05/13/1974 - 00015878,
,
r�
I�J
THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 13, 1974
The Public Hearirig Meeting of the Fridley City Council of May 13, 1974 was cal7ed
to order at 7:30 P.h9, by i�1ayor Liebl.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
f�1ayor Liebl led the Council and the audience in sayin9 the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
iNEMBERS ABSENT
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
Councilman Starwalt, �tilayor Liebl, Councilman Utter.
Counci7man Nee, and Councilman Breider.
None.
Mayor Lieb7 sa�d the following items were to be added to the agenda•
#6 Nature Interpretive Program
#7 North Park Development
#8 Special Approval to Fridley Jubilee Committee to Set Up Banners and
Other Signs in Public Areas.
P10TION by Councilman Starwalt to adopt the agenda with the additions listed by
Mayor Liebl. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
f��iayor Lie6l declared the motion carried unanimously.
PROCLAMATION:
P120CLAMING MAY 12 THROUGH MAY 18, 197�} A5 "POLICE WEEK":
MOTI�N by Councilman Utter to adopt the Proclamation designating May 12, 1974 through
May 18, 1974 as "Police Week". Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, P�layor Lieb7 declared the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST. 1973-1:
i�OTION by Councilman Breider to waive the reading of the Puhlic Hearing Notice.
Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared
the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing opened at 7:32 P.f�.
HORIZON DRIUE: THIRD STREET TO 53RD AVENUE:
Ihe Assitant Engineer, 1�1r. Dick Sobiech, stated this was in the Summit Manor area
and the final price per foot for the front assessment would be $12.D8 and the
estimated amount at the prel�minary assessment hearing had been $13.60. He pointed
out that the side yard assessment would be $2.06 per foot.
P�iayor Liebl asked if there were any questiones concerning this area and there was
no response.
HUGHES AVENUE: PAfVORAMA AVENUE TO HORIZON DRIVE:
ihe Assistant Engineer said this area was within the same pro,7ect and the assessment
amounts would also be $12.08, front, and $2.06 per foot for the side yard assessment.
There were no questions or complaints concerning this area.
CLEARVIEW LANE: PANORAMA TO HORIZON DRIVE:
The Assistant Engineer said this would be the same amount as the previously mentioned
areas. T��ere was no response when Mayor Liebl asked if there was any questions
concerning this area.
TOPPER LANE: H6RIZON DRIVE TO 300 FEET SOUTH:
The Ass�stant Engineer said this would be the same amount.
.�� �_' �
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974 PAGE 2
��1r. �:aymond Smith, �OvO Topper Lane, addressed the Council and questioned the method
of assessment on the circle. He said he had a 50 foot frontage lot and was being
assessed for 75 feet. The Assessor, Mr, P�ervin Herrmann, stated it was a matter
of policy to assess the pie shaped and odd shaped lots at the setback line to
equalize the assessments in the area. The City Attorney further explained it would
not 6e fair to the remainder of the people of the area if the assessments were
figured on the small amount of front footage, when ti�e people on the cul-d�-sac use
the roadway to the same extent and also have very 7arge lots. He said this is the �
reason the assessment is f�gured at the setback line, He pointed out that the people
living on the circle would be paying an amount equal to the improved roadway.
� member of the audience asked it it would be possible to access these properties
on a square foot basis. The City Attorney exp7ained that this would not be a
fair method of assessment because lots vary so much in size, and it would not be
fair to assess a person with two acres for the usage of the roadway four times as
much as someone with one fourth the mount of property. lie stated, the large
property would not use the roadway four times as much.
�'tnother resident of Topper Lane questioned if this was a fair way of assessing
the circle when the total roadway on the circle would be smal7er than the area
of the straight road. He sa�d h�s assessment is $1,060.50 and he believed there
was less road constructed on the circle by his home than there was for someone
with a 75 foot frontage.
The Assessor pointed out that the cul-de-sac area is twice as wide as a normal section
of roadway because there is a 40 foot radius, or this would be 80 feet in width.
He stated the amount of area covered would be very close to the same amount as in
the straight sections. He also pointed out that everyone uses the remainder of the
road and those living on the circle wou7d need this section for access and egress.
He stated, they would not be able to drive out of the circle, and those on the
cul-de-sac would have to help pay for the balance of the street.
A resident of the area asked 9f the tota7 cost of the circle or the section of road �
were added together and divided by the number of homeowners, would the total
assessmeni come out to be approximately equal to the assessments received by the
people of the area. The City Assessor pointed out that the project had been
figured together because the people of the area all received the same benefit for the
installation of the improvement. Ne a7so explained when some are assessed 35 feet
back or at the setback line, and others with the larger frontage are assessed for
the front footage, this equalizes the assessmew�t which makes them in line with the
amount of 6enefit received. He repeated the policy of assessment of the pie
shaped and odd shaped lots in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Smith further commented that those in this area had already paid for the
construction of the roadways that had been installed by the developer of the area.
Ne stated, they were paying for streets twice. The Assessor said the City follows
the previously described policy to try to equalize the amount of the assessments
just as the contractor had in the development of the area.
l+1r. Smith sa7d he believed those on the circle were being penal7zed for having
less frontage.
linother property owner in the audience stated comparing the assessment figures for
the area, it seemed those living on ihe corner lois were paying almost double the
amount of those in the center �f the block. The ,�ssessor agreed, saying the corner
lots would receive a much larger assessment.
A resident of the area said he would like to hring it to the Council's attention ,
that there are large cracks in the roadway on Norizon �rive where it meets 3rd
Street. He said he believed this section of roadway was already deteriorating.
PANORAMA AVENUE: S9AIN STREET TO THIRD STREET:
The Assistant Engineer said this was also the same price per foot as the previously
mentioned areas.
The City Manager said all those streets in this grouping, a total of about ten,
had been determined as the same type of construction and figured the same.
Mayor Liebl asked if there were any questions concerning this area and there was
no response.
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974
GIBRALTAR ROAD: ROMAN ROAD TO 550 FEET WEST:
PAGE 3
Mayor Liebl asked if there were any complaints concerning the quality of the
construction in this area.
A resident asked if his assessment in the amount of $1,060.50 was a fair and
reasonable amount. The Assessor explained the lowest assessment in this area would
, be $906 and this would be for the 75 foot lots where there is no side yard assessment.
He explained the next assessment would be $1,06D.50, or the amount the resident
had been assessed. Nz said this would be one of the minimum assessments.
The resident asked if interest would be charged for ten years if the total assessment
was not paid at this time. Nlr. Brunsell explained that the interest rate would be
72% for the period of ten years. He said the interest would accrue from the date
of the public hearing on the final assessment roll. He said the residents are
allowed 30 days in which to pay the assessments without the charge of interest. H�
further explained it would be possible to pay a substantial portion of the tota7
assessment at the present time without the interest being charged. He pointed out
that the minimum payment would be $300. He further explained, if the lump sum payment
is not made, or if only a partial payment is made, the interest on the balance would
be figured at 72% from May 13, the date of the hearing.
A resident of the area asked if those assessed would have the option to pay the total
or lump sum at the present time, or be billed on the tax statements each year for
ten years.
The Assessor said there would be two options, if the amount is not paid in full
before the end of the 30 day period, the remaining amount would be billed with the
tax statement. He said the entire amount could be paid now, a portion of the amount
could be paid now, or the remainder would be paid by the year uniil the balance is
paid. He said this amount would be reported on the tax statement twice a year and
� paid 7ike the real estate taxes. He said this money is noi paid directly to the
Ctty at these times.
A resident asked if it would be possible to pay one half of the amount and have
the remainder of the assessment be placed on the tax statement. The Assessor said
this would be possible.
Mayor Liebl asked if there were any other questions from the residents of this area
and there was no response.
PILOT AVENUE: P1AIN STREET TO ROMAN ROAD:
i�r. Clarence Krueger, U 3 Pilot Avenue, addressed the Council and said there is
a crack in the roadway in front of his home. He said there is a dip in the road where
water stands in the street. fie said the road had this low area before the improvement,
and this is why the improvement had been petitioned for. He said the frost is
breaking up the roadway, lie said before the construction, the water ran down the
street, now it runs into his yard.
Councilman Nee asked Mr. Y.rueger if he is below the grade of the street. Mr.
Krueger explained with a good rain where the roadway is only half full, the water
will run right by, but some of the time it runs straight into his yard.
Mayor Liebl pointed out that Pilot Avenue slopes from Main Street to Roman Road and
the water should run to the east, but runs into the Krueger driveway.
� Mr. Krueger said this would be during a heavy rain.
Mayor Liebl said this was to be a crown shaped road where the water would run on
both sides of the street. Counci7man Nee asked if the problem was caused by the
curbing being cut too low. P9r. Krueger said this would be the problem. i�1r. Krueger
said he would like to see this area fixed, but he could live with this �f it was not
possible at ihis time. f�r. Krueger pointed out on the map of the area how the
roadway makes the same dip as the elevation of the surrounding land. Ne said this
water forms a lake in the Spring until the frost is out of the ground and the water
disappears. He said in the construction of the street, the same dip was followed.
The Assistant Engineer said he would like the address of the residents and the
area which was being discussed and he would view the problems in the fie7d and
make a determination. 1�1r. Krueger said the dip had been made to follow the lot
lines.
w` �r ,
PUBLIC HEARIIJG MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974 PAGE 4
Th� City Manager said if there is any problems in the constru �ion of the improvement
project, they should be reported to the City Engineer and they would be corrected.
The City Manager further explained that the City has a time period of one year
maintenance bond from the contractor to correct the probiems.
f��ir. Krueger said there was the same problem with the o7d road, it was the same
way. N� said in the spring and winter months, the water stands in this area unti]
the frost is out.
Another resident of the area asked if there would be some sort of sealcoating placed �
on the street. Ihe City Manager said it is the po7icy of the City to sealcoat
every improved street in the City every so often. He said this cost of the improvement
of sealcoating would be taken from the general fund and not assessed to the abutting
residents. The resident reported that there are some cracks in the road, Mayor
Liebi said these cracks would have to be corrected now, there is only a one year
time limit in this correction process with the contractor. He further explained,
the Engineering Department should be notified, and they would determine what is to be
done.
Mr. Krueger said there are cracks in the street in the area of the dip in the street.
Playor Liebl said this low spot should be eliminated, and perhaps some of the curbing
wouid have to be taken out to rectify this.
N1r, Dale Hoskins, 4924 Roman Road, addressed the Council and said when the contractor
of his home had put in his driveway, h� haa trolled it, now, when the improvement
was installed and the driveway replaced, the improvement contractor has swepi it.
Mr. I�oskins said he was not satisfied with the sodding either.
The City Manager asked Mr. Hoskins if he had reported this to City Nall and Mr.
Hoskins said�e had not. �he City Manager said anyone who has dead sod should ca71
the City Hall and report this and it would be replaced. He directed those callers
to Mr. 'uick Sobiech, the Assistant Engineer.
Councilman Utter said there had been other people who had complaints concerning
the sod, and this had been taken care of already.
Mr. Hoskins said there was not any problems with the sod last year, it was this
spring when the grass was starting to come back. Councilman Utter said it would
take a longer time to repair the problems after waiting this length of time.
Another resident of the area also complained about the installation of the sod
saying it is dry and rips right out. (The resident said his address is 760 Panorama
Avenue.)
Another resident said he had also had problems with the sod at 131 Panorama Avenue.
ROMAN ROAD: 49TH AVENUE TO PANORAMA AVENUE:
i�ir. Thomas Kelly, 4917 Roman Rnad, addressed the Council and said there are large
cracks in the road in his area. He further pointed out that there is one in front
of his home and two to three down the block.
Mr, Allen Swanson, 4964 Roman Road, said he was the only one with a front and
side yard assessment on his property. The Assessor said he did have a front and
side yard assessment.
A resident of the area asked what the road limits were on the improved streets,
The City Manager said there would be a four ton limit on the streets in the spring
months, but there would be no limitation during the remainder of the year.
ThP resident asked if the large type semi trucks were allowed to travel the roads.
The City Manager said if they are doing this in the spring, the residents should
notify the Police Department.
STARLITE BOULEVARD: o1ST TO SYLVAN LANE:
�
�
The Assistant Engineer informed the Council that this was sti77 �n the same area and
would receive the same assessed amount for the front and side yard assessments as
previously mentioned. Mayor Liebl asked if the assessments in this area were consistant
with the policy followed by the City for many years, and the Assessor said yes. The
Assessor continued to explain the area had been checked for previous side yard
assessments and for the area not assessed by the first improvement, the side yard
�
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974
PAGE 5
areas were assessed for this improvement. He said this had been determined down
to the feet of �rontage covered on each of the areas.
f�layor Lieb7 asked if the water still stood in the area. He continued to comment
had had heard the people were concerned about the water standing in the sidewalk
area. The people of the area indicated the water does not stand in the sidewalk.
Mr, Clarence Peterson, 6241 Trinity Drive Northease, addressed the Council and
� questioned if he had been assessed for a full side yard assessment and paid this
previously. He asked if it would be possible to see the records to determine if
this could be a double assessment.
Councilman Utter explained there had been some confusion in this area about the
receipt of the notices. He explained there would be no assessment for the sidewalks.
Councilman Breider affirmed this statement saying the cost of the sidewalk had come
out of the general fund. The City Manager explained the notices had been sent to the
affected residents, but the cost of the sidewalk would be coming from the general
fund.
a resident of Trinity Drive said the area residents did not want any addi�ional
sidewalks, and they had all received the forms of notification from the City which
indicated the mention of the installation of the sidewalks, P�ayor Liebl stated
there would be no sidewalks in this area.
A resident of Trinity Drive said ten different people had called concerning this
matter, and received ten different answers. He restated, every caller got a
different answer. The Assistant Engineer said if the clerks answered the ca17s
and looked at the notice, �hey would state there were sidewalks in the improvement.
He said the only installation of sidewalks was the one being paid for by the
general funds, and no additional sidewa7ks are p7anned for this area.
Mayor Liebl said there may be some confusion at the present time because the Council
� and the staff are currently working on an overall sidewalk plan for the City. He
showed the map of the overall proposed plan to the members of the audience, and
said those noted would not be completed for a matter of years, and only those
peop7e who wanted sidewalks and needed them for safety reasons would be included
in the plan. He said ihere are high priority areas for the installation of the
sidewalks. He continued, this would be done in conjunction with the wishes of the
people and funded by general funds.
� resident of the area asked if there was a long range plan for the placement of
curbing on all of the City streets. Mayor Liebl said yes, this is a ten year p7an.
The City Manager said 85% of the City's streets have been improved.
Mayor Liebl pointed out that the cost of maintenance of the City's streets are
cut to 10% after the installation of the improvements. He further explained with
the sealcoating, the streets would last many more years.
f�r. Krueger satd he had paid for two streets whi7e he resided in the area, and
asked how many more he would have to pay for. Mayor Liebl responded, the street
should last at least 20 years. Tne City Manager said thts was a current conservative
estimate and he wished he would be able to state a longer period of time, but would
not want to make a statement which would for some undetermined reason, become false.
He further explained the City had purchased another street sweeper and with the
sealcoating and proper maintenance, this will make them last much longer.
� Mr. Krueger said he believed the City staff did an excellent job of snow plowing
in the winter months.
Mayor Liebl stated, with the improved streets, this operation should become easier
and more efficient.
The City Manager said none of the money for the improvement of the streets would
come out of general funds, this is all assessed to the abutting home owners. He
said the cost of the maintenance of the City's streets does come out of general
funds and all of the City takes care of this. 4e said the costs of patching and
maintenance of the unimproved streets is extensive.
i�ir. Herbert Neeser, 6220 Starlite Boulevard, addressed the Council and questioned
the placement of the large asphalt chunks and pieces of concrete in ihe vacant lot
in the area of his home. f9ayor Liebl said this is private property and i� does
look bad. He suggested the owner be contacted to alleviate this problem by
��, ��;�'
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974
PAGE 6
covering and sodding. The Assessor said the City staff had been taking the chunky fill
out of the area, but the owner of the property had called the City offices and
informed them that there was a restrictive covenant tn this area which stated no
material would be removed from the plat, The resident questioned if all the stipu-
iaiions in such a covanant would be respected. He mentioned the contractor had
promised the buyers of the property in the plat that there would be trees planted
a]ong the railroad tracks, and this had not been done.
The City Aitorney said this type of agreement is between the deve7oper and the
property owners, and the Ciiy does not become involved. He said this type of
agreement for the placement of fill is quite co�renon practice in development. He
said there may be some low areas where the fiil from the digging of basements and
excavation of the higher areas wou7d be needed to develop the entire area.
Councilman Breider said there is a requirement that if this type of fill is used
in the City, it etiill be covered with black dirt and sodded, Mayor Liebl said the
property owner should be notified about this requirement.
f; resident of the area said he wou7d ]ike it a matter of record that there are
cracks in Starlite Lane.
The City Manager said this is a condition that is a natural process and would be
corrected in the sealing. He said there is also a crack filling that is used,
Mayor Liebl said the City should insist the contractor do as much as possible at
the present time to provide a good street.
A resident of the area, stating he ]ived on Clearview, said he was told that all
of the assessments were paid on his property. He �xplained he had just moved into
the home a couple of months ago. He again stated the seller had indicated that
all of the assessments and pending assessments had been paid. The City Attorney
said if the home closing was just recently, he was sure that the current assessments
had been pending at that time. lie said lie thought the seller had a iegal responsi-
U�lity to pay the assessments.
SYLVAIV LANE: STARLITE BOULEVARD TO JUPITER DRIVE:
� resident of the area said there was a real problem with this section and there had
been before the street was installed, and this was the reason the street had been
petitioned for. He continued the area had been promised a crown street, but it is
as flat as can be, iie said the water comes around the corner just like it is in
an open sewer. The City Manager said the street did have a crown, but his may be
a minimal crown. He said the Engineering Department Would look at his if the water
runs across the road.
Mayor Liebl said
waier prob7ems in
water prob7ems.
the people in this area had petitioned for the street because of the
the area, now, ihey are paying for a street and still have ihe
I�ir. W�lliam Zurbey, 145 Sylvan Lane, explained that the water goes over the top
of the curbing and runs like an open sewer. He added, if the catch basin p7ugs,
it floods ihe entire intersection. Mr. Paui Scherven, 131 Sylvan Lane said the
catch basin is higher than the grade of the roadway and the water stands in the
street. I��r. Zurbey said if the road were a crown road, the water wou7d run on
both sides of the street.
�
�
Councilman Breider said when the improvement was to be instal7ed, che City had told
the people in this area that they would receive good drainage after the improvement. �
He said the Engineering Depart�nent had better get out there and look at this area.
Counci9man Breider said he had also 1`eceived complaints that there was no black
dirt on the top of the ground before the sod was placed there.
Mr. Frl Wetterberg, 175 5ylvan Lane, Shcd the sod had been laid unevenly in his
yard and after the winter, it had sunk, h1ayor LIebl said he had seen this area
and agreed that the sod needed to be replaced. f�r. Wettergerg said there also
is some work needed on the driveway because it was replaced with ridges,
Mr. Alvin Ricks, 161
explained there was
by the curbing.
Sylvan Lane said he also had problems with the sod. He
a big hole in the area and it is impossible to mow the grass
The City Manager said the Assistant Engineer would review the area.
L�
I
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974
66TH AVENUE: PIERCE STREET TO CHANNEL ROAD:
PAGE 7
The Assistant Engineer said the front yard assessment per foot would be $70.27
and the side yard would be $2.44. He pointed out that the estimated price at the
preliminary assessment hearing was $11.09 and this was a decrease of from 7 to
8 0
0.
A resident of the area which had been previously heard asked why this area's
assessments were a different price.
Ihe City Manager said this is a narrower roadway, and this is a litt7e less expensive.
ALLEY: BETWEEP� BEECfi AN� HICKURY STREETS, 78TH AVENUE TO 79TH AVENUE:
Nlayor Liebl pointed out that this was an industrual project.
The Assistant Engineer said the price would be $4.74 and had been estimated at
$5.14 per foot.
ROAD: EAST SIDE �F RAILROAD TRACKS FROM MISSISSIPPI STREET TO RICE CREEK:
The Assistant Engineer said the Burlington Northern Railway assessment would be
$7,500, Fridley Bus Company's assessment would be $2,893.77, and �esignware's assessment
would be $5,787.53.
Mayor Liebl asked if there was anyone present to represent Burlington-Northern and there
was no response.
P+layor Liebl asked if Mr. Brink from Designware was present. i�ir. Brink answered.
Mr. Dave Brink, �esignware, addressed the Council and said he had talked to the
people at City Hall concerning this assessment and they had indicated there were
� three different assessment rolls possi6le, and the figures were not the same as
being auoted at that time.
Mr. Brink explained the maximum benefit to his property in light of the possible
future expansion of this business to be limited. He questioned the need for extensive
future expansion of this facilty to the maximum point when tn the past 14 years ihere
had noi been any need for extensive expansion. f1r. Brink explained neither he or
the representatives of the Bus Company favored the installation of this roadway,
but, unfortunate7y, it had been determined that the access in the other area would
not be suitable. He said he felt the real benefit was to the Fridley Bus Company
Mr. Brink continued saying he finds it hard to believe that he would have to pay
for more than one half of the assessments for the road, and certainly not two thirds.
He again stated he had heard there had been three proposals for this assessment. Ne
commented, if the assessments are considered according to the benefit received, he
could not see any real henefit in favor of �esignware, not even one half of the cost.
�
P�ayor Lie61 asked Mr. Brink if he thought the amount of the assessment was too
much, and Mr. Brink said if the costs are divided, he felt he should perhaps pay
30% of the cost, not including the amount assessed to the railroad.
Mayor Liebl said the criteria in the City of Fridley is that the abutting property
owner is assessed in industrual and commercia7 areas. i�1ayor Liebl said there was an
offer made by Burlington Northern to pay a portion of the assessments. Mr. Brink
said he felt this to be very generous on the part of Burlington-Northern.
f�9ayor Liebl asked if there was anyone present representing the Fridley Bus Company.
Mr. Carl Newquist, Attorney, addressed the Council and said he was speaking on
behalf of the Fridley Bus Company. He recalled the parties involved in the assessment
of this area, Burlington-Northern, Designware and the Fridley Bus Company had met
with members of the Fridley staff on February 14, 1974. He said at this meet9ng,
it had been determined how the assessments would be spead out. Fle said at this time
the Bus Company assessments were $1,300 and they had offered to pay approximately
$2,500. He pointed out that this is almost double what the assessment amount would
have been. Nir. Wewquist felt that Designware cou7d not be considered because of
the currently being used portion of property. He pointed out that Designware
owned eight lots and the Fridley Bus Company had only one iot. He said the assess-
ments had to be determined not on what is being used in that area today, but what
could be done to the area in the future. Mr. Newouist stated the Fridley Bus Company
would not pay anymore than the $2,500 to settle the matter.
,, ,
�, ��_ ;
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974 PAGE 8
f�lr. Brink pointed out that the amount of property being used at the present time
to be 40q. He said �he maximum amount of building that couTd be done on the
property would be 50 %, and there would be no need for the roadway. He said with
the bu�]d�ng restrictions and requirements, there is no va7ue on the remainder
of the property except for greenery. He stated, they are paying heavy taxes for
greenery.
r+1ayor Ltebl said the final assessment roll would be adopted at the following
Monday's r;egular Council meeting.
UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST SERVICE DRIVE: 392 FEET NORTH OF OSBORNE TO 79TH AN➢
'r u �n7 cG��iTrr• �oru n�rrnnir -rn 4lCT nvrmiir.
The .4ssistant Engineer said the estimated cost for this area had been $27.98 per
foot and now the final price would be $25 per foot. He pointed out that there
was some concern over the soil conditions in this area, and they were not as bad
as expected.
Mayor Liebl asked if there was any question about this area and there was no
response.
77TH AVENUE• MAIN STREET TO RANCHERS ROAD:
The rassistant Engineer said this area had been estimated at $23.99 per foot and
the actual cost was $15.06.
Mr. Richard Harris, addressed the Council and asked if the City staff or Comstock
and Davis had designed 77th Avenue. The Ciiy Manager said this had been done by
the City staff. f��lr. iiarris questioned if the person who had designed 77th was abie
to read instruments. He sa�d the elevation of the street is the same elevation with
the floor of the building. He stated, the parking lot cannot be drained.
Mr. liarris also mentioned the method of figuring the assessments in this area is
noi correct because this is not a normal block. P✓Ir. Herrmann pointed out the
method of assessment in this area and said this is a matter of policy. He said
this area was figured the same as the Main 5treet area.
RANCHERS ROAD: 77TH AVENUE TO 79TH AVENUE:
The Assistant Engineer sa�d this was in the same project and the assessments were
the same as 77th Avenue.
a1ST AVENUE: BEECkI SiREET TO MAIN STREET.
The Assistant Engineer said this was in the same project also. He repeated the
front assessment to be $51.06 and the side yard to be $2.08.
BEECH STREET: 79TH TO 81ST AUENUE:
Mr. Sobiech said thts was also the same price and the same project.
Councilman Breider questioned the reason for the side street assessment on the
left side of the street. Ne said there had not been any improvement which would be
assessed as a side yard in this area. rir, Herrmann said he would check on this area
and report back to the Council the following week.
78TH AVENUE: ALLEY BETWEEN HICKORY STREET AND BEECH STREET:
The Assistant Engineer said this was the same assessment amount as �he previously
mentioned areas.
SIDEWALKS: STtVLIJSG�V SCHOOL: STARLITE AN� TRINITY:
The City Manager said this had not been assessed to the people of the area, it
was to be paid out of general funds.
OVERLAY. 73RD AVENUE:
Counc�lman Breider questioned the difference in the surface elevations stating
if a car is driven over the bridge, it throws the car. Councilman Utter agreed to
this point,
�
�
�
�
L�
�
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974 PAGE 9
The CiLy Manager said this had been done for this reason to provide for additional
services to be installed when the area is developed. He pointed out this is an
industrua] area and it had not been determined what type of services would be needed
in this area.
The City Manager said it would be possi6le to install some material for the
transitional area.
CURBING: BcE�H SIREET: 77TH TO 79TH AUENUE:
The Assistani Engineer said the amount of assessment for this curbing would be
$4.9u.
Mr. Richard Harris, addressed the Council and said he had a question with the
amount of assessments for 78th Avenue, He recalled the people owning property in
the area were promised by the Council that they wou7d be credited for any mat
placed in this area previously, when the final improvement was installed.
Councilman Breider agreed, saytng this had been done by Council Resolution, and
he said the people were to be credited back the money Which had been previously
applied for�the mat.
rv1r. Harris said he would receive a credit of $1,600. flayor Liebl agreed and stated
the Administration should locate this resolution and also credit the money due to
the property owners in the area.
Wlayor Liebl asked if there were any questions concerning the installation of
curbing on Beech Street and there was no response.
C�RBING ELM STREET: 77TH AVENUE TO 79TH AUENUE:
CURBING: P1ATN STREET: 77TH AVENUE TO 79TH AVENUE:
CURBING: 69TH AVENUE: STIiJSOiJ BOULEVARD T� 1300 FEET WEST:
The Assistant Engineer said the final price of the assessment for the curbing in
the aforementioned areas would be $4.95. There were no quesiions concerning this
assessment,
i�OTION by Councilman Utter to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Councilman
Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried
unanimous7y and the Public Hearing on S7. 1973-1 closed at 9:28 P.f�l.
PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST. 1973-2:
P10TION by CounciQman Utter to waive the reading of the Public Hearing Notice and
open the Pu61ic Hearing. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public
Hearing on 5treet Improvemeni Project ST. 1973-2 opened at 9 29 P.f�l.
F1AIN STREET: 79TH AVENUE TO 83RD AVENUE:
The Assistant Engineer said the estimated price for front footage had been $28.01
and the final assessment for front footage wi71 be $16.95. He explained, it was
throught that there would be trouble in this araa with the subsoil, which did not
prove to be any problem. hle said th� side street assessment wou7d be $1.90.
Mr. Richard Harris questioned the high cost of Main Street on the north of 79th.
He said he would pay his assessments for this area, but would pay them in protest
because of the high amount. He compared the high assessment received 9n this area
in 1971 with that received at the present time. h1r. Harris recalled ihis assess-
ment was much higher than the $16.95 quoted at the present time, and thought it was
in the neighborhood of from $19 to $20. �9r. Harris said he had protested the high
amount at the time of the assessment hearing on this ro11. He said he had 6een
answered by the former City Manager, f��ir. Davis who wrote that his objections were
unfounded. He quest�oned why the assessments for one end of the street shou�d be
so much higher than on the other end. He stated, the soil conditions in the area
now being assessed are not up to those in the north end. He said he did not think
he had been treated fairly in this instance.
r, -
� R i��
PU&LIC HtaKING MEETING OF MAY i3, 1974
83izU AVENUE: hIAIN STREET TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE:
PAGE i0
The assessments for this area were the same as on Main, mentioned previously.
There was no comments concerning this improvement.
79TH AVENUE: BEECH STREET WEST TO ALLEY AND MAIN STREET TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE:
This assessment was explained to be the same as Main Street. There were no
ob,7ections or questions concerning this portion of the pro�ect.
79TH AVENUE - CURBING; BEtCH S7REET TO MAIN STREET:
61ST I�VENUE: STARLITE BOULEVARD TO MAIN STREET:
ihere were no questions on this portion of the improvement.
,i0TI0N by Councilman 6reider to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Councilman
Utter. �pon a voice vote, a17 voting aye, Mayor Liebi declared the motion carried
unanimously and the Public Hearing on the Assessment Roll for ST. 1973-2 closed at
9:36 P.M.
CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES REOUESTED FOR A RESIDENCE ON LOTS 33 AND 34, BLOCK A
Mayor Liebl listed the communications which were included in the agenda material to
6e as foliows:
�
Communication from Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator to Virgil
Herrick, City Attorney, dated April 15, 1374; letter from Mr. �lrnold I. Fe9nberg,
Attorney for Fred S. Yesness, Inc., to the City Manager, dated April 9, 1974;
letter from Mr. Ro. 0. Zaczkowski, 314 Hugo St. P4. E., to the City Engineer
at that time, Mr. Nasim Qureshi, and dated August 3, 7970; and a communication �
from Mr. R. E. Uenne, adjacent property owner, to Mr. IVasim Qureshi, dated
August 3, 1970.
The City Attorney said the letters had been submitted for background material for the
Council's consideration. He said he had brought this matter to the Counci7's attention
because he had rece�ved a letter from the applicant's attorney and had also ta7ked
io the attorney on occasion. Fle said if the Council took action to de�ny the request,
the applicant would likely go to litigaiion, fie said he was not saying the Counci]
should grant the request, ��e was only informing the Council if they do not grant
the permit, the applicant wauld most likely bring action against the City.
The City Attorney continued to explain that the property owners of the two lots
adjacent to the property have objected to the bu`ilding being constructed on a 50 foot
lot. He added� i1105t of the other lots in the area are larger and the City has
granted permits to 50 foot lots in the City,
Councilman Breider repeated, the man wants to build on a fifty foot lot and there
is a vacant 50 foot lot adjacent ta this. He sa�d he thought the Council should
consider the adjacent situation. He said the Council had granted permits where
there is no building site next to the property in question. Councilman Breider felt
even if the City were to 6e brought to litigation on the matter, the Council should
take action to not grant the building permit on a 50 foot lot. He stated, the
people of this area have tried to build up the standards of the lots in the area,
and ihis action would he detrimenta7 to their efforts. Councilman Breider said he
would not favor issuing a bui7ding permit in this area.
The City Attorney stated he wanted to make the Council aware of what is happening
on ihis matier. He saia h�� vaould like to send the applicant a letter notifying him
of the feelings of the Council.
P1ayor Liebl said if this is granted to one, it would have to be granted to the
others, and this would destroy the neighborhood. Mayor Liebl recalled the Council
had granted two variances to persons for 6,500 square feet of property, but he would
suggest the applicant build on two of the 50 foot parcels of 7and and make a reason-
able investment in the area.
�
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974 PAGE 11
P9ayor Liebl questioned the residents of the area who were present and asked the
average investment in the homes in the area. A resident answered from $18,000 to
$20,000.
Another resident said he believed the City requirements should be met in this
instance. He questioned if the man wanted to bui7d the house in th�s area just to
� make a profit, he added, this wculd be wrong. He said this should not be done in
a residential area.
The City Manager said there are four instances of granting variances to persons
with 50 foot lots on Hugo Street. He said this may make the opposition to this
variance quite weak in the eyes of the judge. He suggested rather than letting
the matter go to court, suggesting some agreement so the other properties in the
area mtght be utilized to create 60 foot lois and buildable sites. Ha said in the
older plats, the 60 foot lots would meet the requirements. He stated tn the newer
plats, 75 foot lots are required. He suggested some means of agreement rather
than going through a law suite that may be lost.
An abutting property owner said he owned the property on one side of the property
being discussed and he was not interested in seiling any property at the present
time.
The City Attorney said the judge may think if the 50 foot lots are platted,
they should be buildable. He said they could be considered worthless if they
cannot be built on. He said he could not determine what the outcome of this
type of litigation would be.
A resident of the area said the lots in this area are platted as 25 foot lots.
The City Attorney said this would be�ne of the arguments in this type of case.
He continued saying if the court wou d decide that it was a building site because
� it is a platted lot, he would question where this would end.
P1ayor Liebl said the people of the area would have to have three of the twenty five
foot lots for a buildable site.
lhe City Manager again stressed trying to encourage the parties to work out
something that would be suitable for this area. He said there are four homes on
fifty foot lots in this area at the present time and one of these is adjacent to the
property.
MOTION by Councilman Nee to reaffirm the previous action of the Planning Commission
and the Counci] action which was to deny the request for the variances on Lots
33 and 34, Block A, Riverview Heights Addition. 5econded by Councilman Breider.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
MR. GARY BARKER, 5800 3R� STREET, REQUEST FDR AID IN CONTACTING STATE HIGHWAY
Mr. Barker addressed the Council and said he had been at the previous meeting of the
Council and had been told that the material presented the Council would be reviewed
by the Administration with a report 6eing made at the present meeting of the Council.
The City Attorney said he had d�scussed the matter with Mr. Barker concerning the
licensing requirements of his motor for regu7ar bicyles, and he had advised him that
� any waiver in the requiremenis would have to come from the State. The City Attorney
further explained that the State Highway Department has definitions for motor vehicles
and the City of Fridley would have to meet the State requirements.
Mr. Barker asked if he would need a license to sell the equipment in the State.
The City Attorney said no, but if he would sell the equipment to an unlicensed
driver, he would be doing so contrary to the laws of the State. He said this would
be no different than operattng a mini-bike without a license.
MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to authorize the City Attorney to write a letter
to the State Highway �epartment and to the Attorney General, without endorsemen�
of the product, requesting the statement of the requirements on this type of
equipment. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
�,,
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 13, 1974 PAGE 12
i•10TION 6y Councilman Utter to adopt Resolution #54-1974, approving and authorizing
signing the agreement estabiishing working conditions, wages and hours o� employees
of the City of Fridley Fire Department for the year 7974, Seconded by Counci7man
Breider. upon a voice vote, all voting aye, ,�layor Liebl declared the motion
carried unanimously.
NATURE INTERPRETIVE PROGRAM:
P90TION by Counc�7man Utter to receive and concur in the report from the City Manager
dated May 13, 1974 concerning the status of the Nature Inierpretive program. Seconded
by Councilman Starwalt. Lipon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Lie61 declared the
mot�on carried unanimously.
NORTH PARK DEVELOPMENT•
APJD
RESOLUTION #53-1974 - TO REOUEST THAT
Councilman Breider said due to the action of the previous week, two items which the
Council had taken action on would have to be postponed, He said one of those plans
would be the the preparation of preliminary plans for the golf course and the other
wou7d be the decision on the statement by the Environmental Quality Councii. He said
this was due to the action of the City Council to put the issue on the utilization
ofthe North Park area to the people at the general election in the fall in form of
a referendum.
Councilman Nee questioned if the State Environmental Quality Council could lawfully
postpone this question.
Councilman Utter said he wou7d not want to spend $8,000 for an Environmental Impact
Statement at this time.
Mayor Liebl said the City should let the State Environmental Quality Council know
what is happening on this issue. He said they should be informed about the
referendum.
Councilman Breider questioned the point of asking them to present an impact
statement on something that may not happen.
Councilman Nee stated, they may make a decision that the construction of the golf
course is not feasible, and the referendum on the issue would not be necessary.
Mrs. Lee Ann Sporre asked if the current ection of the Council means that the Council
in any way had changed their position on the use of North Park. Mayor Liebl said no.
N member of the audience questioned if it was still the intention of the Council to
develop a golf course in North Park.
Councilman Breider said the position of the Council at this time would be to allow
the issue to go to a referendum. He said he felt until this is accomplished, the
Counci7 would be neutral.
Pirs. Sporre said she would like a roll call on the statement ihat the Council is
neutral at this time. She said she would like something offictal. She woulc4
like to know if the decis�on of the people at the referendum would be final.
Councilman Breider said personally, h� would not be neutral on the issue, out
as a Council, it should be neutral until the time of the election. He continued
to expiain as an individual, he wauld not take a neutral position, he would support
a golf course. He said he would vote like an individual.
Mrs. Sporre quesiioned how this information wouid appear on the ballot, would it
be a golf course versis a nature center at the North Park site without the present-
ation of the alternate placement of the golf course.
�
�
�
PUBLIC HEARING MEETIN6 OF MAY 13, 1974
PAGE 13
Councilman Breider said the issue would be, golf course versts a nature center in
North Park. He added, the issue had been North Park and he would like to keep it
in this context.
MOTION by Councilman Breider to adopt Resolution #53-1974, requesting the Environm-
ental Quality Council to postpone its final decision on the Environmental Impact
Statement for the use of North Park. Seconded 6y Counctlman Utter.
� Mayor Liebl read the proposed resolution. Mayor Liebl said the Planning Assistant,
f�r. Jerrald Boardman would be taking ihe Resolution to the Environmental Quality
Council meeting the next day if the Council adopted the Resolution.
�
1
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Councilman Breider, Councilman Starwalt, i�ayor Lieb7, and Councilman
Utter voting aye, and Councilman Nee voting nay, fviayor LIebl declared the motion
carried four to one and the resolution adopied.
MOTION by Councilman Breider to direct the Administration to delete any preliminary
p7an on the golf course until the referendum and also delay the use of the architect
until after the referendum. Seconded by Councilman Nee. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Mayor Lie61 declared the mot9on carried unanimously.
SPtCIAL APPROVAL TO FRIDLEY JUBILEE COMMITTEE TO SET UP BANNERS AND DTHER SIGNS IN
MOTION by Counci7man Breider to approve the sett�ng up of banners and other signs
in public areas by the Fridley Jubilee Committee. Seconded by Councilman Uiter.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously.
AD�OURNMENT:
P90TION by Counci]man Starwalt to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Counci7man Utter.
�pon a voice vote, all voting aye, P9ayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously
and the Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of May 13, 1974 adjourned
at 10:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�ircua.c«./ /� G�
Patricia Ranstrom
Secretary to the City Council
C�i,,..e3. / 9.� �
Date pproved. '
1t� �' Q., ,�,�,�Q_.
'�'�+'C � .
Frank G. Liebl, Mayor