Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C - Right of way CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT December 3, 2001 ~ 9C . ~\ Frank Boyles, City Manager: AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REPORT REGARDING PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PARKING PURPOSES. DISCUSSION: History: The City obtains right-of-way for neighborhood streets through the platting process. In addition to providing the actual location for City streets, sidewalks, trails, sewer and water, right-of-way provides property on each side of the road for snow storage, sign installation and utilities 1'0 Over time, people have made improvements to the right-of-way areas in front of their homes to afford greater parking space than may be available in their driveway or on the street. Such usage can interfere with the placement and repair of small utilities. It can also interfere with. snow plowing and snow storage. As residents observe their neighbors installing parking areas in the right-of-way, they consider doing the same. In this way, the problem grows. In 1999, the City Council received a complaint about an individual who excavated the right-of-way area, installed landscape boulders and a concrete parking area to provide an additional parking for his vehicles and recreation equipment. The City Council directed that an inventory be accomplished and a report prepared regarding what could be done to address this issue. That is the purpose of this agenda item. Current Circumstances: From May 3rd to June 28, 2000, Steve Horsman surveyed about 95% of the residential properties in Prior Lake. His inventory focused upon parking areas separate from driveways within the right-of-way. A total of 81 parking areas were identified. The greatest percentage of parking in the right-of-way was found in older established areas of the community and particularly lakeshore properties with steep slopes, bluffs or irregular-shaped lots. This is not surprising since these are likely to be the lots with the least parking available off-street. In some instances, the streets themselves may also be narrow, undermining available on-street parking. I do not recommend that the City initiate removal of these drives. The fact that 59 of them are bituminous increases the cost of removal. The City may have had a hand in creating the problem as previous staff members have advised me that the City actually installed some of these in street reconstruction areas in an effort to be resident friendly. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (952) 447-4230 I Fax (952) 447-4245 I :\COUNCIL \AGN RPTS\2001 \ROW. DOC AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: I recommend a three-fold approach for dealing with this issue: 1. For New Drive / Parkinq Areas: The City has developed a driveway permit. Persons who wish to accomplish any construction work in the right-of-way require a permit to do so. Since the permit requires conformance with City Code which prohibits right-of-way drives and parking areas, we should be able to stop those which we are asked about. An information campaign is needed to address those who do not ask the City. Periodic articles in the Wavelength, Prior Lake American and the web page should help. Once this campaign takes place it would be my intent to have the property owner remove any new improvements accomplished without a permit. 2. For Existinq Drives Which Are Part of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Proqram: For properties which will be part of the five-year street reconstruction program, we will not re-build the right-of-way drives and/or parking areas. This will be part of our on-going policy. Next year, for example, Pixie Point Circle will be reconstructed. Several right-of-way parking areas have been identified in this area. Staff would propose that these parking areas be eliminated as part of this project. 3. For Drives Which Are Not Yet Part of the Capital Improvement Proqram: We would mail a notice to each property owner to arrange to execute a Private Use of Public Property Agreement. This action will indemnify the City, authorize removal of the structure if any City or utilities work is required in the right-of-way, and prohibit the expansion of the existing facilities. General public information efforts will supplement our mailings. FISCAL IMPACT: Initiation of this effort will require additional staff time. By initiating the notification process this winter, we can attempt to take advantage of non-peak time. For practical purposes, there will not be any CIP related improvements in the right-of- way for the remainder of this construction season, nor do we anticipate at this time any demolition work in any of the improved right-of-ways. ISSUES: The Council should determine if they wish the staff to pursue this program. If so, the staff should be directed to follow this approach or any modification the Council deems appropriate. ~. ALTERNATIVES: (1) Pursue this program as recommended by staff. (2) Pursue this program with modification. (3) Take no action. RECOMMENDED MOTION: As the Council may determine. I :\COUNCI L \AGNRPTS\200 1 \ROW. DOC MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREP ARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: cr. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DECEMBER 3, 2001 9D DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AND SCOTT COUNTY REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN COUNTY ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY History In early 2000, the City Council adopted a moratorium on the installation of any telecommunication facilities in the public right-of- way. The moratorium was repealed in June of 2000 when the Council adopted a right-of-way ordinance that provided for a system of permits to allow the installation of equipment and utilities in the right-of-way. Since that time, there have been at least two requests for the placement of telecommunication facilities (specifically, cell phone towers) in County road right-of-way. Staff took the position that the County owns its right-of-way and therefore has the authority and responsibility to deal with these requests but the County suggested otherwise. To clarify the respective responsibilities between the City and County, the City and the City Attorney have developed the attached Joint Powers Agreement (JP A) to recognize the ability of the County to regulate its own right-of -way. Issues State law recognizes what are called road authorities, which are the governmental entities having jurisdiction over a particular road or street. Consequently, and obviously, the State is the road authority for State highways, the County for County roads and the City for City streets. The fact that developers must apply for a permit from the County to obtain road access is an example of this authority. Another example is the County requirement that the City obtain permits for entry monuments or noise walls in the County right-of-way. The proposed JP A recognizes this and also allows the County to exercise its zoning authority solely with regard to telecommunication facilities in County road rights-of-way. As the JP A states, staff believes it to be inappropriate for the City to have approval authority over facilities located in the County right-of-way. 162e<'9I~I!~\2~~~r~~:~Bf~ake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (952) 447-4230 I Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AL TERNA TIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: <. No other authority is conferred upon the County by this Agreement, other than the express right to apply County zoning authority to telecommunication facilities in the County right-of-way. r()n~lm;:i()n Staff believes the attached JPA addresses the concerns of the City and County as they relate to telecommunication facilities in the right-of-way of County roads. The County Attorney and County Administrator have reviewed the document and believe it to be acceptable. 1. Authorize execution of the Joint Powers Agreement with Scott County. 2. Do not authorize execution of the Joint Powers Agreement with Scott County. 3. Defer this item for specific reasons. Alternative 1 L:\O I files\O I corres\Don\ccreportJP Acell.doc 2 T JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT REGARDING THE REGULATION OF TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN COUNTY ROAD RIGHT -OF - WAY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF PRIOR LAKE PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the authority of the County of Scott, State of Minnesota, to regulate the placement and operation of telecommunications facilities within the various rights-of-way of County roads located within the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota. RECITALS Whereas; Minnesota Statutes 471.59 provides that two governmental units may, by agreement, cooperatively exercise any power common to both parties and further, that one governmental unit may exercise such power on behalf of the other governmental unit, and Whereas; Minnesota Statutes 471.59, Subd. 8 specifically provides that any County may enter into agreements with any other governmental unit to perform on behalf of that unit any service or function which that unit would be authorized to provide for itself, and Whereas; Scott County and the City of Prior Lake each have zoning authority under Minnesota Statutes 394.21 and 462.357, respectively, and ~. Whereas; both the County and City have adopted ordinances regulating the location of telecommunication facilities, and Whereas; because the County is the road authority for County and County State-Aid highways pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 160.02 and the City believes it is inappropriate for the City to have approval authority for construction of structures in the County right- of-way, and Therefore, it is agreed as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 16200 ia~~M~~~~~t~rrli6ft-a~.9,'Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (952) 447-4230 I Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2. The City agrees that Scott County may exercise its' zoning authority within the public rights-of-way of County State -Aid roads and County roads within the City limits of Prior Lake solely with regard to the regulation and permitting of telecommunications right-of-way users as the terms public right-of-way and telecommunications right-of-way user are defined in Minnesota Statutes 237.162 Subd. 3 and SubdA. 3. This Agreement may be rescinded upon mutual agreement of the parties. In the event the County adopts an ordinance regulating the use of County right-of-way that is significantly different from the City Right-Of-Way Management Ordinance (City Code Section 701.700), the City reserves the right to unilaterally rescind this Agreement. Approved by the City of Prior Lake on December 3,2001 Mayor City Manager Approved by Scott County on December xx, 2001 County Board Chair County Administrator ~.. L:\ADMIN\CelltowersJP A.doc