HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 06-11-2001 " ILE
ir=
,,,AR EN HILLS
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL
MONDAY,JUNE 11,2001, 6:30 P.M.
***NOTE MEETING TIME***
6
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP
1, Standards
2. Process
City Philosophy
To provide a basic and necessary scope of quality services
through the innovative and purposeful use of resources.
7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order
7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Meeting Agenda
7:30 P.M. 3. Public Informational Meeting-Lake Johanna Residents
7:30 P.M. 4. Approval of Minutes
a. April 30, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP
Discussion
b. May 14, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP
Discussion
C. May 14, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting
d. May 21, 2001 City Council Worksession
e. May 29, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP
Discussion
f. May 29, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting
7:40 P.M. 5. Consent Calendar
Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate
discussion of these items,unless a Council member so requests,in which event,the item will be
removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence
on the agenda.
a. Claims and Payroll
City of Arden Hills • 4364 West Round Lake Road Arden Hills,MN • 55112-5794
Phone(651)633-5676 • Fax: (651)633-7839 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
r
AGENDA - PAGE TWO
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL
MONDAY,JUNE 11,2001, 6:30 P.M.
7:40 P.M. 6. Public Comments
This is an opportunity or citizens to bring to the Council Os attention any items not currently on
the agenda. In addressing the Council,please state your name and address for the record,and
a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time
for each person wishing to address the Council,we ask that individuals limit their comments to
three(3)minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting,
or as bench copies,to allow a more timely presentation.
7:45 P.M. 7. Unfinished and New Business
a. Planning Cases
1. Case #01-20, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance,
Schedule Public Hearing
2. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case#00-39, Right-of-Way Ordinance (Second Read)
B. Adopt Ordinance#326, Amending Chapter 8 of
Existing City Code, Adding Article VI, Section 8-60,
Incorporation of Right-of-Way Management •
Regulations
C. Adopt Ordinance 327 Relating to Ordinance #326,
Incorporation of Right-of-Way Management
Regulations to the City Code, Adding Chapter 360
b. City Hall Construction
1. Monument Sign Revisions
C. Arden Tower Discussion
7:50 P.M. 8. Administrator Comments
7:55 P.M. 9. Council Comments
8:00 P.M. 10. Adjourn
The above times may vary depending upon length of issue discussion.
_r
FMeeting
tative June Meeting Schedule Tentative July Meeting Schedule
times and locations are subject to change.t City Hall for the most current schedule. Meeting dates,times and locations are subject to change.
Please contact City Hall for the most current schedule
R HOURS BEGIN JUNE 4,2001 July 4 Holiday
June 6 Planning Commission 7:30 P.M. July 5 Planning Commission 7:30 P.M.
June 11 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M. July 9 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M.
June 18 Council Worksession 4:45 P.M. July 19 Operations&Finance 7:00 P.M.
June 21 Operations&Finance 7:00 P.M. Committee
Committee
July 16 Council Worksessioa 4:45 P.M.
June 23 Day in the Park All Day
July 24 Parks&Recreation 7:001'.M.
Fiftieth Anniversary
Committee
Tony Schmidt Park
June 25 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M. July 25 Communications 7:00 A.M.
Committee
June 26 Parks&Recreation 7:00 P.M. Jul 30 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M.
Committee Y
June 27 Communications 7:00 A.M.
Committee
iF 1 ,1
Rice Creek Watershed
3585 N.LEXINGTON AVENUE,SUITE 330
ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA 55126-8056
PHONE(651) 766-4191 • FAX(651) 766-4196
June 7, 2001 www.mnwate htm
Board of Manage
Regular Meetings:
2nd and 4th Wednesdays
at Shoreview City Hall
Arden Hills Cit Council R+'g KATE DREWRY,District Admin.
y � ,f"`1 `i�'�" BONITA TORPE,Admin.Assist.
Go Joseph P. Lynch
City Administrator J U lel
City of Arden Hills
4364 West Round Lake Road irks u l L'S
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112-5794
Arden Hills City Council:
It is our understanding the City Council of Arden Hills is contemplating what to do about
your current city ordinance regarding the placement of buoys for speed control on Lake
Johanna, and is requesting input regarding the ordinance and the enforcement thereof. We
• will be unable to attend your meeting but we would like to provide written comment.
It is our opinion that shoreline erosion is a tremendous problem on many of our urban
lakes. Lake Johanna is not exempt from this problem. Lake shoreline erosion is usually
caused by a combination of factors, including fluctuating water levels resulting from
excessive storm water inflow, heavy wave action, upland runoff, and insufficient and/or
inappropriate lakeshore vegetation.
We have been advising homeowners on Lake Johanna on methods of reducing and
slowing shoreline erosion. Your ordinance restricting watercraft speeds close to the
shoreline is an excellent start at reducing heavy wave action. With this reduction of heavy
wave action, sufficient and appropriate vegetation will have an opportunity to thrive and
thus reduce some of the shoreline erosion.
For the purpose of your meeting,we would like to applaud any and all actions at your
disposal to reduce heavy wave action caused by watercraft traveling too fast and too close
to the shoreline.
Sincerely,
Katebrewry
District Administrator
BOARD OF MANAGERS
A.J.CARDINAL,SR. TOM WADDELL JAMES A.LEROUX ORDEEN J.BRAATHEN ROBIN C.DOEGE
ANOKA COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY ANOKA COUNTY
EMMONS&OLIVIER RESOURCES Consulting Engineers 651-770-8448•Co-Counsel:HAROLD H.SHEFF 612-332-1000,MICHELLE J.ULRICH 651-699-9845
wFILE
,,-AEN HILLS
June 1, 2001
Dear Homeowner:
The City Council of Arden Hills is contemplating what to do about the current ordinance
regarding the placement of buoys on Lake Johanna. These buoys need to be placed to delineate
the distance from the shoreline for speed control. The City Council would request input from
your respective associations regarding the ordinance and the enforcement thereof.
The City Council will be discussing this at their June 11, 2001 Council meeting. We invite you
to attend. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall at the address shown on this letterhead. If,
for any reason, you are unable to attend this meeting, your written comments prior to the meeting
are welcome.
I have enclosed a copy of the current ordinance for your review. If you have any questions,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
r`
J eph P. Lynch
ity Administrator
Enclosure
City of Arden Hills 4364 West Round Lake Road Arden Hills,MN 55112-5794
Phone(651)633-5676 • Fax: (651)633-7839 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
� m �,, Q 'C a1 •., d y ,� o ;a R O � .� ,q � v
O CL
`''
-dow � Aoo � gq.° °
o
R a0 �' o ~ +,4) CdN O w
44.4
GV .C'+ a) .Mi A m ~ q `~ �+ �" 'w aml m
N +' *m' O w b O 'd 'd *' ~ O a d *'{ 03 m 0 ° • +� w �+
Q v •�° O etl w eq cd..� O *'�d O eo w d w w
A d m 3 � d � � � � 310 = o �.'~ �," v m m qt;
U 3 o � ,� z -d � co 0C d -d � aoo d � 3 m o ,ti ,� +Q � x .b ,ti m
m , °0 q +' •q � C w wa v m .M •°^� °� >.,
%
4a 442 40
xQ aD0 d►. o] O • Q .
•�C m ~ q o
2 1-4 mm b as ,0 -'a -4 co .on o 44200 qv
om O wOw 'b
GO
Q eV
WD
9 + 1 � ' QoN CQ m ws . M Smvw m M " O 4 Nm
d 0 . � m tko m00 m m
p
I w z CD .� Cd 9 W O � •> cdw � �• O W .w � �w � m O � � a O
a r4 -0a d , + <� 'pz : a mcc C 'U Vv ^�
Q ..� m +' � '0 -d m � -0 CA m � m ami Q' Qj M. +m., r.
° o .4 � w 0�0
;m+ alc ° a mm w3omm
07-4 M00400 4 � � � ai +1 1 � a2
t apA N a� v w N R 44 •4 ° R a z
eq A A vmi ti ry - dW •V-4 cd aaT' wai m w4 -.
� *45 4) a vwwo tj wb v E04, r. 0 m
r- , I
m zF � � � �x m -0 .5 $d •bcw
w w d a) as "O m >1 0 !5 '5 'd a)
° m too
% � '45m m ' S
w 0 q w
d 3 C V m m " b N ° °
,a � ggaq , -vim •�
.� •'" of •E' 442 o q
d o > ao � aaa aea
4) B � m � ° m .WWc "� w3 •
9
atjv c +. O ww� a m g �a CO , wc44
'5
w .�4 00 0 . a
0 of
C4 w
z � °
q � Ow °' m�
_
8 O R m aab w m ~ ,w.� d' a
W I � N z -4) q Cq w bo CO 41 4 000
r.U � P4CODCd 4-D
W m � z q ami o � � � 40 -042 � � � e �
mom,e`0'ot a O •'" O W •N;� c° 0 as
• °o' >; c Q'y a m .�° w cq p .v ,A to -d O +, eoo 8 3
CODaM.ti E U �" o �' � Fi � ° a2 � �a pww d m
� 4 a .t cd b .q •.. 0 -0 os *+ I a
as a [.i ti o � _ off d i: ,, >- ad moo . a
r.
'< -5 X2 .0 .0 0 •^ >aU � (D � r b � � «
a00 .0 ►� � -G aqi v .0 .0 w � v o°'D v � N
J
+� 14j, ++ ' 4 O C 4a :9
tiFi 70
ca O00wQ mR+ pobNticd cd
3a4)i d o �o 0) izw � pO M
Q 'p '. .d a
�� •� ao" ° a • Go 0
as ° �
w
Uv O w 3 am _ y O 00 o to 0
om b ° � � ° ° 0p as Va � ao •° 4J ~ 41 00
pq
. od cd
a p aa0 4.. � 0 •, a00 4J 14 b Baa 04 -+0 -0
u�
2w N O O 7,, z N O q O ••- y. co
d 3 co 0
Oay N N r'ml .°a° g .b •i4mmgOm ama° aC �' zCMVa ,�+*aa 'Qj G4a cc Go 43
m °
m v o � S.b C%7a
•Z
4 4 a - b.mc w � a
w ° a
Am ° 0 � 10 � . d0
o oro
w ^ a) 4Oa O a. °9 tid m '�� � a Q,. > 4 0'o - 0 ^C tb M p ►N :a -A ,' 4400 , w
Q a4.,
44
a
•� O 4wi ay
w, w w d� 7l ae a) w b w O p1 p m O v i-7 m v w
pbd
Cq .� a o .a a'" 4-a as a w �
..
coo 4a CO
-de r t � 4 �Ij .04) we
3Ow. � a .2Cw w � a +°� vw . au • �a�iao m , � � p
y w, •"" •a ed ad 'b 0 0. 4C): Co: .G c7 ,p c0 p,•.,
ro
44 4)
4,1
No .'w 'da dm aw d .aa W04) b`'' m
� a. mav0Q � �
da ad m V o bpr, pq d
� bD „ A 4J _
N o
w � eoo m
ad ,-+ m ❑
v Q c]k 00N •� ti. v o a •{r °0 a ad N % 9 tOo 4) 4am ago ai
4 a� aai ad C q b cd .4.) v w N 0) 'd �,w b w w w Cd
4 d0
co
r.
vm> wq° w a0 ° � ay w cw +v w N' a°ad cd V00 � d) .c 0 4)
e
q . 4A m
Ci m O L�p
U + cc N �' � y NOX O
tl 0 .0 64
az a3aL. 'w
N au bo d C , ° p� • m ' •2md F w m R
ad
o ' 0 .4C N 0-+ p awi w p m Cd ad $4 O
04
co `Czwmw �w ad ��' +o, . w� N.�� •�.y. amWrW ..�y.w..
O w '' '
CmqPw w 91„4 � Ow C 4k +
ca 4) O � P-4 ad clo30 �l
,o$4ad s as o w
o +' w . o o ° O
od
° 0.� wai
N i Ow �p .4 ai $ °j a 3 b -0.0 O 0 14 ad cd 0 ad R. Cd a
aW = 4 •. R GL �.pO ' Oy a) V w afaWday'
v� a ad A '� C/1 V� N m a. ^C cd ° 3 a •o C!1 3 o U� E 0
KEITH W GILBERT RONALD V SCHMELZER STEPHEN H LEVINE
1466 SKILES LANE 1500 ARDEN PL W 1492 ARDEN PLACE
RDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
BRIAN P BROCKWAY ROBERT H CARLSON JR WILLIAM B KAPLAN
3369 SNELLING AVE N 3377 SNELLING AVE N 1556 ARDEN PLACE W
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
BRAD A LIS RAYMOND E JOHNSON GERALDINE HAGEN
1548 ARDEN PLACE 1540 ARDEN PLACE 1532 ARDEN PLACE
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
WILLARD E WOOD SPENCER A JOHNSON JOHN W LAMBROS
3470 STEMS COURT 3261 SNELLING AVE N 3213 RIDGEWOOD ROAD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
JAMES R BERGAN LILLIAN M MICHAEL DAVID C FRANK
1458 SKILES LANE 1454 SKILES LANE 3464 SIEMS COURT
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
* '
JOSEPH KAHNKE
EARL FORD LARRY D BUEGLEDGEWATER
R 1541 EDGEWATER AVE
1557 EDGEWATER AVE RD N HILLS TER AVE ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
JUDY LYNN HEIMLICH ROGER S WILLIAMS KATHRYN L REYERSON
3401 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3450 SIEMS COURT 3201 RIDGEWOOD ROAD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
HOWARD H ERICKSON ET AL DANIEL R MICHELS SCOTT D BRONSON
3442 SIEMS CT 3436 SIEMS COURT 3294 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55j12
JAMES R ANDREWS CHERYL A MAGNUSON MARY CANDACE MCCLOSKEY
3430 SIEMS CT 3493 SIEMS COURT 3290 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
038BECCA J KRIEG STEPHEN L NELSON WILLIE J PRICE
2 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3475 SIEMS COURT 3471 SIEMS COURT
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
JOEL A KENNEDY YEOU REN TSAI
3+4OLYN A MOHN65 STEMS COURT 3461 STEMS COURT CARCARRT
3459 STEMS COU
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS U 55112 '
FRED A SUTTER CHARLOTTE L MCNIESH CHARLES L ST SAUVER
1535 EDGEWATER AVE 3447 STEMS CT 3435 SIEMS COURT
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
BRUCE C HAGLUND L DANIEL KUECHENMEISTER SARA J MOHN
1450 SKILES LN W 3372 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3385 SNELLING AVE N
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ST PAUL MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
ARLENE P BOUTIN NANCY K HANSEN CURRENT RESIDENT
1600 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3368 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3489 SIEMS COURT
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
ROLF L OLIVER LISA M CARLSON CURTIS L ABRAHAM
3505 SIEMS COURT 3535 SIEMS COURT 3511 SIEMS COURT
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
PHYLLIS�A STENSTROM
ROBERT J TEELING GEORGE J KOERNER
3352 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3346 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 1618 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
PAUL K WAX ELIZABETH J STANTON EUGENE L BAUER ET AL
1622 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 1569 EDGEWATER AVE 1563 EDGEWATER AVE
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ST PAUL MN 55112 ST PAUL MN 55112
ADELE L FINNEMANN RICHARD G SCHIFSKY L J MCGOUGH ET AL
1626 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 1636 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 1666 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
CURRENT RESIDENT LOANN B CREPEAU DAVID T WOLD
1662 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3517 SIEMS COURT 1658 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD
ARDEN HILLS,MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
SHARON A DURHEIM RAYMOND R KRAUSE CAROLINE M GILBERT
1690 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 1680 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 1670 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE HERBERT W TOUSLEY III MONROE H KRONSTEDT
3003 SNELLING AVE N 3248 SANDEEN ROAD 1523 EDGEWATER AVE
ROSEVILLE MN 55113 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
0.
ROGER J DAY SAM M CLARK EARL NOLTING
3242 SANDEEN ROAD 3342 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3336 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
CAROL M CHRISTENSEN KATHLEEN M KLAWITER PAUL F ROLVAAG
3122 SHOREWOOD DRIVE 3262 SANDEEN ROAD 3260 SANDEEN ROAD
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
KENNETH S BEZDICEK PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF MINN INC WARREN C WILDES
3324 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3220 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3209 SHOREWOOD DRIVE
ARDEN HILLS MN 551127942 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
CURRENT RESIDENT JAMES K COOPER PATRICK M CLEPPER
3203 SHOREWOOD DRIVE 3191 SHOREWOOD DRIVE 3244 SANDEEN RD
Arden-Hills,MN ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
MARCELLA SEXTON ALBERT J MASON BRUCE A SOBER
3300 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3208 SHOREWOOD DRIVE 3200 SHOREWOOD DRIVE
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
CURRENT RESIDENT FREDERICK V FOX CURRENT RESIDENT
3280 SANDEEN ROAD 3168 SHOREWOOD DRIVE 3356 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD
ARDEN HILLS,MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS,MN 55112
JAMES W BOHN JOHN D LAMBERT DAVID H SHORT
3162 SHOREWOOD DRIVE 3330 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3156 SHOREWOOD DRIVE
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
KEITHMCFARLAND ELVIRA D SHEEHY GEORGE M BASS
3254 SANDEEN ROAD 1505 EDGEWATER AVE W 3150 SHOREWOOD DRIVE
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
IORNARD C BROUILLETTE CONNIE L NYMAN PETER R FUNNELL
3320 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3310 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD 3140 SHOREWOOD DRIVE
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
CURRENT RESIDENT DR ROLF R ENGEL ELMER L ANDERSEN
1A89 BUSSARD COURT 3265 N SNELLING AVE 1483 BUSSARD COURT
Arden Hills, MN 5 5 i 1 a ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
R DAVID RESCH WARREN G FORSLUND ROBERT H CARLSON
3427 SNELLING AVE N 3197 SHOREWOOD DR 1482 BUSSARD COURT
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
JEFFREY J FOG MARK C THOMPSON ROLAND E ENGEL
3421 SNELLING AVE N 3413 SNELLING AVE N 3263 SNELLING AVE N
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
GLADWIN DAS
1471 LAMETTI LANE
ARDEN HILLS MN 55112
JUN-04-2001 16:20 6517664156 P.01iO4
OB FLETCHER
fap7ec*�aEq`
AMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF
14 W. Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1648
Telephone: (651) 266-9300
Telefacsimiie: (651) 266-9328
COVER SHEET************r.. y�.xx**
DATE: - �
-� '
TIME:
TO: � �' FAX:
COUIPANY OR DEPARTMENT:
TOTAL V OF PAGES,I:VCLUDJjYG THIS PAGE:
FROM: DEPARTMENT .
COMMENTS: Y
TELEPHONE NUMBERS: RECORDS UNIT (651) 481-1300, 1317, 1323
FAX R (651) 766-4156
CO\TFIDENTIALITY DOTE*************
The documents in this telecopy transmission may contain information from the Ramsey County
Sheriffs Department which is confidential and/or legally privileged. This information is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission sheet. 'If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking
of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited and
that the documents should be returned to this Department immediately. In this regard; if you have
received this telecopy in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can arrange ,
for the return of the original documents to us at no cost to you.
S
o
PLz
CLr
c
0
m
m N
E $
i
to
o10 ZF
a o o�=mm mo A�
CD 1 O vi J N d
4tE'b E ° 5zE E °
1O dm
mmVC$ � � y EEi
m m h G m IA; p
14 Q: C sEL nYm mai
o m
E- LVC� +a D6 = o6
0 5 �v
5zpo ° ai cSGe �n� T ,
CO) 0.2 a
—d ° m a �m3ow 1aa°
oN
$ Y e aN ° om „ oma c
m L" m r' t�9 "o urCL
oi �LL� "zo �'pOo
A L G C O C d S �m
l0 N d C to C C 3 C S C
H m �, m E � 03 m� aa
d u .
30 .r La m C C �Y ND0 q5 42
Y A 2.
OLm CD
E3 u E c dna o ° og o �
c 'r ° pp EEE _ �, 4 # 3
m: �4y1 2Z s►A �n�v NZI a' to co NZ
1( C/� •'^fV W (V rN04 N U) m N
C
G
tm
° v C
N GCL
N .^ 1(l A ?(q 0 A a `�G �
3 �mr IT65 v m Infj
N
LL
ie m C 3� E ilii m H �
m
m c_ m G
p W t d $ d {0 c l0 C
A A a° -°, mtYO � 3mr�-
C
W
5
C W LUw CL 0-
N p N c U U c
V O m Sm J 7 2 2
VOIE0'd 9STb99LTS9 TZ:9T T00Z-b0-Nnf
4
b
io y
m CL
ID
wi
Ul
r }s y
O �
ro �
m
m � �
G w d
w CL w
m cM
dm a= c
v1
CO (D
d ° Elu$
61 o o E o
Er`/� w m
e pi i li d
_ c c
>. p � w C
�o c'
a o
'� Ndltl n o _ p
. o d o
� Z ^ m3 � 0 .m � h .52
c
O Og an d n m r x t m a m o
N vi �oY a� wo
VJCL
d C a O d c '$N gq�. O
N N N CD C c
� Y0
C V C „ 0 6�7 E �� 3 nC v S �
a ooam
nia W Z tnZ Q tYZZ ??� Zy
N N y �N r(V of fnS r/V
tv
0 C4
O
d d �q tNC cCL° d c A
JYWp _C m a G m� C
J m G J m.%S! G J O W.GN_ G 9�
m m �j J E00 a co
,m
cm
C
O
r.
'o m o s L a
VO/20'd 9STb99LTS9 TZ:9T T00Z-b0-Nnf
r
vo•d -ldlol
m
z
A � pvoOZ c
> L m
w
_d 1°
ui
A
E
v
td
� ro
ro
c
o a
e c
m Q
C
O U
w V]
� � D
m �
N� N
U3 = G$
01 m O m
` �Y a
0
Z` m
Ell $ E m a r
c
A Q:
E m wro io
iA ° w Z w
�► 2 �
o Hmt
e Q oo d a�
rn E
d C A a Smoa•�o a w �
7 V
A
E l cz M- CL
3 o O w c E d
to
$ a o 44
io
bEl
C .ti. Ei W000 � h 4 $ °c e ro u o
d enu),:t ��cngnm. o a � v E
� � o
N c'i p Q Z Vsj W d W Z
e �
eo c
4 �
a+ d
ec
O
m= ys
ct) Cdr
t cc
c �
O
4
N y
J O C* LD
cm 5 0 06
V
C O .0 O y l C cd
00 C,c u ui
price '
6616960671 04/19/01 02:12P P.002
t
Mdfie J. Price
3471 Siems Court
Arden Hills, NW 55112
651.636.0869
April 19, 2001
'ferry Post
I will try to make at least part of the meeting tonight, but I currently have three conflicts
during that time period.
Perhaps you will recall our conversation regarding Ordinance No. 181. Specifically
Section 4 (b)(1)Establishment and Designation 1'hercof. In essence this ordinance
requires the placement of buoys on Lake Johanna. Currently this is not being done. My
concerns are safety and property values.
Lake Johanna is not unique in the problem of unsafe and reckless operation of motorized
watercraft. In my opinion, this problem is exacerbated by its relatively small size.
Because of its smaller size, swimmers can often be observed swimming in various parts
of the lake. in addition, there are non-motorized watercraft operated by all ages, including
4P young and not so young. I have personally observed many families in canoes and small
boats. During the time I have lived on Lake Johanna, l have noticed one collision with
injuries and numerous near misses. I have heard comments from homeowners on the lake
as well as visitors to the lake commenting on safety issues and concerns, especially on
weekends. As a homeowner and taxpayer, I am concerned about the potential liability
resulting from litigation. In my opinion, failure to comply and-enforce an existing
ordinance places the city at unnecessary risk.
I may be mistaken, but I believe the homes on Lake Johanna to have one of the higher tax
bases in the city. We also have, in my opinion, a higher percentage of non-conforming
lots. Net result is many homes would have difficulty getting equipment down to the
shoreline to make necessary repairs. Many areas are experiencing shoreline erosion due
in part to boats going too fast too close to shore- Potential decrease in property value.
Boats are operating too close to shore because they don't realize they are too close.
Brings us right back to the buoys as called for in the ordinance. The water patrol can only
enibrce what it sees and it can't be everywhere all the time. When they are called after
the fact, little can be done.
I feel that placing the buoys as called for in the ordinance will assist in the facilitation of
safer boating conditions and reduced property damage.
1�
0 Its,
,,�—ARZEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Lake Johanna Ordinance & Speed Restriction Enforcement
DATE: June 7, 2001
ENC.: Section 459.20—Authority Over Public Waters,MN State Statutes
Chapter 86B.205—Water Surface Use Ordinance
Ordinance 249—Amending Speed Limits During Certain Hours
0 Background
At your City Council meeting June 11, 2001, the Council has invited Lake Johanna lakeshore
homeowners owners to a public informational meeting to give input on the current ordinance in
effect establishing a slow speed zone within 250 feet of the lakeshore.
A resident had brought a complaint into the City about the lack of enforcement and the presence
of buoys marking the 250 foot distance from lakeshore for the slow speed zone. He requested
that the council make a determination about whether they were going to enforce this provision of
the ordinance or consider changing it. He felt strongly that the City should enforce the ordinance
and should place buoys along the lakeshore 250 feet to provide delineation for Ramsey County
Water Patrol to enforce the speed zone limit within that area.
The Council directed staff to notify lakeshore home owners and ask for their input regarding this
ordinance. A copy of the letter and ordinance was enclosed(see enclosed) for their information.
I have received several calls inquiring about the meeting and the purpose of the review of the
ordinance. There seems to be some confusion in that people think that we may be considering
adopting a different ordinance but, it is very clear that people are well aware of the complaint
that City has received regarding the placement of buoys and the enforcement of that provision of
the ordinance.
City Attorney Jerry Filla will be in attendance and available to answer questions regarding the
current ordinance and if any amendments are made to that ordinance what that would mean in
term's of compliance with existing DNR regulations. As well,Mr. Filla will try to answer any
questions or comments that come up from the general public during the course of that meeting.
a
Memorandum
Lake Johanna Ordinance & Speed Restriction Enforcement r
June 7, 2001
Page 2
This is a public informational meeting not a public hearing but the Council will want to remind
residents to state their name and address for the record as if it was a public hearing. You may
also want to inquire if there is one individual that could speak for some, if not all, of the home
owners to reduce the amount of overlap of public testimony.
The Council will need to consider whether they want to amend the current ordinance in which
case we should indicate to the general public what that will mean in terms of compliance with
DNR regulations and when lakeshore owners, as well as other members of the general public,
can expect the City Council to call a public hearing on any proposed amendments. If the Council
does not want to consider amending the ordinance they should indicate to the general public and
the lakeshore homeowners what the plan will be for the enforcement of the current ordinance.
I have enclosed copies of the state statutes related to the regulation of public waters and water
surface use ordinance. Both the County Board and a Statutory City are allowed to place
regulations over the surface of a water body, either contained wholly or partially, within their
statutory limits. This is for background and information purposes.
I am assuming at this point that we will have a large number of lakeshore property owners
present and possibly many more than the City Council Chambers can hold. This is the first
scheduled item on the agenda.
Recommendations
There are no recommendations at this point other than the ones already mentioned which are to
remind the general public this is not a public hearing but rather a public informational meeting.
The Council will want to have homeowners state their name and address for the record. The
Council will also want to give clear indications about whether or not you intend to amend the
ordinance or not. If you amend the ordinance what that will mean in terns of expectations for
changes to meet current DNR regulations. If you do not make any amendments what the City
will do to meet expectations about enforcement of the current ordinance.
0
Jun-07-01 02 : 43P Ramsey SWCD 651 488 3478 P _ 01
Ratnse'*' S()il and Water Conservation District
2015 Rice Strcct
Roseville, MN 551 13-6814
Fax 651/488-3479
TeAcphone. 651,1/488-1476
June 7, 2001
Arden Hills City Council
City of Arden Hills
4364 West Round Lake Rd.
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794
To whom it may concern:
On June 4, 2001, Mr. Willie J. Price of 3471 Siems Court, Arden Hills, MN asked me to
submit a written statement to the Arden Hills City Council with regard to my views on
wave action generated by motorized boats and effects on shoreline erosion.
It has been my observation that under certain circumstances and physical conditions,
wave action generated by motorized boats can exacerbate shoreline erosion. If shoreline
erosion is a problem, appropriate conservation practices should be employed to prevent
further lose of shoreline and the resulting water quality damage.
If you have any questions, please call me at the District office.
Sincerely,
Tom P. Petersen
District Manager
C. Willie J. Price
Betty Cowie, Chair of the Ramsey SWCD Board of Supervisors
johanna lake letter.june 7,01
An l"JIM11 l)rtu)rtuniiv N,uil>I4iVrr
Minnesota Statutes 2000, 459.20 Page 1 of l
• Minnesota Statutes 2000, Table of Chapters
Table of contents-for Chapter_=159
459.20 Authority over public waters.
The governing body of any home rule charter or statutory
city or town in the state has, with respect to any body of water
situated wholly within its boundaries, all the powers to improve
and regulate the use of such body of water subject to section
86B.205, subdivision 6, as are conferred on county boards by
sections 86B.205 and 103F.801, and to establish and administer
lake improvement districts under sections 103B.501 to 103B..581.
With respect to any body of water situated wholly within the
contiguous boundaries of two or more home rule charter or
statutory cities or towns or any combination thereof, the city
councils and town boards may, under the provisions of section
4.71.-._59, jointly exercise such powers to improve and regulate the
use of the body of water subject to section 103F.751, as are
conferred on county boards by sections 86B.205 and 103F.801, and
to establish and administer lake improvement districts as
provided under sections 103B.501 to 103B.581, provided that no
home rule charter or statutory city or town may establish and
administer a lake improvement district or exercise any of the
powers granted in this section if a lake improvement district
covering the same territory has been created by a county board
under sections 103B.501 to 103B.581. References in sections
86B.205, 103B.501 to 103B.581, and 103F.801 to the county board
shall be construed to refer to the governing body of a home rule
charter or statutory city or the board of supervisors of a town.
HIST: 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 702 s 24; 1975 c 311 s 1;
1978 c 726 s 17; 1986 c 439 s 5; 1986 c 443 s 16, 17; 1990 c 391
art 8 s 46
Copyright 2000 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/459/2O.html 6/6/01
Minnesota Statutes 2000, 86B.205 Page 1 of 3
Minnesota Statutes 2000, Table of Chapters '
contents for Chanter 86B
Table of p
86B.205 Water surface use ordinance.
Subdivision 1. Assistance. The commissioner shall
develop and publish guidelines to assist counties adopting water
surface use ordinances for waters within their jurisdiction.
Subd. 2. Surface use ordinances. (a) A county board
may, by ordinance, regulate the surface use of bodies of water
located entirely or partially within the county and not located
entirely within the boundary of a single city or lake
conservation district established by law.
(b) If a body of water is located within more than one
county, a surface use ordinance is not effective until adopted
by the county boards of all the counties where the body of water
lies under section 471.59 or placed into effect by order of the
commissioner under subdivision 9.
(c) With the authorization of an affected city or lake
conservation district, a county board may assume and exercise
the powers in subdivisions 2 to 5 with respect to bodies of
water lying entirely within that city or lake conservation
district. The regulation by the county of the surface use of a
portion of a body of water located within the boundary of a city
must be consistent with any city regulation existing on May 25,
1973, of the surface use of that portion of the body of water.
After January 1, 1975, the ordinance must be consistent with the
provisions of this chapter and rules of the commissioner under
this chapter..
Subd. 3. Prior ordinances invalid without approval.
A surface use zoning ordinance adopted under subdivisions 2 to 5
by a local governmental unit after May 25, 1973, is invalid
unless it is approved by the commissioner.
Subd. 4 . Approval of ordinances. A proposed surface
use zoning ordinance must be submitted to the commissioner for
review and approval before adoption. The commissioner must
approve or disapprove the proposed ordinance within 120 days
after receiving it. If the commissioner disapproves the
proposed ordinance, the commissioner must return it to the local
governmental unit with a written statement of the reasons for
disapproval.
Subd. 5. County regulatory authority. A county board
may:
(1) regulate and police public beaches, public docks, and
other public facilities for access to a body of water, except:
(i) regulations are subject to subdivision 6;
(ii) a county board may not regulate state accesses; and
(iii) a municipality may by ordinance preempt the county
from exercising power under this subdivision within its
jurisdiction;
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/86B/205.html 6/6/01
Minnesota Statutes 2000, 86B.205 Page 2 of 3
(2) regulate the construction, configuration, size,
location, and maintenance of commercial marinas and their
related facilities including parking areas and sanitary
facilities in a manner consistent with other state law and the
rules of the commissioner of natural resources, the pollution
control agency, and the commissioner of health, and with the
applicable municipal building codes and zoning ordinances where
the marinas are located;
(3) regulate the construction, installation, and
maintenance of permanent and temporary docks and moorings in a
manner consistent with state and federal law, permits required
under chapter 103G, and sections .86B_- 1.11. and 8.6B_,.1.15;
(4) except as provided in subdivision 6, regulate the type
and size of watercraft allowed to use the body of water and set
access fees;
(5) subject to subdivision 6, limit the types and
horsepower of motors used on the body of water;
(6) limit the use of the body of water at various times and
the use of various parts of the body of water;
(7) regulate the speed of watercraft on the body of water
and the conduct of other activities on the body of water to
secure the safety of the public and the most general public use;
and
(8) contract with other law enforcement agencies to police
the body of water and its shore.
Subd. 6. Public access restrictions. The county
board must allow the same types and sizes of watercraft and
horsepower of motors to access and enter the lake or water body
as are generally allowed to be operated on the lake or water
body. Special use exceptions that are not dependent on
lakeshore or property ownership may be granted by permit.
Subd. 7. County acquisition of public access. A
county board may acquire by purchase, gift, or devise land for
public access to a lake or stream and may improve the land as a
park or playground if the land is less than ten acres and is
contiguous to the meander line of a navigable lake or stream
wholly or partly within the county and not entirely within the
corporate limits of a city.
Subd. 8. Advisory assistance. The county board may
invite any municipal council or town board or the soil and water
conservation district board of supervisors or watershed district
board of managers to designate a representative to advise and
consult with the county board on water use regulation and
improvement.
Subd. 9. Watercraft use rules for local waters. (a)
On request of a county, city, or town, the commissioner may,
after determining it to be in the public interest, establish
rules relating to the use of watercraft on waters of this state
that border upon or are within, in whole or in part, the
territorial boundaries of the governmental unit.
(b) The rules shall be established in the manner provided
by sections 14.02 to 14 .62, but may not be submitted to the
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/86B/205.html 6/6/01
r
Minnesota Statutes 2000, 86B.205 Page 3 of 3
attorney general nor filed with the secretary of state until r
first approved by resolutions of the county boards of a majority
of the counties affected by the proposed rules.
(c) The rules may restrict:
(1) the type and size of watercraft and size of motor that
may use the waters affected by the rule;
(2) the areas of water that may be used by watercraft;
(3) the speed of watercraft;
(4) the times permitted for use of watercraft; or
(5) the minimum distance between watercraft.
(d) When establishing rules, the commissioner shall
consider the physical characteristics of the waters affected,
their historical uses, shoreland uses and classification, and
other features unique to the waters affected by the rules.
(e) The commissioner shall inform the users of the waters
of the rules affecting them at least two weeks before the
effective date of the rules by distributing copies of the rules
and by posting of the public accesses of the waters. The
failure of the commissioner to comply with this paragraph does
not affect the validity of the rules or a conviction for
violation of the rules.
(f) The cost of publishing rules and of marking and posting
waters under this subdivision shall be paid by the counties
affected by the rules, as apportioned by the commissioner.
(g) Regulations or ordinances relating to the use of waters
of this state enacted by a local governmental unit before
January 1, 1972, shall continue in effect until repealed by the
local governmental unit or superseded by a rule of the
commissioner adopted under this subdivision.
HIST: 1990 c 391 art 9 s 10
Copyright 2000 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/86B/205.html 6/6/01
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
ORDINANCE NO. 249
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 2 OF CHAPTER 12
OF THE ARDEN HILLS CODE TO ESTABLISH
SPEED LIMITS IN OPEN ZONE OF LAKE JOHANNA
DURING CERTAIN HOURS
The City Council of Arden Hills ordains:
Section 1. Amendment to Caption of Section 12-28 of the
Arden Hills Code. The caption of Section 12-28 of the Arden
Hills, Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 12-28 . Maximum speed in restricted speed zone. "
Section 2. Amendment to Caption of Section 12-29 of Arden
Hills Code. The caption of Section 12-29 of the Arden Hills Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 12-29. Open zone. "
Section 3. Amendment to Section 12-30 of the Arden Hills
Code to Establish Speed Limits in Open Zone. Section 12-30 of
the Arden Hills Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
"Sec. 12-30. Restrictions and speed limits in open zone
during certain hours.s'
"Within the open zone, between the hours of 11:00
a.m. and 3 :00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on
each and every day of the week, no motorboat shall
be operated at a speed in excess of five miles per
hour. All other times during each and every day of
the week, no boats shall be operated in the open
zone at a speed in excess of 40 miles per hour. "
Section 4 . Amendment to Section 12-31 of Arden Hills Code.
Section 12-31 of the Arden Hills Code is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
"Sec. 12-31 . Direction of travel in open zone during
certain times.
- 1 -
w
"Within the open zone, during the hours in which
operating speeds of up to forty ( 40) miles per hour
are permitted, all motorboats shall travel and be
operated in a counterclockwise direction around
Lake Johanna. "
Section 5 . Effective Date. • This Ordinance shall be
effective from and after its passage ynd public tion.
Passed by the Council this day of , 1987.
Robert Woodburn, Mayor
Atte
t
c
atricia o rison
Clerk-Administrator
2 -
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA DRAFT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING,TCAAP DISCUSSION
APRIL 30,2001
6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular
City Council meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski,David Grant,
Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem.
Absent: None.
Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; Parks& Recreation and Interim Public
Works Director,Tom Moore; and Planner, Jennifer Chaput.
TWIN CITIES ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (TCAAP)DISCUSSION
Mayor Probst reviewed previous meeting discussions regarding development of the Twin
Cities Army Ammunition Plant(TCAAP).
RECESS
At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Probst recessed the meeting and reconvened the regular meeting in
the City Hall Council Chambers.
Dennis Probst Joe Lynch
Mayor City Administrator
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING,TCAAP DISCUSSION
MAY 14,2001
6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular
City Council meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski,David Grant,
Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem.
Absent: None.
Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; and Parks&Recreation and Interim
Public Works Director, Tom Moore.
TWIN CITIES ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (TCAAP)DISCUSSION
Mayor Probst reviewed discussions from previous meetings.
RECESS
At 7:30 p.m.,Mayor Probst recessed the meeting and reconvened the regular meeting in
the City Hall Council Chambers.
Dennis Probst Joe Lynch
Mayor City Administrator
� E
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA +
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 14,2001
7:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENE/CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular
City Council meeting at 7:34 p.m.
Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski,David Grant,
Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem.
Absent: None.
Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Accountant, Terrance Post; City
Planner, Jennifer Chaput; Parks &Recreation Director, Thomas Moore; City Engineer,
Greg Brown,BRW; and Recording Secretary,Nancy Czajkowski.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Mr. Lynch requested the Council table Agenda Item 6. E based on the earlier discussion and the
fact there is no staff recommendation. He stated that the urgent request was needed to be
fulfilled in order to complete construction in a timely fashion. He noted he had not had a chance
to review it with the architect. He added he is trying to get better numbers together for the
council. He stated he would supply the information at the work session and move the item
forward on the consent agenda at the May 29, 2001 meeting.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion
to adopt the agenda for the May 14, 2001, regular City Council meeting, as
amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 26, 2001 Regular Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion
B. March 26, 2001 Regular Council Meeting
C. March 26, 2001 Closed Executive Session
D. April 2, 2001 Special Council Meeting
E. April 9, 2001 Regular Council Meeting
F. April 16, 2001 Council Worksession
Councilmember Grant requested the following changes to the April 9, 2001 Regular Council
Meeting minutes:
1. On page 7, first paragraph, after"read from joint letter", insert"from the Public Works
0 Director and the City Treasurer". Delete the last sentence in that paragraph.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 2
2. On page 7, in the seventh paragraph, replace the first sentence with"Councilmember "
Grant asked the Council for a recommendation". In the second sentence, replace "staff'
with"the city".
3. On page 7, in the seventh paragraph, replace the third sentence with" He noted the first
follow up should be with a letter".
4. On page 9, under Other Comments, replace the fist sentence with"Councilmember Grant
stated there is a May meeting of the Ramsey County League of Local Government
featuring the Ramsey County Commissioners."
Councilmember Grant requested the following changes to the March 26, 2001 Regular Council
Meeting minutes:
I. On page 6, replace the first sentence of the first paragraph, with"Councilmember Larson
asked if there is some reason to have that in there".
2. On page 6, in the fourth paragraph down, replace the second sentence with"He noted he
did not see the use of colored architectural precast concrete or EFIS in that context."
Councilmember Aplikowski requested the following change to the April 9, 2001, Regular
Council Meeting minutes: on page 2, in the third paragraph from the bottom, strike"which"and
insert"who"before "is not trained".
Councilmember Rem requested the following changes to the March 26, 2001, Regular Council
Meeting minutes:
1. Page 4, in the fifth paragraph, delete the fourth sentence from the bottom regarding the
specific roof'.
2. Page 9,replace the top paragraph, with"Councilmember Rem asked if buildings that are
constructed on smaller lots would be considered accessory. She questioned whether this
limited the number of smaller buildings that they can have. Mr. Carlson responded there.
is a maximum of two small lots overall and that all buildings on the property would be
considered principal buildings."
3. Page 9, in the fourth paragraph from the bottom, replace "sight"with"site". Replace the
second sentence with"She noted this becomes a major issue just north of that site with
other buildings on Gateway Boulevard."
Councilmember Rem requested the following change to the April 9, Regular Council Meeting
minutes: on page 3, in the paragraph following the motion, after"stated" insert"in response to a
question from one of the other bidders".
MOTION: Mayor Probst moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to
approve the March 26, 2001 Regular Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion,
L— MAY 14
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCI , 2001 DRAFT 3
March 26,2001, Closed Executive Session, April 2, 2001, Special Council
Meeting,April 9, 2001, Regular Council Meeting, and April 16, 2001, Council
Worksession Meeting minutes as corrected above and to defer approval of the
March 26, 2001, Regular Council Meeting Minutes. The motion carried
unanimously(5-0).
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Claims and Payroll
B. Lift Station#8, Gridor Construction, Pay Request
C. Summer Hours of Operation
Councilmember Grant asked for clarification if a public works employee responds to an incident
on Friday afternoon if it would be considered overtime. Mr. Lynch responded it would be
overtime.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to
approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents
contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not
already on the agenda.
No public comments were made.
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
A. Planning Cases
1. Case#00-39, City of Arden Hills,Right-of-Way Ordinance(First Read)
Ms. Chaput explained the North Suburban Communication Commission(NSCC) submitted a
model right-of-way ordinance based on the League of Minnesota Cities' (League)model. She
stated it has been circulated around the cities within their cable area. She noted the League
indicates it is a fairly successful, uniform set of regulations to govern the right-of-way. She
added the memorandum dated May 7, 2001 lists the comments from the City Engineer and
Public Works Director. She requested further direction from the Council.
Mayor Probst stated this is a basic issue and a path the city has to go down. He noted he did not
want to break any new ground and end up with an ordinance that was unenforceable. He asked
about the status of this ordinance with the other communities within the cable area. Ms. Chaput
responded that all but three communities have adopted this ordinance. She stated Roseville has
almost exactly the same ordinance as this sample. She noted it would be helpful if the entire
r
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 4
cable area has same language. She added the majority of the communities have adopted
language similar to this one.
Councilmember Rem asked if the text deleted on page 4 of 32, in the definition section, number
h, should be included some other place in the document. She stated it is clear the language needs
to be changed. She noted however,the language makes sense and seems to belong some place
else. Mr. Brown responded the previous language defined equipment by what it was not and the
new language defines equipment by what it is.
Councilmember Grant asked about changing the time limit of restoration from 36 months to 12
months. Mr. Brown responded a more realistic number is 12 months. He stated usually after
one year, it is homeowner's responsibility. He noted staff thought 36 months was excessive.
Councilmember Grant stated he was surprised by the 36 months language. Mr. Brown responded
sod usually has a 30 days guarantee.
Mayor Probst stated shrub material has a normal warranty of a year.
Mr. Brown stated they could make the language more specific: sod could have a 30-day
guarantee and plantings could have a 12-month guarantee.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion
to direct staff to make the necessary changes and bring the corrected Ordinance
back at the first June regular Council Meeting. The motion carried unanimously
(5-0).
Councilmember Lynch stated he does have a concern about fencing, stone, gardens, etc. placed
in the right-of-way by homeowners. He noted that, if Ithe city damages something with
snowplowing,they have to replace it. He added they should take a look at including some
language to provide a disincentive to do that. He stated they should talk what would be
allowable in the right-of-way.
Councilmember Rem stated there should be an ongoing reminder to tell people what is
appropriate.
Mayor Probst stated they should establish a policy or do an article reminding residents that there
are things the city would pay for. He noted the city does not cover the cost of landscaping, rocks,
or fences that are damaged.
Councilmember Larson stated staff should take look at what the other cities have adopted. He
noted it gives the city more control over what is restored. He added he is reluctant to give that
up. Mr. Brown responded 24 months is fairly common in state contracts.
B. City Hall Construction Project,Furnishings,Award Bid
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 LJ; 5
Mr. Lynch explained no one bidder had bid on all of the items. He stated there were six separate
bidders with low bids on some of the items. He noted there were many items on the State of
Minnesota contract. He added the budget estimates for furniture was $155,000. He stated the
bid is $34,121.91 under the budget estimate. He noted kitchen appliances, lower level storage
shelving, or facility artwork was not included in the bid packet. He added they are planning a
end of July move in date.
Councilmember Grant asked for clarification. Mr. Lynch responded the difference is a result of
competitive bids.
MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to
award the Furniture bid to the six low item bidders (Albinsons, F.S.I., General
Office Products, KI, Pink, and Playscape) in an amount not to exceed
$120,878.09, and to authorize the City Administrator to execute all necessary
documents and contracts to proceed with purchase and installation. The motion
carried unanimously (5-0).
C. 2001 Water Tower Maintenance Project,Award of Bid (Budgeted 2001
Maintenance Item)
Mr. Moore explained the tower maintenance project for 2001 would consist of cleaning,
repairing and painting the North Tower. He stated the North Tower is currently painted `Arden
Hills Tan'. He noted a safety ladder(ladder modifications)would be installed on the South
Tower. He added two options were included in the maintenance project. He stated Option A is
placing the new City Logo on the North Tower and Option B is placing the new City logo on the
South Tower. He noted the maintenance project would start on or before June 4, 2001 and be
completed on or before July 6, 2001. He added the bid opening was held on April 19, 2001. He
stated there were four bidders. He noted Champion Coatings, Inc. was the low bidder.
Councilmember Larson asked if the option was for the South Tower to be painted Arden Hills
tan. Mr. Moore responded that the option was to only paint a 10% section and not to paint the
entire tower to change the color from blue to tan. He noted the cost estimate to repaint the entire
tower was $140,000.
Councilmember Larson asked if it was a single logo or on two sides. Mr. Moore responded a
single logo south facing and able to be seen from Highway 694.
Councilmember Grant asked if this was a line item in the budget. Mr. Post responded it was
budgeted in the water utility budget for$40,0000.
MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to
award to Champion Coatings, Inc. the contract for the cleaning,repairing and
painting of the 500,000 gallon Hydropillar(North Tower) and ladder
modifications on the 1.0 MMG Hydropillar(South Tower) at a cost not to exceed
$24,800 and to authorize Option A,the placing of the new City Logo on the North
Tower at a cost not to exceed $13,675. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
r
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 ;it T 6
D. N. M. I-35 W Corridor Coalition,Coalition Housing Resource Center Creation
Mr. Lynch stated the city is being asked to contribute to a resource for existing or potential
residents. He noted it would be a one-stop shop for information on the construction, financing,
and permitting process. He added the City of Roseville has such a resource and finds it
successful. He stated it helps residents find out how to do improvements and raise financing.
He noted the City of Blaine has opted out of this because it has already contracted to provide
similar functions.
Mayor Probst stated Blaine is under contract for another two years. He noted Coon Rapids has
asked to participate and will provide $50,000 this year. He noted Roseville has a successful
program. He added the total annual budget is $600,000 and the remaining money would come
from grants. He stated he speaks strongly in favor of this program. He noted it is a non-
budgeted item. He noted it is a one stop shop for housing issues whether a person is looking to
add on or if building to suit. He added they assist in finding funding and contractors, etc. He
stated all communities that are participating have found this to be very successful. He noted he
feels it is an asset for our residents.
Councilmember Aplikowski asked if it was a qualified program. Mayor Probst responded there
are no qualifications for receiving help.
Councilmember Aplikowski asked about promotion. Mayor Probst responded there has not been
a lot of discussion on how it would be promoted. He stated he presumes they could do it with the
newsletter. He noted he was not sure about a mass mailing. He added the City of Roseville has
done some promotion through other means. He stated he has seen handouts.
Councilmember Larson stated he thought one of the items to come out of their participation in
the coalition was they would have a housing code to use.
Ms. Chaput stated this standard is being worked on.
Councilmember Larson asked how much use they would get out of this service in the absence of
a housing code. Mayor Probst responded there were recently two instances where citizens with
problems concerning their homes used a lot of staff time. He stated staff spent time working
with the individuals trying to help them solve their problems. He noted this resource center
could have handled those issues. He added they do have some areas in the community ripe for
modifications. He stated rather than have them struggle through process they could go here and
get ideas on how to solve those problems.
Councilmember Grant stated the letter references a number of handouts, but does not say what
the organization is going to do, what its mission is, and why it was created. He noted while it is
good to hear from the coalition that he would like to see documents on the purpose of the
resource center. He asked about assistance for those in violation. Mayor Probst responded in
City of Roseville when violation letters are sent they send the telephone number of the center
where people are sent to get help to solve their problems.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 U A 7
Councilmember Grant stated rather than take action he would like the matter to come back with
information on its purpose and scope. He noted since they are requesting $3, 700 he would like
to get information on them.
Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the success of the grants depends on the participation.
Mayor Probst stated if down the road they are not able to attract grant money,there would be a
significant funding tail. He noted there is not yet a solution to that. He added each community
would have to decide if they want to continue and whether there is some value to them or not.
Councilmember Rem stated she would appreciate more information on this and was hoping that
some of the attachments would have been with this letter. Mayor Probst stated GMMHC already
runs a center in northeast Minneapolis. He noted the City of St. Paul has tried to get them to
operate one there. He added the City of Coon Rapids has also been trying to get plugged into
this operation. He stated the existing office would stay there and a new office set up in the
coalition area plus Coon Rapids. He noted they are looking at space in Roseville and Shoreview.
Councilmember Rem asked about staff. Mayor Probst responded there are about six in total. He
stated one person stays in the office and the rest are in the field to come out to the homes. He
noted they would handle questions on whether some one is doing something correctly. He
added there are no income limitations high or low.
Councilmember Aplikowski asked what would happen if they do not participate. Mayor Probst
responded the project would proceed,but Arden Hills residents would not be able to use this
service.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated she thinks the concept is good, but more information would
make it easier to understand.
Mayor Probst suggested they hold the matter over until May 29, 2001 meeting and get an
information package at the worksession.
Councilmember Larson asked for a status report on the housing code at the same time.
E. 2001 Sealcoat Project,Award of Bid (Budgeted 2001 Maintenance Item)
Mr. Brown explained bids were opened for the sealcoating project on May 8, 2001. He stated all
of the bids were correct and simple. He noted the low bidder was Allied Blacktop Company,
which has done a lot of work for the city in the last few years. He added there were two factors
that resulted in a low bid. He stated the oil prices have dropped a little over last year. He noted
the biggest factor was the bidder's workload. He added they looked at doing some additional
work. He stated the estimate for this area was $14,000. He stated they would still be under the
budgeted amount. He noted they could add it as a change order. He noted the low bidder is
responsible and has done good work in the past. He indicated the proposed scope expansion area
on the map.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 DRA7 8
Councilmember Grant asked if they would be adding the Wyncrest and Nursery Hill
neighborhoods. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to award the 2001 Seal Coating Project to Allied Blacktop Company for
the bid price of$35,900.34 and directs staff to include in a change order the other
parts in the West Karth Lake area up to an additional $14,000. The motion
carried unanimously (5-0).
F. Council Direction to the Operations & Finance Committee Regarding Prioritization
of Goals
Councilmember Grant explained the Operations & Finance Committee requested direction from
the City Council. He read the Committee's suggested goals.
Mr. Post stated this committee was created July 15, 1999. He reviewed the original five goals of
the Committee.
Councilmember Aplikowski noted the Committee has spent a lot of hours on City street lighting
information including what kinds are acceptable and the procedure on how to go about getting
them.
Mayor Probst stated there are policies on many of these areas. He noted the current street
lighting policy that also addresses the fixtures.
Councilmember Grant stated there is one issue regarding the policy and it is, should there be a
uniform street light design standard for the city.
Mayor Probst stated there are a number of committee issues here. He asked if the Council wants
to prioritize them. He noted they need to be careful on assignment because there are other
groups that would have input.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated they should visit with the Parks, Trails and Recreation
Committee on the issue of the level of trail maintenance.
Councilmember Larson stated they are developing a new master plan for the parks. He noted his
view is he does not think the city should have committees unless they are statutory or for a
specific area that they need help on. He added task forces deliver a better product. He stated
standing committees are frustrating for people who serve with no specific direction. He noted
there does not seem much meat to work on for this Committee. He added the contribution of
their time may not feel worthwhile. He stated he would not be opposed for thanking them for the
work they have done and asking them back if needed again next year. He noted if they could not
give them something worthwhile, they are not doing a good job utilizing the Committee
member's time.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 9
Councilmember Grant stated they are looking for direction. He noted in the past they have done
work on sewer water rates and some good work consolidating trash hauling services and
recycling into single day service. He added the group has a lot to offer and the Council should
encourage them. He stated they are willing to work and asking what would the Council would
like them to work on.
Councilmember Rem stated one of the comments made was that they have not had a lot of
direction from the Council. She noted they feel they have worked hard and their work has been
set aside as the Council takes another direction. She added it is good to have resident input on
issues. She noted a pavement management program is one thing that gets put on the back burner.
She added it would be interesting to have someone not involved look at that process. She stated
they could provide some recommendations on how to conduct the public information process.
She noted that it is an area in which the city needs to make some progress.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated she favors committees over a task force. She noted they
shortchange themselves if the only committee they have is the Planning Commission. She added
it would then be the only training ground for the Council. She stated obtaining the viewpoint of
people who do not meet the Planning Commission requirements is important. She noted it would
be good to have another group look at an issue and give recommendations back to the Council.
She added they have already dropped two committees. She added she hears what
Councilmember Larson is saying, but there are a lot of people willing to serve and it is good
training. She stated they could help the city on how to do the road improvement program,which
includes how to get it out to people so they understand it. She noted they could utilize them to
talk to the community and use the Committee to get people organized.
Councilmember Larson stated is not speaking against public participation. He noted they have
had more people involved over the last two years because of task forces. He added if one looks
at the committee membership, it is the same people saying the same things. He stated he thinks.
a task force disciplines the city to come up with a specific charge.
Mayor Probst stated there is a fundamental difference. He noted the Parks, Trails and Recreation
Committee has taken an active role making recommendations about the parks. He added they
have taken it upon themselves to take look at parks and make capital budget recommendations.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated the Pavement Management Program (PMP) issue is the same
thing. She noted they have not let the Committee do it. She asked why they should not transfer
that power back to that committee.
Councilmember Grant stated with the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee it is clear what the
scope of their work is. He noted when one looks at the Operation and Finance Committee; it
runs the whole gamut of the city. He stated this group of talented individuals has asked in what
area the Council would like them to specialize. He noted if the Council wants to define narrowly
one specific issue like a task force,the Committee would be agreeable. He added they want to be
of value to the city.
•
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 - 10
Councilmember Rem stated the value of a standing committee is it challenges the council. She
noted they have residents willing to help the city and the Council needs to focus on ways to make
meaningful use of this help and assistance. She added it is one of way of reminding them the
city runs on resident input.
Mayor Probst stated it is on the schedule to have the Pavement Management Program on the
agenda for next Monday night.
Councilmember Grant stated the Committee has a meeting on May 17, 2000.
Councilmember Larson stated if pavement management is going on the Committee's agenda, it
should be on the Council's agenda first.
Mayor Probst stated he sees no harm in alerting them that that is the way the Council is going.
He noted they could give them more specific direction later.
Councilmember Grant stated the Council gave them direction on the maintenance facility at the
last meeting. He noted and tonight Council has noted the pavement management is area where
council wishes input.
ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS
A. City Hall Construction, Architectural Alliance Correspondence, Roof Drains
Mr. Lynch stated there is a unresolved disagreement on whom is responsible for the cost of roof
drains on city hall. He noted staff maintains the architect or city engineer missed a code item.
Mr. Lynch noted the city is losing city planner, Jennifer Chaput. He added she has accepted a
job with the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Mr. Lynch added the Army National Guard Army Reserve Center property expansion request
would be on the May 29, 2001 meeting agenda. He stated the tour of Maple Grove and the
Flower Garden event would be posted.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Larson stated he wanted to express his appreciation for Ms. Chaput's work here
and the good job she has done.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated she would not be able to attend the flower garden planting
event. She asked the council how they wanted to ride in the parade.
Councilmember Larson stated he would prefer them to ride as a group.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated the Committee would let them know what is decided.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 14, 2001 ' 11
Mr. Moore stated the County might not complete Tony Schmidt Park in time. He noted they
would try to get seed and sod down. He added they do not control the weather and are having a
shortage of funding. He stated there would be concrete pads but no picnic tables. He noted there
would be power and water. He added there would be a lot of dirt areas left. He stated they are
going to be planting prairie flowers, which takes three years for full growth. He noted there
would be a meeting this Thursday to discuss the park. He added all three play structures are up,
but no benches are there yet. He stated they have fireworks mapped out. He noted they also
have sites and locations for the vendors and the pony rides.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated the program itself is wonderful. She noted the Committee
has worked very hard.
Mr. Moore stated they have up to 45 units for the parade. He noted the tents, bands, and vendors
are scheduled. He noted there would also be a waterski show and a boat parade on Lake
Johanna.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated contributions are coming in from small businesses.
Mayor Probst stated he and Mr. Lynch appeared before the citizens forum. He noted it was a
good publicity opportunity for them. He added he attended the Ramsey County library kickoff at
the Roseville library. He stated there are a good series of activities coming up. He noted they
are interested in making Arden Hills more of an environmental learning center,than a traditional
library. He added the reduction of hours is due to budget concerns.
ADJOURN
MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to
adjourn the meeting at 9:31 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Dennis Probst Joe Lynch
Mayor City Administrator
NOTICE OF MEETINGS
The next Council Meeting will be held Tuesday, May 29, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills
Council chambers.
MEETING MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
TUESDAY,MAY 21,2001
4:45 P.M.—CITY HALL,4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Probst called the meeting to order at 4:50 p.m. Councilmembers present
were Beverly Aplikowski and Gregg Larson. Councilmember Lois Rem arrived
at 4:53 p.m. Councilmember David Grant arrived at 5:05 p.m.
Staff present included City Administrator, Joe Works Director,Tom Mooreynch; City Accountant, ;and
rry
Post; Parks &Recreation and Interim Public
Recording Secretary, Sheila Stowell. City Engineer, Greg Brown, was also
present.
PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION,2000 EXTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
Steve McDonald of Abdo, Eick&Meyers gave a brief review of the recently
completed 2000 external audit report. Mr. McDonald made reference to the
upcoming Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34
requirements and their implications to the City's recordkeeping responsibilities.
Councilmember Larson complimented Mr. Post and the City's Finance staff on
their recordkeeping efficiencies. Councilmember Larson requested input
regarding the format currently being used, and the new requirements of GASB 34,
and how they compared.
Mr. McDonald suggested that this summer would be a good opportunity to begin
implementing the new requirements prior to their full implementation.
The City Council has options regardingbegin movingir forward policy
fromdecision
implementation for
whether to restate to the 1980's or g g orward
GASB 34 reporting requirements.
MNDOT/RAMSEY COUNTY PRESENTATION,HIGHWAYS 96/10 AND I-35W
INTERSECTION UPDATE
Robert Benke,Project Manager for the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition,
gave a brief overview and update of the transportation design project to-date and
how it related to the entire 1-35W corridor.
Steve Wilson of SRF Consulting, gave a visual presentation that included an
overall regional picture and demographic growth assumptions; 2000 congested
hours and projected 2025 congested hours; types of land use and their impact on
vehicular traffic; current daily volume compared to 2025 base and T.H. 10 flyover
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—MAY 21,2001 2 ,
W
volumes; politics and policy issues regarding right-of-way costs and other
considerations.
Mr. Wilson, working on the project design with MnDOT, distributed a bench
handout addressing demographic growth; regional highway assumptions; I-35W
Corridor assumptions/analysis; and the T.H. 10 "diagonal"analysis.
Mr. Post referred to the recent Planning Case of CPI Guidant and their planned
expansion and future additional employees. Mr. Benke noted that additional
follow-up would be necessary to consider this source of additional traffic
volumes.
Carol Swensen, Senior Research Fellow with the University of Minnesota's
Design Center for Architecture and Landscape Architecture, provided several
observations from research compiled to-date.
Councilmember Larson requested clarification on how the three scenarios under
discussion had been created and the number of housing units per acre and how
accurate the scenarios were in the TCAAP planning information being used.
Jim Tolaas, Ramsey County Public Works, clarified for Mr. Wilson that the
TCAAP/Highway 96 intersection was planned as a grade-separated interchange.
Mayor Probst asked for clarification that the planned regional transportation
development plan would not impact the residential streets in Arden Hills, a point
of concern with the City Council from the beginning of the design process for the
proposed plan.
Councilmember Larson expressed further concerns that the section of Highway 10
between Highway 96 and I-35W doesn't need to serve as a shortcut between I-
694 and I-35W. He clarified his previous request of MnDOT that a model be
prepared showing Highway 10 off I-694 to move up to north. Councilmember
Larson stated that he couldn't support an overpass on Highway 96, thereby
developing an isolated island in Arden Hills. He again requested a model design
of what implications there would be if traffic were diverted, eliminating ramps
connecting I-35W and the downgrading of Highway 10.
The City's Consulting Engineer, Greg Brown, further clarified Councilmember
Larson's request.
Mr. Benke expressed the limitations due to working with existing roadways,
rather than working from their inception. Mr. Benke left a preliminary copy of
the TCAAP study provided by University of Minnesota students for the City
Council's review.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—MAY 21,2001 k3
MILLS COMPANY—TCAAP DEVELOPMENT
Elizabeth Link, Group Vice President with the Mills Corporation, was in
attendance to review their company's interest in the retail, office and/or
residential portions of the TCAAP development.
Discussion items included infrastructure development;traffic demographics;
master plan development; marketing; the federal government's environmental
clean up of the TCAAP property to-date to industrial standards rather than
residential standards; and her estimate of$500,000 to develop a master plan and
incorporate design, engineering and additional related studies.
Army Reserve Center,Request for Expansion of Property
On a related note,Mayor Probst addressed three (3) issues regarding the Army
Reserve's request,through the National Guard, for additional property adjacent to
the new City Hall. Those issues included expansion to the north, compliance with
zoning, and the westerly expansion. It was the consensus of the Councilmembers
that the City was in agreement with the north expansion, but not the westerly
expansion. Concern was expressed regarding zoning compliance; and notification
to Colonel Lord.
Further discussion including the upcoming tour of the TCAAP property by
Congresswoman McCollum, and the need to emphasize to her the value of the
City controlling the property for future development in order to maintain
standards.
Councilmembers determined they would give consideration and further review to
the Mills proposal and potential legislation at their TCAAP discussion
Worksession scheduled immediately prior to the May 29, 2001 regular City
Council meeting.
STAFF DISCUSSION ITEMS
Finance Department
2002 Budget Discussion
City Treasurer Post reviewed his May 17, 2001 memorandum to the City Council
regarding preliminary budget planning boundaries and potential priorities.
Parks and Recreation and Interim Public Works Director, Tom Moore, expressed
concerns regarding the declining fund balance in the Community Services Fund,
as this charitable gambling contribution is the current funding source for
Recreation Fund operating deficits. Mr. Moore was also concerned with future
maintenance requirements for the new City Hall facility.
Mr. Post commented that the City Council had yet to determine a policy regarding
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—MAY 21,2001 `
future building use, which would impact maintenance requirements.
Mr. Post further noted forthcoming recommendations contained in the long-range
Parks, Trails and Recreation plan, such as additional trail maintenance standards
that may impact the baseline levy.
After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Councilmembers to direct
staff to continue at a zero to three-percent (0 - 3%) levy increase range for the
2002 Budget.
Further discussion items included self-financing of the proposed joint
maintenance facility and a planned spend-down of the Park Fund.
Mr. Post reminded Councilmembers that the preliminary levy to be approved by
September could not be increased, only remain status quo or be reduced prior to
adoption of the final levy in December for certification.
Parks & Recreation Department
A brief discussion was held regarding the recently completed community survey
as part of the Parks, Trails& Recreation Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moore
provided a brief summary, and stated that a fifteen percent(15%)response rate on
the survey had been achieved. Further discussion items included the changing
community demographics; use of GIS for trends; and upcoming neighborhood
meetings scheduled for the City's four polling places.
Mr. Lynch indicated that the survey results seem to indicate a difference of
opinion with regard to the existing mission statement.
Councilmembers will await a formal presentation from the Parks, Trails and
Recreation Committee with a summary of the committee recommendations,
funding plans, and timelines.
Planning Department
City Administrator Lynch briefly reviewed former Planner Chaput's Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance memorandum, which will be an action item on the
June 11, 2001 regular City Council agenda. Mr. Lynch also informed the City
Council of Interim Planning Consultant services arranged with Mike Cronin and
Associates.
Fiftieth Anniversary/Day in the Park Event
As Council Liaison to the City Events Task Force, Councilmember Aplikowski
presented a revised anniversary event financial budget as a Bench Handout for
Council review. The revised budget will be part of the May 29, 2001 regular city
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—MAY 21,2001 <'`R
Council agenda on the consent calendar.
Discussion was held regarding recognition of in-kind contributions from area
businesses and volunteers (i.e., Holiday Inn's use of their facility for the February
kick-off event).
Public Works Department
Pavement
g
ment Management Plan PMP
Each Councilmember made comments regarding the City's existing PMP and
potential revisions.
Councilmember Aplikowski was of the opinion that we should go forward with
the City's current PMP and was not opposed to returning to a partial project in the
Ingerson neighborhood. She suggested that, in the future,the Council might wish
to publicly inform a respective neighborhood two (2)years in advance of the
actual project. She stated that she was not in favor of raingardens with the City's
soil structure;preferred curb and gutter installations, and would prefer a
surmountable curb rather than no curb at all. She mentioned Hamline Avenue
North and Carlton Drive as priorities for reconstruction.
Councilmember Larson stated the Council needed to determine whether to
perform street maintenance and reconstruction in small segments, or in a more
comprehensive way, particularly in older portions of the community. He stated
that,while it meant more intense work,the Council needed to be committed,no
matter what public sentiment,to the overall benefit to the community, and define
that commitment in its Assessment Policy.
Councilmember Grant reiterated Councilmember Aplikowski's comments on the
need for advance notification and discussion with the residents regarding any
potential project and the need for the Council to establish the amount of flexibility
prior to initiating the project. He also stated that the Council needed to establish
thresholds for the pavement management index; publish those indexes; and put
the entire package together prior to meeting with the public. Councilmember
Grant stated he is against premature removal of road surfaces. Councilmember
Grant stated that there were some roads in the community that were very bad,but
we tended to turn a blind eye to them due to lack of assessment potential.
Councilmember Grant suggested that the consulting engineer present several
options (i.e., neighborhood A and/or B)rather than staff being the driving force in
recommendations. Councilmember Grant was not in favor of Siems Court
reconstruction, and didn't feel the necessity to go back into the Ingerson
neighborhood to prove we were right and they were wrong. He further agreed
that the Council needed to be of one mind prior to the initiation of any project,
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—MAY 21,2001
and perhaps should consider a two (2) year program, and preferred a "worst first"
scenario.
Councilmember Rem suggested that the City do those areas of the Ingerson
neighborhood that needed it most, and in future projects, also agreed with a
"worst first" plan. She further stated that the City had already invested
engineering resources, but needed to provide more public information prior to a
project. She stated that it was important for the Council to be sold on the project,
and then the public. Councilmember Rem referenced a series of public
information brochures prepared by the City of Golden Valley prior to their road
projects, rather than using in-house information only. She mentioned the need for
flexibility; problems of the public receiving mixed signals from staff and
Councilmembers; and the need to determine our rationale for a public document
(i.e., at the first meeting,this is what we think would be good and what do you as
a resident think). She also stated the need to have accurate property owner
information and to provide the public with more information and a sense of more
cooperation.
Mayor Probst stated that he thought the City's process and fundamental principles
were correct. He stated that he thought the City should establish a standard street
width, but where it made sense for the street width to be less than 32' it was
negotiable. He further stated that where there were no sidewalks and for safety
purposes, wider streets needed to be adhered to. He was in favor of the formula
for corner lot assessments being revised. Mayor Probst stated that it was the City
Council's fiduciary responsibility to maintain an active PMP, as an obligation to
the community at large. He stated that the "worst first" scenario only be
considered by neighborhood or area, due to financial resource constraints. He
agreed with other Councilmembers regarding more public information at the
beginning of the process, but expressed concerns regarding difficulties to be
expected with the next project because of apparent indecision with the past
prof ect.
Councilmember Aplikowski commended Mayor Probst on the overall philosophy
expressed, and suggested similar wording is used in informing the public of the
reasons for a PMP. She suggested a PMP checklist, and what is and is not agreed
upon. She stated that the City Council needed to sell their vision and stewardship
responsibilities to and for the City.
After further discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council that they
continue to meet in Worksession immediately prior to regular City Council
meetings. Mayor Probst appointed City Administrator Lynch to serve as
moderator and the exercise be based on two topics. The first session would
discuss "standards" (i.e., agree on curb and gutter usage; base line street width of
32'; etc.). He stated that once that was accomplished, a subsequent session should
establish a process to be followed(i.e., choosing a project scope; public
information; timetable, etc.), in completing a project.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—MAY 21 2001 7 . !
s.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Grant stated that he was impressed with the presentation by the
Mills Corporation, and asked staff for clarification on the status of joint
maintenance facility and its relationship to the TCAAP process. Mr. Lynch
responded that he had a meeting scheduled with Ramsey County representatives
later in the week.
Councilmember Larson stated that he was submitting two (2) names to Mr. Moore
of women willing to serve on the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee.
Councilmember Larson stated that, in the future, staff make Councilmembers
aware of how appointments are representing both genders, and that should be
more of a priority that the number of members on each committee.
Councilmember Larson also stated that he had held discussions with one of the
residents concerned about enforcing ordinance language on Lake Johanna, and
stated that the Council either needed to provide buoys or repeal the wording of the
existing ordinance in order to avoid potential liability issues. Staff was directed to
schedule a public informational meeting to be held at the June 11, 2001 regular
City Council meeting.
Councilmember Aplikowski requested that Councilmember Rem serve as the
City's representative at the next AMM policy meeting.
Mayor Probst requested that staff research address issues, as recently pointed out
to him by a resident concerned about medical emergencies.
ADJOURN
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. The motion
carried unanimously (5-0).
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING,TCAAP DISCUSSION
MAY 29,2000
6:30 P.M.—ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular
City Council meeting at 6:36 p.m.
Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Council Members Gregg Larson, Beverly
Aplikowski,Lois Rem, David Grant,City Administrator Joseph Lynch.
Absent: None.
TWIN CITIES ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (TCAAP)DISCUSSION
The Mayor reviewed the two issues that he would like see addressed during the course of
the meeting and those are:
I. Proposed legislation to transfer the land to the City of Arden Hills.
2. Response to the proposal by Mills Development.
Council also talked about what kind of idea they had in mind for the development of the
property. It needed to reflect the character of the City of Arden Hills. The Mayor
indicated that his vision for the property is pretty much the same as the Reutilization
Committee Plan. Council Member Rem showed a map indicating the clean up sites on
the property.
The Mayor tried to get council consensus on whether or not to pursue legislation.
Council indicating that they are in agreement with pursuing Representative McCullom to
see if she is going to help us with specific legislation for acquisition of the property along
the lines of the new property or delineation between Army National Guard and the City.
The Council also indicated agreement with a desire to continue discussion with Mills on
their possible assistance in acquisition of the property for the City of Arden Hills but to
also inquire about other types of development with other developers and at least seeing
how their concepts for development of the TCAAP property.
The Council indicated that they would like to have at their June 11th, 2001, City Council
meeting a discussion about road management as previously discussed covering the
features of a road management plan and the process. The discussion should take place at
6:30 p.m.
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL, TCAAP DISCUSSION —MAY 29, 2001 2
RECESS
At 7:26 p.m., Mayor Probst recessed the meeting and reconvened the regular meeting in
the City Hall Council Chambers.
Dennis Probst Joe Lynch
Mayor City Administrator
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA DRF T
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 29,2001
7:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENE/CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular
City Council meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant,
Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem.
Absent: None.
Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Attorney Jerry Filla; and
Recording Secretary,Nancy Czajkowski.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Mr. Lynch requested the Council remove Agenda Item 3.c. He stated the minutes of the April
30'meeting are the same as the April 9, 2001 meeting minutes.
Councilmember Larson requested the addition of Agenda Item 6.d. Park, Trails, and Recreation
Committee Appointments. He stated it was with regard to the appointment of two women to the
Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion
to adopt the agenda for the May 29, 2001,regular City Council meeting. The
motion carried unanimously(5-0).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 26, 2001 Regular Council Meeting
B. April 9, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion
C. April 30, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion
D. April 30, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting
Councilmember Grant requested the following changes to the April 30, 2001 Regular City
Council Meeting Minutes:
1. On page 6, in the second paragraph, in the first line,replace "other"with"another".
2. On page 7, add a paragraph after the second paragraph that states"Mayor Probst stated he
. would like to see the city reconstructing County Road E 2 and assessing the cost back to
the residents per the assessment policy."
c
r[r)R
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 AT 2
Y
Mayor Probst stated he had said the city would participate in the cost per its assessment policy.
e following change April 30, 2001 Regular City e to the
Councilmember Grant requested th g S
Council Meeting Minutes: replace the third paragraph,which has become the fourth paragraph
with"Councilmember Grant stated he could not see the city or the residents paying the estimated
amount for reconstructing the road".
Councilmember Larson requested the following changes to the April 30, 2001 Regular City
Council Meeting Minutes:
1. On page 4, in the first line at the top of the page, insert"were" after"He noted they".
2. On page 4, in the first paragraph, in the fourth line, replace "if'with"it".
3. On page 4, in the second paragraph,replace"have"with "be".
4. On page 5, in the fifth paragraph, in the first line, insert"not" after"he does".
5. On page 5, in the fifth paragraph, in the last line,replace "do"with"does".
Councilmember Rem requested the following changes to the April 30, 2001, Regular City
Council Meeting Minutes:
On page 3 in theparagraph before the motion, in the last sentence, insert"surface"
1. p g
before parking".
2. On page 5, in the sixth paragraph,replace the first sentence with"Councilmember Rem
stated the Councilmembers must consider what was applied for and is before them". At
the end of the paragraph, add"She stated there are options,but they are not what the
applicant has requested action on."
3. On page 5, in the ninth paragraph, replace"Phillips"with"Filla".
Councilmember Rem asked if staff reviews the minutes. She noted many of the changes might
be the result of too many people reviewing the minutes.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion
to approve the March 26, 2001 Regular Council Meeting,the April 9, 2001
Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion, and the April 30, 2001
Regular City Council Meeting minutes as corrected above. The motion carried
unanimously(5-0).
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Claims and Payroll
v
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 DRAFT 3
B. Probationary Appointments, Office Support Specialists (2)
C. Interim Planning Services, Michael Cronin&Associates
D. Receive 2000 Audit Report, Abdo, Eick& Meyers
E. Res. #01-12,American Business Women's Lady Slipper Chapter's Gambling Premises
Permit Renewal
F. 2001 Seal Coating Project, Award of Bid
G. West Round Lake Road Trail,Nott Company Easement
H. U.S. Army Reserve, Land Transfer Request
I. City Hall Construction Project, Pay Application#8 (Revised), Rochon Corporation
J. City Events Task Force, Approval of Revised Budget
K. Schedule Public Information Meeting, Lake Johanna Buoys
Councilmember Aplikowski stated she is glad they are filling the open support positions.
MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to
approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents
contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not
already on the agenda.
No public comments were made.
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
A. "Mini-Mobile Drive" Interrogator Purchase Approval,Water Utility (unbudgeted
2001 CIP Request)
Mr. Lynch explained the city made a conversion to radio read technology in 1997. He stated the
Personal Interrogator(PI)purchased was a used model and has not been reliable of late. He
noted the PI is now at the contractor's shop to be repaired. He added Mr. Post has indicated it
would be advantageous to purchase a"Mini-Mobile Drive" interrogator. He stated this device
would be an automobile mounted unit and more powerful. He noted in 1997 the purchase price
was too large to consider purchasing one, but subsequently the price has been reduced. He added
that staff had considered purchasing one with the City of Shoreview. He stated that at this time
Shoreview was not interested in sharing a device. He noted since the price is now more
competitive it is affordable. He added staff recommends revising the Water Utility CIP to cover
such a purchase.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated she is amazed at how things designed to save the city money
end up costing it more money than anticipated. She noted she does not have a problem with the
purchase,but she is disappointed that they always have to buy additional items to keep up with
saving money.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 4
Councilmember Larson stated he is in support of this purchase and is glad that staff had spoken
to Shoreview regarding sharing this equipment. He asked if this unit would be used only four
times a year. Mr. Lynch responded the city would like to go to monthly utility billings. He
stated that with this unit they should be able to read the city in three days.
Councilmember Larson stated he would like to collaborate and it would be nice to have another
city to share this cost. He noted he would like staff to check with a few more cities to see if they
have an interest in sharing the cost of the equipment.
Mr. Lynch stated New Brighton does not have a similar system. He noted the City of Shoreview
might come to the City of Arden Hills later for sharing this unit for use in its residential service.
Councilmember Grant asked about maintenance. Mr. Lynch responded the unit is similar to a
computer. He stated the price indicated does not include a maintenance contract.
Councilmember Grant stated he would encourage staff to check out the option of a maintenance
contract and indicated that he supports this purchase.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to
revise the Water Utility CIP to include an unbudgeted 2001 purchase of a new
Badger Mini-Mobile Drive at a cost of$15,000; and further direct staff to place an
order for such equipment before May 31, 2001. The motion carried unanimously
(5-0).
B. Planning Cases
1. Public Hearing, Case#01-09, Chesapeake Companies,I-35W and I-694, (Morris
Communications Property)
A. Final Plat Approval
B. Res. #01-11, Public Hearing,Vacation and Dedication of Easement
Mayor Probst opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Lynch explained this case was referred to the Council earlier and is coming back for final
action on the final plat. He stated during the process some easements were discovered. He noted
the solution is the return of some street easements to the city and the dedication of some land to
the city. He added the dedication would create Outlots A and B for the Morris Co.
Mr. Filla stated the easements were acquired by condemnation. He noted the county would not
accept the area for platting if these road easements were still reflected. He added there is a pie-
shaped piece, which would remain part of the public right of way. He stated the only easements
to be released are those portions of the easements, which are part of this property. He reviewed
the conditions attached to plat approval.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001
Councilmember Larson asked about the cost of acquiring these easements through
condemnation. Mr. Filla responded he does not know the cost. He stated one of them was
acquired when this area was still part of New Brighton.
Mayor Probst stated given the development proposals for this parcel it is likely the city would be
vacating these pieces of streets. He noted he is curious of the implications of that and asked if
the Council would be looking at this again. Mr. Filla responded in the affirmative and noted the
city would have to vacate the street that is now being dedicated.
Mayor Probst asked what advantage it was to the developer in doing it now. Mr. Filla responded
the developer wants to market this parcel and needs to show it is platted. He stated this is a step
towards that goal. He suggested that condition three should be memorialized in some way. He
noted the city should have the developer sign a restrictive covenant showing that the blocks
would not be developed separately and that all parcels would be consolidated.
Ms. Diane Fredeen, of the Chesapeake Companies, stated part of the reason for this approach is
that they have a pending purchase agreement on the Morris property,but not on the other two
sites. She noted state statute requires them to dedicate a road if there is an easement to the city. .
She added that when they have purchased all three sites then they would ask for a vacation on the
dedication. She stated they have a closing date on the purchase of the Morris property and are
still in negotiations on the other two sites. She noted they would eventually be combining all
three into one property. '
Mr. Filla asked if one condition of the purchase is that,the property would be platted. Ms.
Fredeen responded in the affirmative. She stated it is related to the outlots. She noted the seller
wanted legal title to the outlots.
As no one else wished to appear, Mayor Probst closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m.
Mayor Probst stated a revised resolution states, "Those positions" should be replaced with
"Those portions".
MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion
to approve Resolution#01-11 and Planning Case #01-09, final plat of the property
located in the Northeast quadrant of I-694 and I-35W, for reasons outlined in
Resolution#01-11 and subject to the following: the conditions stated in the staff
report and an additional requirement that the Developer execute a restrictive
covenant memorializing condition 3 as stated therein. The motion carried
unanimously(5-0).
2. Case#01-12A,Manufacturers' Services, 4300 Round Lake Road, PUD Amendment
(Phase I Parking)
Mr. Lynch explained the applicant has requested the ability to expand the existing parking lot in
two phases. He stated the Planning Commission recommended acceptance of the Phase I plan
v
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 ,E .. 6
and tabled the Phase 1I plan. He noted the applicant would like to add 38 parking spaces to allow
for additional parking.
Mayor Probst asked if this modification still keeps the landscape plan within the requirements.
Mr. Charles Hadgader, HKS services, responded that he represents the applicant. He stated in
Phase I they would still comply with the landscape PUD requirements. He noted the Phase II
plan would put them slightly under the 35 percent landscape requirement.
Councilmember Larson asked if Mr. Hadgader's company was the manager of the building. Mr.
Hadgader responded his firm is a consulting firm retained by Manufacturers' Services, a tenant in
the building.
Ms. Kelly Ortley, of United Properties, stated her company is the property manager and that
Manufacturers' Services is the single tenant and has the need for this expansion. She noted this
tenant has a longer-term lease. She added this project is what is needed to accommodate their
building growth.
Councilmember Larson stated in the past there has been some sentiment to have Untied
Properties come in and tell the Council how they are going to rethink the way the parking is set
up. Ms. Orley responded the Council would see that plan next month. She stated she had visited
the Planning Commission two months ago and that they were asked to rethink the screening. She
noted they have done so and would return to the Planning Commission at its next meeting.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion
to approve Planning Case#01-12,PUD Amendment for Manufacturers' Services
to expand the existing parking area of 408 spaces by 38 spaces in Phase I, subject
to the seven stated conditions. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
3. Case#01-11, City of Arden Hills, Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Lakeshore
Setbacks)
A. Ordinance#325 Adoption
Mr. Lynch explained this is also an issue the Council has discussed previously. He stated there
was a recent case before the city noting the Planning Commissions' recommendation to
reconsider changing the Lakeshore Setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted at this time,
staff has recommended consideration of making the setbacks consistent with the DNR
requirements. He added this gives additional flexibility to the residents. He reviewed the
classifications of the lakes and the changes.
Mayor Probst asked if a public hearing was required. Mr. Lynch responded the public hearing
was held at the Planning Commission's meeting.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to
approve the amendment of Section 6 (C ) #1 (d) the Zoning Ordinances as per
Ordinance#325. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
F T
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 7
C. I-35 W Corridor Coalition, Coalition Housing Resource Center
Mr. Lynch explained this is the reference information for the GMMHCro osal for a Housing
P p g
Resource center. He stated the City of Coon Rapids wants to participate each year for$50,000.
Mayor Probst stated that is a three-year commitment of$50,000 each year.
Mr. Lynch reviewed the recommendation and noted the amount could be in the 2001 or 2002
budget.
Mayor Probst stated he believes three other cities have acted on this matter in the affirmative. He
noted he would lobby strongly in support of this program. He added it is a great opportunity for
the residents. He stated there was an article in the paper last week, quoting some Roseville
residents. He noted in one example a resident saved $10,000 on a project. He added the city has
had a couple of examples of distressed properties, which would have saved the city more than the
amount requested in staff time. He stated he strongly urges support of this program.
Councilmember Grant stated at the last meeting this particular item was described as one place
where residents could inquire about building codes and get answers. He noted there are a
number of other services that goes far beyond city code questions. He asked for clarification that
these services are available to everyone regardless of the value the home. Mayor Probst
responded there is no means test for the delivery of these services.
Councilmember Aplikowski asked how they would let residents know this service is available.
Mayor Probst responded he has seen the City of Roseville's handouts. He stated he presumes
they would do something in the newsletter to alert people and make them aware of what is
available.
Councilmember Rem stated she would suggest use of the newsletter, a quarterly water billing
insert and the cable channel.
Councilmember Larson stated this is good idea and the contribution is small. He noted there is a
signification amount of money that is going to come from other sources. He added the cities are
not bearing the burden of financing this service. He stated he hopes that the next time they
request participation they would be able to show the Council how many residents of Arden Hills
have used this facility.
Councilmember Grant asked if this commitment was for one or three years. Mayor Probst
responded he believes it is the city's choice.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to approve the expenditure of$3,707.13 for one year participation by the .
City of Arden Hills in the Coalitions HousingResource Center TM program, as
suggested by the GMMHC. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 y 8
D. Appointments to Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee
Councilmember Larson explained currently there are no women on the committee. He stated
they would be going out soon to neighborhoods and talking about the Comprehensive Park Plan.
He noted it seemed that they need the representations of both genders. He apologized for not
having something in the packet, but the issue had been discussed before.
Mayor Probst stated it is the Mayor's appointment upon recommendations from the council to
proceed.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to endorse the appointment of Ginny Michaels and Roberta Thompson to
the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee, effective upon the mayor's
signature. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS
Mr. Lynch stated the summer hours of operation would begin June 4, 2001. He noted the city
would not be able to paint the water tower the exact logo color requested. He added they would
match the existing color.
Councilmember Aplikowski asked for clarification. Mr. Lynch responded they do not have the
same color identification scheme the painters do. He stated that if they paint it our proper logo
color,the remaining tower stem would not match since they are only painting the bulb.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Grant stated the Operations and Finance Committee did not meet this month.
He noted he would be working with the City Accountant to ensure that they have a June 21
meeting. He added he would like an update regarding the possibility of a joint effort with the
County on the maintenance facility. Mr. Lynch responded that he had met with the Ramsey
County Engineer. He stated that he had indicated their limited staffing and the County had
indicated a willingness to draft an RFQ. He noted they County would have the city review it and
control the responses. He added all responses would be sent to the city directly.
Councilmember Larson stated he had volunteered to work on the Highway 10 Interregional
Corridor Study. He noted the part of Highway 10 east of I-35W has been excluded from the
study. He added he spoke to staff and indicated he would not be attending any additional
meetings. He stated it does not seem that the City of Arden Hills has much a role to play. He
noted unless someone feels differently that he would no longer attend these meetings.
Mayor Probst stated they need to find some means of staying informed on what is going on.
Mr. Lynch stated they are emailing him the agendas and the minutes. He noted he had a similar
conversation with the MnDOT representative. He added their primary concern is west of 35 W.
s
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 Lop L r i L 9
Councilmember Aplikowski stated the Planning Commission is working on reviewing the sign
ordinance. She asked the Councilmembers to look at business signage in Arden Hills. She
invited them to relay comments to her on what is good and what is bad for businesses in Arden
Hills.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated the Events Committee has finalized the parade details and it
is coming together well. She noted they have spoken to Ramsey County in case the site becomes
too muddy and someone would be bringing in enough hay to cover it. She added she requested
the council be placed together in a vehicle of some kind. She stated any one of them could walk
next to the vehicle if they wanted to.
Councilmember Rem stated the sign ordinance-working group is meeting. She noted there are a
few members of the Planning Commission, one representative from local business and one
representative from the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce. She added other business
representatives have expressed interest and would be included.
Councilmember Rem stated she is attending one day of the League of Minnesota Cities
Conference in Duluth. She noted the newsletter meeting would be held tomorrow and that issue
should arrive shortly before the 50`' Anniversary celebration. She added the next newsletter
deadline is June 14. She stated she has suggested to the committee that they put off the issue so
they could have a wrap up of the 50'Anniversary June 23 event. She noted she did not know
their feelings on the subject.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated they usually combine July and August issues.
Mayor Probst asked if they would still be on track to announce the opening of city hall.
Councilmember Rem responded, given the time lag, she thinks it would be good to put in an
announcement that city hall would be opening. She stated they would not do an issue on it until
they are moved into the facility.
Councilmember Larson stated the Fire Board meeting is tomorrow. He noted they would look at
the budget for next year and the concept of having some fireman on duty during the day to
answer calls. He added this concept was raised at a previous Fire Board Meeting.
Councilmember Larson stated recognizing they are going to review some proposals soon for
retail development,he found the trip to Maple Grove very helpful. He noted he hopes to go to
some of the other examples such as Hennepin County's facility in Medina and the new City of
Minneapolis facility.
Mayor Probst requested the Councilmembers bring their calendars next meeting to set dates for
these tours.
Mayor Probst explained the I-35W Corridor Coalition has initiated the Coalition Institute in
addition to the regular board meetings held every other month. He stated the institute sessions
are held over a lunch hour. He noted he encouraged the Councilmembers to follow the agenda
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 7 10 ;
Ea
LK
and attend any of interest. He added the next session would be held on June 13 in Shoreview.
He stated he believes there would be an update on the transportation study at that meeting.
ADJOURN
MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion
to adjourn the meeting at 8:49 p.m. The motion carried unanimously(5-0).
Dennis Probst Joe Lynch
Mayor City Administrator
NOTICE OF MEETINGS
The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, June 11, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills
Council chambers.
t
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAGE 1 OF 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/11/01 COUNCIL MEETING
CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING (05/29/01)
19475 05/25/01 Superior Ford,Inc. 50,769.00 2001 Ford F450-Public Works
19476 05/25/01 Ci of New Bri hton 3,327.99 Tax&Title Fee-2001 Ford F450
19477 05/29/01 Gander Mountain 74.53 Canvas Waders-Parks&PW
19478 05/30/01 Rochon Co oration 411,398.07 Pa #8-New Ci Hall Construction
19479 06/01/01 AMB Property LP 4,388.00 June Rent&Gen 0 er Ex
19480 06/01/01 E-Z Recycling,Inc 4 855.00 Ma Service
19481 06/04/01 Affini Plus Federal Credit Union 4,120.00 First June Payroll
19482 06/05/01 ICMA Retirement Trust-457 1 697.24 First June Payroll
19483 06/05/01 Stanton Group-FSA Department 209.70
Daycare Reimbursement-5/25/01
19484 06/05/01 Si -A-Rama 950.00 Si s for 50th Anniversary-6/23/01
19485 06/06/01 United Telecom Council 275.00 Trace FCC License-Mini Mobile
Subtotal-Paid Claims 482,064.53
r
laims From Above- 482,064.53
npaid Claims, Page 3 of 3- 50.793.88
Accounts Payable Claims
ouncil Approval, 06/11/01- 532,858.41
Note: Checks for unpaid claims totaling$304,092.17 were mailed on May 30,2001
after approval at the May 29,2001 Council Meeting. They were check numbers
19433-19474. This sequence corresponds to unpaid temporary numbers TO -T42.
Check numbers 19431-19432 were used for alignment.
r dy/rc upy,W,W—I
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAGE 2 OF 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/11/01 COUNCIL MEETING
UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER:
f Al l�ltl#iV 5 ::.....::::..........::;::>::»::«<::::::
TO1 06/12/01 Abdo Eick&Meyers 1800.00 Audit Services Y/E 12/31/00
T02 06/12/01 American Engineering Testin 93.00 Lift#8-En ineerin
T031 06/12/01 Anderson Rick 700.00 Final P t-Dqv in the Park-Band
T04 1 06/12/01 Animal Control Services,Inc. 1079.04 Do at Enforcement-Ma
T05 06/12/01 Animals of Walton Hollow 650.00 Final P-Day in the Park-Petting Zoo
T06 06/12/01 Architectural Alliance 2516.09 Prof Services 3/24-4/20/O1-Ci Hall
T07 06/12/01 Arden Hills Nurse 2 155.80 2001 Flower Gardens
T08 06/12/01 1 Arden Hills Tire&Service 19.29 Tire Repair
T09 06/12/01 Bad er Meter Inc. 639.00 Utility Service Agreement
T10 06/12/01 Ber stedt Cath 35.00 Refund-T-Ball-Coach Discount
T11 06/12/01 Berres Sand 13.80 Mileage Reimbursement
T12 06/12/01 Biffs,Inc. 351.31 Portable Toilets-Parks
T13 06/12/01 1 Brock White Comvanv 1,072.54 Road Joint Sealant
T14 06/12/01 Connelly Industrial Electronic 134.20 Lift#8-Processor Locku -Re air
T15 06/12/01 Construction Bulletin Magazine 251.10 Ad-Lift#8-Bid
T16 06/12/01 Co orate Ex ress 422.64 Office Supplies&Co Pa er
T17 06/12/01 Custom Headsets 286.16 Receptionist-Headset
T18 06/12/01 Davies Water E ui ment 422.74
T19 06/12/01 Electro, Storm Catch Basin Re air
Watchman Inc. 488.84 Alarm System PW
T20 06/12/01 Electronic Interiors Inc 712.05 Elec Tech Desi -CC Chambers
T21 06/12/01 Ess Brothers 183.18 Catch Basin Grates
T22 06/12/01 FMAM 35.00 FMAM Membership 2001-Scherbel
T23 06/12/01 Frattallo-Hardware Inc. 618.97 Kay Purchases
T24 06/12/01 Go her Rearing Co. 68.14 Flang.-Bearing-#4298 Re air
T25 06/12/01 Go her State One-Call 84.80 Aril Service
T26 06/12/01 Har Mar Lock&Service 724.60 Padlocks-Replacement
T27 06/12/01 Hoffman Talent Agency 520.00 Final P t-50th Anniversary-Band
T28 06/12/01 ICI Dulux Paint Centers 265.72 Field Marking Paint
T29 06/12/01 Inde endent S orts Network 1 600.00 Um ire Services 5/1-5/31/01
T30 06/12/01 In sham&Assoc,Inc. 2 347.27 Com Park&Rec Plan
T31 06/12/01 I.U.O.E.Local 49 262.00 may Payroll Deductions
T32 06/12/01 Johnson Faro Culvert,Inc.
T33 06/12/01 Lea a of MN Cities 351.88 Utili Maintenance Su lies
1 304.41 Sewer Back-u s-upse&Picha
T34 06/12/01 Lea ue of MN Cities 250.00 Add Fireworks Coverage
T35 06/12/01 LTG Power Equipment 53.66 Gas Trimmer Line
T3 06/12/01 L ch,Joe 103.50 Milea
T377 06/12/01 a Reimbursement-MCMA Conf
Mac ueen Equi ment 143.78 Swee er#201 Re air
Total-Unpaid Claims- 22,759.51
..nMhxoums prybWc6imal
s
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAGE 3 OF 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/11/01 COUNCIL MEETING
UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER:
T38 06/12/01 Merry Bob Music Inc. 475.00 Concert-Da in the Park
T39 06/12/01 Midwest Asphalt Corp 1,137.46 Road Repair Materials
875.00 Adult Softball Tournament En Fees
T40 06/12/01 MRPA
T41 06/12/01 Moundsview,Ci of 400.00 S rin Golf Lessons
T42 06/12/01 Natale's Caffe 87.48 Council Worksession 5/22
T43 06/12/01 NCPERS Group Life Ins 36.00 PERA Life-June
T44 06/12/01 North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition 3,707.13 HRC Membership 7/01-6/02
T45 06/12/01 Nosek,Mary 120.00 June Newsletter
T46 06/12/01 Olson Michelle 53.99 Mileage Reimbursement
T47 06/12/01 Pettv Cash 173.22 PettyCash Replenishment
T48 06/12/01 Piperight Plumbing 750.00 3162 Shorewood-Sewer Main
T49 06/12/01 Post,Terrance 82.09 Mileage/Expense Reimbursement
T50 06/12/01 Prior Lake Water Ski Association 1 000.00 Final P t-Da in the Park-Water Show
T51 06/12/01 —Ramsey County3,399.41 2000 Maint Emergency Veh/A r Fuel Purch
T52/T53 06/12/01 Ranstad 8,789.55 Liquidation Fee-Bateman-Services 5/20&5/27
T54 06/12/01 Reed,Fred 39.99 2001 Uniform Purchase
T55 06/12/01 Ro al Concrete Pie 878.03 Catch Basin Repair-Venus Ave
T56 06/12/01 Scherer Bros.Lumber Co. 510.01 Ma Purchases
T57 06/12/01 State of MN 500.00 MN CPV Membership01/02
T58 06/12/01 State of MN-Dept of Admin 998.17 Aril Phone Service
T59 06/12/01 Su er Sitters 33.45 Babysitting Video-Instruction
T60 06/12/01 Team LaboratoryChemical Co 207.47 Portable Toilet Su lies
T61 06/12/01 TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial 685.25 Recording Secretary-May
T62 06/12/01 Twin Ci Unicycle Club 300.00 Parade Performance-50th Anniversary
T63 06/12/01 United Rentals 42.17 Probe for Locating Pipe
T64 06/12/01 Vasko 889.20 Dump Boxes-Lift#8 Demolition
T65 06/12/01 Verizon Wireless 118.95 Cellular Phones
T66 06/12/01 —Walbridge,David 250.00 Magic Show-50th Anniversary
T67 06/12/01 Waste Management-Blaine 371.05 Waste Removal
T68 06/12/01 Xerox Co 1,124.30
May&June Copier Lease/Apr Base Charge
Subtotal, Page 3 of 3- 28,034.37
Pae 2 of 3 Brou ht Forward- 22 759.51
Total Un aid Claims--- 50,793.88
—dy/-1.pycbWclsi,,I
C, O CD 0 0 C W (,4 0 -It 0 0 0
M c o cD :::.V.
06 C�
CD C) ci 'D 6 6 6
CL
...... ....
Xt-., ... 00 m m
0 0 CD c> 0 0 Ol a, 00 cq
X C) 0
C>
"i r4 C-A r-� N 10 00 m od o6 C5 0+ 0
N C7, 10 10 10
10 In r% cl+
A:
X... r C'4
C4
00
.... .....
V: ❑
XX", ..... .....
.2
r
U
.4
0
> ca
r
X 41) X 0 r4
r
E U
r
CO3
E :,
X
X.
< <
-sd 12Irt
c r r.
&n In
Zv vi r o
0 c,
oo v E
w . >
�Z u
A
to c,:
4,1 ol c
F- I- F. F &n V)
N m
cD
CD
X:
Q/ X.X
9
ar il
c>
W0 0 q
w 0 cD o c, 1=1 Q cD cD a 0 c-i r4 -.T r4 -,r r4
cq 'Ir r4 = w m oo oo oo oo oo
N N In r- cl rl w
I` 'D r4 r
oo Q Q lo In m cl In
'o c> t i &
Op 1p
T t, o 2
In a 2�1 01, r- r- rl o t-, m 'n, V,
to oo c4 ol r, Cl lo ol "o
Ic -Ir
W It r
LL r!i A
M oo 0 0
lo a It C) c, r4 c> c> c, c) vi In
c�' c:, oo C, o
O 7 N "t 8. c, 1p 1p. On M M 'I
O - cl ID V c4 C, IO ob C, m c4
7 0o o0 %D cL -, -i n n n m
ri N — — — — - — — — —
r.3 Q
cls m
a bo
o ......
8
E
-o
c,
o
15
id -L
En I nI* 2
7o s 7 v v r- >, , -
A r
WF, ,f
b v5o ,
o
LUbe o
cn vu) cn u " w u C4
"q
N m 'o r�
14 NcOa 0 0 cD 1= 0 C4
P. 0 0 08 8 c, Ol (=,: o (o o
c> c 0 c> 00
a 0
10 lo r- r, ll r, 00 w
00 W 00 w k w 00 w 00 oo 00 oo 00 W w 00 oo:l oo oo oo 00
y
Ek
� r
N
r
Q.'
'a
0
co
0
m
Q b M Nlt� O
W �
_ o a7,k:
V <:: U � o h
N 0 C Lin \ V
� o
C7 Ho �
z C� aC7a z w w
a
. :
CL
LLJ
ell
H
CW
O O F v
M
ILCL
€ a
y
von
.fit U '��•' v m •
7 w;
v
xo W
Q
m .:: �� FG �� 4*+: w
LU
w
LL CA
00
o
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
Planning Case 01-20
DATE: June 6, 2001
The City of Arden Hills requests the first review of a model Erosion and Settlement Control
Ordinance at the June 11, 2001, City Council meeting. A public hearing should be called and
adoption considered at the July 9, 2001, City Council meeting.
Backyround
In November 2000 the City Council passed a resolution stating their commitment to adopt an
Erosion and Settlement Control Ordinance by July 1, 2001. This commitment and adoption of
this ordinance was a requirement of the Metropolitan Council for approval of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan Update.
The Metropolitan Council suggested and the City obtained, a model Erosion and Settlement
Control Ordinance from Ramsey County for review. This ordinance has been circulated through
staff for review and comment for presentation at the Council meting.
Staff Recommendations
The staff recommends that the proposed Erosion and Settlement Control Ordinance be presented
for a first read at the June 11, 2001, City Council meting. If acceptable at that time, and with any
comments and suggested changes, a public hearing be called and held at the City Council
meeting on July 9, 2001, for a second read and adoption of the ordinance.
MODEL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR LAND
DISTURBANCE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE CITY OF
The City Council of the City of
ordains:
Section 1. 0. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to
control or eliminate soil erosion and sedimentation within the
city of It establishes standards and
rvation practices and planning activities
specifications for conse
which minimize soil erosion and sedimentation.
Section 2 .0. Scope. Except as exempted by Section. 3 . 6, any
person, firm, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation,
state agency or political subdivision thereof proposing land
disturbance activity within the city of
shall
apply to the city for the approval of the erosion and sediment
control plan. No land shall be disturbed until the plan is
he city and conforms to the standards set forth
approved by t
herein.
Section 3.0. For the purposes of this ordinance, the
following terms have the meanings given them in this section:
1
3 . 1 . District. "District" means the Ramsey Soil and Water
conservation District organized and operating under Minnesota
Statutes, chapter 40.
3 , 2, Erosion and Sediment Practice Specifications or
Practice. "Erosion -and. Sediment Practice : . -specifications" or
"Practice" means the management procedures, techniques, and
methods to control soil erosion and sedimentation as officially
adopted by the District.
3 .3. Developer. "Developer" means a person, firm,
corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership, state agency or
political subdivision thereof engaged in a land disturbance
activity.
3 .4. Erosion. . "Erosion" means any process that wears away
the surface of the -land by the- action- of -water, -wind, ice, or
gravity:- "Erosion" can be accelerated by the -activities of man
and nature.
3.5.- Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. "Erosion and
Sediment . Control Plan" means a document containing the
requirements of Section 4.0 that when implemented will decrease
soil erosion on a parcel of land and off-site sediment damages.
3.6. Land Disturbance Activity. "Land Disturbance
Activity" means land change that may result in soil erosion from
water or wind and the movement of sediments into or upon waters
or lands of Ramsey County, including clearing, grading,
excavating, transporting and filling of land. "Land Disturbance
Activity"does not mean:
2
( 1) minor land disturbance activities such as home
gardens and individuals home landscaping, repairs
and maintenance work;
(2) construction.;- installation and maintenance of
electric, telephone.,.. and. cable television utility.. :-
lines or individual service connection to these
utilities, except where a minimum of 10, 000 square
feet of land disturbance can be anticipated;
(3) septic tank lines or drainage fields unless
included in an overall plan for a land disturbance
activity relating to construction of a building to
be served by the septic tank system;
(4) tilling,. planting or harvesting of agricultural,
horticultural,.:, ,or silvicultural -crops;
preparation: for.. single-family residences
separately built, unless in conjunction with
multiple construction in subdivision development;
(6) disturbed land areas for commercial or
noncommercial uses of (less than 10, 000 square
feet) in size;
(7) installation of fence, sign, telephone, and
electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles;
and
(8) emergency work to protect life, limb, or property
and emergency repairs, except if the land
disturbing activity would have required an
3
approved erosion and sediment control plan except
for the emergency, then the land area disturbed
shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with
t2ie Y&Vireb ' t of the ' local- plan-approving
authority or' the District when `app1.icable.
3 . 7 . Ramsey County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or
Handbook. "Ramsey County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook"
or "Handbook" means a handbook which contains the Erosion and
Sediment Control Practice specifications and planning procedures
to control soil erosion and sedimentation. The "Ramsey County
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook" shall be adopted by the
Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District.
3 .8 . Sediment.' "Sediment" means solid mineral or organic
material, that, in suspension, - is being transported-, or has been
moved from its original site by air.—water, gravity, or ice, and
has been dePposited at''another location'.
3 ,9, Sedimentation. "Sedimentation" means the process or
action of depositing sediment, that is determined to have been
caused by erosion.
Section 4.0. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A
developer engaged in a land disturbance .activity shall submit an
erosion and sediment control plan that will minimize soil erosion
or sediment from damaging adjacent . land, bodies of water,
watercourses or wetlands to the city for its approval.
4 .1. The erosion and sediment control plan shall address
the following criteria:
4::
( 1) Stabilize all exposed soils and soil stockpiles:
(2) : Establish permanent vegetation;
(3) Prevention. of sediment damage to. adjacent
. ..properties and other., designated areas ;
(4) Schedule erosion:.,and sediment. control practices ;
(5) Use temporary sedimentation basins;
(6) Engineer the construction of steep slopes;
(7) Control the storm water leaving a site.
(8) Stabilize all waterways and outlets;
(9) Protect storm sewers from the entrance of
sediment;
(10) When working in or crossing water bodies
take precautions to contain sediment;
(11) Resta.bilize utility .construction areas as
soon as possible;. ,. ..
(12) Protect paved, roads.. from..sediment and mud
brought in from access routes; _.
(13) Dispose of temporary erosion and sediment control
measures; and
(14) Maintain all temporary and permanent erosion and
sediment control practices.
4.2. Plan. The erosion and sediment control plan shall
include:
(1) Project description - The nature and purpose of
the land-disturbing activity and the amount of
grading involved.
5
(2 ) Phasing of construction - The nature and purpose
of the land-disturbing activity and. the amount of
grading, utilities, and building .construction.
(3) Existing- s.ite�. conditions Existing topography
vegetation'--and drainage.
(4) Adjacent areas - Neighboring streams, lakes,
residential areas, roads, etc. , which might be
affected by the land-disturbing activity.
(5) Soils -Soil names, mapping units, erodibility,
(6) Critical erosion areas - Areas on the site that
have potential for serious erosion problems.
(7) Erosion and sediment control measures —Methods
to be used to control erosion and -sedimentation
on the site;--both during and after the
construction=process.:
(8) Permanent stabilization —..How the site will: be
stabilized after construction is completed,
including specifications.
(9) Stormwater management - How storm runoff will
be managed, including methods to be used if
the development will result in increased..peak
rates of runoff.
(10) Maintenance - Schedule of regular inspections
and repair of erosion and sediment control
structures.
6 '
• ( 11) Calculations - Any that were made for the design
of such items as sediment basins, diversions ,
waterways, and other applicable. practices.
Section -.5.0:.:r . Ramsey County Erosion.:and....-. $ediment. Control
Handbook. The Handbook must..be .the reference for Erosion and
Sediment Control Practice specifications used in the city - of
5.1. Approval. All erosion and sediment control practice
specifications shall be approved and adopted by the District.
5.2 . Variance. Where . in the judgment of a Registered
Professional Engineer experienced in the field of erosion and
sediment control, site conditions warrant or where the Practices
or Practice .Standards.; as.. contained- in the Handbook, will be
insufficient o., control;erosio entat:ion for a land
ance activity, the istr:ict_.Board... y..:grant a variance
disturb Y�
from the use:: of the Handbook, on. a: case- by- case basis. The
content of a variance- shall. be specific and . shall not affect
other approved provisions of a plan.
5. 3 . Variance Procedure. . The procedure for obtaining a
variance shall be . outlined in the Ramsey County Erosion and
Sediment. Control Handbook. .
Section 6.0. Review. The city appoints the (zoning,
planning, building inspector, engineer, District) to review the
erosion and sediment control plan. The (zoning, planning,
building inspector, engineer, District) shall review the erosion .
s �s
tZe,
�..�
and sediment control plan within ( ) days of receiving the plan
from the developer. The city shall notify the developer of its
decision, after receipt of comments from the . appointed reviewer
and no . =more than ( ) days after."receiving- the pian f-rom r�the
developer.
T°w
6. 1. Permit required. If the appointed reviewer determines
that the erosion and sediment control plan meets the requirements
of this ordinance, the city shall issue a permit valid for a
specified period of time, that authorizes the land disturbance
activity contingent upon the implementation and completion of the
erosion and sediment control plan.
6.2 . Denial. If the appointed reviewer determines that the
erosion and sediment control plan does not meet the requirements.
of this ordinance, thecity shall. not issue a permit for the land
disturbance activity. The erosion .and sediment control plan--must .
be re-submitted for approval before the -land disturbance activity
begins. All land use and building permits must . be suspended
until the developer has an approved erosion and sediment control
plan.
Section 7.0. Easement. The developer may dedicate an
easement to the. city for any permanent erosion :and sediment
control practice(s) that remain after the land disturbance
activity is completed.
8 ,
7 . 1 . Maintenance. The developer shall be responsible for
the maintenance of the permanent erosion and sediment control
practices for the period: of construction activity. : The .city..;shaIl..
assign the maintenance:.responsibil:ity for:: a: permanent :ero:sion. and:.=
sediment control practice(s) after that time.
Section 8 .0. Mod-ification of Plan. An approved erosion and
sediment control plan may be modified upon submission of an
application for modification to the city and subsequent approval
by the city. In reviewing such application, the city may require
additional reports and data.
Section 9. 0. Escrow Requirement. Upon approval of an
erosion and sediment control plan, the city .shall require the
developer to. escrow a sum .of. money sufficient . .to insure the
installation,-. completion. -.:. and`-_ ..malhtenance. of..: the erosion..: and-:..
sedivent°-.contr_oh:.,p.lan:and --practices:._�:.: -.— .a �( Au.�e "-JAI -
(70
We, Gu9ve- ��Gu�gZ,
-Section. . :10:O: Variance.:. In .the .case of restrictive . site
conditions. or emergency situations, the developer .may apply..for a
variance from this ordinance. The city shall submit the variance
request to the appropriate water management organization(s) for
review. The variance shall be approved or denied by the city and
appropriate water management organization(s) within ( ) days
after receipt. when the water management organization's position
on a variance request differs from that of a city, the water
management organization's jurisdiction supersedes the city's.
A �,
�-
a �' 9
10. 1 . Ramsey County or Minnesota Department of
Transportation Road Construction. When road construction crosses
lc
municipal boundaries; Ramsey County or the Minnesota Department
Of" Transportati-on-:shall- obtain, an- erosion-and sediment- - control -
permit from the appropriate `water management organizations)
rather than individual cities. Zf%fie
Section 11.0. Enforcement. The city shall be responsible
for the enforcement of this ordinance.
11. 1. Penalty. Any person, firm, or corporation who fails
to comply with or violates any of these regulations shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a fine not more
than ($ ) dollars or imprisonment for a
period not exceeding ( ) days, or both. All land use and
building permits must be suspended until the developer has
corrected the violation and amended the erosion and sediment
control plan for the land disturbance activity. Each day -that a
separate violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.
Section 12.0. Effective Date. This ordinance will take
effect and be in force after its passage and official
publication.
Passed by the Council this day of ,
198
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
1'0
RECOMENDED ADDITIONS
6. 3 . Application Fee. Thedeveloper shall submit . an
application fee- of ($ ) with the erosion and. sediment., ..c.ontrc:_
plan--tothe- city. _ This fee -is non-refundable..and. s-hall .coves...any:
review cost accrued within one (.1) - year. ofthe date of payment.. .,
I
W�
modelord-S16
1.1.
,-A EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrato
SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Ordinance
Planning Case 00-39
DATE: June 7, 2001
Staff requests the City of Arden Hills review a Right-of-Way ordinance at the public hearing at
the June 11, 2001, City Council meeting. This follow up from the first review of the ordinance
at the April 30, 2001, City Council meeting.
Background
The Right-of-Way ordinance which was provided by the North Suburban Communications
Commission(NSCC)was presented to the Planning Commission at their November and
December 2000 regular meetings for review. The Planning Commission did not feel this
ordinance was within their area of expertise and referred the ordinance to the City Council for
their review without recommendations.
The ordinance is designed to give cities an uniform set of regulations to help them govern the use
of their right-of-ways. It provides a single set of regulations that cities can apply to all right-of—
way users including telecommunications and utilities companies. The ordinance implements the
city's authority to manage it's right-of-way and to recover the actual costs incurred in managing
excavations or obstructions within the right-of-way.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the proposed Right-of-Way ordinance be adopted. The ordinance has
been changed to reflect those items previously identified by the City Engineer and the former
Public Works Director. Staff recommends that the Council direct that a summary ordinance be
published and the ordinance be number coded in compliance with our new city code.
Enclosed is the copy of affidavit to publication providing proof that proper notification was
given in the time frame met for publication.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 25,2001
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer Chaput,City Planne
SUBJECT: Planning Case#00-39, City of Arden Hills
Right of Way Ordinance (Public Hearing)
Ree u_est
The City of Arden Hills requests adoption of the Right-of-Way Ordinance (Exhibit A).
Background
The attached right-of-way ordinance was provided by the North Suburban Communications
Commission(NSCC) and is largely based on the League of Minnesota Cities' model ordinance. It
has been reviewed by the City Council during one meeting and has been brought forward for a
second review and public hearing for adoption. In late 2000, the CityEn meow nd past las City
ublic
Works Director reviewed this document and provided comments, as shown
Council meeting,there was some discussion regarding the length of time that should be permitted
for restoration (comment #7 below). Research of the Ordinances from Roseville and Shoreview
shows that the original 36 month time limit was maintained, for your information.
Again,the purpose of the Ordinance is to give cities a uniform set of regulations to help them govern
the use of their rights-of-way.It is intended to provide a single set of regulations that cities can apply
to all right-of-way users, including telecommunications companies. The ordinance conforms to the
provisions of the new telecommunications right-of-way legislation adopted into law as Minn.
Session Laws 1997, chapter 123. In particular, the ordinance implements a city's authority to
manage its right-of-ways and to recover its actual costs incurred in managing excavations and/or
obstructions within the right of way.
Review
The following are proposed changes to the Ordinance as written by City staff, as previously
presented:
1. Definition of"Business District"--should add in"to be subsequently designated" in reference to
business districts. ...means any tangible asset
2. Definition of"Equipment"--propose to change this definition to, "
used to install,repair or maintain facilities in any right-of-way or which obstructs any right-of-
3. The
way'City does not currently have excavation or obstruction permits. They should be a combined
0permit when the ordinance is adopted.
4. Definition of"Restore"--should state that the right-of--way should be restored to new or better
condition instead of returned to the same condition. This is also addressed in right of way
restoration--should state that it will be restored to new or better condition.
5. Permit application submission requirements--should include in the application scaled drawings
showing the location of all existing roadways and public or private utilities.
6. Right of Way restoration--states that the permittee may choose to have the City to restore the
right of way. This should be amended to state that the permittee will patch its own work.
7. City Restoration and Permittee Restoration--suggested that the time limits for restoration be
reduced from 36 months to 12 months.
8. Installation requirements--the language "the standard specifications for street openings" should
be replaced with "Engineering Standards adopted by the PUC".
9. Undergrounding--The City Engineer questioned this section's relevance. However,this language
has been adopted by surrounding communities in their ordinances.
Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the Right-of-Way Ordinance with the changes outlined in this
memorandum.
\\Bds-01\sys\USERSUENNIFER\Planning Commission Cases\City Council Memo\2000\00-39 ROW Ordinance2.doc
2
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 7, 2001
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner( i
SUBJECT: Planning Case#00-39, City of Arden Hills
Right of Way Ordinance
Request
The City of Arden Hills requests a first review of a model right-of-way ordinance(Exhibit A) at the
May 14, 2001. City Council meeting. If appropriate, a public hearing will be held.on.the.proposed
ordinance at the June 11, 2001 meeting, followed by adoption at the same meeting.
Background
As discussed at the April 16 worksession, the model right-of-way ordinance was provided by the
North Suburban Communications Commission (NSCC) and is largely based on the League of
Minnesota Cities' model ordinance.This ordinance is the result of a cooperative effort between the
City Engineer Association of Minnesota and the League of Minnesota Cities, thoroughly reviewed
by an attorney for the North Suburban Communications Commission. Additionally, the proposed
ordinance has been reviewed by the City Engineer, City Attorney and former Public Works Director.
Again,the purpose of the model ordinance is to give cities a uniform set of regulations to help them
govern the use of their rights-of-way. It is intended to provide a single set of regulations that cities
can apply to all right-of-way users, including telecommunications companies. The ordinance
conforms to the provisions of the new telecommunications right-of-way legislation adopted into law
as Minn. Session Laws 1997,chapter 123. In particular,the ordinance implements a city's authority
to manage its right-of-ways and to recover its actual costs incurred in managing excavations and/or
obstructions within the right of way.
At the request of the City Council,staff contacted the League of Minnesota Cities to inquire about
the success of their model ordinance in metro area cities. The League has stated that the model right-
of-way ordinance has been adopted by about thirty metro communities and they have not heard of
any significant issues with the ordinance. The League also mentioned that one of the toughest critics
of right-of-way ordinances is Xcel Energy and that even their criticisms have not been overly bad.
Review
The Public Works Director and the City Engineer reviewed the proposed ordinance, providing the
following list of comments, corresponding with the page numbers in Exhibit A:
1. Definition of "Business District" (page 3 or 4/32)—should add in "to be subsequently
10 designated" in reference to business districts.
w
2. Definition of"Equipment"(page 3 or 4/32)—propose to change this definition to,"...means any
tangible asset used to install,repair or maintain facilities in any right-of-way or which obstructs
any right-of-way".
3. The City does not currently have excavation or obstruction permits (page 4 or 5/32). They should
be a combined permit when the ordinance is adopted.
4. Definition of"Restore"(page 5 or 6/32)—should state that the right-of-way should be restored
to new or better condition instead of returned to the same condition. This is also addressed in
right of way restoration (page 11, 12/32)—should state that it will be restored to new or better
condition.
5. Permit application submission requirements (page 10 or 11/32)--should include in the
application scaled drawings showing the location of all existing roadways and public or private
utilities.
6. Right of Way restoration(page 12 or 13/32)—states that the permittee may choose to have the
City to restore the right of way. This should be amended to state that the permittee will patch its
own work.
7. City Restoration and Permittee Restoration(page 12 or 13/3)sug�that the a limits for restoration be reduced from 36 months to 12 months.
8. Installation requirements(page 16 or 17/32�—the language"the standard specifications for street
openings"should be replaced with"Engineering Standards adopted by the PUC".
9. Undergrounding (page 20 or 21/32)—The City Engineer questioned this section's relevance.
However, this language has been adopted by surrounding communities in their ordinances.
`7 Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review the proposed Ordinance and direct staff to make any
necessary changes. The Ordinance will be presented to the City Council a second time, at the next
regular City Council meeting on June 11, 2001, for a public hearing and adoption.
Ck
VD -
�l k0) fin,
2
Affibabit of Publication „
:Ifr
Mate of Iflinnroota n
-
Countp of Ramgep
LARAINE COKER being duly sworn, on oath, says that
he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper
known as SHOREVIEW BULLETIN and has full knowledge of the facts which
are stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
(B) The printed NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on WEDNESDAY the
30TH day of MAY 2001 and was thereafter printed and published on every
to and including the day of , 20 ; and printed
below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of
the notice:
*ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPGRSTUVWXYZ
*ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPORSTUVWXYZ
BY: � ��n
*abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
TITLE Proofing
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
t Is 30TH ay of MAY , 2001
otaryPublic
Alp abet should�bep n tth�q_same size and kind of type as the notice.
�rp
Wi,Iv PUBLIC-kr,i 5�1".
My Corrwn.l:ppires Jan.31,2--105 5 RATE INFORMATION
0 0
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $24.80 per col. inch
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.38 per col. inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ per col. inch
1/01
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY-OF ARDEN HILLS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING ADOPTION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE .
TO WHOM ITMAY:CONCERN:
NOTICE'IS HEREBYGIVEN, that on
Monday, June Ili 2001,.at 730 p.m., the
Arden Hills'City Council will hold a Public
Heanng at'Arden Hills City'Hall, Council-
Ghar#�bers;'41WA Round Lake Road,:A14W
Hills,Minnesota on an application by the City.
of ArdenHiNs 49¢4:'Yil. Round lake'Aoad,
Arden HMIs,'MN b5112,for adoptan of a fight-'
of-WAY Ordinance'
The .application and all..documen
relative-thereto are on Alp and available for
inspection- at the office of the-.Clty<
Administrator at Arden HiNs City-Hall,4364-W
Round take Road.
This.notice is giver, pursuant to Zonkig
Ordinance;il291,of_ihe Arden Hills Code"of'
Ordinances. - -"
,Any person in favor.of, opposed to, or
.interested in said 80pl1006613wi11 be heard by.
the Planning Commission at the time and
place above stated. =
Dated at Arden Hills,Minnesota this24thday
of May 2001.
Jen.nifir ChnM
(Bulletin:May 30,.2001) P' City
---AEN HILLS
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
ADOPTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that on Monday, June 11, 2001, at 7:30 p.m.,the Arden
Hills City Council will hold a Public Hearing at Arden Hills City Hall, Council
Chambers, 4364 Round Lake Road, Arden Hills, Minnesota on an application by the City
of Arden Hills, 4364 W. Round Lake Road,Arden Hills, MN 55112, for adoption of a
Right-of-Way Ordinance.
The application and all documentation relative thereto are on file and available for
inspection at the office of the City Administrator at Arden Hills City Hall, 4364 W.
Round Lake Road.
This notice is given pursuant to Zoning Ordinance#291 of the Arden Hills Code of
Ordinances.
Any person in favor of, opposed to, or interested in said application will be heard by the
Planning Commission at the time and place above stated.
Dated at Arden Hills, Minnesota, this 24`h day of May 2001.
Jennifer Chaput
City Planner
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
ORDINANCE NO. o
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT
The Arden Hills City Council hereby ordains that Chapter 8,
Article VI, Section 8-60 is added to the Arden Hills
Municipal Code to read as follows :
Sec. 8-60 . Incorporation of Right-of-Way Manangement
Regulations . The Use and Construction of improvements
within Public Rights-of-Way shall be subject to the
provisions of Arden Hills Ordinance Number 32 which is
incorporated herein. Arden Hills Ordinance Number
establishes Rules and Regulations for the use of Rights-of-
Way including Registration Requirements, Reporting
Obligations, Rights-of-Way Regulations, Inspection
Requirements, Revocation of Permit Procedures, Mapping Data
Requirements, Procedures which apply to Right-of-Way
Vacations, Indemnification Obligations of Right-of-Way
users, and Procedures which apply to the abandonment of
equipment located within the Right-of-Way. The City is in
the process of recodifying its regulations . Ordinance
Number 2 includes the format and numbering system
which will be included in the recodification.
1
Adoption Date. Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden
Hills on the day of 12001 .
Dennis Probst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Joseph Lynch, City Administrator
Publication Date. This Ordinance or an approved Summary thereof
was published on the of 2001 .
2
Warren E.Peterson 50 East Suite 300
Jerome P Filla Fihh Street
Fram
Daniel Witt Bergman
FRAM f7` � BL7' G �1 ll V
Glenn A.Bergman r+l�t: �lvl l� 1V1 St.Paul,MN 55101-1197
John Michael Miller (651)291-8955
0Michael T.Oberle (651)228-1753 facsimile
Steven H.Bruns*
Paul W.Fahning
Esther E.McGinnis
Jeffrey I.Cohen
Direct Dial#(651)290-6907
June 7, 2001
Jospeh Lynch, City Administrator
City of Arden Hills
4364 W. Round Lake Road
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: Right-of-Way Management Regulations
City of Arden Hills
PF&B File No.: 10450.000005
Dear Joe:
Enclosed are the following:
1. A draft of a Right-of-Way Management Ordinance. The Ordinance is in a
format which anticipates the City's recodification. This ordinance needs to
be approved by three (3) affirmative votes of the City Council.
2. A draft of an Ordinance Summary for the Right-of-Way Management
Regulation. Four (4) affirmative votes of the City Council are required to
adopt the Ordinance Summary. The City can than publish the Summary
instead of the longer Ordinance.
3. A draft of an Ordinance which would temporarily include the City's Right-of-
Way Management Regulations in Chapter Eight(8)of the City Code pending
recodification. Three (3)affirmative votes of the City Council are necessary
to adopt this Ordinance.
'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN
June 7, 2001
Page 2
If you have any questions please contact.
Very truly yours,
i
erom P. ' la
JPF:tpt
Enclos.
AN ORDINANCE ST MULRY
On the day of , 2001, the Arden Hills
City Council adopted Ordinance and, pursuant to Minn. Stat .
§412 . 191, Subd. 4,by four affirmative votes, directed that a
summary of ordinance be published.
Arden Hills Ordinance is entitled "An Ordinance
Relating to Right-of-Way Management" . The ordinance establishes
rules and regulations for the use of rights-of-way including
registration requirements, reporting obligations, right-of-way
permit requirements, right-of-way patching and restoration
obligations, inspection requirements, revocation of permit
procedures, mapping data requirements, procedures which apply to
right-of-way vacation, indemnification obligations of right-of-way
users, and procedures which apply to the abandonment of equipment
located within the right-of-way.
A copy of Ordinance is available for inspection.by any
person during regular business hours at the office of the Arden
Hills City Administrator at City of Arden Hills, 4364 W. Round Lake
Road, Arden Hills, MN 55112 .
Dated:
Joseph Lynch
City Administrator
34
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
ORDINANCE NO.
7 90"r-
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT
The Arden Hills City Council hereby ordains that Chapter 360 and
its subdivisions are hereby added to the Arden Hills Municipal Code
to read as follows:
360 RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT PERMITS
Sec. 360.01. Findings and Purpose. To provide for the health,
safety and well-being of its citizens, and to ensure the structural
integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-
way, the City strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good
repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Although the
general population bears the financial burden for the upkeep of the
rights-of-way, a primary cause for the early and excessive
deterioration of its rights-of-way is frequent excavation.
Right-of-way obstruction is a source of frustration for merchants,
business owners and the general population which must avoid these
obstructions or change travel or shopping plans because of them and
has a detrimental effect on commerce . Persons whose equipment is
within the right-of-way are the primary cause of these frequent
obstructions.
The City holds the rights-of-way within its geographical boundaries
as an asset in trust for its citizens . The City and other public
entities have invested millions of dollars in public funds to build
and maintain the rights-of-way. It also recognizes that some
persons, by placing their equipment in the right-of-way and
charging the citizens of the City for goods and services delivered
thereby, are using this property held for the public good.
Although such services are often necessary or convenient for the
citizens, such persons receive revenue and/or profit through their
use of public property.
1
The Minnesota Legislature has recognized that it is in the public ' s
interest that the use and regulation of rights-of-way be carried on
in a fair, efficient, competitively neutral and substantially
uniform manner while recognizing such regulation must reflect
distinct engineering, construction, operation, maintenance, and
public and worker safety requirements and standards applicable to
various users of rights of way. Further, the legislature has
determined that because increasing numbers of persons may seek
usage of rights-of-way, municipalities such as the City must be and
have been authorized to regulate use of rights-of-way. Consistent
with this mandate, the City has endeavored to model its right-of-
way regulations consistent with those of models enacted or under
consideration by municipalities throughout the state. Further, the
City has endeavored to create competitively neutral rights-of-way
standards and regulations of general applicability.
In response to the foregoing facts, the City hereby enacts this
chapter relating to Right-of-Way Management . This chapter imposes
reasonable regulations on the placement and maintenance of
equipment currently within its rights-of-way or to be placed
therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the
regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this
chapter, persons disturbing and obstructing the rights-of-way will
bear a fair share of the financial responsibility for the integrity
of the City' s rights-of-way. Finally, this chapter provides for
recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using
the public rights-of-way.
By enactment of this chapter, the City Council hereby exercises its
lawful police power and common law authority, and all statutory
authority which is available to it, including, but not limited to,
the powers conferred on it under Minn. Stat . §237 . 162 and §237 . 163 ,
while preserving all power and authority to further require
franchises from rights-of-way users under Minn. Stat . §216B.36,
§222 . 37, §300 . 03, and §412 . 11 and other provisions of law.
Sec. 360 .02 . Definitions. The following definitions apply to this
chapter of the Code :
1 . "Administrator" means the City Administrator of the City of
Arden Hills, or the Administrator' s designee.
2
2 . "Applicant" means any person requesting permission to excavate
or obstruct a right-of-way.
3 . "City" means the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. For purposes
of Section 360 .28, City means its elected officials, officers,
employees and agents .
4 . "Degradation" means the accelerated depreciation of the right-
of-way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right-of-
way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of-way
earlier than would be required if the excavation did not
occur.
5. "Degradation Cost" means money paid to the City to cover the
cost associated with a decrease in the useful life of a public
right-of-way caused by excavation.
6 . "Delay Penalty" means the penalty imposed as a result of
unreasonable delays in right-of-way construction.
7. "Department" means the Department of Public Works of the City.
8 . "Department Inspector" means any person authorized by the
Administrator to carry out inspections related to the
provisions of this chapter.
9. "Disruptive Fee'' means the penalty imposed as a result of the
adverse impact on the residents of the City and others who are
required to alter travel routes and times resulting from
right-of-way obstructions.
10 . (Reserved. )
11 . "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a clear and
immediate danger to life or health, or of a significant loss
of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement
in order to restore service to a customer.
12 . "Equipment" means any tangible thing in any right-of-way; but
shall not include boulevard plantings or gardens planted or
maintained in the right-of-way between a person' s property and
the street curb.
3
13 . "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or
physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right-of-way,
except horticultural practices of penetrating the boulevard
area to a depth of less than 12 inches .
14 . "Excavation Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this
chapter, 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 .
15 . "Excavation Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by an
applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 360 . 11 .
16 . "Facility or Facilities" means any tangible asset in the
right-of-way required to provide utility service.
17 . "In" when used in conjunction with "right-of-way, " means over,
above, in, within, on or under a right-of-way.
18 . "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or
designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant
to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant
regarding all matters within the scope of this chapter.
19 . "Management Cost" means the actual cost incurred by the City
for public rights-of-way management; including but not limited
to costs 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 equipment during public
right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way
restoration; restoring work inadequately performed; and
revoking Right-of-Way Permits and performing all other tasks
required by this chapter, including other costs the City may
incur in managing the provisions of this chapter. Management
Cost does not include payment by a Telecommunications right-
of-way user for the use of the right-of-way, the fees and
costs of litigation relating to the interpretation of
Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Section 123 ; Minnesota Statutes
4
Sections 237 . 162 or 237 . 163 or any ordinance enacted under
those sections, or the City' s fees and costs related to
appeals taken pursuant to Section 360 .30 of this chapter.
20 . "Obstruct" means to place any object in a right-of-way so as
to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the
right-of-way.
21 . "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this
chapter, 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.
22 . "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by a
registrant to cover the costs as provided in Section 360 . 11 .
23 . "Patch or Patching" means a method of pavement replacement
that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the
compaction of the sub-base and aggregate base, and (2) the
replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum
of two (2) 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 (5) year project
plan.
24 . "Performance Security" means a performance bond, a restoration
bond, a letter of credit, or cash deposit posted to ensure the
availability of sufficient funds to assure that right-of-way
excavation and obstruction work is completed in both a timely
and quality manner.
25 . "Permittee" means any person to whom a permit to excavate or
obstruct a right-of-way has been granted by the City under
this chapter.
26 . "Person" means any natural or corporate person, business
association or other business entity including, but not
limited to, a partnership, a sole proprietorship, a political
subdivision, a public or private agency of any kind, an
5
utility, a successor or assign of any of the foregoing, or any
other legal entity which has or seeks to have equipment in any
right-of-way.
27 . "Probation" means the status of a person that has not complied
with the conditions of this chapter.
28 . "Probationary Period" means one year from the date that a
person has been notified in writing that they have been put on
probation.
29 . "Registrant" means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its
equipment located in any right-of-way, or (2) in any way
occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way
or any equipment in the right-of-way.
30 . "Repair" means the temporary construction work necessary to
make the right-of-way usable for travel .
31 . "Restore or Restoration" means the process by which an
excavated right-of-way and surrounding area, including
pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition
that existed before the commencement of the work.
32 . "Restoration Cost" means an amount of money paid to the City
by a Permittee to cover the cost of restoration.
33 . "Right of Way" means the surface and space above and below a
public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane and
public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including
other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility
easements of the City.
34 . "Right-of-Way Permit" means either the Excavation Permit or
the Obstruction Permit, or both, depending on the context,
required by this chapter.
35 . "Service" or "Utility Service" includes but is not limited to
(1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in
Minn. Stat . §216B. 02, Subds . 4 and 6; (2) telecommunications,
pipeline, community antenna television, fire and alarm
communications, water, electricity, light, heat, cooling
6
energy, or power services; (3) the services provided by a
corporation organized for the purposes set forth in Minn.
Stat . §300 . 03 ; (4) the services provided by a district heating
or cooling system; and (5) cable communications systems as
defined in Minn. Stat . Chap. 238; and A(6) Telecommunication
Right-of-Way User.
36 . "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.
37 . "Telecommunication Rights-of-Way User" means a person owning
or controlling a facility in the public right-of-way, or
seeking to own or control a facility in the public right-of-
way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting
telecommunication or other voice or data information. For
purposes of this chapter, a cable communication system defined
and regulated under Minn. Stat . Chap. 238, and
telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas
or electric energy services are not telecommunications right-
of-way users .
38 . "This Chapter" means Arden Hills Code Chapter 360 and its
subdivisions.
39 . "Unusable Equipment" means equipment in the right-of-way which
has remained unused for one year and for which the registrant
is unable to provide proof that it has either a plan to begin
using it within the next twelve (12) months or a potential
purchaser or user of the equipment .
Sec. 360 .03 . Administration. The Administrator is the principal
City official responsible for the administration of the Right-of-
Way Permits, and the regulations related thereto. The
Administrator may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder.
Sec. 360 .04 . Franchise: Franchise Supremacy. The City may, in
addition, to the requirements of this Chapter, require that any
person, which has or seeks to have equipment located in any right-
of-way, obtain a franchise for the full extent permitted by law,
now or hereinafter enacted. The terms of any franchise which are
in direct conflict with any provision of this Chapter, whether
granted prior or subsequent to enactment of this Chapter, shall
control and supersede the conflicting terms of this Chapter,
provided, however, that requirements relating to insurance, bonds,
penalties, security funds, letters of credit, indemnification or
any other security in favor of the City may be cumulative in the
sole determination of the City or unless otherwise negotiated by
the City and the franchise grantee . All other terms of this
Chapter shall be fully applicable to all persons, whether
franchised or not .
Sec. 360.05. Registration and Right-of-Way Occupancy.
Subd. 1 . Registration. Each person who occupies, uses, or
seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way or any
equipment in the right-of-way, including by lease,
sublease or assignment, or who has, or seeks to
have, equipment in any right-of-way must register
with the Administrator. Registration will consist
of providing application information and paying a
registration fee .
Subd. 2 . Registration Prior to Work. No person may
construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or
perform any other work on, or use any equipment or
any part thereof in any right-of-way without first
being registered with the Administrator.
Subd. 3 . 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.
Except as hereinafter provided, 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 or
satisfy any other requirements for planting or
maintain such boulevard plantings or gardens under
this Chapter. However, excavations deeper than 12
inches are subject to the permit requirements of
Chapter 360 . 08 of this Chapter. Nothing herein
relieves a person from complying with the
provisions of Minn. Stat . Section 216D, "one call"
law.
8
Section 360 .06. Registration Information.
Subd. 1 . Information Required. The information provided to
the Administrator at the time of registration shall
include, but not be limited to:
A. Each registrant ' s name, Gopher One-Call
registration certificate number, address and
e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone
and facsimile numbers.
B. 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.
C. A certificate of insurance shall be on a form
approved by the City:
1. 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 that
registrant is covered by self insurance
which the Administrator determines to
provide the City with protections
equivalent to that of a Minnesota
licensed insurance company, legally
independent from the registrant;
2 . Verifying that the registrant is insured
against claims for personal injury,
including death, as well as claims for
property damage arising out of the (i)
use and occupancy of the right-of-way by
the registrant, its officers, agents,
employees and Permittees, and (ii)
placement and use of equipment in the
9 '
right-of-way by the registrant, its
officers, agents, employees and
Permittees, and that registrant ' s
insurance coverage includes, but is not
limited to, protection against liability
arising from completed operations, damage
of underground equipment and collapse of
property;
3 . 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;
4 . Requiring that the Administrator be
notified thirty (30) days in advance of
cancellation of the policy; and
5 . Indicating comprehensive liability
coverage, automobile liability coverage,
workers compensation and umbrella
coverage established by the Administrator
in amounts sufficient to protect the City
and carry out the purposes and policies
of this Chapter.
D. The City may require a copy of the actual
insurance policies .
E. If the person is a corporation, a copy of the
certificate required to be filed under Minn.
Stat . §300 . 06 as recorded and certified to by
the Secretary of State.
F. A copy of the person' s certificate of
authority from the Minnesota 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.
G. Such other information as the City may
10
require.
Subd. 2 . Notice of Changes. The registrant shall keep all
of the information listed above current at all
times by providing to the Administrator information
as to changes within fifteen (15) days following
the date on which the registrant has knowledge of
any change .
Sec. 360 .07 . Reporting Obligations .
Subd. 1 . Operations . Each registrant shall, at the time of
registration and by December 1st of each year, file
a construction and major maintenance plan with the
Administrator.
A. Such plan shall be submitted by using a format
designated by the Administrator and shall
contain the information determined by the
Administrator to be necessary to facilitate
the coordination and reduction in the
frequency of excavations and obstructions of
rights-of-way.
B. The plan shall include, but not be limited to,
the following information:
1 . The locations and the estimated beginning
and ending dates of all Projects to be
commenced during the next calendar year
(in this Chapter, a "Next-Year Project") ;
and
2 . The tentative locations and estimated
beginning and ending dates for all
Projects contemplated for the five years
following the next calendar year (in this
Chapter, a "Five-Year Project") .
C. The term "project" in this Chapter shall
include both Next-Year Projects and Five-Year
Projects .
11
i
D. By January 1st of each year, the Administrator
will have available for inspection in the
Administrator' s office a composite list of all
Projects of which the Administrator has been
informed in the annual plans. All registrants
are responsible for keeping themselves
informed of the current status of this list .
E. Thereafter, by February 1, each registrant may
change any Project in its list of Next-Year
Projects, and must notify the Administrator
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 .
Subd. 2 . Additional Next-Year Projects. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Administrator 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. 360 .08. Right-of-Way Permit Requirement.
Subd. 1 . Right-of-Way Permit Required. Except as otherwise
provided in the City' s regulations, no person may
obstruct or excavate any right-of-way without first
having obtained the appropriate Right-of-Way Permit
from the City Administrator and posting of the
appropriate performance security with the City
Administrator.
A. 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
12
placing equipment described therein, to the
extent and for the durations specified
therein.
B. Obstruction Permit. An Obstruction Permit is
required by registrant to hinder free and open
passage over the specified portion of the
right-of-way by placing equipment described
therein on the right-of-way, to the extent and
for the durations specified therein.
Subd. 2 . Right-of-Way 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 Right-of-Way
Permit, or Right-of-Way Permit extension, is
granted.
Subd. 3 . Delay Penalty. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 360 . 08 Subd. 1 (B) , 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.
Subd. 4 . Right-of-Way Permit Display. Right-of-Way Permits
issued under this Chapter shall be conspicuously
displayed at all times at the indicated work site
and shall be available for inspection by the
Administrator.
Subd. 5 . Performance Security. Performance security shall
be in an amount determined in the City' s sole
discretion, sufficient to serve as security for the
full and complete performance of Permittee ' s
obligation under this Chapter, including any costs,
expenses, damages, or loss the City pays or incurs
because of any failure to comply with this Chapter
13
or any other applicable law, regulation, or
standard. During the period of construction,
repair or restoration of rights-of-way or equipment
within the rights-of-way, the performance security
shall be in an amount sufficient to cover 125% of
the estimated cost of such work, as documented by
the person proposing to perform such work, or in a
lesser amount as may be determined by the
Administrator, taking into account the amount of
equipment in the right-of-way, the location and
method of installation of the equipment, the
conflict or interference of such equipment with the
equipment of other persons, and the purposes and
policies of this Chapter. Sixty (60) days after
completion of such work, the performance security
may be reduced in the sole determination of the
City.
Sec. 360 .09 . Application for a Right-of-Way Permit. Applications
for a Right-of-Way Permit is made to the Administrator. Right-of-
Way Permit applications shall contain, and will be considered
complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the
following provisions :
Subd. 1 . Registration with the Administrator pursuant to
this Chapter;
Subd. 2 . Submissions of a completed permit application form,
including all required attachments, and scaled
drawings showing the location and area of the
proposed project and the location of all existing
and proposed equipment;
Subd. 3 . Payment of all money due to the City for:
A. Permit fees, estimated restoration costs, and
other management costs;
B. prior obstructions or excavations;
C. any undisputed loss, damage, or expense
suffered by the City because of applicant ' s
prior excavations or obstructions of the
14
Rights-of-Way or any emergency actions taken
by the City;
D. franchise fees, if applicable.
Subd. 4 . Payment of disputed amounts due the City by posting
performance security or depositing in a City-
approved escrow account an amount equal to at least
110% of the amount owing.
Subd. 5 . When an Excavation Permit is requested for purposes
of installing additional equipment, and the posting
of a restoration bond for the additional equipment
is insufficient, the posting of an additional or
larger restoration bond for the additional
equipment may be required.
Sec. 360 .10. Issuance of Permit• conditions.
Subd. 1 . Permit Issuance. If the Administrator determines
that the applicant has satisfied the requirements
of this Chapter, the Administrator may issue a
permit .
Subd. 2 . Conditions . The Administrator may impose
reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the
permit and the performance of the applicant
thereunder to protect the public health, safety and
welfare to ensure the structural integrity of the
right-of-way, to protect the property and safety of
other users of the right-of-way, and to minimize
the disruption and inconvenience to the traveling
public.
Sec. 360.11. Right-of-Way Permit Fees.
Subd. 1 Excavation Permit Fee. The Excavation Permit Fee
shall be established by the Administrator in an
amount sufficient to recover the following costs :
A. the City Management Costs;
B. degradation cost, if applicable.
15
t
S
ubd. 2 . Obstruction Permit Fee. The Obstruction Permit Fee
shall be established by the Administrator 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.
Subd. 4 . Non-refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a
permit that the Administrator has revoked for a
breach as stated in Chapter 360 . 21 are not
refundable.
sec. 360.12 . Right-of-Way Patching and Restoration.
Subd. 1 . Timing. The work to be done under the Excavation
Permit, and the patching and/or 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 extraordinary circumstances beyond the control
of the Permittee or when work was prohibited as
unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 360 . 15 .
In addition to repairing its own work, the
Permittee must restore the general area of the
work, and the surrounding areas, including the
paving and its foundations, to the same condition
that existed before the commencement of the work
and must inspect the area of the work and use
reasonable care to maintain the same condition for
thirty-six (36) months thereafter.
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 the City
shall restore the right-of-way itself .
16
A. City Restoration. If the City restores the
right-of-way, Permittee shall pay the costs
thereof within thirty (30) days of billing.
If, during the thirty-six (36) months
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, the
cost of repairing said pavement .
B. Permittee Restoration. If the Permittee
restores the right-of-way, it shall at the
time of application for an Excavation Permit,
post a performance security in an amount
determined by the Administrator to be
sufficient to cover the cost of restoring the
right-of-way to its pre-excavation condition.
If, thirty-six (36) months after completion of
the restoration of the right-of-way, the
Administrator determines that the right-of-way
has been properly restored, the surety on the
performance security shall be released.
Subd. 3 . Standards. The Permittee shall perform repairs and
restoration according to the standards and with the
materials specified by the Administrator. The
Administrator shall have the authority to prescribe
the manner and extent of the restoration, and may
do so in written procedures of general application
or on a case-by-case basis . The Administrator in
exercising this authority shall be guided by the
following standards and considerations :
A. The number, size, depth and duration of the
excavations, disruptions or damage to the
right-of-way;
B. The traffic volume carried by the right-of-
way; the character of the neighborhood
surrounding the right-of-way;
17
C. The pre-excavation condition of the right-of-
way; the remaining life-expectancy of the
right-of-way affected by the excavation;
D. Whether the relative cost of the method of
restoration to the Permittee is in reasonable
balance with the prevention of an accelerated
depreciation of the right-of-way that would
otherwise result from the excavation,
disturbance or damage to the right-of-way; and
E. The likelihood that the particular method or
restoration would be effective in slowing the
depreciation of the right-of-way that would
otherwise take place .
Subd. 4 . Guarantees. By choosing to restore the right-of-
way itself, the Permittee guarantees its work and
shall maintain it for thirty-six (36) months
following its completion. During this 36-month
period, it shall, upon notification from the
Administrator, correct all restoration work to the
extent necessary, using the method required by the
Administrator. Said work shall be completed within
five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice
from the Administrator, not including days during
which work cannot be done because of the
circumstances constituting force majeure or days
when work is prohibited as unseasonal or
unreasonable under Chapter 360 . 15 .
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 Administrator, or fails
to satisfactorily land timely complete all
restoration required by the Administrator, the
Administrator 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 restoration bond.
18
Subd. 6 . 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 costs to accomplish these responsibilities .
Sec. 360.13 . Joint Applications.
Subd. 1 . Joint Application. Registrants may jointly apply
for permits to excavate or obstruct the right-of-
way at the same time and place.
Subd. 2 . 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 obstruction and
degradation portions of the permit fee.
Subd. 3 . 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 . Registrants
must agree among themselves as to the portion each
will pay and indicate the same on their
applications.
Sec. 360 .14. Supplementary Applications.
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.
19
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 done before the permit end
date.
Sec. 360 .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 any
other City, County, State or Federal rules, laws or
regulations. A Permittee shall comply with all
requirements of local, state and federal laws,
including Minn. Stat . §§ 216D. 01-09 ( "One Call
Excavation Notice System") . 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 Administrator, 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 may not be parked within or next
to a permit area. The loading or unloading of
20
trucks next to a permit area is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the permit .
Sec. 360.16. Denial of Permit. The Administrator may deny a
permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this
Chapter, or if the Administrator determines that the denial is
necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public,
or if necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use.
Sec. 360.17 . Installation Requirements . The excavation,
backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed
in the right-of-way shall be done in conformance with Engineering
Standards adopted by the PUC or other applicable local
requirements, insofar as they are not inconsistent with PUC Rules .
Sec. 360.18. Inspection.
Subd. 1 . Notice of Completion. When the work under any
permit hereunder is completed, the Permittee shall
furnish a Completion Certificate in accordance with
PUC Rules.
Subd. 2 . Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work-
site available to the Administrator 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 Administrator.
A. At the time of inspection, the Administrator
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 Administrator may issue an Order to the
Permittee for any work which 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
21
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
Chapter 360 . 21 .
Sec. 360 .19 . Work Done Without a Permit.
Subd. 1 . Emergency Situations . Each registrant shall
immediately notify the Administrator of any event
regarding its equipment which it considers to be an
emergency. The registrant may proceed to take
whatever actions are necessary to respond to the
emergency. Within two 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 Administrator becomes aware of an emergency
regarding a registrant ' s equipment, the
Administrator may attempt to contact the local
representative of each registrant affected, or
potentially affected, by the emergency. In any
event, the Administrator may take whatever action
it deems necessary to respond to the emergency, the
cost of which shall be borne by the registrant
whose equipment 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, pay
double the normal fee for said permit, pay double
all the other fees required by the Legislative
Code, deposit with the Administrator the fees
necessary to correct any damage to the right-of-way
and comply with all of the requirements of this
Chapter.
22
Sec. 360 .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 Administrator
of the accurate information as soon as this information is known.
Sec. 360.21. Revocation of Right-of-Way 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, ordnance, rule or regulation, or any
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
lieperpetration 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 maintain the required bonds
and/or insurance;
E. the failure to complete the work in a timely
manner; or
F. the failure to correct a condition indicated
on an order issued pursuant to Sec . 360 . 18 .
Subd. 2 . Written Notice of Breach. If the Administrator
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 Administrator shall
23
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 . Further, a substantial breach, as
stated above, will allow the Administrator, at his
or her discretion, to place additional or revised
conditions on the permit .
Subd. 3 . Response to Notice of Breach. Within twenty-four
(24) hours of receiving notification of the breach,
Permittee shall contact the Administrator with a
plan, acceptable to the Administrator, for its
correction. Permittee ' s failure to so contact the
Administrator, or the Permittee ' s failure to 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 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
Administrator 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 .
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 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 attorney' s fees incurred in connection
with such revocation.
24
Sec. 360 .22 . Mapping Data.
Subd. 1 . Information Required. Each year, registrant shall
provide mapping information required by
the
Administrator in accordance with PUC Rules .
Subd. 2 . Trade Secret Information. At rhe
estedstbyf the
registrant, any information qu
Administrator, which qualifies as a "trade secret"
under Minnesota Statutes Section 13 .37 (b) shall be
treated as trade secret information as detailed
therein.
Sec. 360.23 . Location of Facilities.
Subd. 1 . Undercirounding. Unless otherwise permitted by
an existing franchise or Minn. Stat . §216B.34,
or unless existing above-ground facilities are
repair or replaced, new construction and the
installation of new facilities and replacement
of old facilities shall be done underground or
contained within buildings or other structures
in conformity with applicable codes.
Subd. 2 . Corridors. The Administrator may assign specific
corridors within the right-of-way, or any
particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for
each type of facility that is or, pursuant to
current technology, the Administrator expects will
someday be located within the right-of-way. All
excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by
the Administrator involving the installation or
replacement of facilities shall designate the
proper corridor for the facilities at issue.
Any registrant whose facility is in the right-of-
way in a position at variance with the corridors
established by the Administrator shall, no later
than at the time of the next reconstruction or
excavation of the area where the facility is
located, move that facility to its assigned
position within the right-of-way, unless this
requirement is waived by the Administrator for good
25
cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as w
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 facility found in a right-of-way that
has 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 facility and restoring the right-
of-way to a useable condition.
Subd. 4 . Limitation of Space. To protect health and safety,
the Administrator shall have the power to prohibit
or limit the placement of new or additional
facilities within the right-of-way if there is
insufficient space to accommodate all of the
requests of registrants or persons to occupy and
use the right-of-way. In making such decisions,
the Administrator 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 equipment 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. 360.24. Relocation of Facilities. A Registrant must promptly
and at its own expense, with due regard for seasonal working
conditions, permanently remove and relocate its equipment and
facilities in the right-of-way whenever the Administrator requests
such removal and relocation, and shall restore the right-of-way to
the same condition it was in prior to said removal or relocation.
The Administrator may make such request to prevent interference by
the Company' s equipment or facilities with (i) a present or future
City use of the right-of-way, (ii) a public improvement undertaken
by the City, (iii) an economic development project in which the
26
City has an interest or investment, (iv) when the public health,
safety, and welfare require it, or (v) when necessary to prevent
interference with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel
over the right-of-way.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a person shall not be required to
remove or relocate its equipment from any right-of-way which has
been vacated in favor of a non-governmental entity unless and until
the reasonable costs thereof are first paid to the person therefor.
Section 360 .25. Pre-Excavation Facility and 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
equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and
approximate vertical placement of all said equipment . Any
registrant whose equipment is 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
equipment and the best procedure for excavation.
Sec. 360.26 . 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 equipment 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
equipment in the right-of-way which it or its equipment damages.
Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any
damage to the equipment of another registrant caused during the
City' s response to an emergency occasioned by that registrant ' s
equipment .
Sec. 360.27 . Right-of-Way Vacation.
Subd. 1. Reservation of Right. If the City vacates a right-
of-way which contains the equipment of a
registrant, and if the vacation does not require
the relocation of registrant or Permittee
equipment, the City shall reserve, to and for
itself and all registrants having equipment in the
27
vacated right-of-way, the right to install,
maintain, and operate any equipment in the vacated
right-of-way and to enter upon such right-of-way at
any time for the purpose of reconstructing,
inspecting, maintaining or repairing the same .
Subd. 2 . Relocation of Facilities. If the vacation requires
the relocation of registrant or Permittee
facilities; and (a) if the vacation proceedings are
initiated by the registrant or Permittee, the
registrant or Permittee must pay the relocation
costs; or (b) if the vacation proceedings are
initiated by the City, the registrant or Permittee
must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise
agreed to by the City and the registrant or
Permittee; or (c) if the vacation proceedings are
initiated by a person or persons other than the
registrant or Permittee, such other person or
persons must pay the relocation costs .
Sec. 360 .28. Indemnification and Liability. By registering with
the Administrator, or by accepting a permit under this Chapter, a
registrant or permittee agree as follows:
Subd. 1 . Limitation of Liability. By accepting a
registration or granting a Right-of-Way Permit, the
City does not assume any liability (a) for injuries
to persons, damage to property, or loss of service
claims by parties other than the registrant, or (b)
for claims or penalties of any sort resulting from
the installation, presence, maintenance, or
operation of equipment by registrants or activities
of registrants .
Subd. 2 . Indemnification. A registrant or Permittee shall
indemnify, keep, and hold the City free and
harmless from any and all liability on account of
injury to persons or damage to property occasioned
by the issuance of permits or by the construction,
maintenance, repair, inspection, or operation of
registrant ' s or Permittee ' s facilities located in
the Right-of Way.
28
The City shall not be indemnified for losses or
claims occasioned through its own negligence except
for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the
City' s negligence as to the issuance of permits or
inspections to ensure permit compliance . The City
shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage
results from the performance of a proper manner of
acts which the registrant or Permittee reasonably
believes will cause injury or damage, and the
performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by
the City after receiving notice of the registrant ' s
or Permittee ' s determination.
Subd. 3 . Defense. If a suit is brought against the City
under circumstances where the registrant or
Permittee is required to indemnify, the registrant
or Permittee, at its sole cost and expense, shall
defend the City in the suit if written notice of
the suit is properly given to the registrant or
Permittee within a period in which the registrant
or Permittee is not prejudiced by the lack or delay
of notice.
If the registrant or Permittee is required to
indemnify and defend, it shall thereafter have
control of the litigation, but the registrant or
Permittee may not settle the litigation without the
consent of the City. Consent will not be
unreasonably withheld.
This part is not as to third-parties, a waiver of
any defense, immunity or damage limitation
otherwise available to the City.
In defending an action on behalf of the City, the
registrant or Permittee is entitled to assert in an
action every defense, immunity or damage limitation
that the City could assert in its own behalf.
Sec. 360.29 . Abandoned and Unusable Equipment.
Subd. 1 . Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has
29
a
determined to discontinue its operations in the
City must either:
A. Provide information satisfactory to the
Administrator that the registrant ' s
obligations for its equipment in the right-of-
way under this Chapter have been lawfully
assumed by another registrant; or
B. Submit to the Administrator a proposal and
instruments for transferring ownership of its
equipment to the City. If a registrant
proceeds under this clause, the City may, at
its option:
1 . purchase the equipment; or
2 . require the registrant, at its own
expense, to remove it; or
3 . require the registrant to post a bond in
an amount
sufficient to reimburse the
City for reasonably anticipated costs to
be incurred in removing the equipment .
Subd. 2 . Abandoned Equipment. Equipment of a registrant who
fails to comply with Chapter 360 . 30, Subd. 1, and
which, for two (2) years, remains unused shall be
deemed to be abandoned. Abandoned equipment is
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, (i) abating the
nuisance (ii) taking possession of the equipment
and restoring it to a useable condition; or (iii)
requiring removal of the equipment by the
registrant, or the registrant ' s successor in
interest .
Subd. 3 . Removal. Any registrant who has unusable and
abandoned equipment in any right-of-way shall
remove it from that Right-of-Way during the next
scheduled excavation, unless this requirement is
waived by the Administrator.
30
Sec. 360 .30 . Appeals.
Subd. 1 . A Right-of-Way user that :
A. has been denied registration;
B. has been denied a permit;
C. has had a permit revoked; or
D. believes that the fees imposed are invalid,
may have denial, revocation or fee imposition
reviewed, upon written request, by the City
Council. The City Council shall act on a
timely written request at its next regularly
scheduled meeting. 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.
Subd. 2 . Upon affirmation by the City Council of the denial,
revocation, or fee imposition, the right-of-way
user shall have the rights to have the matter
resolved by binding arbitration. Binding
arbitration must be before an arbitrator agreed to
by both the City Council and the right-of-way user.
If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the
matter must be resolved by a three-person
arbitration panel made up of one arbitrator
selected by the City, one arbitrator selected by
the right-of-way user and one selected by the other
two arbitrators . The costs and fees of a single
arbitrator shall be shared equally by the City and
the right-of-way user. In the event there is a
third arbitrator, each party shall pay the expense
of its own arbitrator and shall jointly and equally
share with the other party the expense of a third
arbitrator and of the arbitration.
Sec. 360.31. Reservation of Regulatory and Police Powers. A
Permittee ' s or registrant ' s rights are subject to the regulatory
s
31
r
f
and police powers of the City to adopt and enforce general
ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of
the public .
Sec. 360 .32 . Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional by any court or administrative agency
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 . If a
regulatory body or a court of competent jurisdiction should
determine by a final, non-appealable order that any permit, right
or registration issued under this Chapter or any portions of this
Chapter is illegal or unenforceable, then any such permit, right or
registration granted or deemed to exist hereunder shall be
considered as a revocable permit with a mutual right in either
party to terminate without cause upon giving sixty (60) days
written notice to the other. The requirements and conditions of
such a revocable permit shall be the same requirements and
conditions as set forth in the permit, right or registration,
respectively, except for conditions relating to the term of the
permit and the right of termination. If a permit, right or
registration shall be considered a revocable permit as provided
herein, the Permittee must acknowledge the authority of the City
Council to issue such revocable permit and the power to revoke it .
Nothing in this Chapter precludes the City from requiring a
franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed bylaw, in
addition to requirements set forth herein.
32
----AEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrato
SUBJECT: City Monument Sign
DATE: June 7, 2001
Background
Enclosed within is a copy of the revised monument sign at the entrance to City Hall. We have
asked Architectural Alliance to incorporate the new logo and script of the City of Arden Hills
into the monument sign and asked for the cost to do so. The new signage would eliminate the
previous 8"high black anodized metal strip with the block letters. The new signage includes
Kasota stone so that it is all the same stone with pin letters extending out from the face of the
stone.
I have received a cost estimate from Architectural Alliance for the changes in the sign. The total
cost estimate which includes the additions is $9,556.00. This includes an$880 credit for deletion
of the composite panel (this is the anodized black metal metal) and the 8"block letters at original
bid of$1,152.00. The additional expense of$10,622.00 is for 8"by 3/4"router letters with the
custom font and painted enamel finish.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the architect to make the changes to the monument
sign as requested and Rochon to incorporate the changes to the City Hall contract for the sign in
the amount of$9,556.00.
y
ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE
400 CIIFION AvENVE SoviN
MINNE6 POLIS.MINNESOTA 55103.3299
TELEPHONE 1612)171-5703
—�
FAX 16121171.7212
�r-0n
EN HILLS
_F
- - - _FF
ENT SIGN RE-DESIGN 1997149 May 21,2001 OPTION 2
0
---AEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrato
SUBJECT: Arden Tower
1777 Gateway Blvd.
DATE: June 7, 2001
ENC.: Arden Tower Memo
Background
Enclosed within is a copy of a memorandum I received from Dave Scherbel, Building Official,
that the City Council needs to take action on the telecommunications tower located at 1777
Gateway Blvd. As previously discussed and determined the tower does not meet the technical
interpretation of the building code of the State of Minnesota for compliance with the %2"radial
ice provision. Mr. Dan Vaughn has previously approached the City for a building permit
application for reconstruction of the telecommunication's tower located at this address. The City
Council denied that building permit request. Subsequently Mr. Scherbel verified with the State
of Minnesota that they agree with his interpretation and the recommendation to the City Council
for denial based upon the State Building Code. But denial was based on a zoning issue because
the Gateway Business Zoning District does not allow telecommunications towers over 75' in
height in that district.
Mr. Vaughn has a development proposal which the planning commission will be reviewing at
their meeting on June 6, 2001. The development proposal includes reconstruction of the
telecommunications tower to height of 750' along with the construction of two 4-story structures
located directly beneath the tower. This application is for a concept plan review only. The City
has a concept plan review, a preliminary plan review, and final plan review process. The
concept plan review allows an applicant to appear before the Planning Commission to receive
either positive or negative comments about a proposed development. If positive comments are
received the applicant would be encouraged to begin the preliminary plan and final plan review.
If negative comments are received the applicant should not proceed further with preliminary
plan or final plan review.
A conflict occurs because of the previous action taken by the City Council denying Mr.
Vaughn's building pen-nit application for reconstruction of telecommunications tower. The
Planning Commission and the City Council cannot simultaneously deny a building permit for
Memo to Mayor and City Council
Regarding: Arden Tower
June 6, 2001
Page 2 of 2
reconstruction of tower while considering approval of redevelopment of the property. The
decisions need to be consistent with one another.
Denial of the concept plan approval does not resolve the situation, however. Mr. Vaughn will
continue to have a tower which does not technically meet the State Building Standards and
remains under staff s experience knowledge unsafe from a structure standpoint. I believe that
Mr. Vaughn is trying to seek all the administrative remedies he has at his disposal for
consideration of the reconstruction of the telecommunications tower. He has made application
for building permit which has been denied by the City Council. He has now made application
for a redevelopment proposal of this property which includes the reconstruction of the
telecommunications tower. It should be recommended for denial by the Planning Commission
and support by the City Council. Upon receipt of negative feedback on the concept approval we
assume Mr. Vaughn will seek remedy through non-conforming rights language in the zoning
ordinance.
Staff has talked about the possibility about bringing forward a recommendation to the City
Council for"red tagging"the structure. This would not be wise at this time due to the fact that
the condemnation of such a structure would mean possible large financial reward for the property
owner based upon the replacement value of the telecommunications structure both from an
infrastructure standpoint and an income standpoint. However,based upon the fact that Mr.
Vaughn has brought forward a proposal for redevelopment of the property we will be coming to
a conjunction point where the City Council needs to consider what action it is willing to take on
this property. The options for the Council are: 1) Amendment to the current zoning ordinance to
allow telecommunications towers to be built in the Gateway Business District and including
language to allow Mr. Vaughn to rebuild his tower with or without any accompanying principle
structures; 2) To deny the development proposal by Mr. Vaughn to see if he seeks remedy
through non-conforming use issues contained within the zoning ordinance; 3) Allow Mr. Vaughn
to complete a preliminary and final development plan which would allow reconstruction of his
telecommunications tower; 4) Seek staff to have Mr. Vaughn remove the telecommunications
tower at the property with allowance of development of the property in conjunction with the
current provisions of the Gateway Business Zoning District.
Recommendations
The staff recommends that the City Council consider and discuss the options proposed here and
any others that are brought up during conversation, or modifications thereof. This is a separate
and distinct item from the concept plan approval that will be brought forward to the City Council
at your regularly scheduled meeting on June 25, 2001. It is the intention to continue discussion
and if there is need for more information bring this issue back to your work session on June 18,
2001. Mr. Filla will be in attendance at the meeting on June 11, 2001, for clarification or
reference. Mr. Scherbel will also be in attendance at the June 18, 2001, City Council work
session if you have any questions of him or need more background or information.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 11, 2001
TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Scherbel,Building Official
SUBJECT: Arden Tower
Request
City Staff requests direction on how to proceed with the Arden Tower located at 1777
Gateway Blvd. (formerly 14th St.) The Building Official has declared the Tower an
unsafe structure according to the state building code. The Arden Tower was declared
unsafe in a letter to the Tower's owner,Mr. Dan Vaughan, on 12/13/99. Following is a
brief outline of how that determination was made.
Background
U.S. West made application to the City in Planning Case#98-10, to install an antenna
array on the tower at 1777 Gateway Boulevard (formerly 14th Street) owned by Mr. Dan
Vaughan. The application was approved with the condition that they comply with the
Ehresmann Engineering report dated February 2, 1998.
After reviewing the report, staff noted that the report did not include calculations for 1/2"
radial ice as required by the State Building Code. Staff requested additional engineering
that included calculations for %i"radial ice.
Several reports were done, the first one was by Paul J. Ford Company for U.S. West. The
report stated the tower does not meet the State requirement for %2"radial ice and a 69
m.p.h. wind. In fact, it could only safely withstand a 25 m.p.h. wind,with 1/z"radial ice.
Ehresmann Engineering, at the request of Mr. Vaughan, also did two additional reports.
The first report was done with calculations including '/2"radial ice. This report indicated
the tower does not meet State Code. Another report was done without any calculations
for '/2"radial ice. This report raised serious questions as to the tower's loading and still
failed in several areas.
I have enclosed(highlighted) copies of these reports for your review. Based upon these
reports received by U.S. West, and Ehresmann Engineering, staff concluded that the
tower was an unsafe structure as stated in a letter to Mr. Vaughan dated December 13th,
1999 (copy attached.)
Mr. Vaughan applied, on December 17, 1999, for a Building Permit to construct a new y
tower on the site. On January 6, 2000, staff denied the Building Permit application based
on zoning related issues. On December 11, 2000 the City Council affirmed the Building
Official's denial of the building permit with the following findings;
1.) An application for a building permit was made by Dan Vaughan to reconstruct a new
700 foot antenna tower; and
2.) The proposed new tower is greater than 75 feet in height and serves as the principal
use on the property; and
3.) City staff denied the application based on staff's interpretation of City Ordinance 291;
and
4.) City staff correctly interpreted the Ordinance and the planning commission affirms
the denial.
Staff asked for and received confirmation from the State Building Codes & Standards
Division agreeing with the City's decision to declare the tower an unsafe structure (copy
enclosed.)
Summary
Staff has declared the tower an unsafe structure based upon the following reasons;
1) The tower was originally designed without %z"radial ice and only three (3) antenna
groupings.
2) The safety of the tower has been compromised over the years with the addition of
numerous antenna groupings, (as many as 15), done without any of the required
amendments to the Special Use Permit or Building Permits. These additional
antennas have significantly decreased the safety of the tower.
3) The Tower, based upon engineering reports submitted from US West, and Mr.
Vaughan, shows that it does not meet the state building code.
4) Section 102 of the Uniform Building Code defines towers that are unable to sustain
the design loads that are specified in the UBC are hereby designated as unsafe.
Staff has denied the building permit application to build a 700-foot tower based upon the
following;
1) Ord.291-Sec.VI-3a. No antenna or tower shall exceed a height of seventy five ft.(75)
2) Ord.291-Sec.VI-2. Antennas, satellite dish antennas and towers are allowed only as
special accessory uses. They are therefore allowed only on property containing a
principal use to which the antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory.
3) Ord.291-Sec.XI-A.1. No building permit or other permit pertaining to the use of land
or buildings shall be issued unless such building is designed and arranged to conform
to the provisions of this ordinance.
Conclusion
As staff sees the issue, the following options remain;
1) Bring the Tower into compliance with City code, or if not possible, remove the
Tower. Staff understands the Tower cannot be reinforced, as this would only
compound the loading problem. However, the Tower may be able to be reduced to a
height of less than 300 feet to be compliant.
2) Bring the Tower back into compliance with the original SUP which allowed for only
three antenna groupings, all over the 600 foot level. (This still may not bring the
Tower into compliance with the current code when calculating for 1/2"radial ice.)
3) Alter or change the City zoning code (the Tower as a primary use, and for over
seventy five feet in height) allowing for the Tower to be rebuilt to the current building
code.
Staff seeks direction on how to proceed to bring resolution to the Arden Tower by June
29th, 2001.
ARDEN TOWERS, INC.
3440 BA YSIDE ROAD ���1 N��
ORONO,MINNESOTA 55356 p
612-473.3660 FAX 612-473-3880
SEp �2 �g9g
�j�p0►17t��11.5
September 21, 1998 Lj1'
Mr.Dave Scherbel
Building Official
City of Arden Hills
4364 West Round Lake Road
Arden Hills,Minnesota 55 104
Dear Mr.Scherbel:
Mr. Steve Mangold of U.S.West Wireless,LLC has contacted me regarding the release of an
engineers report by Paul J.Ford and Company. It has come to my attention that the reportwas prepared
using information that is now obsolete. I do not believe that the engineers who prepared the report were
able to actually observe the tower in order to prepare an accurate analysis which I personally would
require.
We are in the process of having anew study made using accurate information. As you know the
tower was built under the standards existing at the time of its construction in 1981 The t��u was never
designed to ayzthstand-Y2 inch of ice under 60 mile per hour winds conditions. However,the to%vr as it
now stands,has withstood h inch ice under the most severe winter conditions in Minnesota during its
existence. The exact dates are not available to me without some research,but I do recall those occurrences
when we had electrical power outages due to ice storms. There is a considerable safety factor built into
the engineers analysis to avoid liability.
No one is more concerned about the structural integrity of the tower than the owner. We have
been endeavoring to maintain the tower at its optimum safe capacity in accordance with our engineers
recommendations.
Sincerely, .
D.R. Vaughan es.
PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY
S T R U CTURAL E NGINEERS
250 East ercad Street • Suite 500 • Colurnb�;s.Ohio 43215 •
July 16, 1998 >
u.S. West Wireless L.L.C. 22199
426 North Fairview Ave. Room 101 SEP
St. Paul, MN 55104
• e
ATTN. r. Dale T M
RE: Existing 700 ft. guyed tower
Located in Arden Hills, Minnesota
(PJF No. T98-028)
Dear Mr. Thorne,
We have completed our structural analysis of the existing 700 ft. guyed tower located in Arden Hills,
Minnesota. As you kna.w,the tower is a Unarco-Rohn model #80 originally constructed in 1981.The
tower was originally designed for a constant wind pressure of 65 psf in accordance with the old EIA
RS-222-C standard. Ice accumulation was NOT considered in the original tower design.
The purpose of our analysis was to determine if the existing structure could meet the requirements of
the Minnesota State Building Code while supporting the revised antenna and coax loading as shown
on page one of the enclosed sketches. The Minnesota State Building Code is modeled a-ter the
Uniform Building Code.(UIBC 1994) and now requires that ice accumulation be considered. The
Minnesota State Building Code does not list design wind loads for structures over 400 ft tall and
recognizes the Electronics IndustryAssociation standard ANSVEIA-222-E as an acceptable national •
design standard.
Our analysis .vas performed in accordance with the recommendations of the At\SVEIA-222-E standard.
The Minnesota State Building Code requires a minimum design wind velocity of 80 mph and also
requires that all structures in the state be designed for IV of radial ice.The EIA standard allows the
basic design wind velocity to be decreased to 69 mph when radial ice accumulation is considered. The
existing tower has the capacity to safely withstand only 79 mph winds when supporting the antenna listed
on pago 1 of the enclosed sketches.; You wiIf note that the existing tower very nearly meet today's code
requirements when ice is not considered.
When % inch radial.iee.accumulation is considered."tower has the capacity to safely withstand only
25 mph winds.In 680 ft out of the 700 ft of.tower,the tower legs are ove.rst.essed to some extent. This is
due to the.(ad that tv,he tower has a very severely shape in the lnd.`NiOst of the guy cables and all
of the existing foundations are overstressed when ice accumulation is considered. We also analyzed the
towerwith larger guy cables at some elevations in an attempt to control the deflected shape(a straight-
line deflection reduces tower shaft stresses)of the tower shaft. This helped considerably but a large ,
portion of the tower(560 lineal ft) was still severely overstressed. We do not feel that it is feasible to
reinforce this tower to meet the ice loading requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code.
COLUMBUS, OHIO • ATLANTA, GEORGIA • ORLANDO, FLORIDA
614•:21.6679 404-266-2407 407-498-9039
FAX 614.221.2340 FAX 404469.4608 FAX 407-697-3662 ,
• WWW.pifweb.com •
R""EIV
ED
• 6, 998 SEP 2 2 1998
July
U.S. West Wireless L.C.C. WIM MUS
Page 2 of 2
ATTN: Mr. Dale Thorne
RE: Existing 700 it.-'guyed tower
Located in Arden Hills, Minnesota
(P)F No. T98.028)
We did not*have complete information regarding the existing foundations. Only the base foundation
and inner anchor information was provided. Based upon the 1981 soils report provided,both these
foundations are inadequate to support the tower loading. We Were provided the existing middle and
outer'anchors, guy'rods;sizes.' They are insufficient to support the'new reactions at the anchors, 1t is
probable that-tht middle and outer anchors are incapable of supporting the new anchor reactions.
Please call if you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
PAUL).FORD AND COMPANY
I hereby cert;fy that this plan, specal-
Cation,or report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that 1
Paul S. Patterson am a duly Registered Professional
•
Engineering Technician Engineer under the laws of the State of
E-mail:ppattersonOPlfweb.com M�
"4.L �
D to Registrat;or. No. 676
•
Ehresmann :;.�• ' `�,
��West 31st Street Yankton,SD 57078Engineering inc. j
andASSOCiateS Phone: (605)665-7532 Fax: (605)665-9780 •:ti �- t
• a
E-Mail:eei®byelectric.com ':E„,,,..++'';.:•
Web Address: http://sidibi.northern.edu/chmsmann/ee_home.htm
November 15, 1999
Mr. Dan Vaughan
Arden Towers, Inc.
3440 Bayside Road
Orono, MN 55356
Ph: 612-473-3660
Fax: .612-473-3880
Subject: 700 ' Rohn 80 Guyed Tower
Site: Arden Hills, MN
EEI JO: 27366-99 (Revision 7)
Dear Mr. Vaughan,
We have completed. our revised structural stress analysis of
the above described tower per your request. All information
required to complete our structural analysis was furnished
to EEI by your office.
Antenna and feedline loading were included per meeting with
you at our office dated 10/12/99.
Our revised analysis was complete er T A EIA-222-F, 80 mph
wind velocity and 1/2" ice with ctio allowed per your
instructions. Our analysis inclu d following loading:
� w�s�- re,��efi.• 7
F.xiSting Loading
ITEM ELEVATION REMARK
------------------------------------------------------------
Beacon & Strobe 700 ' Existing
PD458 on 6' SA 700 ' Existing
PD1110 on 6' SA 700 ' Existing
Preamp 698 ' Existing
.7' Stabilizer 680 ' Existing
PD1132 on 6' SA 660 ' Existing
PD1110 on 6' SA 655 ' Existing
7 ' Stabilizer 600 ' Existing
PD458 on 6 ' SA 570 ' Existing
PD1110 on 6 ' SA 570 ' Existing
PD458 on 6' SA 555 ' Existing
5.55 '
PD43 on 6' SA 540 ' Existing
TD6074- -on- --6' SA- _ 54-0Existing
Side Lights 535 ' Existing
TDE6073 on 6' SA 520 ' Existing
Antenna Support Structures- Guyed and Self-Supporting Towers and Monopoles-Steel Fabrication
Structural Analysis-Inspection-Specificationsl Project Managment- Detailing -P.E. Certification
Exp nQ Loading
ITEM ELEVATION REMARK
---------------------------------------------
Strobe Lights 470' Existing
Side Lights 415 Existing
DB-222E on Side Mount 400 ' Existing
DB-224B on Side Mount 387 ' Existing
Scala OGP9-93K on 6' SA 300 ' Existing
DB-589 on 6' SA 300 ' Existing
Beacon 280 ' Existing
TDC6060A on 6' SA 250 ' Existing
Dg809 on 6' SA 250 ' Existing
Strobe Lights 240 ' Existing
ASP952 on 6' SA 200 ' Existing
Side Lights y 140 'l� Existing
DB230-E �b$�/ 130 ' Existing
BSP9014-DIN on T-Frame 70 ' Existing
(3) Sp9014-DIN on T-Frame 62 ' Existing
(3) SP9014-DIN on T-Frame 50 ' Existing
ennas—
Re u t Option = Existing we $xi
with stina Anreduction
tg MPS wend ADW I Z_ � with
allowed Analysis ver TIA/EIA-222-F.
Mast:
Legs : The maximum combined stress ratio in the
vertical members is 1.95 at elevation. 440 '
which is greater than the maximum allowable
value of 1.33.
Approximately the lower 500' of the tower
legs have combined stress ratios that exceed
the maximum -allowable value of 1.33.
See comments.
Diaa: The maximum combined stress ratios in the
bracing members is 0.97 at elevation 240'
which is less than the maximum allowable
value of 1.33 . See comments.
Guys : The minimum gug safety factor is 1.95 at
elevations 600' and 680' which is less than
the minimum required value of* 2.00. See
comments.
2
Foundation:
Due to the lack of information regarding the
existing foundations for the anchors and tower
base, we are not able to comment on their capacity
at this time. Further subgrade inspection is
required to determine their capacity. It is
the tower owners option and responsibility to
complete this subgrade inspection.
Comte;
The 700 ' Rohn 80 guyed tower located at Arden Hills, MN does
not meet the specifications of TIA/EIA-222-F considering 80
mph wind and 1/2" ice with reduction allowed. This is based
on all information as supplied to EEI being correct and
current. If tower loading is changed or altered in any way,
we suggest an additional analysis be completed.
Some of the stress rations outlined in this report are large
enough that permanent deformation to some of the tower
members could occur if the analysis conditions were encoun-
tered. Due to the large degree of overstressing we feel
modifications are not feasible nor recommended to accommo-
date the ice loading.
It is our opinion that if the subject tower must have ice
Included in the analysis, we suggest the tower either_ be
replaced of shortened to a height where it can safety sup-
port the antenna loading and have ice included.
We dg recommend that the lower owner excavate adjacent tom,
the existing anchor shafts to inspect or excessive rust.
lSa_gS notethe shafts should be inspected AU tja wav 12
the point when n entershag concrete. Caution to =
Adiglurb the shaft with mechanical equipment such m A- back
-bps, ft would like t4 reiterate the importance that tug
ha is should be the first item 91 concern before any 2#. 11g
mifications are completed _Qr the proposed antennas can be.
�*+�talled.
There are some criteria we feel you should be aware of when
reviewing our analysis and report. Due to the tubular
construction of this tower, it is diff icult to tell the
amount of rust or deterioration that may have developed in
thesower members.
The tubular tower .members can be ultrasonically tested to
3
determine the area of steel remaining. However to be abso-
lutely sure that no rusting is taking place, each tower leg
would have to be tested every square inch, which is not
economically feasible.
We are not implying that you do have rusting problems in the
subject tower, we are simply stating that we cannot guaran-
tee that no rusting is taking place and you should be aware
of this. Our .stress. ratios as, shown in. our analysis and in
the results section of this report are based on steel being
F... .n
inn-- new condition with no rusting or deterioration.
Upon request Ehresmann Engineering Inc. will visit the
previously described tower site and inspect tower,
lines,
and antennas for compliance to this engineering analysis in
its entirety upon completion of project. Cost will be
quoted at time of request.
We would like to: point out the fact that we considered....this
tower.,
to..be An near new condition when. completing our struc-
tural „analysis Ido a 'lowarice 'was made for missing, corrod-
ng or deteriorating tower members.
This report is based on the following:
1. Tower
membersproperly
in goodinstalled
condition�aintained.
2. All
3. All members in place.
4. All bolts in place and properly tightened.
5. Weep holes on tube and pipe members open.
6. Tower being in plumb condition with proper guy tension
installed.
7. fabricated,tower installed mbers nand rmaintained operly iovergned�the tyears.
fa
Ehresmann Engineering Inc. is not responsible for any modi-
fications completed prior to or hereafter which Ehresmann
Engineering
Inc.
includenot
butrarewas
notnot
limiteddirectly
involved..
modifications to
1. Replacing or strengthening bracing members.
2. Reinforcing vertical members in any manner.
3. Adding or relocating stabilizers.
4. Installing antenna mounting gates or side arms .
5 . Changing guy sizes and related hardware.
6. installing new anchors and anchor shafts .
7. Extending tower.
tes
this
Ehresmann resentseethegentire�reportyandathat titt oc
assumes no
went rep
4
liability for any factual changes that may occur after the
date of this report. All representations and recom-
mendations and conclusions are based upon the information
contained and set forth herein. If you are aware of any
information which is contrary to that which is contained
herein, or you are aware of any defects arising from the
original design, material, fabrication and erection defi-
ciencies, you should disregard this report and immediately
contact Ehresmann Engineering Inca Ehresmann Engineering
Inc. , disclaims all liability for any representation, recom-
mendation or conclusion not expressly stated herein.
Thank you, if you have any questions please do not hesitate
to call.
cerjGStAd
erry
ete Ehresmann
Enclosures: Standard Terms and Conditions - Tower Analysis
Stress .analysis, Option #1 - dated 11/12/99
file: 2736-10.dat
5
C
Ehries m a n n 4400 West 31 st St.-Yankton,SD 57078
Engineering Inc. Phone:(605)665-7532 Fax:(605)665-9780
d Associates E-Mail:eei@byelectric.com
Web Address:httpJ/sdibi.northern.odu/ehresmann
November 23, 1999
Mr. Dan Vaughan
Arden Towers, Inc.
3440 Bayside Road
Orono, MN 55356
Ph: 612-473-3660
Fax: 612-473-3880
Subject: 700 ' Rohn 80 Guyed Tower
Site: Arden Hills., MN
EEI JO: 27366-99 (Revision 8)
Dear Mr. Vaughan,
We: have completed our. revised structural stress analysis of
the above described tower per your request. All information
required to complete our structural analysis was furnished
to EEI by your office.
our chrrent aealvsis based qp. an enna and feedline info -
matione ou o Mice dated November 16,
19 FeeYne pro ec Ne a eas, were calculated` in , accord-
ance�� withs„ frem your office,dated .10/12/98 indicating
: . _..
th t ail fe'a nes are Bundled and evenly distributed on "t ie
( tower' races.
However, pe photos dated 10/19/99 furnished to our office
the "feedliies' appear to not. be bundled as you had indicated.
For ." the subject tower to agree with our analysis
considerations and results , the��,'#eediines must .be installed
as shown on our attached drawing 27366A1-1.
As stated in previous reports, at the time this tower was
erected it was rated for installation up to 800 ft depending
on member sizes and tower loading. The subject t -w�er. is
therefore approaching the limiting height and +doesle more
lo'a ' the W"at was .originally designed for.
Therefore, it is our opinion that even though the stress
ratios indicate additional loading can be installed on the
subject tower, 'we suggest all criteria outlined in this
Antenna Support Structures-Guyed and Self Sepporting 7buners and Monopoles-Steel Fabrication
Structural Analysis-Inspection-Specifications-Project Management-Detailing-PK Certification
report is considered and keep in mind that stress ratios and
allowable tower loads are based on new material with no
defects rustingproblem areas.
or P
Our revised analysis Baas completed per TIA/EIA-222-F, 80 mph
wind velocity and no `cezpet your instructions. Our analy
sis included the following loading:
Ex ting Loading
ITEM ELEVATION REMARK
-------------------------
Beacon & Strobe 700 ' Existing 700 '
PD458 on 6' SA Existing
PD1110 on 6' SA 700' Existing
Preamp 698'. Existing
7 ' Stabilizer 680 ' .Existing
PD1132 on 6 ' SA 660' Existing
PD1110 on 6' SA 655 ' Existing
7 ' Stabilizer 600 ' Existing
PD458 on 6 ' SA 570 ' Existing
PD1110 on 6' SA 570 ' Existing
PD458 on 6' SA 555 ' Existing
PD458 on 6 ' SA 540' Existing
TD6074 on 6' SA 540 ' Existing
Side Lights 535 ' Existing
TDE6073 on 6 ' SA 520 ' Existing
Strobe Lights 470 ' Existing
Side Lights . 415 ' Existing
DB-222B on Side Mount 400 ' Existing
DB-224E on Side Mount 387 ' Existing
Scala OGP9-93K on 6 ' SA 300 ' Existing
DB-589 on 6 ' SA 300 ' Existing
Beacon 280 ' Existing
TDC6060A on 6 ' SA 250 ' Existing
DB8.09 on 6 ' SA 250 ' Existing
Strobe Lights 240 ' Existing
ASP952 .on 6 ' SA 200 ' Existing
DB806Y on 6 ' SA 180 ' Existing
Side Lights 140 ' Existing
DB230-E 130 ' Existing
(3) Sp9014-DIN on T-Frame 70 ' Existing
(3) sP9014-DIN on T-Frame 62 ' Existing
(3) SP9014-DIN on T-Frame 50 ' Existing
2
Results Option 1 _ Existing Tower with Existing Antennas ,
80 MPH wind and ' no_ ice. Analysis per
TIA/EIA-222-F.
Mast •
Legs : The maximum combined stress ratio in the
vertical members is 1.21 at elevation 180 '
which is less than the maximum allowable
value of 1.33 . See comments.
Dia : The maximum combined stress ratios in the
bracing members is 0.95 at elevation 400 '
which is less than the maximum allowable
value of 1:33. See comments.
u s : The minimum guy safety factor is 2.42 at
elevation 520 ' which is greater than the
minimum required . value of 2.00. See comments .
Foundation•
a e- Actual axial load at base of tower per our analy-
sis is 232,300 Kips. This results in a net bear-
ing . pressure of 3337 PSF based on foundation
drawing number C810975 by Unarco-Rohn. Allowable
net bearing pressure is 3000 PSF based on. drawing
number C810975 by Unarco-Rohn and soils report by
Subterranean Engineering, Inc. date July, 1981..
EEI cannot comment on nor account for the existing
soils under the base foundation to safely support
this increased net bearing pressure. We suggest
the vertical load at the base of the tower is
forwarded,.to Subterranean Engineering, Inc. to
review the .base design and their soils report to
determine if soils are adequate. Modifications
may be required.
Inn AUc_ Actual vertical uplift load of 14 . 53 Kips and an
actual horizontal load of 18. 79 Kips per our
analysis . Per the original reactions furnished to
Subterranean Engineering, Inc. by Unarco-Rohn, the
inner anchors were design for an uplift load of
17.10 kips and a horizontal load of 21.80 kips .
Due to the lack of information regarding the
existing anchor shaft, EEI cannot Comment on nor
account for the capacity of the existing anchor
shaft, to develop reactions per our current
analysis .
3
Due to the reactions per our current analysis
being less than those originally designed for,
inner anchors are considered to be adequate.
Please note, this consideration is accurate
providing foundations and anchor shafts were
properly designed per the site specific soils.
See comments .
ad hpcL Actual vertical uplift load of 22.45 kips and an
actual horizontal load of 24.32 Kips per our
analysis. Per the original reactions furnished to
Subterranean Engineering, Inca by Unarco-Rohn, the
middle anchors were design for an uplift load of
22.40 kips and a horizontal load of 23.30 kips.
Due to the lack of information regarding the
existing anchor shaft, EEI cannot comment on nor
account for the capacity of the existing anchor .
shaft to develop reactions per our current
analysis.
As previously outlined, the reactions per our
current analysis are slightly greater than those
originally designed for. EEI cannot comment on
nor account for the existing soils to develop
these increased reactions . We suggest these reac-
tions are forwarded to Subterranean Engineering,
Inc. to review the middle anchor design to deter-
mine if soils are adequate. Modifications may be
required.
out Vic_ Actual vertical uplift load of 69.75 Kips and an
actual horizontal load of 64 .86 Kips per our
analysis. Per the: original reactions furnished to
Subterranean Engineering, Inc. by Unarco-Rohn, the
outer anchors were design for an uplift load of
61. 50 kips and a horizontal road of 52.10 kips .
Due to the lack of information regarding the
existing anchor shaft , EEI cannot comment on nor
account for the capacity of the existing anchor
shaft to develop' reactions per our current
analysis.
As previously outlined, the reactions per our
current analysis are greater than those originally
-desighb-d for _EEI------annot -comment on nor account
for the existing soils to develop these increased
reactions . We suggest these reactions are for-
4
warded to Subterranean Engineering, Inc. to review
the outer anchor design to determine if soils are
adequate. Modifications may be required.
Comments
The 700 ' Rohn 80 guyed tower located at ..Arden Hills , MN does
meet the specifications. of TIA/EIA-222-F considering 80 mph
wind and no ice providing all information as supplied to EEI
being correct and current, feedlines are bundled and evenly
distributed as shown on our attached drawing 27366A1-1 and
foundations are determined to be adequate by Subterranean
Engineering, Inc. for the increased reactions. If tower
loading is changed or altered in any way, we suggest an
additional analysis be completed.
We d4 gecommend that the tower owner excavate adjacent tQ
the existing anchor shafts to inspect for excessive rust•
please note the shafts should bg inspected all the wav tQ
theop ant when It enters the .concrete. Caution = not
d1g_turh t ehs aft with mechanical equipment such M $ back
hoe. We would like t4 reiterate the importance that. the
shafts ghould be t e. first item _f concern before anv Qf the
modifications are completed ger the proposed antennas can be
jngtalled.
There are some criteria we feel you should be aware of when
reviewing our analysis and report. Due to the tubular
construction of this tower, it is difficult to tell the
amount of rust or deterioration that may have developed in
the tower members .
The tubular tower members can be ultrasonically ' tested to
determine the area of steel remaining. However to be abso-
lutely sure that no rusting is taking place, each tower leg
would have to be tested every square inch, which is not
economically feasible.
We are not implying that you do have rusting problems in the
subject tower, we are simply stating that we cannot guaran-
tee that no rusting is taking place and you should be aware
of this. Our stress ratios as shown in our analysis and in
the results section of this report are based on steel being
in new condition with no rusting or deterioration.
Upon request Ehresmann Engineering Inc. will visit the
previously described tower site and inspect -tower, lines,
and antennas for. compliance to this engineering analysis in
its entirety upon completion of project . Cost will be
quoted at time of request.
5
If you elect to not have Ehresmann Engineering complete this
final inspection, Ehresmann Engineering can not be held
responsible for installation of antennas , antenna mounts ,
feedlines and/or modification materials in accordance with
our analysis and specification.
we would like to point out the fact that we considered this
tower . to be in near new condition when completing our struc-
tural analysis. No allowance was made for missing, corrod-
ing or deteriorating tower members.
This report is based on the following:
1.. mower properly installed and maintained.
2. All members in good condition.
3 . All members in place.
4. All bolts in place and properly tightened.
5 . weep holes on tube and pipe members open.
6. Tower being in plumb condition with proper guy tension.
installed.
7 . All tower members being properly designed, detailed,
fabricated, installed and maintained over the years.
Ehresmann Engineering Inc. is not responsible for any modi-
fications completed prior to or hereafter which Ehresmann
Engineering Inc. is not or was not directly involved.
Modifications to include but are not limited to:
1. Replacing or strengthening bracing members.
2. Reinforcing vertical members in any manner.
3 . Adding or relocating stabilizers.
4. Installing antenna mounting gates or side arms .
5 . Changing guy sizes and related hardware.
6. Installing new anchors and anchor shafts.
7. Extending tower.
Ehresmann Engineering, Inc. , hereby states that this docu
ment represents the entire report and that it assumes no
liability for any factual changes that may occur after ... the
date of this report. All representations and recom-
mendations and conclusions are based upon the information
contained and set forth herein. If you are aware of any
information which is contrary to that which is contained
herein, or you are aware of any defects arising from the
original design, material, fabrication and erection defi-
ciencies, you should disregard this report and immediately
contact Ehresmann Engineering Inc. Ehresmann Engineering
Inc. , disclaims all liability for any representation, recom-
mendation or conclusion not expressly stated herein.
6
Thank you, if you have any questions please do not hesitate
to call .
; cerely
rry Gu tad
ete Ehresmann
Enclosures : - Standard Terms and Conditions - Tower Analysis
Stress analysis, Option #1 - dated 11/23/99
file: 2736-11.dat
7
LEGEND
Q 1 5/8'
® 1 1/4' C❑ND
8 1 1/4'
• 7/8'
m 1/2'
NO
T =
1. THE ABOVE VIEW INDICATES THE LINE POSITIONING
USED TO CALCULATE PROJECTED AREA FOR OPTION #1,
REVISON #8,
2. SOME ITEMS LEFT OUT OF VIEW FOR CLARITY REASONS.
SITE. ARDEN HILLS, MN
ANTENNA FEEDLINE PLACEMENT
OPTION #1, REVISION #8
EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE, 11/22/99
4400 WEST 31st STREET
YANKTON, S.D. 57076
(605) 665-7532 BY= JDG/TSP
(605) 665-9780
CHECKED,
J0' 27366 i27366A1-1 sHr or
• STANDARD TERMS AND CONDMONS - TOWER ANALYSES y
Ehresmann Engineering, Inc. - 4400 W. 31st Street- Yankton, SD 57078
0
Engineering consultations and tower analyses Provided by Ehresmann
Engineering, Inc.(hereinafter called EEI)are subject to the following terms and
conditions with respect to responsibilities of all parties (EEI, CLIENT, and/or
tower OWNER). Professional Engineering services performed by EEI, as
represented by EEI report, include analysis of the towers) in accordance with The report assumes also that the tower members and hardware are in place and
applicable codes, EIA, ANSI, UBC, considering the latest revisions, or as in good condition; bolts are properly tightened; weep holes on tube and pipe
indicated on the report,and compilation of a report based on the results of engi. members are open;tower is in plumb condition with proper guy tension; and all
neering analysis specifying areas of concern with recommendations to correct, members are galvanized or free of corrosion.
modify,or repair any discrepancies found at the site. Note: If tower assume
has never EEI s no liability for any damage or failure of the tower or any tower
been modified or no antennas added/removed, governing codes will have been component it such failure was due to inadequacies in engineering design,
erecting,materiah
those which were applicable at the time of tower erection unless otherwise detailing,fabricating, ,or maintenance
requested by CLIENT/OWNER; Modified or newly designed towers are analyzed
Recommended modifications outline the scope of work only and are not irroehhded
ID current codes. to imply sequence of work or construction procedures. Persons performing
Prior to tower analysis, CLIENT/OWNER will make available to EEI all known modification work will use safe and acceptable industry practices to effect
information regarding existing and proposed requirements which affect the work modifications,and will be responsible for compliance with all federal,state,and
to be performed. Information will include, but not be limited to specifications, local safety codes.
contracts,recommendations,plans,change orders,photographs,soil test reports
EEl will not be liable for any vice,incorrect adjudgment; or decision based on
and recommendations,local coft etc—
any inaccurate information furnished by CLIENT,and CLIENT will intlenniry EEI
Specific information required for tower structural analysis shall include the against all liability arising out of or contributed to by such irnformation.
tower location(state and cou*X tower model, height, and orientation on tower
site;as-0uilt drawings;tower leg,diagonal,and girt size with type and grade of N CLIENT/OWNER becomes aware of any information which is contrary to that
steel,and quantity/site of bolts; accurate antenna loading (show configuration contained in the report; or ii CLIENT/OWNER becomes aware of any defects
on bar,a guy azimuth of microwave dishes, &.1 soil analysis; location, size and arising from the original design, material,fabrication, and erection defic
grade Wall strand; location and sizes of feed lines, platforms, ladders and CLIENT/OWNER shall disregard said report and immediately notify EEI.
ef
other appurtenance; location and size of stabilizers;guy anchor radii;tower base
tips(pivot or fixed);and lourhdation design for tower and anchors. Often EEI is retained to provide partial engineering services for a project and is
not liable for portions of the project EEI is not retained to provide services for.
CLIENT will immediately transmit to EEI any new information which becomes Please refer to EEI's project consultant proposal-agrearrt•contract with the
available to it or its subcontractors, so that recommended actions, designs and CLIENT for scope of work.
drawings can be reviewed and new recomnrendA-Uns by EEI made, it needed•
CLIENT will provide a represerrbb11e to answer questions about the project when EEI's liability to CLIENT and all contractors and subcontractors on the Project.
for damages due to professional negligen
wired EEI upon 24 hours notice,if Pile• negligence,or breech of any other obligation to
or oth will be limited to the amount of EEI% fee received on the
req CLIENT ens,
ewerrf
arrangements are made in w' In the
arra �•
n Bled project unless other specific nge
Willing to provide the information spec P I� ,
H CLIENT/OWNER is unable or u n9 P use CLIENT does not wish to limit EEI's amount of liability on the project, EEI will
of the CLIENT/OWNE perform or ca
above, EEI will, upon written request n of the tower b obtain the necessary consider waiving this limitation on written notice from CLIENT received within
to be performed an on-site inspection 10 days after an agreement is fully executed or before EEI's work on the project
Information. begins, whichever is earlier. The CLIENT may request the size of insurarim
CLIENT/OWNER accepts lack of any information outlined above shall policy limits and time period of coverage, and CLIENT will pay additional
cause the tower to be ans!yzed or advice provided based on certain consideration equal to EEI's total insurance premium fee (when a policy b
assumption such as normal sort conditions, manufacturer's specifications. arranged Limitation on Liability. This 15%an insurance )charglus e isxas a charge for a Walver 0i
a charge for insurance and at
and professional engineering exPenerhce and judgmerht.
increase in consideration for the greater risk involved where work is petfornnec
Written analysis provided by EEI represents conditions as furnished above. EEI with no limitation of liability.
assumes no liability for any factual changes that may o=r after the date of the
report All rePresentalions, recommendations and conclusions of said report CLIENT will notify the OWNER and any contractor or subcontractor who perform;
were based upon the information contained and set forth in the report work in connection with any work done by EEI of the limitation of 1'nability for de
so defects, errors, omissions or professional negligence, and to require as ;
Prop
The report is wed on the.assumption that the tower and tower condition precedent to their performing their work, a Ik kWum*
* carr
cotnporrariss, including all modificaborhs or add'htans, were property limitation of liability on three part as against"EEI. In the event the CLI
designed, detailed,fabricated,erected, and maintained throughout the life to obtain a like limitation,CLIENT will indemnity EEI for any fiabBOY to it
d the toMrer. pad'
EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC. REV. /27366
8
ENGINEERS J.O. NAVY-E
CONSULTING EN STRESS �
4400 WEST 3181 STREET DATE 11/22/99
YANKTON, SOUTH DAKOTA 57078 PAGE 1
PH: 605-665-7532 OR 665-9780 WIND 80 MPH
ICE NO I CE
SITE ARDEN HILLS, MN
OPTION it - EXISTING TOWER WITH MODEL RDHN 80 GT
- EXISTING ANTENNAS HEIGHT 700'
- ANALYSIS PER TIAIE14-222-F BY.• JDG/rSP
- 80 MPH WIND & NO ICE
- REVISION /8
52$
-20'
700' -36' 3g0, -45'
680' � -35'
-32' TO
/ -35'
600' y �p0 .
350, �
51�•
520' 160'
0' 340'
440' 520'
-20'
360'
-30,
300 � k, ♦t
PLOT PLAN voS
240' Z.
180' . .; '.
120' Af
N =
o�
60
PIVOT BASE Z `�
SEE PLOT PLAN
SEE PLOT PLAN
SEE PLOT PLAN
IF THIS TOi"� ""'n FOUNDATIONS WERE NOT FABR/GATED INSTALLED OR MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE
JyITH THIS ,4,r-"�y'C/C aND SPECIFICATION. OUR DES/GN AND�nR rFRT/F1CATlON lS INVALID AND EEI
�IC�i ei��S alb^' RESPnNSIBIL/TY FOR THIS sTRUCTURF IN ITS EIVT/RE7r. _
REV. 8
EHRESMANN ENGINEERING, INC. J.0. /27366
CONSUL T1 NG ENGINEERS STRESS NAVY-E
4400 WEST 31st STREET DATE 11/22/99
YANKTON, SOUTH DAKOTA 57078 PAGE 1
PH: 605-665-7532 OR 665-9780 WIND 80 MPH
ICE NO I CE
SITE ARDEN HILLS, MN
MODEL ROHN 80 GT
OPTION /1 - EXISTING TOWER WITH HEIGHT 700'-
-
00'"- EXISTING ANTENNAS BY. ✓ G P
- ANALYSIS PER TIAIEIA-222-F
- 80 MPH WIND & NO ICE
- REVISION /8
LOADS'
ELEV, ITEM RAD AZ. LINE
700' BEACON AND STROBE 1 1/4' COND
700' PD458 ON 6' SA 1/2,
700' PD1110 ON 6' SA COMBINED WITH ABOVE
698' PREAMP
680' 7' STABILIZER
660' PD7132 ON 6' SA 8'
655' PD1110 ON 6' SA COMBINED WITH ABOVE
600' 7' STABILIZER
570' PD458 ON 6' SA 1 5/8'
570' PD1110 ON 6' SA COMBINED WITH ABOVE
555' PD458 ON 6' SA 1 5/8'
540' PD458 ON 6' SA 1 5/8'
540' TD6074 ON 6' SA COMBINED WITH ABOVE-J
535' SIDE LIGHTS
520' TDE6073 ON 6' SA 7/8'
470' STROBE LIGHTS
415' S 1 DE LIGHTS
400' DB-222E ON SIDE MOUNT 7/8'
367' DB-224E ON SIDE MOUNT 7/8'
300' SCALA OGP9-93K ON 6' SA 1 1/4'
300' DB-589 ON 6' SA 1 5/8'
280' BEACON
250' 7DC6060A ON 6' SA '
250' DB809 ON 6' SA 7/8'
240' STROBE LIGHTS
200' ASP952 ON 6' SA 1 5/8'
180' DR806Y ON 6' SA COMBINED WITH ABOVE
140' SIDE LIGHTS
130' DBE30-E JLEL
70' (3) SP9014-DIN ON T-FRAME (3) 7/8'
62' (3) SP9014-DIN ON T- RAKE 7/8'
50 (3) SP9014-DIN ON T-FRAME ( ) 7/8'
IF THIS TOWER AAL�OUNDAT/ONS WERE NOT FABRICATED INSTALLED OR MAINTAINED IN ACCORDIAIyCE
-����"S'IS AND SPECIFICATION. OUR DESIGN AND/OR FRT/F/raTION !S INVALID AND EEI
.,,�•.., �,�ic e�w RESPONSIBILITY FDR TH/S STRUCTURE IN QTS F'NTIRETY_ _
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
Qo� 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD
ARDEN HILLS, MN 5511275794
December 13, 1999
Dan Vaughan
Arden Towers,Inc.
3440 Bayside Road
Orono,MN 55356
Dear Dan,
The City of Arden Hills (City)wishes to Thank You for your engineering reports submitted
on 11/29/99 from EEI (Ehresmann Engineering Inc.) dated 11/15/99 and 11/23/99,regarding
the safety of your tower and its compliance with the State Building Code.
Summarizing the first report dated 11/15/99 by EEI Engineering, the Tower does not meet
State Code for %Z"radial ice and 80 mph winds,with reduction allowed. Further,the report
indicates that conditions may be worse than the report states if the Tower has suffered any
damage or corrosion and if a sub grade inspection reveals that it does not meet the required
minimum capacity.
The second engineering report submitted by EEI engineering, dated 11/23/99,was done
without any calculations for%z"radial ice.
Summarizing the engineering report dated 11/23/99 (analysis with out radial ice)many
questions remain as to the current safety of the Tower even without including %z"radial ice.
It also appears not all information given to EEI engineering has been correct, (i.e. feedlines)
and the Tower has more loading on it than originally designed,plus a foundation that is
overloaded from what it was originally designed for.
In conclusion,based upon all of the information that has been submitted by you to the City,
Staff believes there is sufficient information to deem the Tower an unsafe structure
according to the State Building Code. Without question, the Tower does not meet State Code
when including %2"radial ice. It appears the Tower was never designed to be able to
withstand %2"radial ice even though it was a requirement at the time the Tower was built.
The Tower was built in 1981, and the requirement to include %"radial ice went into effect in
September of 1980.
There also have been many additions/alterations to.the Tower over the years that have been
done without Building Permits or amendments to the Special Use Permit(attached) as
required by State and Local laws. These additions have substantially increased the loading
over what the Tower was originally designed for,which in turn has made the Tower even
less safe with each and every addition.
PHONE: (651) 633-5676 • FAX (651) 633-7839
r
s
The original design of the Tower showed only 3 antenna groupings, all over the 600-foot
elevation. Today, as the engineering reports show, there are 20 antennas mounted at various
heights through out the Towers entire height.
Staff will commence proceedings to declare the Tower an unsafe structure according to the
State Building Code, on February 28, 2000; unless you are able to make alterations to the
Tower complying with the State Building Code.
We would like to meet with you to discuss your options with this tower at your earliest
possible convenience. Please contact me to arrange a time to meet. Thank you for your
cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
Dave Scherbel
Building.Official
Attachment
cc: Joe Lynch, Ci Administrator
City
Jerry Filla,City Attorney
Patricia A. Conlin, US West
• o IA Vv I
` = SO Department of Administration
October 18, 2000
Mr. Dave Scherbel
Arden Hills Building Official
4364 West Round Lake Road
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794
Subject: Our response to your request of September 28,2000 regarding our review of your
decision declaring a 700 foot high tower in the city of Arden Hills unsafe
Dear Mr. Scherbel,
Based on the information you forwarded to us for review,we have concluded that you are correct
in declaring the tower unsafe. Both our structural engineer and I reviewed the materials and
agree with your action. If it appears that legal action may jeopardize your order,the city should
consider hiring their own consultant to personally evaluate the structure on site. To this point,
your conclusions are only based on the information supplied by the owner. In fact, an on-site
inspection could reveal additional issues as alluded to in one of the reports regarding corrosion.
If you would like to discuss this further with us, don't hesitate to contact me at 651.297.1658 or
Dan Kelsey our Structural Engineer at 651.205.4210.
BUILDILNG CODES &STANDARDS DIVISION
Sincerely,
/,4eJWC4(9/
Scott D.McLellan, Supervisor
Plan Review&Regional Services
Cc: Dan Kelsey,MBCSD
Building Codes and Standards Division,408 Metro Square Building, 121 7th Place East,St.Paul,MN'55101-2181
Voice:651.296.4639;Fax:651.297.1973;TTY: 1.800.627.3529 and ask for 296.9929