the
franchise.
Sec. 704.12. Right-of-Way Patching and Restoration.
Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of
the right-of-way as required herein,must be completed within the dates specified in the permit,increased
by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee
or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 1.16.
Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall patch its own work. The city may choose either to
have the permittee restore the right-of-way or to restore the right-of-way itself.
(a) City Restoration. If the city elects to restores the right-of-way,permittee shall make the
restoration and pay the costs thereof within thirty(30)days of billing. If, following such
restoration,the pavement settles due to permittee's improper backfilling,the permittee shall pay to
the city,within thirty(30)days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work.
(b)Permittee Restoration. If the permittee restores the right-of-way itself, it shall at the time of
application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the
provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000.
(c)Degradation Fee in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu of right-of-way restoration, a right-of-way
user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However,the right-of-way user shall remain responsible
for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities.
Subd.3. Standards. The permittee shall perform excavation,backfilling,patching and restoration
according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota
Rule 7819.1100.
Subd.4. Duty to Correct Defects The permittee shall correct defects in patching or restoration
performed by permittee or its agents. The permittee upon notification from the city, shall correct all
restoration work to the extent necessary,using the method required by the city. Said work shall be
completed within five(5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the city,not including days
during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when
work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable under Section 1.16.
Subd.5. Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right-of-way in the manner and to the
-condition required by the city, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the
city,the city at its option may do such work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the city,within thirty
(30)days of billing,the cost of restoring the right-of-way. If permittee fails to pay as required,the city
may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond.
io
Page 73 of 84
Subd 6. Installation of Tracer Wire. Utilities installed in the right-of-way shall be completely marked
with a tracer wire placed directly above or in conjunction with the installed utility at the developer's
expense. Burial depth shall be within 6 to 18 inches of final grade. In addition the termination points
where the utility crosses in,to and out of the right-of-way shall have buried pins or markers,both of
which shall be detectable with a magnetic locator. At least one of these markers shall be a tracer wire
access box with termination points for the tracer wire. A minimum of 12 inches of tracer wire shall be
accessible above the termination box upon removal of the tracer wire access box cap. Tie points to
permanent structures shall be submitted and GPS coordinates in the Washington County Coordinate
system shall be supplied. Acceptable tracer wire and termination boxes shall be the following or
equivalent as determined by the City.
• Direct Burial #12 AWG Solid (.0808"diameter), steel core soft drawn high strength tracer wire,
380#average tensile break load, 30 mil high molecular weight-high density color coded
polyethylene jacket complying with ASTM-D-1248, 30 volt rating.
• Valvco cast iron head Tracer Wire Access box
Access box shall be placed near final grade with no more than a layer of sod above the access cap. If
water and sewer are in a common trench, a single tracer wire access box may be used above the water line
with details on the tie card of the offset to the sewer pin and the sewer trace wire following the right of
way border to the location pin for the sewer line. A written plan and sketch shall be submitted prior to
installation identifying the location and mitigation measure that will be required. A deposit of$1000 shall
be held by the City of Oak Park Heights until compliance with location requirements are met. Additional
deposits will be required and held by the City of Oak Park Heights for any project which has the potential
to impact City owned infrastructure. This includes any cuts or borings in,to, or under city streets,trails or
storm drainage areas. This may, at the City's discretion, also be required when equipment will be
traversing city infrastructure.
A separate permit for utility tie-in and inspections is required for connections to existing City of Oak Park
Heights utilities. All utility access charges must be current before a permit for connection will be issued.
Complex connections involving items such as wet taps,looped lines, fire flow lines, new wyes,or shut off
of services will incur additional costs.
Sec. 704.13. Joint Applications.
Subd. 1. Joint application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to excavate or obstruct the right-
of-way at the same place and time.
Subd.2. Shared fees. Registrants who apply for permits for the same obstruction or excavation,which
the city does not perform,may share in the payment of the obstruction or excavation permit fee. In order
to obtain a joint permit,registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and
indicate the same on their applications.
Subd.3. With city projects. Registrants who join in a scheduled obstruction or excavation performed by
the city,whether or not it is a joint application by two or more registrants or a single application, are not
required to pay the excavation or obstruction and degradation portions of the permit fee,but a permit
would still be required.
Sec. 704.14. Supplementary Applications.
Page 74 of 84
Subd. 1. Limitation on Area. A right-of-way permit is valid only for the area of the right-of-way
specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as
provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit
must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area(i)make application for a
permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and(ii)be granted a new permit or permit
extension.
Subd.2. Limitation on Dates. A right-of-way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit.
No permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue
working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date,It must apply
for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old
permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be
submitted before the permit end date.
Sec. 704.15. Other Obligations.
Subd. 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining a right-of-way permit does not relieve permittee of
its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the
city or other applicable rule,law or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local,
state and federal laws,including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Section 216D.01-.09(Gopher
One Call Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560. A permittee shall perform all
work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible
for all work done in the right-of-way pursuant to its permit,regardless of who does the work.
Subd.2. Prohibited Work. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the city,no right-of-way
obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable
for such work.
Subd.3. Interference with Right-of-Way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a right-of-way that the
natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with.
Private vehicles of those doing work in the right-of-way may not be parked within or next to a permit
area,unless parked in conformance with city parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks
must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit.
Subd.4. Trenchless Excavation. As a condition of all applicable permits,permittees employing
trenchless excavation methods,including but not limited to Horizontal Directional Drilling, shall follow
all requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560, and
shall require potholing or open cutting over existing underground utilities before excavating, as
determined by the director.
Sec. 704.16. Denial of Permit.
The city may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this chapter or if the
city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to
protect the right-of-way and its current use.
Sec. 704.17. Installation Requirements.
The excavation,backfilling,patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right-of-way
12
Page 75 of 84
shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local
requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and
237.163. Installation of service laterals shall be performed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter
7560 and these ordinances. Service lateral installation is further subject to those requirements and
conditions set forth by the city in the applicable permits and/or agreements referenced in Section 1.23
subd. 2 of this ordinance.
Sec. 704.18. Inspection.
Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed,the permittee
shall fiarnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300.At the request of the
Director,the permittee shall at their own expense provide a video-tape(televise)of all newly installed
infrastructure.
Subd. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work-site available to the city and to all others as
authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of
the work.
Subd 3. Authority of Director.
(a)At the time of inspection,the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which
poses a serious threat to the life,health, safety or well-being of the public.
(b) The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work that does not conform to the
terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that
failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten(10)days
after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has
been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time,the director may
revoke the permit pursuant to Sec. 1.22.
Sec. 704.19. Work Done Without a Permit.
Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event
regarding its facilities that it considers to be an emergency. The registrant may proceed to take whatever
actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Excavators' notification to Gopher State One Call
regarding an emergency situation does not fulfill this requirement. Within two(2)business days after
the occurrence of the emergency,the registrant shall apply for the necessary permits,pay the fees
associated
Therewith, and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this
chapter for the actions it took in response to the emergency.
If the city becomes aware of an emergency regarding a registrant's facilities,the city will attempt to
contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected,by the emergency. In
any event,the city may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the emergency,the cost of
which shall be borne by the registrant whose facilities occasioned the emergency.
Subd.2. Non Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having
obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right-of-way must subsequently obtain a permit
and, as a penalty,pay double the normal fee for said permit,pay double all the other fees required by the
13
Page 76 of 84
city code, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right-of-way, and comply
with all of the requirements of this chapter.
Sec. 701.20. Supplementary Notification.
If the obstruction or excavation of the right-of-way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the
permit,permittee shall notify the city of the accurate information as soon as this information is known.
Sec. 704.21. Revocation of Permits.
Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The city reserves its right, as provided herein,to revoke any right-of-way
permit without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute,
ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by permittee
shall include,but shall not be limited to,the following:
(a)The violation of any material provision of the right-of-way permit;
(b)An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of-way permit, or the
perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens;
(c)Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right-of-way permit;
(d)The failure to complete the work in a timely manner,unless a permit extension is obtained or
unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; or
(e)The failure to correct, in a timely manner,work that does not conform to a condition indicated
on an order issued pursuant to Sec. 1.19.
Subd.2. Written Notice of Breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial
breach of a term or condition of any statute,ordinance,rule,regulation or any condition of the permit,
the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall
state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated
above,will allow the City, at its discretion,to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to
mitigate and remedy the breach.
Subd.3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within twenty-four(24)hours of receiving notification of the
breach,permittee shall provide the city with a plan, acceptable to the City,that will cure the breach. The
permittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to timely submit an acceptable plan,or
permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation
of the permit. Further,permittee's failure to so contact the City, or permittee's failure to submit an
acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically
place the permittee on probation for one(1)full year.
Subd.4. Cause for Probation. From time to time,the city may establish a list of conditions of the
permit,which if breached will automatically place the permittee on probation for one full year, such as,
but not limited to,working out of the allotted time period or working on right-of-way grossly outside of
the permit authorization.
Subd.5. Automatic Revocation. If a permittee,while on probation,commits a breach as outlined
above,permittee's permit will automatically be revoked and permittee will not be allowed further
14
Page 77 of 84
permits for one full year, except for emergency repairs.
Subd. 6. Reimbursement of city costs If a permit is revoked,the permittee shall also reimburse the city
for the city's reasonable costs,including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable
attorneys'fees incurred in connection with such revocation.
Sec. 704.22. Mapping Data.
Subd. 1. Information Required Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information at
their expense as required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100.
Within ninety(90) days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit,the permittee shall
provide the director accurate maps and drawings certifying the"as-built" location of all equipment
installed, owed and maintained by the permittee. Such maps and drawings shall include the horizontal
and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided consistent with the city's
electronic mapping system,when practical or as a condition imposed by the director. Failure to provide
maps and drawings pursuant to this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's
registration and the withholding of any escrow funds.
Subd.2. Service Laterals. All permits issued for the installation or repair of service laterals,other than
minor repairs as defined in Minnesota Rules 7560.0150 subpart 2, shall require the permittee's use of
appropriate means of establishing the horizontal locations of installed service laterals, and the service
lateral vertical locations in those cases where the director reasonably requires it. Permittees or their
subcontractors shall submit to the director evidence satisfactory to the director of the installed service
lateral locations. Compliance with this subdivision 2 and with applicable Gopher State One Call law and
Minnesota Rules governing service laterals install after December 31,2005, shall be a condition of any
city approval necessary for 1)payments to contractors working on a public improvement project
including those under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and 2)city approval of performance under
development agreements, or other subdivision or site plan approval under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
462. The director shall reasonably determine the appropriate method of providing such information to
the city. Failure to provide prompt and accurate information on the service laterals installed may result
in the revocation of the permit issued for the work or for future permits to the offending permittee or its
subcontractors Also see Sec 1.13.
Sec. 704.23. Location and Relocation of Facilities.
Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act,with other
applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5 100,to the extent the rules
do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. See 1008.040.
Subd.2. Corridors. The city may assign a specific area within the right-of-way, or any particular
segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of facilities that is or,pursuant to current technology,
the city expects will someday be located within the right-of-way. All excavation, obstruction, or other
permits issued by the city involving the installation or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper
corridor for the facilities at issue.
Any registrant who has facilities in the right-of-way in a position at variance with the corridors
established by the city shall,no later than at the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of the area
15
Page 78 of 84
where the facilities are located,move the facilities to the assigned position within the right-of-way,
unless this requirement is waived by the city for good cause shown,upon consideration of such factors as
the remaining economic life of the facilities,public safety, customer service needs and hardship to the
registrant.
Subd.3. Nuisance. One year after the passage of this chapter, any facilities found in a right-of-way that
have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The city may exercise any remedies or rights
it has at law or in equity, including,but not limited to, abating the nuisance or taking possession of the
facilities and restoring the right-of-way to a useable condition.
Subd.4. Limitation of Space. To protect health, safety, and welfare, or when necessary to protect the
right-of-way and its current use,the city shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or
additional facilities within the right-of-way. In making such decisions,the city shall strive to the extent
possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right-of-way,but shall be guided
primarily by considerations of the public interest,the public's needs for the particular utility service,the
condition of the right-of-way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities,the protection of existing
facilities in the right-of-way, and future city plans for public improvements and development projects
which have been determined to be in the public interest.
Sec. 704.24 Pre-excavation Facilities Location.
In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation
Notice System")before the start date of any right-of-way excavation, each registrant who has facilities or
equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and vertical placement of all said
facilities. Any registrant whose facilities are less than twenty(20)inches below a concrete or asphalt
surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its
facilities and the best procedure for excavation.
Sec. 704.25. Damage to Other Facilities.
When the city does work in the right-of-way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a
registrant's facilities to protect it,the city shall notify the local representative as early as is reasonably
possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that registrant and must be paid within thirty
(30) days from the date of billing. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any
facilities in the right-of-way which it or its facilities damage. Each registrant shall be responsible for the
cost of repairing any damage to the facilities of another registrant caused during the city's response to an
emergency occasioned by that registrant's facilities.
Sec. 704.26. Right-of-Way Vacation.
Reservation of right. If the city vacates a right-of-way that contains the facilities of a registrant,the
registrant's rights in the vacated right-of-way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200.
16
Page 79 of 84
Sec. 704.27. Indemnification and Liability
By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this chapter, a registrant or permittee agrees
to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250.
Sec. 704.28. Abandoned and Unusable Facilities.
Subd.1. Discontinued Operations A registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of
its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant's obligations
for its facilities in the right-of-way under this chapter have been lawfully assumed by another registrant.
Subd.2. Remova& Any registrant who has abandoned facilities in any right-of-way shall remove it
from that right-of-way if required in conjunction with other right-of-way repair, excavation,or
construction,unless this requirement is waived by the city.
Sec. 704.29. Appeal.
A right-of-way user that: (1)has been denied registration; (2)has been denied a permit; (3)has had a
permit revoked; (4)believes that the fees imposed are not in conformity with Minn. Stat. § 237.163,
Subd. 6; or(5)disputes a determination of the director regarding Section 1.23 subd. 2 of this ordinance
may have the denial,revocation,fee imposition, or decision reviewed,upon written request,by the city
council. The city council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting,
provided the right-of-way user has submitted its appeal with sufficient time to include the appeal as a
regular agenda itern. A decision by the city council affirming the denial,revocation,or fee imposition
will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision.
Sec. 704.30. Severability.
If any portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction,such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Nothing in this chapter precludes the city from requiring a
franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law,in addition to requirements set forth herein.
Revised: February 2012
17
Page 80 of 84
City of Oak Park Heights
RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FORM
CITY PERMIT NO.: 20 - PERMIT FEE:minimum $150.00
COMPANY PERMIT NO.: I I DATE:
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
DEVELOPMENT/ADDITION/LOCATION DESCRIPTION OR. SITE ADDRESS:
OWNER(Applicant):
UTILITY COMPANY: CONTACT PERSON:
TELEPHONE NO: ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE:
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION:
CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK:
CONTRACT NAME: CONTRACT NUMBER: PHONE:
CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK MUST ATTACH CURRENT CERTIFCATE OF INSUARCE NAMING
THE CITY AS AN ADDITIONALLY INSURED AND IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN$1,000,000.WITHOUT
SUCH PROOF OF INSURANCE NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED.
TYPE OF WORK:
❑NEW PRIVATE UTILITY
❑REPLACE/REPAIR
❑COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRON(WIDTH?) feet
❑RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY APRON(WIDTH?) feet
CONNECTION TO CITY SYSTEM(REQUIRES PREPAYMENT OF ACCESS FEES):
❑WATERMAIN ❑STORM SEWER ❑SANITARY SEWER ❑OTHER
WHAT THE WORK WILL INVOLVE(REQUIRES SECURITY TO PROTECT INFRASTRUCTURE/COMPLETE
RESTORATION. Complex plans may incur additional costs for mitigation plan review and inspections. Must include erosion
control,protective measures,and restoration plans—all new utilities must be fully located for future GSOC requirements):
❑STREET OPEN CUT(requires approved plan with access,traffic control,and inspected full width restoration-security
required)
❑PATHWAY CUT (requires approved plan with full width restoration and security for restoration)
❑EXCAVATION IN BOULEVARD or CITY OWNED PROPERTY(requires approved plan and security for restoration)
❑R.O.W.ACCESS(requires approved plan on use,control,mitigation and restoration. Must have full marldng of new
utilities)
EXPLANATION OF WORK/ADDITIONAL COMIVIENNTS:
18
Page 81 of 84
PROPOSED START DATE:
PROPOSED END DATE:
Applicant agrees to abide by and follow all applicable ordinances,laws,rules,and regulations of all regulatory bodies,
including but not limited to city,county,state or federal regulatory agencies. Applicant acknowledges that placement
of its utilities in any Right-of-way is subject to the rights and rules of the City Of Oak Park Heights.Damage,loss or
destruction of applicant's facilities and/or its resulting business interruption will not be restored,compensated or
reimbursed by the City in the event the City needs to remove,relocate or terminate such facilities while accessing its
utility services in the area for any reason. Private utility locates are required by the owner and/or applicant for the
utility in the Right-of-way and in perpetuity.
The Applicant shall provide,at its sole expense,full"as-built"drawings for all infrastructure installed in the City
Right-of-way.All"as-built"drawings shall be completed by a licensed Minnesota Engineer or Surveyor."As-builts"
shall be provided in paper and digital form acceptable to the City of Oak Park Heights including GPS coordinates in
the Washington County Coordinate system. The City additionally reserves the right to remove and/or deactivate any
and all installed infrastructure placed in its Right-of-way should these"as-builts"not be provided or should these prove
inaccurate.
The Applicant accepts in perpetuity the responsibility to perform at its expense all necessary locates(Gopher State One
Calls)that may arise or be requested in the future by the City or other parties.The Applicant does release and hold
harmless the City from any and all responsibility for utility/service locates.
APPLICANT SIGNATURE—by your signature you accept and agree to all conditions as stated above.Must be signed
by owner,president or CEO of firm installing utilities.
Name
Title
Signature
Date:
Phone#:
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECURITY ESCROW AMOUNT REQUIRED:S
HAS PROOF IOF INSURANCE BEEN SUPPLIED?
TYPE OF FINANCIAL SECURITY: ❑CASH/CHECK ❑ANNUAL
APPROVAL SIGNATURE: TITLE: DATE:
19
Page 82 of 84
RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES & CHARGES
Base Permit Fee $150+Escrow Deposit
Includes initial review,plan and restoration review,permit issuance and tracking, one final inspection.
Additional Hourly Fee $60 per hour
Based on regular hour rate, does not include overtime or minimum hours for non-standard work hours.
Engineer/Legal Services Actual Cost+10%
Developer is required to pay for all City-out of pocket expenses; e.g. contract work as required by the City
for review,testing, additional mapping, digitizing, survey work,recording, etc.
Re-inspections (%hr min) $60 per hour.
Escrow Deposit Requirements:
Tracer wire installations in grass ROW shall have a$1,000 deposit,minimum, in case engineer needs to
be brought in to survey and perform a trace. Separate escrow amounts will be required for street or trail
impacts or other excavations based on proposed project,materials and areas to be disrupted. Fees for
trenching, excavation, and additional infrastructure impacts will be estimated prior to permit issue and be
adjusted for additional work on an hourly basis.
ao
Page 83 of 84
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 84 of 84