Loading...
2017.09.14 Work Session Packet Posted: Sept. 8, 2017 City Council Work Session Agenda Sept. 14, 2017 6:30 p.m. Conference Room A Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter, the work session of the Crystal City Council was held at ______ p.m. on Sept. 14, 2017 in Conference Room A, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota. I. Attendance Council Members Staff ____ Adams ____ Norris ____ Budziszewski ____ Therres ____ Dahl ____ Gilchrist ____ Deshler ____ Revering ____ Kolb ____ Ray ____ LaRoche ____ Sutter ____ Parsons ____ Serres II. Agenda The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items: 1. Open Meeting Law and First Amendment Training* 2. Proposed revisions to Chapter 8 of City Code 3. 2018 Council meeting schedule * Denotes no supporting information included in the packet. III. Adjournment The work session adjourned at ______ p.m. Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531- 1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529. 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov 1 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE WORK OF THE CODE REVIEW TASK FORCE September 14, 2017 City Council Work Session CHAPTER 8 SECTION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION STAFF COMMENTS/ RESIDENT COMMENTS (resident comments in parentheses and italicized) ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL DIRECTION 800 Update to reflect reality Will work with staff to update per current standards 800.01 Update so standards provide functional sidewalks Change minimum width from 30' curb to curb to 24' curb to curb for a 50' or more ROW. Also, sidewalks should be "at least" (add) five feet wide and "at least" (add) one half foot from the property line. The way this is currently written makes it kind of weird that we have built 28' streets (even prior to Phase 15) and put sidewalks at the back of curb. Also, does this section of Code require that sidewalks be installed? [No] Will work to update and clarify 2 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 800.01, subd. 2 Change the minimum width from 30' to 18'. The reason for this is that Phase 16' has an existing street (58th by airport road) that is 18' wide and we cannot build it any wider due to engineering factors. So I would hate to build a non-conforming street. Although, I guess we could consider this an alley. But that brings up another question, in this section of code, are alleys considered streets? [No] The alleys we build are 12' wide. I also do not like the sidewalk language in this section. It is not practical to build a sidewalk along a property line because then you disturb all the property corners and technically would probably need right of entries any time we had to go in there to do replacement maintenance work. Why not just say something like the sidewalk must be in the right of way? Also, does this section of Code require that sidewalks be installed? [No] 800.03 Do we need all the text that starts with "If trees, bushes or any plant....."? Could we just cover this stuff under doing work in the ROW without a permit? This section should be kept 3 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 800.05 We should include a note that tree plantings (or arguably anything else) that are done as part of a contract awarded by the City do not require ROW permits (building permits would still apply). This section needs to be reviewed in light of the updated ROW regulations 800.05, subd. 4 Last sentence conflicts with fee schedule. We now have a line item in the fee schedule for work under and over 500 feet. My preference would be to delete this last sentence. We would create a permit based on a location, but just because a project goes over 300' does not mean that we would then open multiple permits as that would make tracking it annoying. 800.07 The last sentence should be changed to say something to the effect of "The permittee is responsible for providing and maintaining traffic control devices in compliance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices." 800.07, subd. 2 $1,000 surety bond. Should this be in the fee schedule instead? $1,000 is not a lot for a street repair. Can move amount to fee schedule 4 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 800.07, subd. 3 Would there be a way to follow State Law for this (if such a thing exists) or the League of Mn Cities or anything else? I just don't like that the limits are set by Code as that makes changing it a bit of a headache if it is only for inflation considerations. Agreed, but if not here they need to set and track this elsewhere 800.07, subd. 4 This seems like it can be re- worded. I am not sure that 6 hours notice would go over well. The reality is that either the contractor is having issues getting the job done (and may get an extension) or if they walked away (at took traffic control away, etc), then I would consider it a threat to life, property, and the environment and direct PW staff to take immediate action to address the hazard. OK 800.07, subd. 5 Change "regulations of the engineer" to "of the City". OK 800.09, subd. 1 Do we even need this section? Can’t it be covered under work in the ROW? It provides a clear grant of authority, so we can discuss want to keep it 800.09, subd. 2 Do we even need this section? Can’t it be covered under work in the ROW? 800.09, subd. 3 Should a dollar limit be established? Not sure that this 2 year maintenance is practical. Should be updated 5 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 800.10, subd. 1 The way this is written makes it sound like a double permit. This does not even match the fee schedule now. Would prefer just to consider this work in the ROW. This needs to be addressed, but can look at moving it to a general section dealing with work in the ROW 800.10, subd. 2 Standardize so consistent with other chapters. Can we move this section elsewhere? Yes 800.10, subd. 3 Simplify this section. Will try 800.10, subd. 3(a) and 3(b) Clarify when/if second curb cuts are allowed Will discuss with staff 800.10, subd. 3(a)(1) Change this so that the width is measured at the back of the apron (or 5’ from the street) instead of at the property line. With narrow driveways we try to give them a bit of a flare at the street to allow for the turning movement especially with trailers. OK 800.10, subd. 3(a)(4) Clarify this section so it is less confusing and to promote consistency How is this measured? Is the flare of the apron what needs to be 3’ from the side lot line (extended to the street)? Preference would be that this is measured from the driveway edge extended to the street (not including the taper). Will work with staff to clarify 800.10, subd. 3(b)(3) What is the history on this one? Why not make it the same as residential (for ease of enforcement/consistency)? Will need to discuss with staff 6 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 800.10, subd. 3(d) The only practical reason that we do not want vehicles parked in the ROW/boulevard space is because if we are winging back snow banks, we do not want to hit a car. If we are out plowing and when the snow comes off the plow it goes in the driveway. Again, do not want to damage vehicles. And finally, if work (telecommunications companies primarily) is occurring in the ROW, it is nice to have space there. I would be ok with a 10’ no parking area as measured from the back of curb. But I get that this may make enforcement annoying. 800.11, subd. 2 Update the archaic language in this section, including titles to the subdivisions. Can this be reworded? Is this in State Statute? Will work to update the language of this section 800.11, subd. 4 This is also in State Statute Will discuss with chief if there is a benefit to keeping this in the code 800.11, subds. 5 and 6 Update and make more general. Are these two items just considered littering? Can we cover it there? 800.11, subd. 6 Clarify – unless this should be part of a previous section regarding dirt, litter and putrescible matter. It may be hard to enforce the “a person is liable to cause …” part 800.11, subd. 7 Update and simplify so this section is less confusing. Isn’t this in Statue? 7 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 800.11, subd. 8 We need to tie this section in with our MS4 requirements for illegal discharge into the storm system 800.11, subd. 9 Redundant language – unnecessary 800.13-.19 Are these needed as they are addressed in other sections? Will review, but likely want to keep same version of the prohibitions 800.13 Change reference to get away from the “permit from the Council” and “when ordered by the Council” 800.15 Does the wording actually match the problem? Isn’t this really just vandalism or incorrect sign posting? 800.17 Change reference of permission from the Council to the City 800.19 Should this entire section even be here? Could this be covered under zoning? The matching driveway piece should remain here in some form, if it is kept 800.19, subd. 2 Is this still the current requirement/standard? The City does not care about this. We do not own or maintain private driveway approaches to the public street. The only note I have is that we do not want rebar in concrete that is in the right of way. Does the Council wish to remove this requirement? 800.19, subd. 3 Make sure this is consistent with other escrow language. See note for Sub 2. Not sure that this is relevant. 8 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 800.20 This section will have to be modified to be sure it’s consistent with language in zoning chapter and chapter 640. Need to check cross references 800.21, subd. 2 We would like this to just require a ROW permit (not a planting permit, trying to streamline the permitting process) Will review 802 Consider retitling this section to reflect what is covered (excavation.) This is the section that was just updated. We can look at restructuring it so all permits needed for the ROW are under one section as requested by staff. 802.03 Relocate definitions as previously discussed and simplify as much as possible Much of the language in this section is controlled by statute and rule, but will work with staff to see if it can be streamlined 802.03, subd. 2 Add “abandoned” in definitions. This is related to abandoned utilities. 802.03, subd. 2(l) Does this definition work with snow emergencies? That said, I would like to change the term “snow emergencies” 802.03, subd. 2(n) Check to be sure the Code language is consistent with Minn. Stat. § 216D.01. 802.03, subd. 2(t) We should define “local”. Is that based on distance? I know we made some change in another section of Code to allow for something in the Metropolitan area. I think that approach would be reasonable here. 9 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 802.03, subd. 2(u) Is the placement of an object either temporarily or permanently considering as to “obstruct”. Would parking a construction vehicle be considered as an obstruction? Why this is important is because if you are obstructing the right of way, you need a permit. This is a key way for us to stop and talk to contractors just out working. We can roll up and ask to see their permit. 802.03, subd. 2(bb) Are the examples really necessary in this section? 802.03, subd. 2(jj) This section is confusing and needs to be clarified. The definition of right-of-way needs to be defined at the beginning of this section. 802.07 Is this section necessary as the City Council can create committees as needed. This is never going to happen. I am not aware that it ever has. Remove this. 10 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 802.11, subd. 1(a) I am not sure what the Gopher One Call registration certificate number is. This whole system has changed with technology so I am not sure this is relevant. Also, I would be ok if the reference to a facsimile number went away because I don’t see us faxing someone if there is an issue. I would like this to be an annual process so that we keep current contact info. I would also like there to be an annual fee to cover us processing the paperwork. 802.11, subd. 1(d) I don’t even want to go down this route. I want the City to be listed as additional insured on the policy. 802.13, subd. 1 and 2 This is not realistic. I am not aware of the City doing this in recent time. Also, the companies will complain about trademark information. Finally, with data practices I do not know if I even want to collect this information. 802.15, subd. 1(a) We should add “dumpster” in this section. Dumpsters are only allowed on a case by case basis when there is no other option. 11 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 802.15, subd. 3 This is not done and I do not know how we would even get them to pay. The better route would be to have their permit expire, forfeit the fee, and make them re-apply and pay again. 802.15, subd. 4 Is this different in another section? Also change reference from director to City Staff 802.17 Add a subdivision in there that if a project will be greater than 500 feet in length (which matches the fee schedule), the applicant (owner or contractor), in coordination with scheduling of City staff, must call for a Gopher State One Call utility on site meeting after the application has been submitted to the City. This is part of the application review process. 802.19 Is there a state statute that has changed the 10 days thing? And is that 10 calendar or business days? 802.21, subd. 1 These titles do not match our fee schedule. 802.21, subd. 4 What about the situation where the work has not occurred or will not occur (due to owner changing their mind)? Are those fees forfeited? 12 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 802.23 Include something on timelines for restoration. Work must progress in a continual fashion including restoration of project area. 802.23, subd. 2 The City does not want to do the restoration. The only exception is if the permitted work was done as part of a larger City project. The permitee needs to take care of it. 802.23, subd. 2(b) While this is nice, getting them to come back and fix it is hard. Is there any way to get more teeth here? 802.23, subd. 3 Add Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to the definitions. 802.23, subd. 4 The 24 maintenance months will be tough. Getting the warranty restoration work done in 15 days is not realistic on the contractor side. I would be ok with 30 days from notification. 802.27, subd. 1 The permit will only be valid for a single property address (the ROW area in front of this address). If the area is greater than a single property, then the fee schedule for distance will kick in. 13 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 802.27, subd. 2 How does the fee for the permit play into this? Pay another fee? Also, we have an issue with contractors calling for utility locates, then delaying their start, the locates expire and then they have to call to have the locates freshened up again. This is a waste of time and resources. If there is a way we can clean this up that would be great. 802.33 Where can the PUC rules be found? 802.43 With data practices being what they are now. I am not sure we want this data. We would require plans as part of the permit review process. But once the job is done, we would use the Gopher State One Call utility locating process for location information. Plus, registrants really have not given us anything in the past that I am aware up. It is not like we would add it to our data base as we would not want to give any impression that we were responsible for those facilities. 14 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 802.45, subd. 2 In reality, the way this would work is I would call for a Gopher State One Call ticket in a few areas of the City. Then see the list of who is notified of that work. Then compare that list to who I have for registrants. Anyone not on the registrant list would be followed up with. That said, I don’t know what my real options to make them be a registrant are. 802.45, subd. 3 Is this referring to a congested corridor/ROW? 802.47 Define what right-of-way is. 802.49 Utility contractors just follow State Law. They are not going to read this code and see if something is less than 20 inches they are required to do more. We are not going to enforce this and it would just be CYA on the City’s part. 802.57, subd. 3 What about aerial facilities? 805 Could we just treat benches as obstructions and make them be registrants? Also, what about memorial benches in parks (or other locations)? Interested in Council input on this section 805.01 Update and simplify this section. 15 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 805.03 Update to reflect current zoning districts. 805.05, subd. 3 I am not sure we even give out licenses. My preference would be to issue a ROW permit as that is consistent for stuff in the ROW. 805.05, subd. 5 Private parties rarely do this. It is not enforced that I am aware of. 810 Reflect the city’s policy regarding the city’s maintenance (snow removal) of sidewalks or define city- maintained sidewalks. Review period of time required to clear snow to determine if it is reasonable. Will work with staff to identify current policy/practice. It is important to remain clear on who is responsible. 810.01 The City does not even put down salt, sand, ashes, or other materials on sidewalks. 810.03 The City does not clear all the sidewalks within 12 hours. Even when we do clear them, they are not down to bare pavement. 16 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 810.05 The City currently clears over 40 miles of sidewalks. Some areas of the City does have the adjacent property owners clearing the sidewalk. What I have learned is that a general rule of thumb is that if the sidewalk is directly adjacent to the curb, the City clears it. If there is some green space between the street and sidewalk, the property owner clears it. I think a more global conversation may need to be had about this. Also, is a sidewalk a public transportation system (and therefor something we should clear uniformly across the City)? 810.09 Clarify this section so it’s less confusing. 815 Simplify and clarify. Should the park specific language be moved elsewhere? 815.01 Move definitions as previously discussed. Will work to update and clarify this section 815.03 Clarify. 815.05, subd. 3 Simplify no overnight parking in parks. 815.05, subd. 5 Simplify and clarify – what is “park activity”? 17 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 815.05, subd. 6 Relocate to rest of refuse discussion/regulations in Chapter 6 or reference those provisions. 815.05, subd. 7 Reformat to be less redundant. Combine with Section 815.13 if possible. References only to Section 1215 (3.2% malt liquor) 815.05, subd. 8 Add “except in self-defense” to make it clear a person can defend himself or herself. 815.05, subd. 9 Edit to clarify. Last sentence is redundant of the first. 815.05, subd. 11 Update to reflect dog park(s). 815.07 Format as previously discussed regarding placing reference to responsible party up front. Second sentence is the same as Section 815.03. Is the reference to the City manager the correct person? 815.13 Update references to liquor to follow state law. 815.13, subd. 2 815.13, subd. 3 This section references the AGED temporary on sale 1-4 day permit 18 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 815.13, subd. 6 This section needs to be reworked to reflect the Council’s discussion last year that they didn’t want to require insurance certificates for residents having wine and beer in parks (not applicable at the community center). The Council did want to require businesses wanting to use parks and serve alcohol to provide proof of insurance. 815.13, subd. 8(iii) Verify if this provision is constitutional or clarify. Disturbances should not be tied so closely to just alcohol use. 815.15 Simplify this entire section and reduce repetition. 815.15, subd. 2 Delete or relocate intent as previously discussed. 815.15, subd. 3 Relocate definitions as previously discussed. Should city sponsored events be called out separately here and in Subd. 6? Can we move this entire section somewhere else? 815.15, subd. 3(b)-(c) These locations probably expand to more areas than just a park (City street, sidewalk, etc) 815.15, subd. 6(g) Typo – proposed. 815.15, subd. 8(c)(1) Who would an “authorized civilian” be? Who authorizes them? 19 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 815.15, subd. 10 Typo – the most. 815.15, subd. 11 Typo – notwithstanding. 815.15, subd. 12 Is the term “emergency” appropriate for a special event? I think the word should be changed. 815.15, subd. 13(b) Update and clarify. 815.15, subd. 13(f) Update to reflect food trucks. 815.15, subd. 13(a) and 14 Update/condense this sections for Frolics and similar events? 815.15, subd. 14 Combine and simplify – avoid duplication and redundancies. 815.15, subd. 15 Relocate/merge with other refuse/trash provisions. 820 Relocate definitions as previously discussed. Can newsracks just be considered obstructions in the right of way? Make the owners be registrants? Council thoughts on this section? Can work with staff to address in consolidated ROW section. 820.01, subd. 2- 6 Can we move these definitions somewhere else (combine into one master ROW definitions section)? 820.03, subd. 2(c) 820.07 I am not sure how we would track this (unless they were a registrant). How do we track this now? 20 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 820.15 Update – there is not Subd. 6. 825 Clarify city responsibility to maintain sidewalks adjacent to state aid streets as well as along county roads. New accessibility (PROWAG) rules may have an impact on this section. 825.01, subd. 1- 3 The City has done the repairs in the past as part of the operating budget. I think it would be very unpopular if we started telling people they have a problem, hire your own contractor to fix it and pay the bill yourself. Going back to the note about the public good. Aren’t sidewalks part of a transportation system that we should maintain in a similar approach to the streets (patching). Council thoughts on this? 825.05 Clarify consistent with Section 810.09 as discussed. 830.01 Delete or relocate purpose and intent as previously discussed. Council thoughts on this? Some of the prohibitions should be retained, but is the rest current? 830.03 Relocate Tree Board to where other commissions and boards are. 830.05 This is the right of way section of City Code. Is it weird to say that this section applies to private property? 21 506287v2 DTA CR225-423 830.07 Similar to other licensing. Do we want to license this? The only reason I say yes is to try and mitigate the fly by night companies after a storm. But is that the only reason to go through all this? 830.09 Should this be moved to the zoning part of code? 830.11, subd. 2 Delete or relocate intent as previously discussed. Clarify tree replacement requirements. 830.13 Can we move this all to zoning? Then in theory, any tree planting in the ROW would be covered under a ROW permit. 830.13, subd. 1 Delete or relocate intent as previously discussed. 830.17 Be sure penalties are consistent with previous discussions. Page 1 of 1 DATE: Sept. 7, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Clerk Chrissy Serres CC: City Manager Anne Norris RE: 2018 proposed City Council meeting calendar In preparation for the upcoming year, attached is a draft 2018 City Council meeting calendar. The following is an outline of the proposed changes to the 2018 regular meeting schedule: Month Regular Meeting Date Proposed Meeting Date(s) and Comments Feb. Tuesday, Feb. 6 Monday, Feb. 5 due to precinct caucuses. July Tuesday, July 3 Due to the Independence Day holiday and similar to this year, a work session on Thursday, July 12 and one meeting on Tuesday, July 17. Aug. Tuesday, Aug. 7 Similar to this year, two budget work sessions on Thursday, Aug. 9 and 16. Due to National Night Out and the primary election occurring on the first two Tuesdays, one meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 21. Additionally, a special meeting to canvass the primary election results may be needed on Aug. 9 or 10. Sept. Tuesday, Sept. 18 Monday, Sept. 17, in observance of Yom Kippur. Nov. Tuesday, Nov. 6 Council meetings on Tuesday, Nov. 13 and 20 and a work session on Thursday, Nov. 15 due to the general election occurring on the first Tuesday. Additionally, a special meeting to canvass the general election results will be needed the week of Nov. 12 – 16. After Council discussion, I will prepare the 2018 meeting schedule for the Council to adopt at a meeting later this year. Council staff report 2018 proposed City Council meeting calendar 2017 2018 CRYSTAL CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AND WORK SESSION SCHEDULE Regular meetings of the Crystal City Council are generally held the first and third Tuesday of each month in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 4141 Douglas Drive North, beginning at 7 p.m. In addition, the City Council holds regular work session meetings before and after regular City Council meetings at City Hall. Standing work sessions are held immediately following the regular City Council meeting and Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting, if scheduled. Additional work sessions are held beginning at 6:30 p.m. Moreover, regular additional work sessions of the City Council are held on the second Thursday of each month at City Hall beginning at 6:30 p.m. If the date of a regular meeting falls on a holiday or an election day, the date of the rescheduled meeting is reflected on the schedule. If an additional meeting is held, or if a regular meeting is rescheduled to a different date, time, or place, notice of the meeting will be posted at City Hall and on the City’s website. All meetings are open to the public, but the City Council may close meetings to the public to conduct business authorized or required by law to be conducted in a closed session. *Denotes a change in the regular meeting or work session schedule. January Jan. 2 City Council and work session meetings Jan. 11 Work session meeting Jan. 16 City Council and work session meetings February Feb. 5* City Council and work session meetings Feb. 8 Work session meeting Feb. 20 City Council and work session meetings March March 6 City Council and work session meetings March 8 Work session meeting March 20 City Council and work session meetings April April 3 City Council and work session meetings April 12 Work session meeting April 17 City Council and work session meetings May May 1 City Council and work session meetings May 10 Work session meeting May 15 City Council and work session meetings June June 5 City Council and work session meetings June 14* No work session meeting June 19 City Council and work session meetings July July 12 Work session meeting July 17* City Council and work session meetings (one meeting in July on 3rd Tuesday) August Aug. 9 Budget work session meeting Aug. 16 Budget work session meeting Aug. 21* City Council and work session meetings (one meeting in Aug. on 3rd Tuesday) September Sept. 4 City Council and work session meetings Sept. 13 Work session meeting Sept. 17* City Council and work session meetings October Oct. 2 City Council and work session meetings Oct. 11 Work session meeting Oct. 16 City Council and work session meetings November Nov. 13* City Council and work session meetings Nov. 15* Work session meeting Nov. 20 City Council and work session meetings December Dec. 4 City Council and work session meetings Dec. 13 Work session meeting Dec. 18 City Council and work session meetings 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov All regular meetings of the City Council are broadcast live on channel 16. Meetings are rebroadcast the following Sunday at 6:30 p.m. and on Monday at 10:30 a.m. Live meeting webstreaming and past meetings can also be viewed at www.crystalmn.gov, under Online Services, go to OnDemand Council/EDA Meeting Videos.