The URL can be used to link to this page

03/10/1975 - 00015463' �J � �3 THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETIPJG OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MARCH 10, 1975 The Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of March 10, 1975 was called to order at 7:30 P.M. 6y Mayor �Jee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee welcomed those present at the meeting and invited them to ,7oin the Council in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. RDLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Councilman Starwalt, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Mayor Nee and Councilwoman Kukowski. Councilman Breider. Mayor PJee said Councilman Breider had asked that the people be notified that he was away on a business trip and there would be no act�on taken concerning the matters in the First Ward until he is back. He said the heartng on the improvement pro,7ects would be held tiiat evening, but the Counci would not act on the P.esolut�on to adopt the assessment rolls. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: P9ayor Nee indicate� that Councilman Fitzpatrick would like to add an �tem concern�ng the appointment of a representative to the Bikeway/4�'alkway Committee from the Third Ward. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to adcpt the agenda as amended with the appointment to the BikewayiWalkway Comm�ttee. Seconded by Councilwoman Kul:owski. upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor IVee declared the motion carried unam mously. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL PLAT P. S. #75-01. CENTRAL VIEW MANOR 2ND ADl]ITION. BY REALCO Mayor Nee explained the item which was to be discussed at the hear�ng. The Public Works Director said both of the hearings could be taken care of at once since they concerned the same proposal. He mentioned one to 6e a reeuest for a replat and the other to 6e a request for rezoning of the same area. The Publtc Works Director explained the proposed replat and said the administration had advised that the pr•operty be replatted rather than split. He also mentioned if the lot were spl�t, it would create a legal clescription in meets and bounds which would be lengthy. He said the rezoning request is from C-2S to M-1 and this action would allow Lot 2 to be all of the same type of zoning He referred to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1975, and said the Commission had recommended approval with three stipulations. Mr. Sobiech read the suggested stipulattons. Mr So6iech said with the first stipulationllisted in the mtnutes there should 6e a correction made to Lot 3 in the first st�pulation. He mentioned the third stipulation necessary in the case that the property across the back lots may change hands in the future and there would be a need for the 30 foot easement to provtde a driveway and sewer and water. The Public Works Director aiso pointed out that the rezo m ng recommendation for approval was sub�ect to the approval of the special use permit He said this would be brought to the Council soine time in the future. The Public Works Director indicated that the petitioner �Nas will�nq ta caoperate with the eroston control measures pointed out by the Rice Creek Watershed District f�r control of pollutants. He said there will be a sedamentat�on basin installed and the petit�oner is aware of this and is willing to comply with the stipulation. The Petitioner addressed the Council and indtcated there will be some rearranging of fill in the area with the construction. Councilman Starivalt asiced if the creek is defined �n the area The Pe±itioner po�nied out that it is not, there is ,7ust low land in this area. Councilman Starwalt said he felt the proposal would be an advantage to the whole area and would enhance the area. He said he t_hought this would make worthless land usable. 1 k> PU6LIC HEARING MEETING QF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 2 Mayor Nee asked the petitioner if there would be dismantling outside the fenced area. The Petitioner said there would not be. Mayor Nee asked if some agreement had been reached for the set back of the fence and the Public Works Director said not at the present time, they were currently working on such an agreement. He indicated that this would be contingent on what would happen to the property to the East and how it is developed. He indicated the fences would have to line up Mayor Nee asked if the planting strip had been taken care of and the Public Works ' �irector said there had 6een an agreemerit reached on this aspect. Mr. Sobiech sa��f the petitioner agrees in principle. Mayor Nee aksed if there was any comments from the audience or Council. Counc�lman Starwalt mentioned he felt the applicant had been working with the City and he felt this would be a good proposal if there is no oil allowed to go into the Creek. The Petitioner satd this is a7so one of his concerns and there was no prob- lem in the stipulation for the proper measures to prevent thts. The City Manager said w�thin the special use permit, a number of stipulations could be placed on the permit. He suid this would enform the applicant of what the City expects in the line of landscaping and aesthetic treatment. �!e said the areas where the property would be �mproved could be listed. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to close the Public Hearing on the proposed plat. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Publ�c Hearing closed at 8:03. MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to close the Public Hearing on the rezoning request Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing cicrsed at 8:04 P M. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REOUCST ZOA #74-05. BY RAO MANUFACTURING COMPAPIY TO � The Public Works Director sa�d the rezoning woultl provide the ent�re parcel with the same zoning. Mr. Sobiech placed the plan for the parcel on the easel, He said the applicant is request�ng to rezone 275 feet of the property from C-2S to M-1 to correspond with the property to the west of it. He said the building was proposed to be constructed in the center of the parcel. He mentioned as proposed, the building would require a variance in the set back from 100 feet to 70 feet on the portion of the property to the south where the parcel a�uts residential zoning. The Public Works Director said Mr Olson was present at the meetin� to answer any of the Council's questions. Mayor Nee advised Mr Olson that the Ward Councilman was not pre<:ent at the meeting. Mayor Nee explained that he had talked to Councilman Bre�der concerning the proposal and he is in agreement with it. Councilman Starwalt asked the appl�cant if the underpass construction would hem in the development of the property. The Petit�oner replied that they were aware of the construction of the underpass before the purchase of the property, and the property suits their purposes with the construction of the underpass. � Councilman Starwalt asked if there were any further questions concerning the noise of the type of manufacturing. The Public Works Director said he felt this to be all settled. He mentioned that there had been some question at the Planning Commission � level on the sub�ect. The Public Works Director explained thatthe building would be constructed so that the manufacturing area is in the center of the building and the permiter of the buildtng would be storage. Ne said this will allotiti� for a buffer for the no�se. Mayor Nee asked how much �nvestment would be involved on the parcel, and how many people would be employed. The applicant answered that presently their operation employees approz�mately 40 people and had empToyed up to 50 last year when business was better He explained the total investment would be approximately $700,000 with the building to be in the area of $250,000. He expla�ned the other costs would be for landscaping and rough grading. He men��oned that there would be extensive excavating work. Mayor Nee asked Councilman Fitzpatrick if he had any questions concerning the proposal. Councilman Fitzpatrick said he was on the Plannin9 Commission when the item had 6een discussed by them. He said he had no questions. � ti+ PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 3 The applicant explained the manufacturing pl�� would do sheet metal stamping, deep die sheet metal stamping, assem6ly, tool and die vaork, and engineering that would relate to ffie stamp�ng pro�ects. Questions concerning the noise levels were raised by residents of the area. The applicant satd he would like to controi the noise Znside the build�ng and this would contro1 the noise on tfze outside of the building. He also pointed out that it �would be possible to take some measures beneath the equipment tn the soil. He mentioned that this had been done at their current site and had wor'r.ed to eliminat� the vibrations and noise. � � Mayor Nee said he hoped the people would I,eep in mind that this location is right next to the railroad tracks. The City Manager sai�1 there had been qu�te a bit of discussion on the noise an� vibration matter at the Planning Commission level. He felt this tc be an important factor in thts proposal. The City Manager said the applicant had agreed to meet the standards set out by the City. He said if there would be any v�brations or noise that go 6eyond fihe preperty, there would have to be the proper meas�res taken to allev- iate this problem MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to close the Public Hearing. Seconded 6y CouncilH�oman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all vating aye, Mayor P12e declared the motton carried unanimously and the Puclic Nearing closed at 8:19 P M. PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STREET IMPROVEMEMT PRCJECT ST. 147�- Mayor iJee explained that the assessment roll preqared is being proposed by th� administration and�he method of assessment had been established by a policy of the City and had been follovaed for mary many years. He explainel tha �rpose of the Public Hearing is to hear the people's comments, advise t�em on the pro�ect and receive their comments on whether the assessment is fair and provide self satisfaction to the people in the assessment area. Mayor Nee said some of the improvements had been petitioned for, some had been determined necessary by the Council and some recommended by the Administration. Mayor Nee recalled that there had heen a�reliminary hear�ng where est�mates of the costs of the pro�ect were g7ven. He sa�d at tYiat time the Council had determined th�t the pro�ect was necessary through �iscussion with the people and th2 City had proceedad to construct the improvement. hlayar Nee said at the present t�ne, t�e exact prices of the nro�ects are known. y1ayor Pdee said the Council �nou7d like to hear �11 of the remarks on the pro�ects. Mayor Nee informed the people of the area that the Ftrst Ward Councilman, Councilman Breider, was out of tovan on a business trip, but he would ltsten to the tape of the meeting. Mayor �ee asked if all who �vislied to comment wauld state the�r name and address for the benefit of the secretary. The Public k'orks Director indicated that the prelimtnary est�mate provide� at the improvement hearing were in most cases slightly lower or about the same as the final assessment figure. Mr Sobiech continued to explain that the bituminus costs had tripled and 'chis had caused an increase in some cases He explained that the City plans for a 10% to 15% increase with i.ype of inflation, but this had e:ceeded this fiqure Mr. So�iech informetl tlie Council that the contract cost was $�47,214 with the 310 tons of bituminus mix. The Public Wor!<s �irector sai� the cost had risen frorr� $36 to $92 a ton an� this was a tleterm�m ng facter in arrivir,c at the tncreased contract price. He continued to state that in the past the increase had been from "% to 1�% and this would l�ave made the �re�ec� from r1B,C�0 to $20,000 'ess costly. SQUIRE DRIVE, �ANA COURT, CAMELOT L,0.N�, AND ARTF;U� STREET' The Public Works Director explained that th� estimated price for t'm s area had been $11.8? per front foot ana the final assessm�o�t u��ould be $dl.Q5 �er foot Mayor fdee pointed out that the area 6eing discussed was on the map on the screen He asked if there were any commenis from the people of the area. "1r Davicl Harris said he would like to make some comments on the pro,7er_t, but �oaould rathFr wait until the remaincler of the pro�ect 7s discussed. The Public Works Director said the curbing had not been installed on the west side of Arthur Street. He indicated th�s to be a designated State Atd Road and would be completed to these standards in the future. He said the assessments in this area would be $6.05 per foot � PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 4 Mr Dave Harris asked if the assessment of the area, �11.05, was complete when there had only been one mat installed The Public Works Director said the final mat would be picked up by State Aid funds. Mr. Harris asked if th�s would be done at the time that the other curbing is installed on the w�st s�de of Arthur Street. The Public works Director agreed with this comment. Mr Harris asked if there would be a charge to the property owner at this time and Mr. Sobiech said there would be no charge later. Councilman Starwalt asked if the peop7e residing on the west stde of Arthur Street would ' be assessed for this in the future. The Public Works Director indicated the people on the west side would be assessed a normal resident7al price at that time. He indicated there may be an increase due to inflation. 73z AVENUE: The Public Works D�rector pointed out that this was a commerc�al or andustrial standard street and the estimated price had been $i3.04 versus the final assessment prlce of $14 02 Mayor Nee asked if anyone present had any questions and th�re was no response. BACON DRIUE: The Public Works Director explained that the road was 31 feet, with face to face concrete curb and gutter the black topped. He lndicated the final assessment to be $15.63 versus the est�mated price of �17.24 per foot. He explained the street had been constructed from a rough graded area and there was extensive grading and cleaning and grubbing. He said the easements were not as extensive as had been orig�nally thought and this was less expens�ve than the estimated price. Mayor Nee asked if th�re was anyone present who wished to comment concerning the Bacon Drive improvement and there was no response. Councilman Starwalt indicated that this had been a d�fficult Street to work with, � but there was no adverse comments at the present time. Councilman Starwalt said the people of the area worked very closely with the City. Mr. Denn�s Czec,�, 1395 Onandaga, Lot 8, asked what his assessment was at this time and the Finance Director said it would be $228 Mr. Czech asked how the assessments are figured o,�Onandaga and the F�nance Director said this had been done by follcv�irg the method that has been C�ty policy for 15 years. Mr. Czech said he couid not see where the construction of Bacon �rive had enhanced his property. The Finance Director sa�d everyone in the City would be paying a side yard assessment unless they live in a very unusual area. Mayor Nee commented that the City had established this policy to get the side streets developed He further explained if the corner lot had to pay the entire cost these people would say they don't want side streets Mayor Nee said this type of policy is a fairly typical means of sharing the cost of the side street development. He also mentioned if this was not done, there would be a question of whether the side streets are of value to anyone in the C�ty. Mayor Nee said there is always a problem of people trying to determine the ownership of the streets in front of a home. Mayor PJee said the City really does need the side streets and if there is an object�on to the assessment, the property owner would have no recourse but to make a formal ob,7ection at the present time and provi:Ae the court with this claim. Mayor Nee called on the City Attorney to explain this procedure. The City Attorney explained that anyone who is assessed has the right to appeal this � if they feel the amount of the assessment is greater than the benefit to the property. He advised those present that this would i;ave to be done at Anoka County and w�th�n 20 days after the passage of the Resolution adopting the final assessment roll. The city Attorney further advised the people that this must he done in writting and filed with the Court. He said the procedure indtcated within the discussion would only be very generai and would not be adequate information for filing such a claim. He saTd if it is not submitted properly, the claim would be lost, Mr. Czech asked when this 20 day time limit would begin. The City Attorney said th�s would be 20 days after the Council adopted the final assessment roll by resolution. Ne said he did not think this would be at the present meeting, but may be the following Monday evening. i e 1 F PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 5 Mr. Raymond Buechele, 1425 Onandaga, asked the ameunt oi his assessmeni and the Finance Director said this would be $242.25 for Lhe 85 foot lot. Mayor Nee asked if anyone else wished to comment on 6aco��rive and there was no response. SUNRISE DRIUE AND RAIfdBDW CRIVE: 'The Public Works Director said the final assessment rate would be $8.49 �dersus the estimated cost of $7.94 per foot. He said the assessment was for the construction of a 36 foot black top roadway with concrPte cur6 and gutter, back to back. Mayor Nee asked if there were any comments and there was no rzsponse. 5TH STREET The Public Works Director i�formed the Counc�l that the final assessment would be $15.40 per foot versus the estimated cost of $15.60. He indicated that this construction was somewhat more because of the formirg of the existing land to the proper grade. fle said the construction consisted of concrete curb and gutter and a 36 foot black top street. Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone present from this 3rea and there was no response Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone present from the Wall Corporation and there was no response. 68TH AUENUE AND 7TH STREE7 (67TH AVEPIUE TO 65TH P,VE��UE)• The Public Works Director expla�ned that the final assessment would be $1? 91 per foot and the estimated cost had been $11.29. The improvement consists of concrete �curb and gutter with a 36 foot black top street He said the cost had been increased because of the cost of the bituminus mix and 31so because of the amount of grading that had to take place to obta�n the proper drainage. He said the grade called for extensive restorative work �n this area. A resident of the area questioned the use of the yel�ow marking on the map on the screen and its meaning. The City Manager explained that this was the proposed alternate assessment for the side yard assessment. He continued to explain that at the publ�c hearing on the improvement it had been quest7oned vahether the people residing on the northwest of Rice Creek Terrace use 7th Street and "o8th Street for access to this area. He said it had been questioned if they shouid share the cost of the improvement because of this. He explained that the basic policy of the City in the past has been to only assess the one side of the street for side yard assessments He said it would be the Council's prerogative to assess on the north side of the Rice Creek Terrace if they feel the people are benefited. Ne explained that two assessment rolls had been prepared because the Council had directed the Administration to pre{;are the alternate roll at the time the tmprovement was ordered. he said the problem arose 6ecause the people on the north side would not be assessed for the side yard because of the location of the alley. He indicated that they would not be paying any side yard assessment in the area under the present Folicy. He again stated that the Council would have to decide if it would be �ustifiable to assess both sides. He said in the past, the City had not assessed both sides. Mr. John Fink, 465 Rice Creek Terrace, addressed the Counctl and said what had been done by the�ouncil for 15 years would not be �nne if the alternate roll �s adopted. � Mr. Fink explained that his wife had come to City Hall to check on the assessment and had 6een advised that the assessment would only be spread one half the way down the block. Mr. Frnk mentioned the fact that 7f there was a change in policy and there was anything done to the other streets in the area, they could be assessed again. Mr. Fink said he thought the alternate roll would be inequita6le. He thought this would allow for the potential of being assessed in the future. Mr. Paul Dannenberg, 315 Rice Creek Terrace said he opposed the assessment as indicated in the alternate roll. Mr. Dannenberg conttnued to comment that he had lived in the area since 1960 and had had to go ouc and find �o�here 68th Street was Ffe also informed the Council that he uses the Re� Owl Parking lot for access He said the Police and F�re Depariment cannot use 68th Street for access io the area. He also mentioned that when 4th was improved, the assessment was not spread up the street. Mr. Dannenberg said he strongly protested the alternate roll Mr. Quentine Free6urg, 301 Rice Creek Terrace, said he would like to reiterate the _� � i�v PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 1C, 1975 PAGE 6 previous statement 6y indicating that a precedent would be set by the adoptior� of the alternate roll �f the people all the way down the street on Rice Creek Terrace would be assessed. He said he felt this would Ce an inequitable assessment for this area. Mr. Larry Jodsaas, 347 Rice Creek Terrace, said he also felt this would be inequitable Councilman F�tzpat�,•ick said he felt there were two problems with the alternate roll, whether it should be on both sides of the street and whether it should yo all the way down the b2ock. Ne indicated that he thought that the �lternate r�oll was to be prepared , to only one half of the way. Mayor Nee asked why the alternate roll was prepared to go this far. Mr. Mervin Herrmann, Assessor, sa7d the people of the area had been notified because of the possi6�lity that the Council may want io adopt the roTl to be extended this far. He indicated that if this would be adopted, the legal requirements of the notice would be fulfilled. Mayor Nee questioned the amount of the assessment if the side yard assessment were stopped at the point where the red had been indicated on the rap for the other asse:as- ment roll. Councilman Starwalt asked if the alternate roll is not used, the property owners abutting the yellow mark would not be assessed He asked if the original roll would be adopted, would the assessment amo�r�'tbe $2.36 per foot and if the alternate roll adopted, the assessment would be $1.30 per foot. The Assessor said this was correct. Mr Herrmann contTnued to comment that this would be the amount if the assessment were carried all the way to University, but if it was cut off at some other po7nt, this amount would change. MCKIPlLEY STREET The Public Works Director indicated that the final assessment cost would be $14.80 as compared to the esti,mated price of $15.63. He said this would be a 36 foot biack top street witY� concrete curb and gutter. Mr. Sobiech said the storm sewer had been installed in con,7unction with the street �mprovement pro,7ect. Mayor Nee asked if there were any comments concern�ng this area. � Counc�lman Starwalt said he is always curious whether the people of the area are satisfied with the street He mentioned tfie hardships that are brouqht to the people during the construction period and questioned why no comments are made by the people concerning the quality of the construction. Mrs Janet Rudnitski, 658 77th Avenue N. E., questioned if the final assessment would be $14.80. She further coranented that she thought this was a beautiful street and she sure likes the street light in back. She thanked the members of the Council. 78TH AVENUE: The Publ�c Works Director said the final assessment would be $40.68 versus the estimated cost of $48.D5. He said it should be pointed out that this is a commercial or industrial ktlack top road and is 40 feet wi�e with concrete curb and gutter. Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone present from this area and there was no response. Counc�lman Starwalt questioned why the industrial area had the higher price. The Public Works Director �nd�cated that an additional reason for this assessment being so high we��ld be that a very small area could be assessed for the improvement. He comirented only 350 feet was assessable. Councilman Starwalt commented that an extensive pro�ect in a small area is very costly. The City Manarer indicated that the standardsan�i spec�ficat�ons on this type of road- � way would be much h�gher contributing to the increase in cost also. Ne added, the roadway would have to bear heavy truck traffic. ALLEY (BETWEEP� MAIPI AND ELM STREETS): The Rublic Works Director commented that the cost of the assessment in this area would be $6.88 compared to the estimated price of $4.81. He pointed out that there hatl been some problems with the property abutting the improvement and a t°e'r,aiv�inn watl had to be installed to save the house. He said with the addition of the attempt to save some trees aTong with the concern for the house, this assessment cost ran up some. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, (Lots 21, 22, and 23) admon�shed the administration for placing the curb cut in the H�rong place. He satd tM s had to be removed with a„ new one added. He questioned who would pay the cost for this error. Mr Harr�s asked if the assessment of $6.88 covered the cost of the retaining wall and the Publ�c Works Director said yes ;, PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 �'AGE 7 Mr. Harris cont3nued to comment that he thought there was very pcaor commum cat�ort with the engineer�ng department also very poor planning. He said he would like to know wl-o had authorized the construction of the retaining wall. He a$ked if th�s had been mentioned in the plans at the time of the preliminary hearing. Mayor Nee asked if the wall had been a part of the original proceedings on th�s improvement and tlie Public l�Jorks Director satd yes 'Mr. Harris satd he had aske�l the contractor of tha reta�nlnq wall I104d much he was being paid for the construction and he recalled he had bzen told the cost oias i�� he area of $6,800. He asked the Public Works Director if he had the figures on thi� construction. Mr. Harris stated that the fill had not been taken out 6y the contractor, the abutting property own�rs had to do this. Mayor Nee asked Mr. Harris if he was suggestin� that tYie cost of the ��iall be remo��ed from the assessment. Mr. Harris answered that he ��iould feel beter about thrs if ic were Mr. Harr�s commented that if the Administratton thought that this is something that I�ad tc� be done, the peaple should have been notified He said ther•e are only si,c to e�ght property own�rs on the block. The Public Works Director indicated he had the final figures on the cost of the retaining wall. He mentioned the wall i= 751 square feet for a cost of y2,63i.30 The Public works Director pointed out that the wall construction was necessary because of the existing house He said in order to save the house, the wall had to be constructed from four to five feet from the structure. .•�yr.r Nee referred to the comments concerning the trees being hauled away and asked if che Public Works Director if he had knowledge of this. Playor idee asked tf the contractor had not done his �ab. The Public Works Director said the contractor was tryiiig to complete the oortion of the pro�ec� in the cencer of the Ci�y within the residential areas first. He said it was going to be done, but th�s area was to be left until the other area was completed. He further commented that PACO was �anxious to do some work and had taken the trees aut. Mr. Sab�ecl� said if the fill would have been removed by the contractor, this would have showed up in the price of the pro�ect. F4ayor Nee asl.ed the �ity ,Attorney to comment on the current legislation that would allcw the �ersons �n the area over 65 to defer the �ss�ssment. Mayor P�ee said thts wou1d be an aid to the persons in the City ia�ho would have a d�fficult time meeting the cost of the assessment. The Cii.y Attorney� adv�sed the'Council thut at the last session of the Legislature, they h�d approved the cleferment of the assessments for persons over 65 who have an economic hardship. He added, it dealt with starm sewer pro,7ects, buc the uordirzg is such that it appears all special assessments could 6e defered. The City Attorney said he was not aware of an opinion from the Attorney General on this, but sinca it had been adopted, it would be possi6le for �ersons over 55 to make applicatior for this type of deferment through the Anoka County off�r�als. He said th� application co�'r,� be provided to the City Council and i.he interest can be set with the assessments and this could be defered uniiltlie person over o5 no lonqer resides at the location ef the homestead. He added, when the person dies or mcrves frem the property, the assess- ment plus the interest would become due. He satd he did not know �f the County had the necessary blanks for this procedure at the present time because the newness of the program. Mayor Nee said if anyone in the neighborhood knows of such a burden on persons over 65, they sheuld instruct them te contact City Hall for the details on thts type �f �deferment. Mayor Nee said he would not �,�ant the Council to take action on the assess- ment ro11 tLat would put the senior ci±izens out of their homes. Mayor Nee asked if there wcre any more comments on the pro,;ect. Mr. Darrel l�lolf, 6446 Arthur Street, asked why Arthur Street had not been camoleted at this time. The Public Works L��rector explair.ed that or�ginally, the area was to have an underground storm sewer which v.ould drarn irto Rice Creek. He said this pipi�ig would have been along Arthur 5treet. Mr. Sebiech r_ont�nued to explain that with the development in the area and the creati�n of the o�atfal] and the ini±iation of Pro,7ect #114, certain piping and pond�ng was constructed east of Arthur Street The Public Works Director mentioned that with discussions with the Rice Creek Water- shed Distrtct, it had been determined that the�r rules and regulations will no longzr allow direct outfall into Rice Creek. With these reaulations, it would not be possible to cnnstruct �he piping to the Creek on Arthur Street. Mr. Sobiech said the City had to pre�are ar al�ernate plar with the drair,age into Moore �ake. � l) , PUBLIC HEARING MfETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 8 Mr Sobiech said this was the creation of the piping and ponding ditch system to moore Lake. He mentioned there will be additional construction on the pro,7ect and at that time, the final �mprovements will be made on Arthur Street. Mayor Nee asked how long this would be. The Public Works D�rector said the Ci±y is discussing the piping ponding system. Mayor Nee asked if this may be in the next year. The Puhl�c Works Director said this could be next year. Counsilman Starwalt questioned mentioning it may be the following year and said it could also take from three to five years. The Public Works Director said he could not say, but would like this system completed as soon as possible. H�nentioned this would keep the cost do+,an. The City Manager pointed out on the map that there is the possibility of the installation of ariother roadway in the area. He also mentioned being this is a State Aid road, the only cost that would be assessed to th�property owners would be the curbing, all other costs would be picked up by State Aid funds. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Couniclman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all vot�ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the mot�on carried unanimously and the Public Hearing clo5ed at 9:04 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1974-2: AND IVING COMMUNICATION IN OPPOSITION FROM HAROLD L. SULLIVAN AND GEORGE MEISSNER: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the communications from Mr. Harold L. Sullivan and Mr. George Meissner opposing the assessment roll. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7TH STREET MISSISSIPPI STREET TO 57TH AVENUE: The Public Works Director advised the Counci� that this was a State Aid Street and the assessments would only be the norr�al reside�tial rate. He �ndicated that this amount �s determined by the averaye cost of ihe pro,7ECts within the past year and the rate had been calculated at $12.91 per front foot. In the commercial areas, the assessment would cover the construction costs at a figure of $28.12. He mentioned that the commerc�al areas do not have the State Aid rate. Mr Jim Thayer, 377 66th Avenue, addressed the Council and questioned why a portion of the road had been constructed to the 50 foot width. The Public Works Director said this would allow for some modification in the future. Mr Thayer mentioned when the street is plowed, the snow hits one man's house. Mlr. Thayer said no one knew the street was going to be this wide. Mr. Thayer sa�d obviously, this was not in the original plan. He mentioned that the markers had been placed at the narrower potnt and moved later. He said he thought this had been an after thought and a poor one. Mr. Thayer asked what his assessments for the pro�ect would be and the Finance Director said $189.00. The Finance Director said the cost would be greater if the roll would be figured with less footage. Mayor Nee asked if this portion of the added width of the roadway was in the plan when it was approved by the �ouncil The City Manager said this was a State Aid road and this had been planned because of the traffic load. He said the additional width will allev�ate the problems of traffic at the intersection. He mention�r the City did have the right of way and the dimensions were needed. He said after the creation of the wider roadw<y, there is still eight feet of boulevard in this area and the normal boulevard is seven feet. He mentioned that the snow may be pushed tnto private property, but M s is done all over. Mr Rodney Middlestadt, 495 66th Avenue, asked why the corner lots are assessed at a higher rate. He asked if the State is fundin9 the pro�ect, why are the assessments over $12.00 per foot. Mayor Nee explained that on the State Aid roads the assessment is figured by computing the average cost of the aesessments of the year. He explained that the corner lot is only assessed for 1/3 of the footage with the other 2/3's being spread down the street. Mr. Herrmann, Assessor, satd the actual cost of the project is 528.12 per foot. Mr. George Meissner, 373 Mississippi St. N. C., addressed the Council and �ndicated he had�yritten the letter that had been received by the Council earlier in the meeting. He said he was not able to attend the initial hearing, but he said the City ' Lf � � � �� PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 9 had indicated that he would not be included in the assessment roll. Mr. Meissner referred to the minutes of the meeting at the hearing and quoted a remark from the minutes made by former Mayor Liebl indicating the City's policy was to spread the assessment one half the way down the street and that this policy would not be waived. Mr. Meissner referred to the benefit of the improvement and said it would only increase the traffic of the area if anythtng. He believed this additional traffic flow to be detrimental to his property. He mentioned he had talked to a realtor concerning this aspect and he affirmed his v�ew. Mayor Nee sald the resolution to adopt the assessment roll would not be acted on at the current meeting. He said this would allow for the people of the area to converse w�th Councilman Breider. Mrs. Marion Klous, 370 66th Avenue asked if 5th from 66th to 67th had been assessed. P1ay�r Nee said this had been done by the Highway Department. He again mentioned that Councilman Breider felt that these people would never be getting the side yard assessment. Mr. �onald H�nz, 372 66th Avenue, indicated that he had been under the same impression expressed by Mr. Thayer. Mr. Hinz said he was beyond the half way mark on the street and he was under the impression that the assessment would only be spread one half way. Mr Roger Harmon, 388 66th Avenue, asked if the point of consideration of equa1 benefit had been reviewed. He said he would favor the payment by all those under the yellow marking beina assessed He thought all benefiting should be included in the assessment. Ms Margaret Johnson, 374 66th Avenue, said she favored the assessments going one half the way on tle west side. Mr. Dale P4aus, 490 67th Avenue, said there are many people that uenefit from the construction of the street. He indicated all use the street for access into this �area. He mentioned that the construction had been very well done. He said that there is some problems with the snow up �n the yards. He said there is a lot of benefit from the street and more than what is being assessed. He said he felt that everyone in the area uses the streets and he thouqht this would be a reasonable assessment for th�people that do use the access. LJ Mayor Nee asked if anyone else wished to comment on this portion of the pro�ect. There was no response. 79TH AVENUE (APPROXIMATELY 140 FEET WEST OF BEECH STREET TO 6URLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY RIGHT/OF/WAY • The Public Works Director said the final assessment in this area would be $31.88 per foot Mayor Nee asked if anyone was present to make comments on this area and there was no response. Mayor Nee questioned the members of the Council on their views concerning the closing of the hearing. He thought, possibily, this discussion should be kept open, but questioned if all those wishing to comment had done so. Councilman Starwalt said he felt if there may be problems, the hearing should remain open. Council�rr�mar; Kukowski said she felt it would be better if the hearing was left open. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to continued the Pu61ic Hearing on St. 1974-2. Seconded 6y Councilwoman Kukowski Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the mot�on carried unantmously and the Public Hearing was continued at 9:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1974-4. MISSISSIPPI STREET CENTRAL AVENUE TO STINSON BOULEVARD• The Public Works Director pointed out that the estimate at the preliminary hearing had been $14 41 per foot and through negotiations with Anoka County, it resulted in the County taking over Mississippt on this pro�ect as a County road He indicated the total cost of the project to be $147,032 50 with the County picking up $11�,923.55. He explained that this would result in a final assessment of $3 77 for the curb a��ea and $5 53 for the areas with sidewalk. He indicated that the sidewalk was oniy being assessed to the property owners on the north side of the street The Public Works Director explained that it is the policy that when the County improves a street PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 7975 PAGE 1D that only the curb and sidewalk are assessed to the property o�dners. The County picks up the cost of the street improvement. Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone present who had any questions. Mr Arlon Haupert, 6524 Anoka Street, addressed the Council and said he did not ob�ect to the construction of the sidewalk in the area. He indicated with the � improvement of the �reet, there is a need for the sidewalk because of the amount of traffic and its speed �n the area. Ne mentioned the people would have to be off of street Mr Haupert further commented that the people on�the south side of the street are receiving the most benefit of anyone in the area, P1r. Haupert said he felt the property owners on the north side of the street had been treated un{a�rly. He mentioned that with the construction of the sidewalk, there is no off street parking available to those abutting Mississippi Street. He felt this created a hardship for the property owners to the north. Ne indicated he did not feel that there is one property owner that was benefiting from the improvement, and qu�te the opposite, the improvement would decrease the value of their property. Mr. Haupert mentioned that there is a problem in the access of the alley. He pointed out that when the sidewalk is p3owed, it closes off the alley access. He asked if there could be some type of policy on the plowing of the sidewalks. He said the plow that is being used 6y the Ciiy �ust pushes the snow ahead of it until the plow comes to an opening such as an alley or driveway and it fills up the opening. Mr. Haupert read from a copy of the Fridley Sun indicat�ng the construction of the sidewalk would not be assessed to the property owners. Mr. Naupert said he did not belive the safety factor was relevant as a benefit to the people being assessed for the sidewalk. He said the sidewalk is very necessary, but his opposition was that why was he being assessed for the sidewalk when there zs no benefit. The City Planager explained that the people of the aera had not been assessed for the construction of the street as had been done in other areas. He reiterated the policy on the construction of streets that are under the County dtrection. He pointed out that the people were only being assessed for the sidewalk and on ly one half of the cost of the curbing. He said the traffic 7n the area necessitated the construction of the side- walk. He mentioned with the cooperation of the County, it had bee�possible for this area to be designated a County Street from Central to Stinson Boulevard and resulted in an assessment for the people in the area of $5.53 for sidewalks, $3,77 for curb, rather than $14.00 per foot. He said this is less than one half of the cost the people living on the other streets in Fridley are payin9. Mayor Nee commented that the people would be paying $5.00 for the sidewalk and would be given a road free. Mr. Haupert said he felt this to be an inconsistancy. He mentioned that the City had notified the people that this would be a St.ate Aid Roadway and they had changed the plan and made this an uncompara6le alternative. Mayor Nee pointed out that the comparable thing would be an assessment for $12.00, Mayor Nee said at the previous riotice to the people in th�s area, it had been indicated that the sidewalks would not be assessed. Mr. Nick Garaffa, fi750 Monroe, indicated that the former Mayor Liebl had indicated to the people that this would be a State Aid Road and the sidawalk would not be assessed to the people of the area. The City Manager indicated that when this statement had been made, the road was State Aid at the time. He said it is the City policy to assess the normal residenttal rate for State A�d roads and ,�ot assess the sidewalks. He mentioned this would be $14.41 versus the proposed assessment of $5 53. The City Manager said it would 6e possible to put any title on the proposed assessment, but thrs is a very reduced cost to the people of the arca. � Mr. Haupert questioned if the people of the area should have be2n notified when there was a change from the State Ard Street to the County Road. The City Manager pointed out that the people had been told that their assessment would be $14.41 and now it would only be $5.53 tor sidewalks and 53 J7 for curb. Mr. Haupert satd it had been changed to a County Road The City Manager indicated that the County status allowed for the reduction of the assessments to the people in the area. He satd whether the improvement would be State or County, the improvement spectfications had not been changed. He said the only change would be tl�at the road was not being assessed to the property owners. Mr. Thomas Hauen, 1�79 Mississippi Street, said he felt there should be another Public Hearing, the plans had been changed. He mentioned the people of the area had been told that they were to get the sidewalk free. He mentioned that the people of the area were agreeable to receive th� sidewalk free, but �hey were not willing to pay for it PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 11 Mr. Haupert sa�d he thought this should have been explained to the people. He said before the pro�ect was started, this should have been explained to the people who live in the area. The City Attorney advised the Council that he did not feel it was necessary to notify the people if the assessment were to be a lesser amount. He indicated that the 'plans for the improvement had not changed since the time of the original �mpro�ement hearing. He sa�d he did not think there would be any leaal problem in this action of the Council. The City Attorney said he felt that it was a substantial benefit to the people of the aera that this 6e developed as a County Road. The City Attorney said he was not persuaded by the statements made. Mr. Alvin Flanders, 6501 Anoka Street, indicated he had lost three feet of his property and had been compensated $1 for this by the C�ty. Mayor Nee asked �f th�s was the usual practice of the City. Mr. Flanders indicated that he agreed to this acquistion at the time of the request by the City. The Public Works Director explained that the City had to acquire the right of way from five people in the area on the north side of the sireet. He said the City staff had approached the people an�1 they agrPed to the acqu�sittan of the easemen�. The Public Works Director indicated that the sidewalk was constructed on this easement. Mr. Janiak, 1479 Mississtppi Street, questioned in uther areas there is a stamp p7aced in the sidewalk indicating the contractor of the project. He asked why this was not done in this case. The City Manager said the City retains all the information on the contract and contractor within its files. The City Manager explained if the people had any problems they should call City Hall h1r. Roger Gleason, 6535 Arthur Street, said he is r�ot oppcsed to the s�dewalk. He �voiced the objection'�to the fact that the City does not plow the alley. He also voiced concern because the people of the area had to shovel the alley and the County comes along and plows it closed when plowing the streets and also that the sidewalk snow plow closes the alley. He asked if there may be something that could be done about this. Nir Gleason also indicated that access to Mississippi Street is very dangerous. I-le said he had called City Hall many times and had been told that there is nothzng that could be done about th�s. He questioned why they keep being plowed back in. � Councilman Starwalt said he had been in the area, he was aware of t he problems and could nnt promise any relief. Councilman Starwalt said perhaps if thEre is better equipment, a better ,7ob could be done. He mentioned that the alley situation is a different matter than the topic of the hearing, the street and sidewalk Mayor Nee informed the residents that if they petition for the improvement, the alley can be paved, Mr. Gleason said not all of the people use the alley. MOTfON by Councilman Starwalt to close the public hearing. Seconded by Counc�lman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor ^lee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public hlearing closed at 10:17 P M. PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL ASSESSh1ENT ROLL FOR SEWER, WATER AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEME � WATER AN� SEWER LATERALS AND SERVICES ON MCKINLEY STREET• The Public Works Uirector listed the�rices for the improvement us follows� front fcot assessment rate for water later 1 is $11.05 per foot, �he front foot zssessment rate for sewer lateral is $9.99 per foot, water service at $21?.05 per service and sewer services at �289.12 per service The Public Works �irector said the estimate at the preliminary hearing had been fi13.27 for the sewer and water lateral had been 513.27 Mayor Nee asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience and there was no comments. „�� PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 12 WATER AND SEWER LATERALS AND SERVICES IN THE HARRIS LAKE ESTATES ADDITION AND A�JACENT PROPERTIES: The Public Works Director listed the assessments in this area to be as follows front foot assessmenu rate for water lateral is $9.55 per foot, the front foot assessment for sewer lateral is $9.59 per foot, water service at $200.69 rer service and sewer services for $299.17 per service. He mentiened the estimates for this area had been $9.54 for the water, $9.50 for the sewer, $200 for the v�ater services ' and $300 for the sewer services Mr �ave Harris said he would make some comments after the presentation of the rema�nder of the area. STORM SE6�'ER (AREA BOUNDED BY 66TH AVENUE ON THE NORTH 615T AVENUE ON THE SOUTH He 17sted the prices for the four different areas as: $1.12 for Area A, $2.73 for Area B and Area �, and $6.49 for area E. Mr. Dennis Schneider, 6190 Stinson Boulevard, addressed the Council and indicated that he did not believe the lake had been created for the benefit of the entire area He said he believed the storm sewer only benefited the people who live on the lake and the developer. Mr. Schneider indicated he believed the City may have proceeded illegally in going ahead with this pro�ect. Mr. Schneider continued his presentation by referr�ng to State Laws 105.37 Subdivision 6 and questioned by this section if the pro�ect had been created to be beneficial to the public. He also read item C, Subd�vision 7, and Se-ction ]05.38, Section 1. Mr. Schneider next referred to Section 105.42 and questioned if the City was acting lawfully in the area of public water. He mentinned it would be unlawful to make a change in any dam, reservation or any public vraters. He indicated this would include filling an excavation. He said this cannot be done without written permission of the � Commissioner or someone authorized by him. Mr. Schneider referred the Council's atten- tion to the map on the screen and indicated that by this map and also the map in the Department of Natural Pesources, the swamp had definite boundaries. Mr. Schneider indicated that after 90% of the work had been done in this area, the City obtained a permit Mr. Schneider felt this made it �mpossible to determine the amount of work done in the public waters. Mr. Schneider mentioned that the City Attorney had expressed the feeling that this was not public waters He questioned if the City Attorney was qualified to make this judgement. Mr. Schneider mentioned that a permit should have 6een obtained immediately from the Rice Creek Watershed district and also the Department of Natural Resources Mr. Schneider said the permit was obtained by the City on November 7, 7973, the same day it was requested. Mr. Schneider placed a graph of the areas and amount of total cost on the screen. He continued to comment concerning these figures and summari:ed his remarks by saying 35 people in�the area do not feel that they benefit from the dredging or the ditch from Harris Lake to Moore Lake, He indicated that those people feel they may benef�t from the construction of a storm sewer in the area, but not for the construction of the pond. Mr Schneider said the people of Areas A, B, and C do not feel they benef�t from the construction of the pond and that these assessments should be placed on the plat. Mr. Schne�der said he had a meeting of those people of the area in his home and they had indicated to him that they would take legal steps tf the Council does not reconsider. Mr. Schneider saTd this had not been h1s intention, but this Ts the feeling � he is getting from the people of the area. Mr. Schneider said this would be the secondstep in the development of the storm sewer in this area, there would be another step which would bring ever�rone's assess- ments to $8.00 per 700 square feet. He indicated Ye would 7ike to have the administration further review the c�ssessment rolls and come back with a different roll. The City Manager pointed out that the CTty had studied alternatives to the current construction which would mean an expensive constructton for this area with an out- fall to Rice Creek which would eventually end up in the Mississtppi River. The City P4anaqer referred to the storm sewer district map of the entire City and indicated that there had been a change in the boundaries for this area. He said the City had three alternatives the first being the expensive syst.m, the second dtscontinuing the development tn th�s area and thirdly, the construction of the storm sewer on a piece meal basis. He referred to the construction within the Br�ardale area and said this had come under Pro�ect #lOb. He said under this current construction, there was z5 PUBLIC NEARIPIG MEETING �F MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 13 a need to get the water from the Harris pond to Moare Lake or Rice Creek. The City Manager said at the time of the Council's consideration Qf the alternatives, the Council decided that the piece meal type of construction would be better. Ne indicated under th�s plan land had to be acquired for the pond, the piping and the ditch to Moore Lake. The City Manager said all of the areas indicated in the assessment roll contribute �o this water and outfall and should pay for the outfall because they do beneflt. �Mayor Nee asked the City Attorney if he felt the Ci�_y should 'nave purchased the land and ditch. The City Attorney said he felt the quest�on to be more of an engineering question than a legal question. He mentioned he had originally worked on the writting of Section 105 as quoted by Mr. Schneider. The City Attorney cont�nued to comment that the Section is quite new and has never been tested The City Attorney mentioned the City would have to acquire the ponding area if the storm drainage were directed to this area. He stated it is unlawful for the City to deposit storm drainage on private property Mr Herrick said he had worked for five years in the Department of Natural ResourcPS and had helped draft Section 105 in the late 50's. The City Attorney further pointed out that no oermit had been originally obtained through the Department of Natural Resources, but a perm�t nad been obtdined from the Rice Creek Watershed �istrict, and the Rice Creek l�latershed District is responsible for transmitting a copy of th� plans to the Department of Natural Resources upon rece�pt of them. He continued to explarn that if the Department of Matural Resources had any ob�ection, it would be up to them to voice those o6�ections. He said no ob�ection was voice� by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The City Attorney said he had submitted a letter to the �epartment of Natural Resources stating the City was requesting a permit. He said the copy of the plans had 6een in the office of the Department of Natural Resources for a long time and it was not a quest�on of whether or not they should approve them. He said at this time the permit was issued �by the DNR. He again mentioned that the City could not deposit storm wat�r on private property. He said the property would have to be condemned before the water could be deoosited there. The City Attorney said the cost of the property, ditch and outfalls is a leyitimate concern. He said whether the area could be used as it orig�nally was for the deposit of th�storm water would be more of an engineering nvestion than a legal one. He said in his opinion, he felt it necessary to acquire the property and to improve the area with the ouzfall to take the water to the area where it could eventually be disposed of Mr. Schneider said he had talked to the Attorney General's office and thzre was sanie qu�stion in Section 105 relating to whether or not the property was a marsh. He said if the property is considered a bog or a marsh it would be prohib�ted to build within its 6ounds. The C�ty Attorney sa�d he had ta14•��d to an attorney in the Department of Natural Resources office and questioned if there had been any change in the law concerning the depositing of storm water on pr°ivate property and he had indicated there would be change in the existing law. Mayor Nee said the law is what the court says it is. Mayor Nee cont}nued to comm2nt that the question may be whether the 1973 law is constitutional. He said as it had been read, the logic is strong. He asked what weuld be an efficient means of arriving at this determination. 'The City Attorney stated, whether the iaw is const�tut�onal or not Zs not the question. He added, assuming the laa� is constitutional, it �s said that Munic�palities cannot deposit water on private property. He satd the declared �udqement is �ositive in this type of question. The City Attorney further commented that there nas to be a controversial situation before the matter could go to the courts. He said the Council would have the alter- nat�ve to go to the general fund He mentioned that this alternative would be legally availa6le. Whether or not it would be economically sound and feasible, it would have to be considered if this would be a vtable question. He also ment�oned that it would be possible for the City to test this sttuation legally. Mr. Robert Kirwan, 6578 P1cKtnley, quest�oned if the map on the screen was the same plan that was presented at the time of the consideration of the nlat. Mr Kirwan said he believed the assessment to be unfatr and asked that the 6urden be placed where �t belonged. He said the water had been running into this area before ±he deve�opment JUA� X�I�V PU6LIC HEARING MEETING OF PqARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 14 of the pond. He said he wou]d pay his share for where the water was running, but ob�ected to paying for the construction of th�pond. He added that the pond is now barran ground with no trees or shrubs. He mentioned that the land had soaked up the water like a sponge. He asked why the iand had to be sculptured to the extent it was. Mr. Nicholas Mavrogenis, 6170 Br�ardale Court, questioned the water level of the marsh. He asked if the marsh was self sustaining. He also asked what happened to the run off of the area in a rain. The Pu61ic Works D7rector explained that the ' water would stand in the area in the damp weather. He said the current system was installed to handle the 50 year storm, He said if there is two feet of overflow, th�s would be directed into Moore Lake Mrs. Gene Gasparrc,, 1604 Briardale Road, asked if th�s would be a final assessment for this area for storm sewer The Public Works �irector pointed out that this would be the final assessment for Pro�ect No. 114. Mrs. Gasparro said as she understood the matter, there could be additional assess- ments for storm sewer in the future. The Public Works Director said the maximum assessment for this area would be $8 per 100 square feet. Mrs. Gasparro asked why the people in this area are getting hit for assessments all of the tirne. The Public Works Director �ndicated that the area west of this �s within the same drainage d�strict and there would be addit�ona] work done when this area is developed. Mrs Gasparro asked if this was a permanent system. She indicated that she did not want to throw her money out the window on something that is not so good Mrs. Gasparro said she would like a statement for the amount of the assessment before she would pay the assessments. She indicated that the people had not received any notification on the amount that was due at the present time if the assessment were not placed on the tax rolls. Mrs. Gasparro said she did not l��:e to be told to hire an attorney to f�le an object�on. Mayor Nee indicated the City was not try�ng to tell the people what they have to do, � the City Attorney had �ndicated that th�s tia�cuid be tha most efficiFnt procedu^�e for filing such an ob,7ection with assurance that it would be in an acceptable form. Councilman Starwalt asked if 1t would be possible for the City to send statements Mr. Brunsell, Finance Director, explained the procedure for payment of the assessments in full at this time or 30 days past the date of the adoption of the assessment roll. He said normally a statement is not sent out. He indicated that very few people choose to pay the assessment at this time. The Finance Director said the staff would send statements to those people who wanted this done. Mr. Haupert asked the staff if the people of the area would stand to be assessed up to $8 per 100 square feet and the Public Works Director sa�d yes. Mr. Haupert continued to comment that he resented paying the same amount for this assessment as the people livTng on the lake. He questioned if the benefit would be equal. Mr. Dave Harris, 470 Rice Creek Boulevard, said he had spent the best part of the past two days studying the rolls that the staff had prepared. He said he had the opportunity to acquire the answers to the administrative questions. He said he was concerned about the policy decis�on in the roll. He ment�ur�� there are a couple of sides to every s�tuation. P1r. Harris continued to comment that he had tried to cooperate with the City in every respect. He said if the City had asked him to do something he would do it and thts had amounted to additional expense. He listed several of the areas where he had changed his plans for the deve7opment to correspond � to the City's requests. He mentioned he had deciicated easements and obtained them for the City. Mr. Harris referred to the comments made concerning the ecology of the area and said he had removed 55 tons of garbage. Mr. Harris also referred to the taxes obtained by the City for this property prior to the development and said this was $550 per year. He said at the current mill rate he would be paying $1,500 on the same area. He also mentioned this would be a great deal more after the complete development of the area. Mr. Harris said if there is a change in policy there would have to be justification for the change He said all of the surrounding property owners contribute to the drainage of the area and they should all be assessed equally. He questioned the Council on why the assessments within the plat are higher on the roll. The Public Works Director said that this pro�ect did not cover the entire drainage district. He again pointed out that the total draina�e plan of the district is to be done on a piece meal basis. He reiterated that it was hoped that no one in the P�BLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 district would be assessed more than $8 per 100 square feet. PAGE 15 �� Mr. Harris said he was payina an uniair share to begin wiLh and he o6�ected to this. He pointed out tha� at �he time the property was platted, the Council an� staff had indicated that he would be required to pay the escrow of $800 per building site at the time the bu�lding permit is acquired from the City. He said now, the assessment roll indtcates a payment of $70,D00 to be assessed on the property h`e said with the current 'plan, the sewer would be in and assessed before the homes are built on the lots. I�e mentioned that there would be no way to re��ive this kind of funds from the sale of the property. Mr. Harris said the assessmEnt ��ould have to be based on the cost and spread equally throughout the ent�re district Hz sa}d on some of the larger lots in the area thz assessment would run as high as �4,700. He said aside from the Innsbruck area, this would be the highest assessed ar•ea in the C�ty. P1r. Harris indicated he felt that a storm sEwer assessment in excess of $�+,000 per lot was very steep. He mentioned that he had paid a considerable amount of money on the loic at the time he had purchased them. Mayor Nee asked Mr. Flarris if he ob�ected to the payment of the assessments under the project onthe roll rather than by mea�s of the $8D0 per lot beina paid at the time the building permit is taken out. P1r. Harris said this was true, but he also ob�ected to the area �e was responsibie for (Area E) as hav�ng the highest assessinent rate in the dtstr�ct. He said he thought he was paying more than h�s share He asked why the assessment for Area E was the highest. Playor Plee sa�d he thought that LI11S may be because the people in Briaruale had already been assessed for Pro�ect No. 106. He said the current assessment ts not an indication of their total storm sewer rate. The Public Works Director informed �he Cour�cil that the lots in Briardale fiad paid $5 per 1Q0 square feet at the time of Pro�ect Plo 106. He sai� with th� current assessment proposed for th7s area, the total assessment to this ooint would be �7.08. Mr. Harris pointed out the differences in �he prices for the construction in th� area and asked why his assessments would be representative of 60% of the contract. He felt $8,000 should be reapplied to the area. �Mr. Harris �nuicaced that 6y awarding the pro�ect to the ]ow 6i�der, the cost of the construction of the pro�ect had been increased. The Public Works Director pointed out that sometimes this type of trouble is caused by the requirement of the City to award the pro�ect to the low bidder. He said ihe total price of the pro�ect cannot be limited to the actual construct�on�ost, the meeting time of the staff, legal fees and �nteres� rates would also have to be added to�the construction price. He inuicated that the Counc�l was also aware of the fact thatlthere had been some problems with thi� contract. The City Manager asked how many people were present at the meeting from the 6riardale area and those present tndicated this. The City Manager referred to the previous d�scussion and said some points had already been made concerning the City's policy and the plan for the development of the storm sewer in this area. He said in the past, all property owners with�n one drainage district had 6een assessed at the same rate. He said this was the case when a storm sewer pro7QCt was constructed within tre whole area and the wnole area would be assessed at the same time. He then summarized the history of the area. A resider,t of the Briardale area cornmented that Mr. Mil1er had made the home 6uyers ir tne area sign a waiver which �vould not allow them to claim the escrow monies The City Manager questioned this statement saying the money had been escrowed by the builder to the City to be transferred from the escrow accout at the time of the storm sewer project in this area. He said the City would have control of this money and it would �be forwarded for payrnent on che assessments for this storm sewer pro,7ect. Tl�e restdent said Mr. Miller had indicated that this escrow money would not be used for the assess- ment and had told the people they would have to pay the assessment. 7he City Manager -- said the City did have a copy of the original agreement. The Ci*y Attorney saicf he had riot seen the waiver signed by the paople. He indicated if the money had been paid by ""r. Miller for escrow on the storm sewer, �t cannot be given back to him, it would be applied to the assessments for storm sewer He said if the City has a valtd claim for this assessment, the City may claim this against the storm sewer escrow amount. Mr Steve Pduspl, 16n0 Briardale, addressed the Council and said if he had money tn escrow there would be no problem, but he had attended the meeting as a matter of principle. He said one point he would like to address is that this pro,7ect changed a marsh into a lake and ihe other point he ob,7ected to was that part of the money for the pro,7ect was being used for the costs fcr dredoir,g the lake. She Pub3ic Works Director said the rt c� PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 16 material was rearranged and deposited. Mr. Nuspl continued to comment that the people of the area are not benefiting from the dredging and asked why they should p�y for this. The Public Works Director said the developer is paying for the dredging. He said the people in the other areas would be paying for the d�tching down stream. The Public Works Director explained with the construction of the system the ditch had to be redefined. The City Manager informed the people that the Briardale area had been mined before its development and consisted of a great deal of low area. He pointed out that before the development of the area the water was held within the propercy's confines. After development, the water was forced to travel north. He said they had run into some problems with this proposal and had realized that if the property was developed that the drainage pro6lems within the whole area would get worse h4r. Nuspl said he ob,7ected to the changing of the marsh into a lake and also to the work done on the ditch. Mr. Nick Garaffa, 6750 Monroe Street, addressed the Council and said he liverJ on Anoka Street at the time of the construction of the project. He referred to the filling of U'�eHarris Lake Estates property and recalled that sand had 6een hauled in from Burlington Northern, the top soil from the construction of P1ississippi Street was placed in this area and also the material taken from the lake was used for fill. He asked what the depth of the lake is. The Public Works Director said this would range from three to four feet Mr. Garaffa said he had been told that the lake would be six feet deep. He said when this item was at the Planning Commission level it had been mentioned that if the lake was not of a proper depth the fertilizers would go into Moore Lake and this situation would become worse and worse. The Public Works �irector explained that the type of system with the ditching and ponding would be adequate protection from this type of situation. Mr. Garaffa indicated at this current depth, the pull�c lake would 6e ice all the way to the bottom and would never support fish life He questioned if the people would be getting their money's worth. The Publ�c Works Director indicated the pond was never intended to be a lake, it is to be a retent�on pond. Mr. Harris said he was concerned about two things and he had tried to follow the logic of the City M�nager, but felt the policy had been changed in this case. He asked if this area could be assessed i,r� the same manner as it had been done�in the past. He mentioned that the pond had been created on behalf of the City for retention of storm water. He said he was certain that the pond would store a larger quanLity of water He did not feel the assessment is as equitable as it might have been. Mr. Ken Moxness, 1604 66th Avenue M. E., addressed the Council and urged the Council to ��llow the people of the area to pay their fair share of the assessments, not pay for some land developers portion. Mr. Curtis Johnson addressed the Council and said he lived in Innsbruck and was present to represent Mr. Larry Morford, 6235 Kerri Lane. He said when Mr. Morford had purchased the pr•operty he had been told that the assessments had been paid. He said there had been a previous storm sewer assessment and this would be the second assessment. Mayor Nee asked if Mr. Morford would have any money in escrow to cover this assessment and Mr. Johnson said he did nottiink that there was an escrow account at that time. The Public Works Director said the previous assessment may have been in the amount of $500 for Pro,7ect No. 106. Mr. Carl Garaffa, 6750 Monroe Street, questioned if there was any possible process to stop the pond from reverting back into a marsh. Mayor Nee said he did not think so. He said the City was having the same problem in Locke Lake. Mr Dennis Schneider indicated that the problems in the area would not be solved by the escrow amounts. He indicated that there were many people present outside the Briardale area. The City Attorney indicated that any agreement betwe2n the purchaser of the lots and the butlder would be their own. He said the escrow agreement had been established to benefit the people buy�ng the lots. He indicated that it was the City's wish that the people not be assessed in the future for any assessments. He sa�d �f the people did not have an attorney present at the clos-ng to represent them, this waiver may have been obtained. Mayor Nee said this situation should be dou6le checked. He said he did not see how the butlder could waive this requirement He said the onlv way that this money could be taken from the escrow account is through a legal claim. ' 1 I�_ J 1_ � � PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF PIARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 17 G� The City Manager reiterated that the City has the money in their account and they would use the money for the assessment of the storm sewer unless someone provides a legal document which would stop this use. Mayor Nee questioned the people present if their concern was whether or not the receiving body needed to be bought and whether or not there was a need to improve the outfall He also questioned Mr. Harris if his concern was whether or not the assessment spread was equitable He mentioned that there had also been a question raised at whether the marsh would have been adequate without the creation of the lake He said Mr. Harris had also questioned if this would be an equitable expense in the drainage district. The City Attorney said he felt very stronqly about this and in his mind there was llttle quest�on. He said this would be proven 6y 12 to 15 cases in the Minnesota Supreme Court which had made decisions on cases on this sub�ect. He sa�d it would be up to the citizens if they would like to take the time and money to protest. Mayor Nee said he would like the City Aitorney to put this type of fact in writing and have it available for the Council at the�r next meeting. Mayor Nee said if there is a question on this roll, the hearing could be kept open another week for review. He said this would allow those interested to talk to the staff. Mr. Harris said the hearing could be closed and those interested could come back the next week. He said he felt with the central depository the policy had been to equalize the assessments He questioned the current proposal to separate districts from the larger districts. He said he did not think this was a fair proposal to isolate a por�ion of the drainage distr�ct. STORPI SEWER (AREA BOUNDED BY 81ST AVENUE ON THE NORTFI, OSBORNE ROAD ON THE SOUTH MAIN STREET ON THE WEST, AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE ON THE EAST • The Public Works Director explained that the storm sewer main interceptor area is $3.10 per 1D0 square feet and the rate for the storm sewer lateral is $3.37 per 100 square feet. He said the total cost for this area would be $6.47 per 100 square feet. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, addressed the Council and indicated he thought the City had improved the material used in the interceptor. Mr. Harris asked who had paid for the replacement of the 12 inch water main on University Service Dr�ve. The Publ�c Works Director said he�as not sure but he believed th�s would have been the contractor. He added, the contractor would definitely be responsible for this replacement. MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Counc�lman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and Public Hearing closed at 12:47 A.M. OLD BUSINESS RECEIVING REPDRT REGARDING ZONING OF FRONTIER CLUB, 73E5 CENTRAL AVENUE N. E. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to receive the report regarding zoning of the Frontier Clu6, 7365 Central Avenue N. E. Seconded by Gounc�lman Fitzpatr�ck. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unaniinously. The Ctty Attorney advised the Council that Mr. Smith and Mr Povlitzke would appear before the Council the following week for discussion on the problems relating io this matter. NEW BUSINESS: ION OF A =SSMENT FOR ST. 1974-1 STREE NT MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to table the considertion of the Resolution confirming assessment for ST. 1974-1 until the next meeting of the Council. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTIOM COMFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR ST. 1974-2 STREET IMPROUEMENT PROJECT MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to table the consideration of the Reso�ution confirming �.a 'l .�lip PUBLIC NEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE i8 assessment for ST, 1974-2 until the next meetin9 of the Council. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the mot�on carried una m mously. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONFIRM ❑on icrr :ET IMPROVEMENT MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to table the consideration of the resolution confirming ' assessment for St. 1974-4 Street Improvement Pro�ect. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski Upon a voice vote, all vot�ng aye, Mayor hdee declared the motion carried unanimous7y. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLl1TI0N CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER, WATER AND STORM SEWER IMPROIIEMENT PROJECT N0. 114: MOTION by Councilman Star�.valt to table the consideration of the resolution confirming assessment for Sewer, Water and Storm Sewer Improvement Pro�ect No. 114. Seconded 6y Council��mraan Ki;kowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 1975 - APPROVING AN� AUTHORIZING �,IGHING THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING Mayor Nee called on the Finance Director to explain the terms of the contract. The Finance Director said the 1975 contract would call for a 10% increase for the fire fighters and captain and also for payment by the City for $15.00 of their dependent health insurance. He said there were on ly two changes in the contract. Mayor Nee asked how many men this would cover and the Finance �irector said three. Mayor Nee asked the F�nance Director if he would recommend that the Council approve the agreement. Mr. Brunsell said yes. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to adopt Resolution No. 40-1975, approving and author- iz�ng signing thc� agreement establishing working cond�tions, wages and hours of the City of Fridley Fire Department for the year 1975. Seconded by CounciliFroman Kukowski Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the mot�on carried unanimously. APPOINTMENT TO E3IKEWAY/WALKWAY COMMITTEE fROM WAR� THREE: MO?ION by Councilman Fitzpatrtck to appoint Mr. Jerome Krist, 148 Riversedge Way, as the Third Ward representative on the Citizen Bikeway/Walkway Committee. S�conded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried una m mously COMMUNICATIONS� HAROLD BELGUM. CHAIRP�IAN, HUMAN RELATTONS COMMITTEE INCR�ASING MEMBERSFIIP: Mr. Harold Belgum, Chairman of the Human Relations Comm�ttee, addressed the Council and indicated that with the current status of the Committee, it is difficult to meet a quorum requirement at the meetings. Ne suggested that some af the minor�ty or ethnlc groups inithe community be represented on the committee for the purpose of some type of festival of nations at the bicentennia7. He said he would not want the membership of the committee limited to Fridley citizens, he felt there may be an advantage to having membership from Anoka County and establishing a community committee. Mr. Belgum said he had talked to var�ous people who had expressed a w�iiness to part�cipate in this type of committee. He said he would like the membership increased to 30 people with a��uorum changed from eight to ten. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to direct the Administration to research the proposal made by Mr. Belgum Chairman of the Human Relations Committee and report back to the Council at their regular meet�ng with a recommendation. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Playor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR COPlSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL FOR ASSESSMENT OF PRO,]ECT N0. 114 BY MR. DAVE HARRIS: Mr. Harris addressed the Council and indicated he would not be able to attend the fcllowing week's Council meeting and he would like to make some suggest�ons to the Council on alternatives for the assessment of Pro�ect fdo. 114. , ' PllBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1975 PAGE 19 �� Mr. Harris suggested that an asses�ment of $6.00 per 100 square feet be used as a basis for the assessment of the entire draina9e district. He also mentioned that within the drainage district, in other areas than the one being assessed at the present time, there had been money escrowed for the storm sewer. He suggested that this escrow account money be put into this project. He said the other area should be assessed the same rate for the entire pro�ect. 'Mayor Nee asked if Mr. Harris' basic ques�ion was that he was being assessed ai the present time and the original thought on this storm sewer charge is that the money would be escrowed by the builder at �he time the lot is sold and the building permit obtatned. Mr. Harris explained that this would be his main ob�ection at this time. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL CONCERNING THE DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY RICHARD HARRIS, CHAIRMAN: Mr. Richard Harris, Planning Commtssion Chairman, addressed the Council and requested some direction from them on the types of matters that the Planning Commission should handle. He mentioned that it would be posstble for the Planning Commission to do some work revising the Bill Board regulations within the City. He said the Planning Commission was currently working on the zo m ng ordinance. Mayor Nee ment�oned the Planning Commission should get together and list their priorittes and perhaps the Council could meet with the Commission some t�me in April. He suggested that this be done at one of the study sessions or conference meetings of the Council ADJOURNMENT: MDTION 6y Councilwoman Kukowski to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing meeting of the Fridley City Council of ' March 1D, 1975 adjourned at 1•35 A.M. , Res ectfully submitted, ` c•r� Pat Ranstrom Will�am � Plee Secretary to the City Council Mayor Date Approved �—%-�S� �