Loading...
12/06/1965 - 00021744� Motion by Wright, seconded by Kir�.hdm, to grant a waiver to the North Suburlaan Hospital District for Unity Hospital in two respects; L 2 Building Code requirement requiri_ng hose and hose�cabinets, the hose connection, however, to be required. Building Code requixement on instaliing of an autnmatic sprznkler system in basement areas of storage and work rooms. Waivers to be granted on these two factors only. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried CONSIDERATION OF CL�ANING OF SANITARY SEWERS DAMAGED AND PLUGGED BY TORNADO AND PL00D DISASTERS; Councilman Sheridan advised that the two local firms that do this kind of work will provide firm quotations on December 1, 1965 for consideration by the Council on Decem6er 6th There was no action on this matter pending receipt of the quotations. ST. 1966-1 AND ST. 1966-2 STREET The Council diseussed the various street pro�ects upon whLCh a Pub1LC Hearing was held on November 15, 1965, and advised the City Manager which streets should be included in the resolution ordering the improvement for St. 1966-1 The Council decided to wait upon a report from the Planning Consul�ant and also from the Minnesota Highway Department before deciding upon the St. 1966-2 program. ADJOURNME NT : There being no further business, Mayor Nee declared the meeting ad�ourned at 10:59 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Earl P. Wagner Acting Secretary to the Council ���Q,��`�� "?/i`� William J ee MAYOA THE MINUTES OF THE REGIILAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1965 Th�+ Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Nee at 8•35 P.M ROLL CALL: Members Present• Nee, Kirkham, Wright, Thompson, Sheridan Members Absent• None APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMSER 8, 1965: Motion by Wright to adopt the minutes of the Special Council Meeting of Notiember 8 1965 as submitted Seconded by Thompson Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously APPROVAL OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 15, 1965: Motion by Sheridan to adopt the minutes of the Aegular Council Meeting of Novembex 15, 1965 as submitted. Seconded by Wright Upon a vozce vote, there being no nays, [he motion carrLed unanimously. ' � , � ' � � APPROVAZ OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMB�A 17, 1965: Motion by Kirkham to adopt the minutes of the Si�ecial Council Meeting of November 17, 1965 as submitted, Seconded by Wright Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the mot�on carried unanimously. APPROVAZ OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - NOVGMBER 22, 1965: Motion by Thompson to adopt the minutes of the Special Council Meeting of November 22, 1965 as submitted. Seconded by Wright Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the mot�on carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING FRANCHISE- AMEKCCAN OIL COMPAiVY (CONTINUED FAOM 11/1/65): Mr. Peter Coggeshall and Senator ponald Wright were present representing the American Oil Company, and Senator Root was presenC representing the interests of Arvid Carlson & Soas. Senator Wright stated Lhat he examined the question whether the City of Fridley is authorized, and has the power, to enable the American Oi1 Company to transport Lts products in the public right-of-way in the City of Fridley. He staCed that the easement where the American Oil Com�:ny transports its products is privately ownerl, that the State bought this privately owned property and ordered the American Oil Company to move its pipeline. He stated that the American Oil Company wants to move its pipeline into the public right-of-way on 3rd Street between 49th Avenue and 53rd Avenue Northeast. Senator Wright stated that he researched the law and found several court cases which support his conclusion that the City of Fridley is authorized to grant a permit or franchlse to the American Oil Company to transport ils products in the public right-of-way. He stated that one of these cases came before the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota in 1895 and arose between the telephone hompany and a municpality where the telephone company wished to use the streets for laying underground cable. He stated thaC this is one of the earlier cases concerning the transportation of private goods that cross public property, FIe stated that the Supreme Court decided that the concept of transportation was too narrow, chat as Civilization advanced and needs increased, all methods, including pipelines, were possible uses for the transport of- goods in the public right-of-way Senator Wright stated that another case concerned the Minneapolis Brewing Company's use of a public alley where a tunnel was built for the trausport of bottles from one plant of the M2nneapolis Brewing Company to another He stated that in this case, the court decided that the use of a tunnel below a public street was merely another means of transporting private property across the public right-of-way. A third case litigated in the State of Pennsylvania permitted a private property owner to run a private drain in the public right- of-way in spite of the oppos�'tion of abutting property owners The Court also granted the private property owner the right to prevent other property owners f�om making conneceion to his drain since the capacity of the drain was insuffi- cient. Senator Wright stated that he believes municpalities have all power ovex the streets that can exist. He stated that he does not be'ieve a private property owner can deny pexmission to another party to the public right-of-way since private persons have a right to transport property on the surface, and the municipality has a right ta permit transfer of priaate property below the surrace of the ground. Senator Wright stated that the City of Minneapolis has granted privaCe parties the right to transport steam Ln lines underground He said that when a street 1s dedicated it becomes the property of the public, is under the control of the public, and the only thing a private party needs to make use of the street is a permit from the municipality to do so. Senatox Wright stated that the American Oil Company is presently using other public right-of-way in the City of Fridley and has paid $2200 personal property taxes up��n the pipelines located in the City of Fridley. Councilman Wright asked Senator Wright whether there is a difference in law between Che rights a private carrier has in the public right-of-way and a common carrier on the public right-of-way. He stated that a private carrier asking for a pexmit to run a pipeline is asking for an exclusive use in part of the public right-of-way, whereas, a surface carrier doesttot ask exclusive use Senator Wright stated that he does not helieve there'is any distinction between a privately owned utility and a private carrier. He stated that in the Minneapolis Brewing Company case, the tunnel was strictly for use by the pxivate party who was not a common carrier. Senator Wright stated that many cases in other states � have been upheld where a private carrier has been allowed to use the public :ight-of-way, and that at the present time the American Oi1 Company is using a portion of 49th Avenue Senator ponald Wright stated that where the private carrier uses an exclusive portion of one street, there ere other portions of the street and other streets available to other private carriers iP they wish to do likewise. Mr Peter Coggeshall stated that of the total volume of petroleum carried by American Oil Company 17% of the product is transported over private property, 16% over county and municipa� streets, 24% over public highway right-of-ways, and 43% over railroad right-of-way�s. Mr. Coggeshall s[ated that if the product ' transported by pipelines were transported on the surface of public roads, it would increase the burden upon the public roads, Mr. Coggeshall stated that there are presently in the City of Minneapolis 10 blocics of pipeline in public streets owned and used by American Oi1 Company, and there have been no complaints concerning the use of the public right-of-way. Senator Root stated that nothing has been said by Senator Wright to change his position. He stated that the first case mentioned by Senator T�7right was the Oberg case, which was researched by his own office before he decided to challenge the use of the public right-of-way by American Oil Company He said that the �udge's statements in the Telephone Company case are given on page 542 of Volume 60. He stated that the �udge ruled in this case that the assumption is made that the use of the telephone line will be open to the public. Senator Root said that the Penneylvania case was the Wood case, which has been used as a precedent many times in law, and at the tzme the Wood case came before the courts, the law had been passed gzving public utilities the right to the use of streets. Ile stated that portions of the statute referring to these rights are Minnesota 222.27, 300.03, 300.04, 300.05, 300.06, and that all these parts of the statute refer to the use by public utilitzes, Senator Root stated that if American Oil Company is allowed to use 3rd Street between 49th Avenue and 53rd Avenue in the boulevard, then the Sinclair Oil Company and the Phillips Petroleum Company and a11 other oil companies will want to use this Iocation in the street for the transport of their products. He stated that the City could stop them from asing 3rd Street, that the oil companies have no right to � use the street. Senator Root stated that in the Minneapolis Brewing case, the Minneapolis Brewing Company made application for a tunnel to transport steam and water to be furnished to other private parties, and after the tunnel was built used it for the transportion of bottles instead. He stated that there was no challenge to tfie use of th_s tunnel until prohibition when a pri�iate party, interested in stopping the operations of the brewery, ob�ected to the-use o£ the tunnel. He stated that Waite, a,Tudge of the Supreme Court at the tzme, said that the tunnel could have been authorized for use by the Minneapolis Brewing Company if rt were accessible for public convenience. He stated that thls ruling may be found on 198 Minnesota. He stated that the case brought before the Supreme Gourt was an Action of E�ectment not an ob�ection to construction of the tunnel, and an Action of E�ectment for the use of the tunnel was no._ proper, and therefore was denied by the court Senator Root stated that Daniel's Digest, Volume 13 A, Page 115, contains a case in which the court ruled that the City may authorize the use of a tunnel if the tunnel is accessible for public use. Tn 179 Minnesota Case Book, page 495, there is another case in which it was ruled that transport under the surface of the ground, not authorized for public use, could no� be made available for private use. Mayor Nee asked Senator Root whether he made any statement concerning the Authority granced by the City Charter to grant a franchise to American Oi1 Company for relocation of the pipeline. Senator Root stated that Section 101 � of the City Charter grants the City the power to grant tranchises to public uti1�_ties. He stated that Arvid Carlson and Sons own the underlying fee in the street, and he stated that if the American Oil Company has a right to run its pipeline in the public right-of-way, why do they not continue to run their pipeline in the Minnesota H�.ghway Department right-of-way. Ae stated that Arvid Carlson and Sons purposely dedicated a 49' w�.de street easement, because ol a provision in the deed providing an easement to the American Oil Company to run their pipeline 49�' from the section quarter 1ine, and the street dedication purposely kept the Am.erican Oil Company easement out of the street n ght-of-way. Senator Root stated that the reason American Oil Company is using other public right-of-ways is that no one has ob�ected to their use He sLated that a person can do anything to which no one else ob�ects and get away with it. 7 Settetor Root stated that he believes there is a real danger to the existence of a gasoline pipeline 7.n the City street. He stated that the p&tiement is 35" wide and plans are to lay the pipeline in the boulevard, 3'6" below the surface of the ground. He stated that if there is a sewer back-up in one of the apartment build�ngs at any time, for example in the middle of the night he will call a plumber and order hxm to dig up the boulevard zn order to put the sewer back in operation, and if the plumber hrts the pipeline, that entire pottion of the CLty of Fridley could be obliterated. Mayor Nee asked how it is possible ior the American Oil Company to transport ' its products across streets 1£ it is illegal for them to use the public right- of-way. Senator Root stated that this pipel�ne stated in Whiting, Indiana, and originally transporYed products to Moor�iead, Minnesota Ae stated that the American Oil Company extended the pipeline to Mandan, North Dakota, and is now transporting products from Mandan, North Dakota to Minneapolis He stated that the American Oil Company can compel any government to allow them to cross public right-of-way, but Chat it would Ue necessary for American Oil Company to cross the public right-of-way where and at the direction of the particular government. Mayor Nee asked Senator Root whether Che same Argument would apply to a fee owner of the property Senator Root replied that, that was correct. He stated that if in the £uture the City should vacate 3rd Street, the Citq wi11 sti11 be bound by the franchise it grants to American Oil Company, Senator Root stated that the interests which he represents built a pipeline in the Village of St, Anthony and needed the right to cross the highway, which they had received from the Minnesota Highway Departtn¢nt, but they had to locate it according to the wishes of the Minnesota Highway DepartmenL Senator ponald Wright stated Chat he has not the slightest doubt Uut what a piueline is the safe-t method of transporting oil and gasoline and that the rule is that a member of the public can transport, under the surface of the soil, whatever he has a right to transport on the surface of the soil He stated that khen such transportation is made within City limits, the private party needs the consent of the City before transporting these goods He stated that this applies to surface transportation as well as to sub-surface transportation. � Senator ponald Wright stated that the only question exiating is how the American Oil Company can he accommodated to transport its product through the City of Fridley at this time, in view of the fact that it must relocate Che pipeline from the Minnesota Highway DepartmenL right-of-way, and the failure to settle the question will hold up construction of T.H. -0�47 in the CiL-y of Fridley. He stated that some solutlon must be found to this problem Mr. Coggeshall stated that the American Uzl Company has a pexmzt irom the City of Minneapolis to lay pipelines in Che puUlic right-of�way, and that as far as Senator Root's argument is concerned, a plumber work�ng in the middle of the night who would dig up gasoline lines would either have to be extremely careless or extremely stupid. He sCated that befare any plumber would dig up the City street, he would check with the City Engineer concerning the location of pipelines in the street, and would be careful not to break them with his own backhoe. Councilman Sheridan asked Mr. Coggeshall wheL-her the American Oil Company has made an attempt to obtain a private easement for re-location of the pipeline. Mr Coggeshall stated that theAmerican Oil Company has nol made any attempt r�o do so up to this time because of the many property owners from who American Oil Company would have to pu�chase an easement, and because of the short time involved, it would be quicker to obtain an easement to locate the pipaline in the City streets than to run zC acxoss private pxoperty � Councilman Wright asked Mr. Coggeshall whether theiCity of Minneapolis has granted the American Oil Company a license, permit, or a franchise to use the - public right-of-way. Mr. Tieste, another representative of the American Oil Company, stated that Minneapolis grant�d a permit for this use. Mayor Nee asked whether the City of Fridley could gxant a permit to the American Oi1 Company, and whether this would solve the problem in lieu of granting a franchise to the American Oi1 Gompany. The Gity Attorney stated that granting a permit would create the same problem as granting a franchise Mayor Nee asked if there were any other comments or questions concerning this issue. There were no other comments Mayor Nee decla?ed the hearing closed, and stared that he believes the Council will need an opinion from the City Attorney concerning this question � Motion by Wright to request the City Attorney to provide the Council with a summary of the case law concerning granting a franchise to American Oil Company for relocation of its pipeline in the public right-of-way, and the opinion of the City Attorney concerning the arguments presented by the American Oil Company, and by Arvid Carlson and Sons. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. ON IMPROVEMENT - STREETS 1966-1: Mayor Nee stated that a Public Hearing has already been held concerning this pro�ect, but the Council is willing to hear the views of the property owners � to establish whether the pm perty owners want a specific street improved or not. He stated that at the Public Hearing the property owners were given addrtional information which they could use to decide whether they want to build these streets, and the Council is interested in hearing their opinions. STREETS IN RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS: Mayor Nee stated that the estimated cost of mnstructLOn of the streets in Riverview Heights is $9.40 per front foot including the cost of a temporary paving surface on Riverview Terrace. He stated that in addition to this cost, people may want a storm sewer system installed in Riverview Heights to avoid L-he use of valley gutters across Broad Avenue, and the cost of this storm sewer system would be assessed at an estimated rate of $2.65 per hundred square feet If I�iverview Terrace is not improved, the cost of construction is estimated to be $8 per front foot including the cost of catch basins located along Riverview Terrace to carry the water into the Mississippi River and avoid erosion of the river bank at Riverview Terrace. Councilman Wright stated that the Council may adopt the program with or without the improvement of Riverview Terrace and with or without the storm sewer to carry water across Broad Avenue. A visitor to the Council Meeting asked whether the construction of the streets without the storm sewer would leave a pothole on Lafayette Street which would collect water, and if there was some way of building up Lafayette Street and the rest of the streets, to avoid creating a pothole on Lafayette without construction of the storm �ewer. The City Engineer answered that it would be possible to ' raise the elevation of the streets such that there would be no pothole or 1ow spot in the street, but by doing so the level of the street would be above that of some of the property along the street. Mayor Nee stated that the City received petitions for the constructim of two of these streets, and that these petitions were signed by more than 50% of the property owners on these two streets. He stated that the City Engineer proposed the improvements of other streets because it would be possible for the City to obtain a better bid price if the improvement is larger. A visitor to the Council Meeting asked what the City would do since some of the property owners signed a petition for the improvement and also a petition against the improvement Councilman Wright answered that the Council acknowledges the righl- of the Citizen to change his mind, and the Council would consider that the Citizen had signed the last petition received hy the CounciL Mayor Nee asked the visitors to the Council Meeting how many favor construction of the streets without the construction of the storm sewer system and without the improvement of Riverview Terrace. A ma�ority of those present favored the construction. Mayor Nee asked the visitors to the Council Meeting how many would prefer the construction of the storm sewer system. None of the property owners wanted the construction of the storm sewer system. Mayor Nee stated that he wished the property owners to understand that if the storm sewer system is not constructed, there will be valley gutters to carry the water across Broad Avenue ' A visitor asked how reasonable the construction cost of $8 per front foot is. Mayor Nee answered that construction costs in the City of Minneapolis are running about $13 per front foot. Councilman Sheridan stated that the cost of $8 per front foot is based upon comparable figures quoted for construction of streets in Street Program 1966-1. Councilman Wright stated that the costs of street improvement are increasing approximately 15% per year, and the street construction would undoubtedly not be cheaper in the future than it is at the present time. The City Manager stated that most of the time of the grader operator is spent grading these streets, and paving these streets will reduce maintainence costs to the City. a�� Mayor Nee asked if there were any property owners living on Riverview Terrace present at the Council Mee��ing. There were several property owners present and one of them stated that something should be done to improve Riverview Terrace. Councilman Thompson stated that he met with four or five different groups of property owners in Riverview Heigh� including 15 or �6 property owners in each group. He stated that these property owners are concerned with paying for the improvement � Riverview Terrace and do not want to see Riverview Terrace improved. Mayor Nee asked the visrtors to the Council Meeting to indicate how many favor the improvement of the streets in Riverview Heights and how many of them oppose it. � Mayor Nee stated that, if the improvement is made, some people will be hurt, and if the improvement is not made, some people will be hurt. He stated that 19 property owners favor the improvement and 11 are opposed to it. A visitor to the Council Meeting asked whether Lafayette Street would be included in this improvement Mayor Nee stated that a petition for the improvement of Zafayette Street had been received by the Council only this evening, and that it would be necessary for the Council to hold a Public Hearing on the improvement of Lafayette Street before deciding whether it should be included in this program. i*e stated that it would sti11 be possible to add Lafayette Street to Street Construction Program 1966-1, Motion by Wright that Street Pro�ect 1966-1 include the improvement of Kimball Street from Riverview Terrace to East River Road, of Ja�s�ille Street from Riverview Terrace to east River Road, of Ironton Street from RivervLew Terrace to East River Road, of Hugo Street from Riverview Terrace to East River Road, of Glencoe Street from Riverview Terrace to Past River Road, andof Broad Avenue from Glencoe Street to Kimball Street, Uut exclude the improvement of Riverview Terrace and construction of a storm sewer system in Riverview Aeights except for the drainage facility to carry water from Riverview Terrace to the Mississippi River Seconded by Thompson Upon a voice vote there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 75TH AVENUE: OLD CENTRAL AVENi7E TO BACON DRIVE: � Virginia Conrad was present at the Council Meeting and stated that she favors the construction,of 75th Avenue. 63RD AVENUE AND PIERCE STREET TO STATE AID STREET -0k302 IN SHOREWOOD SHOPPING CENTER: Mr, and Mrs. Leighton Clark were present at the Council Meeting and stated that they are the only people living on 63rd Avenue. 'l"l�ey stated that the purpose of this improvement is only to fill in the hole on Pierce Street and that the improvement wi11 probably he helpful to their property, Mayor Nee gointed out that these peeple own only Lot 2 and there are three other lots on 63rd Avenue which wi11 be included in this improvement. He asked Mr and Mrs. Clark if they would favor the improvement if it were extended west on 63rd Avenue from Pierce Street. The property owners indicated that they would Ue in favor of such improvement. MCKINLEY STREET, FRIDLEY STREET, ANOKA STRE�T AND bbTH AVENlIE: Six visi�ors to the Council Meeting opposed construction of Pridlev Street, Anoka Street, and 66th Avenue. They stated that they believe more than 50% of the property own.eis are opposed to the improvement of these streets Councilman �dright stated that the City received petitions signed by 90% of the property owners on McKinley Street, 80% of the property owners on 66� Avenue, 50% on 66th Avenue and 83% on Stinson Boulevard favoring the constructLOn of these streets. � One of the visitars stated that he believes the property owners would sign a petition for improvement of these streets only if a storm sewer system were built in the area. Councilman Wright stated that from talking to these property owners he has gained the impr�ssion that the peaple wculd Favor the improvement of the streets only if the storm sewer is not built He stated that people do not warit to pay for the cost of construction of a storm sewer. Counczlman Wright stated that the G!ty could not pave portions of these streets aloee, but the City must pave the entire area if the City i, to obtain a low cost For the pavement of these streets He stated that iF the City paves only the chunks of streets where individual property owners want to see the abutting street improved, the cost of paving these small portions wouL.'. be prohibitive to the property owners. �� Councilman Sheridan stated that the property owners have requested construction of a storm sewer system to drain into Moore Lake. He stated that the City has authorized the Consulting Engineer to make a studyof such a storm sewer system and will consider construction of the system when the study is completed. Councilman Wright asked the visitors how many are present at the Council Meeting who were not present at the Public Hearing. They stated that they opposed the construction of this improvement Councilman Wright asked how many of these visitors own the same property. Two of them owned one parcel of pxoperty. Councilman Wright stated that adding these two property owners to the list of those opposed to the construction of this improvement at the Public Hearing, leaves a ratio of two to one in favar of construction of this improvement. Motion by Thompson to delete from Street Improvement Project 1966-1. McILinley Street from 66th Avenue to 66z Avenue, 662 Avenue from the alley between Fridley Street and McKinley Street to Stinson Boulevard, Fridley Street from Mississippi Street to 67th Avenue, Anoka Street from Mississippi Street to 67th Avenue, 66th Avenue from McKinley Street to Stinson Boulevard, 66th Avenue from Arthur Street to McKinley Street. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a roll ca11 vote, Kirkham and Thompson voting aye, Mayor Nee, Sheridan and Wright voting nay, the motion failed. Motion by Wright to adopt Resolution ��201-1965 as presented in the agenda of the Council Meeting wrth the exception of Riverview Terrace and a storm sewer system in Riverview Heights. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a roll call vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried. SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION - BURGER ILiNG COMPANY (TABLED 11/8/65, 11/15/65): Mr. Sundberg and Mr. Curtis Eastrom were present at the Council Meeting representing the Fridley Covenant Church. They stated that they are concerned about the construction of this sign since they do not believe such a large sign will look very good near their church. Mayor Nee invited the representatives cf the Fridley Covenant Church to examine the plans for construction of the sign, and noted that the sign is proposed to be 28' high and 20' wide. Mr. Sundberg asked whether the National Tea Store will build a sign in front of their building. Mayor Nee stated that their sign will probably be the same as the previous sign which National Tea had in front of the store. Mayor Nee stated further that it might be possible for the Council to induce Burger Ring Company to move the sign elsewhere. He stated that the Council asked Burger King Company to bring in plans for construction of a smaller sign but Burger King has failed to do so, Motion by Wright to deny the application of Huber Sign Company for a permit to construct a sign for a Burger King Company restaurant at 64th Avenue and University Avenue West Service Drive Northeast. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. OR➢INANCE ADOPTING SIGN REGULATIONS: Mr. Robert Christianson was present representing the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Wright asked Mr. Christianson whether the Chambex of Commerce has had a chance to review the revised version of the sign ordinance. Mr. Christianson answered, "Yes." The City Attorney stated that the revised version of the ordinance incorporates all the suggestions made to the Council for changes in the sign ordinance including insertion of a grandfather clause into the sign ordinance. Councilman Wright noted that there is a mistake in the ordinance given on page 67 of the of the Council Meeting agenda, namely in sub-paragraph 2: C-1 and C-15 Districts, part d. provides that the height of a sign is to be restricted so as not to obliterate a neighboring business. He stated that he believes the word ohliterate should be mask or obscure. Mayor Nee stated that there is a question concerning the annual permit to maintain a sign in the City of Frldley. He stated that the reason the Council wishes to require the annual permit is to prevent signs from remaining upon the landscape after the reason for the sign is long gone. Mayor Nee stated that the annual permit renewal would reqm re sign owners to indicate to the City that they were interested ln �aintaining the sign upon the premises. He stated that it would be possible, administratively, to check whether a sign owner renewed his permit, and if he did not, to ask him if he were interested in continuing maintenance upon this sign, and infoxm him that if he did not renew his permit for the sign or maintain the sign, the City would remove the sign from the property. Councilman Wright stated that he does not believe the City wi11 take any preciprtous actzon concerning sign owners who do not immediately , � 1 � � � �� renew permits for signs. He stated that the fee could be ad�usted to cover only the administrative costs of making this check upon the sign owners. Robert Christianson asked whether Che section of the ordinance requiring a sign owner to maintain the sign would not provide the means to prevent old signs from remaining in place. He stated that the Building Inspector could examine all the signs in the City of Fridley periodically, and order property owners to maintain those signs not in good condition. He stated that the property owner who is then ordered to maintain a sign 2n which he was no longer interested might state that he no longer wants the sign, or his failure to maintain it would give the City the right to remove the sign. The City Manager stated that if this procedure were followed, there would be more cost and more work for the City, namely, the inspection time required to examine all these signs, than there would be by checking permits and determining the number of sign owners who failed to renew a permit. Mr. Christianson asked what is the purpose of the fee for this permit. Council- man Wright answered that the purpose of the fee is to pay the City the cost of keeping the books and records. Mayor Nee stated that it could be done without a fee. Mr. Christianson asked the Council whether they were interested only in the aesthetics of the signs. Councilman Wright answered that, if a sign along a roadway is not meaningful, it distracts the drivers atCention, and whereas the Crty is not opposed to signs upon the roadway that are meaningful and provide an automobile driver with useful information, if a sign does not provide him with any useful infonnation, the sign is an unnecessary distraction to �is driving. Counc�lman Wright stated that he believes the question of obtaimng sufsicient maintenance of the sign refexs more to billboards than to signs located on buildings. He stated that where the building is in use, the property owner would not retain a sign which is no longer meaningful on the building, but that the billboards are often left in place years aiter the business advertised on the billboard is no longer in existence. He suggested that item 3 under the renewal permit be restricted to billboards. Mr. Christianson statied that he believes this would be satisfactory with members of the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Kirkham asked whether it would be possible to adopt the ordinance upon first reading at this Council Meeting and have the City Attorney revise the ordinance according to the information obtained at this Councii Meeting before presenting it to the Council for second reading. The City�Attorney stated that he believes he could do so and that even with all the changes proposed in the sign ordinance as it was presented to the Council at this meeting, it is stronger than ordinances regulating signs at the present time. Mayox Nee asked the City Attorney whether it would be reasonable to insert a cut-off date in the grandfather clause aEter which the grandfather clause would no longer apply to certain signs. The City Attorney stated that he believes it would be possible to do so. He said that the City did the same thing in regard to the operation of hog farms, when the City fnformed the property owner that he could operate a hog farm in the City limits for one more year and extended the permit for only the additional year. Motion by Thompson to adopt the ordinance regulating signs upon first reading. 3econded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PROPOSED ORDINANCE - HOUSING CODE: Motion by Kirkham to table consideration of the Ordinance adopting the Uniform Housing Code to the Special Council Meeting of December i3, 1965. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF P'iRK PROPERTY (TABLED 11/15/65)• Motion by Sheridan to table consideration of the purchase of park property to the Special Gouncil Meeting of December 13, 1965. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. BIDS - 3/4 TON TRUCK (OPENED NOON, DECEMBER 6, 1965): The City Manager gave each Council member a copy of the following list of bids; � �) � BIDDER Ma�or Ford Midway Ford McGee Truck Anoka International Iten Chev. CASH PRICE FordF250 $2,647.00 Pord I'250 GMC K-1502 Int. D1200 Chev. K2534 $2,979.58 TRADE-IN NET PRICE $300.00 $2,347.00 $250.19 $2,784.00 $425.00 $2,732.17 $1,173.35 $2,500.00 $800.00 $2,179.00 DEL DATE 45-60 Days 6 days 45 days 75 days 45 days � Motion by Wright to receive the report of the Parks and Recreatian Department and authorize the purchase of a Chevrolet K-2534 3/4 ton truck from Iten Chevrolet in the amount of $2,179 with trade-in of the 1957 �eep. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. BIDS - MOORE LAKE TENNIS COURTS (OPENED NOON, DECEMBER 6, 1965: The City Manager read the following list of bids: BIDDEA Carlson-Lavine Construction Dunkley Surfacing Co. C. S. McCrossan, Inc. LUMP SUM BID $5,655.00 $4,455.64 $5,167.25 COMPLETION DATE June 1, 1966 June 10, 1966 June 10. 1966 Motion by Wright to award the contract for construction of tennis courts on Moore LakeBeach to Dunkley Sur�aczng Co., in the amount of $4,455.64. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1965: � LOTS-SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ik64-08, ORVILLE RATLEY Mr. Ratley was present at the Council Meeting and explained his request for a 1ot split. Councitman Wright asked Mr. Ratley whether he agrees withthe recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City red-tag the two Tots until the present structure upon the present three lots is removed. Mr. Ratley answered, "Yes." There was a discussion of which way a house would face if the lots were split as requested by Mr. Ratley. The Council was unable to settle this question and a discussion ensued whether the question might be settled when an application is made for a Building Permit for construction upon these lots. Motion by Wright to concur wrth the Planning Commission and grant the Lot Split �k64-DS ta Orville Katley of Lots 13,14 and 15, B1ock 16, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville as shown on the Certificate of Survey (File 5298, Book No. 1704-24), splitting the lots north a nd south, upon the condition that the City be allowed to red=tag the corner lot and when an application for a Building Permit for this lot is made, the request wi11 be put on the agenda of the Building Board for approval by the Building Board and the Council. Seconded by Sheridan for purposes of discussion. Councilman Sheridan stated that, as a result of this motion, the City is obligated to give some kind of a Suilzling Permit for construction on these two lots. I-Ie stated that i�t would be better to examine the Building Permit request ' first, and then decide whether the lot split should be made. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Sheridan and Councilman Thompson voting aye, Councilman Wright, Councilman Kirkham, and Mayor Nee voting nay, the motion �failed. LOT SPLIT REqUEST: L.S. �k65-10, VERNON R LARSON The City Manager stated that Mr. Larson called and requested that consideration of the Lot Split be laid over to another time. � � � �� LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S, ��65-16, ALLEN JENSEN: LO^iS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 25, HYD� PARK ADDITION: The City Engineer stated that the City has not received a good Certificate of Survey for this property. Motion by Wright to table consideration of Lot Sp1it request �k65-16 of A11en G. Jensen pending receipt of a Certificate of Survey. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously, vni,riilviv nr,4uc�i: �nv ;r��-��r� ni.i,uiv v. �i. ALREADY VACATED 57''z AVENUE, LYING SOUTH OF The City Attorney stated that it wi11 be necessary for the Council to set a date for a�ublic Fiie�zing to consider the easement vacation. Motion by Wright to set a Public Hearing for a Re�ular Council Meating for consideration of the easement vacation request, SAV �k65-04, of A11en G. Sensen. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L S. �F65-15, KENNETH L. HALL: LOT 5, AUDITOR'S SUE-AIVISION i�108: The City Engineer stated that Mr. Hall did not present an adequate Certificate of Survey to the City when he made this request. He stated that Mr. Hall owns more than 1 acre of land, and that he is splitting a portion of the one acre. He stated that Mr. Ha11 eventually needs to plat the entire piece of property and this is the reason why Mr. Ha11 is dedicating a p„rtion of the property to the City for a street easement at the present time. Motion by Sheridan to table consideration of the Lot Sp1it request of Kenneth L. Hall, L.S. ��65-15, pending receipt of a Certificate of Survey. Seconded by Wright. IIpon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. LOT CENTRAL AVENUE S. -0�65- EXCEPT EASEMENT FEET FOR ROAD: 'S Mayor Nee stated thaC he believes the Council should try to help this property owner resolve the problem. He stated that there is an existing building upon this property, and the property owner may wish to split the remainder of this property into two additional lots. The City Engineer stated that the 1ot split would result in sma11 lots for commercial buildings, and the property owner would probably need a waiver of the front yard setback requirement. The City Engineer stated further that the existing building of the property owner is only two feet from the street right-of-way. Mayor Nee noted that an easement existed or was shown upon the back of this lot and asked whether the City or the neighboring property owners want this easement. Gounci'vc�-n Sheridan stated that the minutes note that Mr. Nygard has obtained a Quit Claim Deed for this part of [he easement from Mr. Larson, the neighboring property owner. Mayor Nee asked whether it would be unreasonable to send the request back to the Planning Con¢nission and ask them to consider a Lot Split such thaT. one of the lots would be 100'x132'� the total property to be split into only two 1ots. Motion by Kirkham to refer consideration of Lot Split reguest L.S. ik65-14, of H. M. Nygard back to the Planning Cocmnission. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PIISLIC HOIISING FOR THE AGED: The City Manager noted that Mr. Danielson had suggested to the Planning Commission that the Federal Housing and Redevelopment Authority Ue asked to study the use of Federal funds for construction of a home for the aged in the City of Fsidley. The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that construction of this home be referred to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Piayor Nee :t..:eJ that he did not believe the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority would be interested in such a pro�ect. i �� PUBLIC HOUSING FOR THE AGED: The City Manager noted that Mr. Danielson had suggested to the Planning Commission that the Federal Housing and Redevelopment Authority be asked to study the use of Federal funds for construction of ahome for the aged in the City of I'ridley. The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that construction of this home be referred to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Mayor Nee stated that he did not believe the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority would be interested in such a pro�ect. Motion by Thompson to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and refer the question of building Senior Citizen housing with Federal financing to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authorrty. Seconded by Wri_ght. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Izirkham voting nay, the motion carried. FUTURE REZONING: Cr�uncilman Wright stated that he talked to Mr. Hodne, and Mr. Hodne stated that he was willing to study the proposed rezoning of the area west of University Avenue and east of the Railroad Tracks between 69th Avenue Northeast and the City limits. Mr. Hodne infonned Councilman Wright that it is only necessaxy for the Council to request Hodne and Associates to make this study. Motion by Wright to concur with the recommendation of the Ptianning Commission and request IIodne and Associates to study the area west of University Avenue and east of the Aailroad tracks between 69th Avenue Northeast and the City limits for possible rezoning of this property. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUATION OF THE �k701 PROGRAM: Motion by Wright that the Council request Hodne and Associates to report to the Council on the status of the 701 program. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES - DECENII3ER 1, 1965: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 45.26, CITY CODE OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, 1963, BY WAIVER OF FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 20 FEET TO PERMIT CONSTRIICTION [1F A DNR FAMTT.V ➢WF1T,T,TNf: ON T,OT 1L RLOCK l. MARION HILLS ADDITION: ANOKA COUNTY. SAME BEING 5206 PIERCE STREET NORTHEAST, FRIDLEY MRS. HAROLD RELGUM_ 1117 - 14TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST , ' MSNNESOTA Councilman Sheridan showed the Council a drawing of the proposed construction of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Belgum, and plans for construction of the house. Motion by Sheridan to grant the request of Mr. and Mrs. Belgum for a waiver of the front yard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet to pencut construction of a one family dwelling on Lot 11, Block 1, Marion Hills Addition. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST I'OR A VARIANC� FROM SECTION 45.23, CITY CODE OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, 1963, BY WAIV�R OF SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET TO PERMIT REMODELING ATTACHED GARAGE INTO DWELLING AREA ON LOT 1, BLOCK 5, BONNY ADDITION, ANOKA cOiinr7'v_ MTNNESOTA_ SAMC BEING 5980 - 7TH STREET NORTHEAST. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, - 5980 - 7TH STREET NORTHEAST_ FRIDLEY Councilman Wright noted that this request for a Variance would create a living area 5 feet from the neighboring property. He asked what kind of living area the property owner intends to build in the existing garage. The City Manager answered that the property owner plans to convert the garage into a den. Councilman Wright asked if the neighbors stated whether they approve or ob7ect tg th?s proposed construction. The City Manager stated that the neighbors were not present at the Board of Appeals Meeting and made no ob�ection to the construction. Councilman Wright stated that he believes the City should be more stringent or at �east as stringent in granting a sideyard variance when it is proposed to change the use to a living area, than the City is when granting a variance for construction of a garage. Mayor Nee asked whether Kenneth Johnsen was present at the Council Meeting. Kenneth 7ohnsen was not present at the Council Meeting. � � �� Motion by Thompson to table to the Special Council Meeting of December l3, 1965, the request of KenneYh Johnsen for a waiver of the side yard requirement to permit remodeling an attached garage into a 1ivi�g area, and ask the City Manager to get a11 the infoxlnation needed for the Council to consider his request. Seconded by Wright. IIpon a voice vote, thera being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4 1963, BY WAIVER OF FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 100 F�ET TO 44 FEET 6 INCHES, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ADDITION ON LOT 7 AND 8, BLOCK 13, Mr. Gnerre was not present at the Council Meeting. Motion by Kirkham to concur with the Board of Appeals and grant the request of Minnesota Finishing Company for a waiver of the front yard setback from 100 feet to 44 feet 6 inches, to permit construction of an addition to the indusCrial building at 161 Ely Street Northeast. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES, NOVEMBER 10, 1965: Motion by Kirkham to receive and file the minutes of the Safety Committee Meeting of November 10, 1965. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES, NOVEMBER 17, 1965: The City Manager stated that the City is complying with a11 the requests made by the Safety Committee in these minutes. Councilman Kirkham stated that while he respects the decision of the Safety Committee concerning the school traffic signal at 61st Avenue Northeast and 7th Street, he would like to ask the City to turn the signal on earlier and leave it on longer. The City Manager stated � that this could be done. Councilman Kirkham suggested that the signal be turned on on Saturday. Councilman Wrxght suggested that the signal be referred to, not as a school pedestrian signal, Uut as a park signal. The City Manager stated [hat if the signal were tuxned on on Saturd,-.y, people would assume that the school traffic signal was left on inadvertently, that the signal should not be operative and would ignore the signal to the hazard of anyone depending upon the signal to cross the street. Motion by Thompson to receive and file the minutes of Che Safety CommLttee Meeting of- November 17, 1965. Seconded by Kirkham. IIpon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimousLy. BUILDING BOARD MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1965: BUILDING PERMIT APPLTCATION - ADDITION 100'x150' TO THE REAR OF EXISTING BIIILDING AT 7501 VIRON ROAD NORTHEAST (REQUEST BY NORTHEAST MOBILP� HOMES): Motion by Wright to concur with the recommendation of the Building Board and grant the request of Northeast Mobile Homes for a pexmit to construct an addition to the rear of the existing building at 7501 Viron Road with the condition that the structure match the existing one in pattern and color. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. � BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION - FOIIR UNTT APARTMENT HOUSE, CORNER OF 77TH WAY AND EAST RIVER ROAD NORTHEAST - METROPOLITAN DESIGN: Councilman Wright stated that the Safety Committee is concerned about the number of access drives onto East River Road. IIe stated that the plans for construction of the two four-unit apartment houses do not include provision for parking lot exits onto 77th instead of East River Road. He suggested that there axe several plans which the property owner might adopt to provide for access to the parking lot £rom 77th Avenue rather than East River Road. He suggested that one alternative is that traffic enter the parking lots from East River Road, but leave the,parking lots from 77th. Councilman Sheridan stated that he would suggest that there be one access Lrom East River Road to the two parking lots between the two apartment buildings instead of two. The ( f� representative of Met'ropolitan Design stated that he does not believe there is enough room between the two apartment buildings to establish two driveways into the parking lots, but that it is necessary to have two driveways into the parking lots such that each apartment building could be sold separately. Councilman Wright suggested that a covenant could be included in the conveyance to the buyer of the apartment buildings for an easement of the driveway on the ad�oining apartment building lot, The representative of Metropolitan Design stated that if this were done if would make it more difficult to sell the two apartment buildings. Councilman Wright suggested that the two apartment buildings be sold together instead of selling them to saparate owners. The representative of the Metropolitan Design stated-that he might wish to do that. , The representative of Metropolitan Design stated that he wished t-0 have the Council approve the Building Permit at this Council Meeting so the contractor could begin construction of the apartment buildings i�nediately, since the weather has been unusually good this late in the season. Motion by Kirkham to concur with the recommendations of the Building Board and grant the request of Metropolitan Design for a Building Permit for construction of two four-unit apartment houses on the south corner of 77th Way and East River Road Northeast. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanLmously. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION - INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, MINNESOTA FINISHING COMPANY - 161 ELY STREET NORTHEAST: Motion by Wright to appxove the request of Minnesota Finishing Company for a Building Permit for construction of an addition to the industrial building at 161 Ely Street Northeast. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. BUILDING FERMIT APPLICATION - ACME METAL SPINNING COMPANY - 98 -43RD AVENUE NORTHEAST: Motion by Thompson to approve the application of Acme Metal Spinning Company for a Bui7ding Pexmit for construction of a canopy over the loading dock at their property at 98 - 43rd Avenue Northeast. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a � voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION - ADDITION TO PLY4700D MINNESOTA COMPANY: A representative of Plywood Minnesota Company was present at the Council Meeting. Councilman Wright asked him why Plywood Minnesota Company built this building vrithout a permit. The representativ e stated that the building was put up during an emergency in order to enclose additional inventory. Councilman Wright stated that after the emergency was passed the building should have been brought up to code or destroyed, the construction of this building is a violation of the law, and the building should be 6rought up to code. Councilman Kirkham asked the representative how long the Plywood Minnesota Company plans to continue using this building. The representative stated that the building wi11 be destroyed when an additional railroad spur is run onto the property through the building to serve Plywood Minne� ta Company. The City Attorney stated that the 1aw requires that a Building Pexmit be taken out before a property owner is allowed to build upon his property and that a definite procedure must be followed by the applicant. The Crty Attorney suggested that Plywood Minnesota supply a plan to bring the building up to code and ask for a building permit to do so. Councilman Wright stated that the Council is willing to forgive the violation of the law by Plywood Minnesota in constructing the building wrthout a permit provided that Plywood Minnesota brings the building into compliance with the City code. Motion by Wright that the City Council require Plywood Minnesota Company to � present a plan to the Council to bring the construction of the temporary building to the standards of the City Code, based upon reports made by the Building Inspector and the Fire Inspector, the report to include a description of the use Plywood Minnesota intends for the building. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY HOUSING AN➢ REDEVELOFMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINIITES - NOVEMBER 10, 1965: Motion by Wright to receive and file the minutes of the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of November 10, 1965. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. � L.. : � �_ l� FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBFR 17, 1965: Motion by Wright to receive and file the minutes of the I'ridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of November 17, 1965. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY HOUSLNG AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMB�R 23, 1965• Motion by Wright to receive and file the minutes of the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of November 23, 1965. 5econded by Thomps�n. Upon a vo�ce vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. CLl±IMS : Motion by Sheridan to approve General and Public Utilties Claims -0k7229 through �'�7328 for payment. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Motion by Thompson to Seconded by Sheridan. carritd unanimously. E5TIMATES^ approve Liquor Claims ,�{�8012 through i�8078 for payment. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion Motion by Thompson to approve the following estimates for payment; Kar1 Dedolph Construction Company 771 West Seventh Street St. Pau1, Minnesota Water Impt'ovement Pro�ect No. 75-5 (Booster Station - 63rd Avenue N.E, & T.H. 4�100) (FINAL) Keys Well Drilling Company 413 North Lexington Parkway St. P�1, Minnesota 55104 Water Improvement Project No. 75-A (Three additional drift we11s) (PARTIAL) $2,341.75 $7,645.27 Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. LICENSES• Motion by Sheridan to approve the following license applications; ELECTRICAL Gombold Electn c, Inc. 725 West 7th Street St. Paul, MinnesoCa Langford Electric Corp. 737 France Avenue North Minneapolis, Minn. 55422 EXCAVATING Ven Hendrickson Excav. Co. 4444 - 4th St. N.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota Quality Sewer Service 376 E. County Road F St, Paul, Minnesota GAS SERVICES Belden Porter Company 315 Royalston Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota by: W. E. Gombold by; H. E. Fraser by: Vendell Hendrickson by: Ronald Deslauries by: William C, Porter RENEWAL RENEWAL NEW N�Td RENEWAL �� GENERAL CONTRACTORS Steve Hawrysh 266 Mercury Drive N E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Mar-Kay Construction, Inc. 7301 Nob1e North Minneapolis 29, Minnesota Joseph E. Moen 5239 - 4th St. N.E. Minneapolis, Minn. J. R. Paulson Bldrs, Inc. 320 North Edgewood Avenue Golden Valley 27, Minnesota Stedt Construction Company 2508 - 13th Avenue North St. Paul, Minnesota MASONRY Hydrotex Systems, Inc. 1937 University Avenue St, Paul, Minnesota Jamison Brothers, Inc. 8427 Center Drive Minneapolis, Minn., 55432 Sharp Concrete Construction River Oaks, Route 1 Osseo, Minnesota MULTIPLE D47CLLINGS 1965-66 PERIOD �iLET'�PTSes Pine Tree Lake Road White Bear Lake 10, Minn. Ra1ph Anderson 4537 York Ave. No. Minneapolis, Minn. by: Steve Hawrysh by: James R. Schutt by: Soseph E. Moen by: J. R. Paulson by: Dean Stedt by: James A. Shults by: Duane Jamison by: Dennis L. Sharp ADDRESS OF APT. SLDG �707 Highway 1k65 Fridley, L�Iinn. 55421 (A. Gearn) 5901 - 2z St. N.E. Fridley, Minn. 55421 Fridley Apartments 6341-43 Highway ��65 6300 Baker Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55421 Fridley, Minn. 55421 (Wm. H. Gottwaldt) Steve Hawrysh 195 Mercury Drive N.E. 266 Mercury Drive N.E. FrLdley, Minn. 55421 Fridley, Minn. 55421 Steve Hawrysh 110 - 61st Ave. N.E. 266 Mercury ➢rive N.E. Fridley, Minn. 55421 Fridley, Minn. 55421 Hoglund Plumbing & Heating 5400 - Sth St. N.E. 7420 West Lake St. Fridley, Minn. 55421 St. Louis Park, Minn. Hoglund Plumbing & Heating 5410 - Sth Street N.E 7420 West Lake Street Fridley, Minn. 55421 St, Louis Park, Minn. Ilstad-Berman 854 Midland Bank Bldg. Minneapolis, Minnesota Robert Lecy 4721 Nicollet Ave P^�_nneapolis, Minn 5980 - 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Minn. 55421 140 Mississippi Place Fridley, Minn. 55421 RENEWAL NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW RENEWAL NEW APT. UNITS FEE PAID 32 $32.00 4 10 20 7 4 4 4 4 ' ' $10.00 $10.00 $20.00 $10.00 $10.00 � $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 � NAME & ADDRESS - OWNER LyndaLe Decorating Co. 4800 Cedar Lake Road �ilinneapolis, Minn. Morris Ovick 81 Rice Creek Way Fridley, Minn. 55432 Parlon Company 1675 Grand Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota Willard L. Peterson 4455 Reservoir B1vd. Minneapolis, Minn., 55421 Drew L. Scherer 6525 - 2nd St. N.E. Eridley, Minnesota 55421 Aichard Torgeson 278 - 58th Ave, N.E. Fxidley, Minn. 55421 ADDRESS OF APT. BLDG (Melovon A. Biddle 211 - 79th Way N.�. Exidley, Minn. 55432 5419 - 4th St. N.E. Fridley, Minn. 55421 (James J. Parnon) 361 - 74th Avenue N.�. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 5830 - 2nd SCxeet N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55421 6525 - 2nd SCreet N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 6061 - 3rd Street N.E. Fridley, Minn. 55421 NNLTIPLE DWELLING ZICENSES - PERIOD 9/1/64 - 1/1/65 Hy itman 1834 South Oregon Minneapolis, Minn Seconded by Kirkham. unanimously. 4917 - 3rd St. N.E. Fridley, MZnn. 55421 �. � APT. UNITS I'EL� PAID F3 4 0 4 7 3 I $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $lO.QQ $10,00 $10.D0 $10.00 Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried PETITION y�32-1965 SIREET SURFACING, CURB AND GUTTER ON IRONTON STRCET PROM RIVERVIEW TERRACE TO EAST RIVER ROAD: Motion by Sheridan to receive Petition �k32-1965 and refer it to the Administration for processing. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PETITION ik33-1965 - OPPOSING STREET IMPROVEMENT PRO.TECT 1966-1 ON HUGO STREET: Motion by Sherldan to receive Petition �k33-1965 and refer it to ehe Administration for processing. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motxon carried unanimously. PETITION ,�k35-1965 - OPPOSING STREET PROJECT 1966-1 FOR THE TMPROVLMENT OF IRONTON STREET: Motion by Sheridan to receive Petition ��35-1965 and refer it to the Administration fox processing Seconded by Wright, Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PETITION 9F34-1965 - FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ROAD AND STORM SEWER IN RIVERVIEW TERRACE: Motion by Sheridan to xeceive petition iF34-1965 and refer it to the Administration for processing. Seconded by Wxight. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. BIDS FOR CLEAN UP OF LOCKE PARK: The City Manager explained the bids as received, to the Crty Council, and stated that the City estimates there are 336 man hours of work and 144 equipment hours to complete the Locke Park cleanup. He stated that if the recommendation of the University of Minnesota Extension Service is followed, the cost Co Che City to award the contract eo Minnesota Tree would be $1500 greater than the cost of awarding the contract to the lowest bidder. IIe stated that the City has obtained a great deal of help and advice from the State of Minnesota Department of Conservation and the Extension Service of the University of Minnesota and finds their recommendations to be quite helpful. e� V � Motion by Wright to award a contract to Minnesota Tree for clean up of Locke Park �n the estimated amount of $11,433. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unattimously. CODE 5C1 AS TO ADOPT THE 1964 EDITION OF Motion by Sheridan to adopt the Ordinance amending Section 46�,01 upon first reading. Seconded by 4,Tright. Upon a voice vo�e, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION -0�202-1965 DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF 1957, CHAPTLR 385 (ST.1965-1): Motion by Sheridan to adopt Resolution �'k202-1965. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. BONDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE LAWS OF 1 [GI:i� Motion by Sheridan to_adopt Reso3ution �k203s1465. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion caxried unanimously. 3tESOLUTION ik204-1965 DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS I: ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF 1957, CHAPTER 385 -(SW&SS-0k73): Motion by Thompson to adopt Resolution ��204-1965. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. . 196 OF Motion by Kirkham to adopt Resolution �r`2D5-1965. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION -0�206-1965 ABATING THE bALANCE OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SW-21 ON LOTS IO AND 11, BLOCK A, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION; Motion by Wright to adopt Resolution �k206-1965. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION �k207-1965 AUTHORIZING SPLITTING OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - LOT 1, PAACE� 30, AUDITOR°S SUB-DIVISION i`129: Motion by Kirkham to approve Resolution �k207-1965. Seconded by Sheridan, Upon a voice vote, thete being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. fl LIGHTING ON T. Motion by Thompson to approve Resolution i�208-1965. Seconded by Sheridan, Upon a vo7_ce vote, there being no nays, the motzun carried unanimously. 57GN PERMIT APPLICATION - CLEMRON, INC. - 73RD AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE NORTHEAST: Councilman Kirkham noted that the size of the sign meets the maximum size stipulated Uy the proposed Sign Ordinance. Counq7.man Sheridan asked whether the sign which Clemroa, Inc. wants to buil�l would be the�same as the other billboard which Clemron, Inc, built previously. Councilman Kirkham answerd, "Yes." Councilman Wright suggested that the sign application of Clemron, Inc. be approved suh�ect to conformance with the sign ordinance under consideration by the City Council. Motion by Kirkham to approve the application of Clemron, Inc, for a pexmit to construct a sign at 73rd Avenue and Unlversity Avenue Noxtheast sub�ect to conformance with the proposed Sign Ordinance. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENTS TO THE NEW PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: Motion by Thompson to table consideration of the appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission to the Special Council Meet�ng of December 13, 1965. 1 � , Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motitn carried unanimously. APPOINTME NTS ; Motion by Thompson eo table consideration of the appointments employees to the Special Council Meeting of December 13, 1965 Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion COMMUNICATION �� of new CiL'y . Seconded by carried unanimously � MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT: DRAINAGE ON MISSSSSIPPI STREET: Motion by Thompson to table consideration of the NIinnesota Highway Department communicaCion concerning drainage on Nlississippi Street ot the Special Council Meeting of December 13, 1965. Semnded by ILirkham IIpon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motLOn carried unanimously. _FINANCE DIRECTOR; SEWER CHARGES: Motion by Thompson Co table consideration of the memo from the Finance Director�concerning abatement of sewer charges against trailer house lots damaged by the tornado to the Special Council Meetzng of December 13, 1965. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion cari'ied unanimously. MOUNDSVIEW: FISH HOUSES: MoCion by Thompson to table consideration of the proposed ordu�ance from rhe Village of MoundsvLew forhidding the erection of fish houses oa Spring Lake to Che Special Council Meetzng of December 13, 1965. Szconded by Kirkham Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. MINNESOTA HTGHWAY DEPAKTMENT; CROSSOVER AT 61ST AVENUE NORTHEAST AND T.H. ��65: ' PIotion by Thompson to table consideration of the Minnesota Highway Department memo concerning the crossover of T.H. ��65 at 61st Avenue Northeast to the Special Council MeeCing of December 13, 1965 Seconded by I;.irkham Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motinn carried unanimously. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS: BINGO: Motion by Thompson to table consideration of the b�ngo permit for the Knights of Columbus to the Special Council Meeting of December 13, 1965 Seconded by K�rkham. Upon a voice voee, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously ORDINANCE ik317- REGONSIDERATION: MotLOn by Wright to table consideration of the reconsideration of OrdLnance i�317 to the Special Council Meeting of December 13, 1965 Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Nee declared the Regular Councll Meeting of December 6, 1965 ad�ourned at 1:33 A.M. Respectfully submltted, 1 � �,r� ��,���c�,,ti� ls�: �.-L Raymond E, Bade William J. Nee, Secretary to the Council MAYOR