The URL can be used to link to this page

03/07/1977 - 5683� � r � �� ' � ` JANET KONZAK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 7, 1977 2a� THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETTIdG OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MARCN 7, 1977 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of March 7, 1977 was called to order at 7:35 p.m, by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEM6ERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Hamernik, Counci}man Schneider and Councilwoman Kukowski MEMBERS A6SENT: None ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Councilman Hamernik stated he wished to add an item under "New Business," "Discussion Regarding a Stop Sign on 68th Avenue bettveen Monroe Street and Broekview Drive." MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to adopt the agenda with the above addition. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, ali voting aye, Ma.yor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. � 'JPEN FORUM, VISITOP.S: The�°e was no response from the audience on this item. OLD 6USINESS: ORQINAIJCE N0. 637 - STREET AIJD ALLEY VACATION SAV u76-07, BY CITY OF FRIDLEY, GENERALLY LOCATED ON TALMADGE LAiVE AfdD 75TH WAY: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 637 and adopt it on the second reading and publish. Seconded b,y Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE N0. 638 - AMENDING CHAPTER 402 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE EPJTITLED WATER AND SEWER ADMINISTRATION; SECTION 402.04: REPAIRS TO CONNECTIONS: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 638 and adopt it on the second reading and publish. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, 1�1ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE N0. 639 - AMENDING CNAPTFR 104 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED TREE ' SECTION 11.10 OF TH[ CITY CODE RELATING TO FEES: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 639 and adopt it on the second reading and publish, Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. ' Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE N0. 640 - AMENDING SECTION 108.11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED i FIRE_LA�IES: I' MOTIOiJ by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 640 and adopt it on the second reading and publish, Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, ail voting aye, �1ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. �r �� i � � i -- _ - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1977 PAGE 2 �.� �� ; I i ORDINANCE N0. 641 - AM[NDING CHAPTER 102.02 OF TH[ FRIDLEY CITY CODE FORMERLY ENTITLED GISPOSAL OF LOST AND STOL[N PROPERTY AND CHANGING TITL[ TO UNCLATMED PROPERTI'; DISPOSAL: Mayor Nee stated ther.e has been one minor change in this ordinance since the first reading to indicate that the Folice Department should make a reasonable effort to contact the property o�aner before they dispose of the property. MOTION by Councilwornan Kukowski to �vaive the sccond reading of Ordinance No. 641 and adopt it on the second reading, as arnended, and publish. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Plee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF REDUCTION OF PENALTIES ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PLAT 53912, PARCEL 960 Tabled 2%28/7? : The City Attorney, Mr. Herrick, stated at the last meeting he advised the Council to obtain an opinion from the Attorney General on whether or not they had the authority to waive the penalties. He stated he has found that the Commissioner of Revenue has the authority to waive or reduce these penalties and an opion from the Attorney General would not be required. Before the Commissioner of Revenue wou1d take action, however, it is necessary for the City Council and County Board to approve the waiver. The City Manager, Mr. Qureshi, stated if the Council feels it appropriate for the City to waive the penalties and interest on these special assessments, a request should then be made to the County Board for a waiver of the tax penalties on this property. Ms. Karla Larsen, representing GarJac Construction, Inc., stated the developer (GarJac) has both a deed and purchase agreement on the property. In her letter of February 22, 1977, a waiver of the penalties and interest ti•�as requested on the special assessments and a waiver of the tax penalties by the County. If these waivers were approved, GarJac Construction, Inc. would then redeem the property. The City Manager reviewed the formulas for distribution of special assessments, taxes and penalty and interest on delinquent property, as opposed to the formula used for property sold at a tax forfeit sale. Based on these formulas, the City would receive more for this property, if the waivers were granted, than if the property were to be sold at public auction. Ms. Larsen stated the property should have been on the public land auction in 1971 or 1972; however because of an administrative error at the County, it was not auctioned and additional costs have now been added. The City Manager stated the Council should determine if triey wish to waive the penalties and interest for the special assessments on ±he property before the public auction and if so, then a recommendation should be made to the Commissioner of Revenue for the waiver. MOT10N by Councilman Schneider to instruct the staff to make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Revenue, using the appropriate forms and procedures, for a reduction in half tha penalties a7d interest on special assessments that accrued after the property would have forfeited, on Plat 53912, Parcel 960 and request the County Board to make a similar request to the Commissioner of Revenue. Seconded by Councilwoman Kuko.vs ki . Councilman Schneider stated the reason for waiviny the penalties and interest is because of the situation �vhereby the County did not place this parcel on the appropriate land auction sale. UPON A VOICE VOTE taken on the motion, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. I� , . -- 2r��i � 1 �� ' � � � REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1977 PAGE 3 NEW BUSINESS: RECEIVING THE P1INUTES OF THE PL.ANNTNG C0��1MISSION h1EETING OF FERRUARY 23, 1977: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 23, 1977. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ABLE WELDING, INC., L.S. r77-01; 7860 MAIN STREET: Mr. Dick Sobiech, Public ldorks Director, explained this request from Able Welding, 7860 Main Street, for a lot split to split the south five feet of Lot 7, Block l, Onaway Addition and add it to Lot 8, Block l, Onaway Addition. The purpose of this lot split is to provide additional parking needed at 7540 Main Street (Creative Gears). Mr. Sobiech stated the Planning Commission recomnended approval, subject to the filing of the appropriate easements and agreements regarding joint ingress and egress on the parking facilities. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve Lot Split �77-01 with the stipulation that the agreement on the common parkir;g arrangement and related easement documents be obtained. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15. 1977: The Council received the minutes of the Appeals Commission of February 15, 1977 ard considered the following item: BERKELEY PUMP COMPANY, 181 ELY STREET: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, explained this request from Berkeley Pump Company for a variance to reduce the setback requirement from 100 to 73 feet fc,r construction of an add�tion. The Appeals Commission recommended approval with the stipulation that correspondence be received from the utility companies regarding encroachment of tiieir easements. Mr. Snead, represer,ting Qerkeley Pump, appeared before the Council regarding this request for a variance and indicated he had the letters from the utility companies indicating they had no objections. Councilman fitzpatrick stated he was concerned with the truck traffic and felt by allowing this variance, it would mean expansion of the business and greatpr traffic. He questioned the purpose of the angled �aall instead of a straight wall. P1r. Snead felt to follow the curvature of the road would be more aesthetically � pleasing and more practical *o them. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt a hardship had not been demonstrated and felt the addition could be built so the variance wouid not be necessary. ' Councilwoman Kukowski stated the plan changes the loading area and felt as much traffic as possible should be eliminated because of the park. Mr. Snead estimated there would be, on the average, of three to six trucks a day , making pickups and deliveries at their business. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to deny ihe variance `or Berkeiey Pump Company on the basis of a lack of a demonstrated hardship. Motion failed for lack of a second. I� Councilman Namernik felt the variance would not increase the traffic and by the nature of the zoning in this area, there would be truck traffic. i , , � RE6ULAR MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1977 PAGE 4 277 Several members of the Council did not feel there was a hardship in this case for granting the variance. Mr. Snead stated the hardship, as far as their Company, would be the problems of moving if they could not expand. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to continue this item 1:o the agenda of March 21, ' 1977 for purposes of investigating the possibility of brinqing the traffic � � off Ely Street and Staff to review the plans with Berkeley Pump to determine if � the addition could be constructed so that a variance would not be needed. Seconded � by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion car�°ied unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF FRIDLEY AND SMITH, JUSTER, FEIKEh1A, CHARTERED LAW FIRM FOR CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES E3Y CARL NEWQUIST: i MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter ' into this agreement. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES QETWEEN CITY OF FRIDLEY AND WEAVER, TALLE & HERRICK LAW FIRM FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES 6Y VIRGIL C. HERRICK: MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into this agreement. Seconded by Councilman Sch�eider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CLAIMS: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to authorize payment of Claims No. �9:i through 400. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unaniinously. LICENSES: The Sunday liquor license for the VFIJ was removed from the list of license applications. Mayor Nee stated that the liquor license for Sandee's requires a public hearing, therefore, action should not be taken onthelicense at this time. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the licenses as on file in the License Clerk's office, with the exception of the liouor license for Sandee's. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motien carried unanimously. ESTIMATES: Smith, Juster, Feikema, Chartered Suite 1250 Builders Exchange Building Minneapolis, MPJ. 55402 For Legal Services Rendered as Prosecutor for February, 1977 Weaver, Talle & Herrick 316 East Main Street ' Anoka, h1N. 55303 � for Legal Services Rendered as City Attorney for February, 1977 $1,388.75 $1,537.99 ' MOTIOt� by Councilwoman Kukowski to approve the estimates as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. � � -- --------- — --- � � i� ' � C� � � � ' , ' � �� t ' ' 1 , � ' • r �7 �� I I i REGULAR MEETING OF tM�RCH 7, 1977 PAGE 5 COMMUNICATIONS: � — , MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: SIGNALIZATIOfd AT T.H. 47 AND 69TH AVENUE: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to receive the above correspondence from the Minnesota Department of Transportation dated February 22, 1977. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ANOKA COUNTY COUNCIL OF ECONOP1IC OPPORTUNITY, INC.: EXTENDING THANKS TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FROPOSAL ON ENERUY CONSERVATION: MOTION by Councilwoman Kuko�vski to receive the above correspondence from the Anoka County Council of Economic Opportunity, Inc. dated February 28, 1977. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, P1ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. STOP SIGN - OVERTON DRIV[ N.E. AND 68TN AVENUE N.E.: Councilman Hamernik stated a petition was received last fall for a stop sign on 68th Avenue between Monroe Street and Brookview Drive. He stated the location of the stop sign was discussed at a public meeting held in January, 1977, and the location recommended was for a four-way stop at Overton Drive and 68th Avenue. Councilman Hamernik stated residents living at this intersection have been contacted with only one person indicating he was not in favor of the stop sign, because he felt it would increase the noise at this intersection. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to have a four-way stop sign installed at the intersection of Overton Drive and 68th Avenue after a speed study has been performed by the Engineering Division to determine the effect of stop signs on speed problems. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURfdMENT: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a�ioice vote, all voting aye, P�ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the fridley City Council of March 7, 1977 adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Caro�l e Haddad Secretary to the City Council Approved: William J. Nee Mayor � , • �EMO T0: DEPARTMENT HEADS Following are the Actions tdeeded by the Administration. Please have your '' answers in the C�ty t�anager's office by Wednesday Noon, March 16, 1977. FRIDLEY CI�Y COU�dCIL — REGUL�R I�IEETItd� — i�la�CH 7, 1�77 7:3� P, ��I. � PLEllGE OF ALLEG I A��CE ; • 1 . � . ROLL CALL: ' All Present � r� ADOPTI�fJ OF AGt�dDA: � Add d: Consideration of Sto Si n at Overton and 68th Avenue Item e p g , , . ' OPEi� FORUi�, V I S I TO RS : ' {CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA — 15 I"�INUTES) � Na • � response . 1 • _ '1 OLD BU;> I idESS : � � . CONSIDf=RATION OF SECOND READING OF AN I�RDINAIVCE FOR STREET , AND ALl_EY VACATION SI�V ft%b—U�, BY CITY OF FRIDLEY; GENERALLY LOCATEI) ON TALMADGE LANE AND ISTH WAY � � � � � � . � � . . . . 1 — 1 A Ordinance #637 adopted �TY MANAGER ACTIC►N NEEDED: Publish ordinance . , � ' I � . ' � � p �' FRIDLEY REGULNR MEETI(VG, MARCH 7, 1y77 PA�E � OLD BUSIi�ESS (COiVTINUED) ,� CONSIDERATION OF SECOND �EADING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4O2 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED WATER AND SEWER ADMINISTRATION; SECTION 4OZ�1�4, t�EPAIRS � TO CONNECT I ONS � � � . . . � � � � . � . . . � � . . . � . . � Z Ordinance #638 adopted Y MANAGER ACTIOiV NEEDED: Publish Ordinance � � , , , l ' ,'� �� CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDIN�G CHAPTER IO4 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED TREE DISEASES BY ADDING SECTIONS IO'��i2, IU�4.15 AND 1�4�14, AND AMENDING �HAPTER 11, SECTION 11�1� OF THE CITY CO:DE RELATI NG TO FEES � � � . . � . � . . . . � . . . � � 3 ' � A Ordinance #639 adopted TY MANAGER ACTIOIV NEEDED: Publish Ordinance TY MANAGER CONSID�RATION OF SECONt� READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDIiVG SECTION 1��.11 OF THE FRIDLEY �ITY-�ODE ENTITLI=D FIRE LANES. � . � � � . � � e � . � � . � . • � � � Ordinance #640 adopted ACTI0IV NEEDED: Publish ordinance � � • , FRIDLEY KEGULAK MEETING, MARCH 7, 1977 P��E 3 1 OLD BUSIi�ESS (CO►VTIidUE�7) '' CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMEtJDING CHAPTER IOZ�UZ OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE FORMERLY ENTITLED � DISPOSAL OF LOST AND STOLEN PROPERTY ANll CHANGING TITLE � TO UNCLAIMED PROPERTY; I�ISPOSAL� � � � . � � . � � � . � . . � 5 in�ince 641 ado ted Ord # p C TY MANAGER ACTIOIV NEEbED: Publish ordinance �INANCE CONSIDERATION OF REDUCTION OF PENALTIES ON SPECIAL � ASSESSMEIVTS FOR P�aT 53912, PARCEL 9nO �TABLED Z/Z�/%%)� ��. 6- 6�3 Requ�est for reduction approved. City to make request to Commissioner of Rev�nue to waive one-half of the penalties and interest since normal '°� forf'eiture time and request that Anoka County does ±he same. ACTION NEEDED: Forward Council action to State Commissioner of Revenue and request the waiving of half the penalties and interest since normal forfeiture timE�. Also communicate with Anoka County requesting that they also request the waiver of penalties and interest. �Ew �us �: �ESS : ' RECEIVING THE I�IINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION �"�EETING OF FEBRUARY Z3, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7 CC ' 1. Able Welding Inc., L.S. #77-01; 7840 Main Street ............... 7A-7C Planninq Comm. Recommendation: Rpprove & �w Council Action Required: Consideration of recommendation Request approved with stipulations. ��iinutes received �GINEERING ACTIOPd NEEDED: Inform applicant of Council action� and in the future, 1 d i tion for any 2. ' �GINEERING - ' work with the Finance Department to get one parce escr p perm�it where we either give building permits or any other consideration. Appeals Comnission Minutes of February 15, 1977 A. Berkeley Pump Co., 181 Ely Street ......................... 7X-7AA Appeals Comm. Recommendation: Approve with two & 7CC stipulations Council Action Required: Consideration of recommenda- tion Item continued to meeting of March 21, 1977. Minutes received ACTION NEEDED: Put on next regular Agenda I � ' �� F�IVLEY REGUL�iR MEETIiVG, i�ARCH 7, 1y77 PAGE 4 NEW BUSIiyE:SS (COt�TINUE�) , I� APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT F0�2 LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF � FRIDLEY APJD SMITH, �USTER, FEIKEMA, CHARTERED LAW FIRM ' FOR CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES BY CARL. NEWQUIST� �.��.�� H— H A Agreement approved Y MANAGER ACTION ��EEDED: Exec�te agr�emeni and forward copy to Law Firm. � APPROVAL �OF AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF ' FRIDLEY AND WEAVER, TALLE & HERRICK LAW FIRM FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES BY VIRGIL C. �ERRICK. . . � � � � � . . . . . 9 ' 9 � Agreement approved Y MANAGER ACTIOnI NEEDED: Execute agreement and forward copy to Law Firm , 'I , CLAIMS. . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � � � � . . � 10 Pay Claims as approved IFINANCE ACTION rJEEDED: Pay claims I� INANCE � LI CEN SES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 11 E The S�unday Liquor License for the VFW was removed from the list of licenses to be aF�proved. All other licenses were approved except for the Liquor License for Sande�e's which needs to have a pubiic hearing. ACTICIN IVEEDED; Issue licenses, except for Sandees. Set public hearing for � SandE�es. ' • � '• . FRIDLEY REGULAR h1EETIidG, MARCH 7, 1977 PAGE 5 1 NEW BUSINESS (COidTINliED) NANCE � � 1 , ' EST I MATE S . . � . . . . � � . . � � � � � � � � � . . . . . . . . Il — �.L B Pay Estimates ACTION NEEDED: Pay Estimates as approved � � COMMUiV I CATI ONS : MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: SIGNALIZATION AT T. H � 4i� AND 6�TH AVENUE � . . � � . � . � . . . . . . . . . . Corm�unication Recieved NO At:TION NEEDED . � d'; 13-13� I ' COUNCIL RECEIVED COMMUiVICATION FROM ANOKA COUNTY COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, IPJC. DATED FEBRUARY 29, 19J7, THANKING STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR QUICK ACTION ON CAP ENERGY , CONSERVATICIN PROGRAM CONSIDERATION OF STOP SIGN AT INTERSECTION OF OVERTON DRIVE AND 68TH AVENUE. Approved four-way stop GINEERING ACTION NEEDED: Install four-way stop sign at this intersection J t: 1 9:25 P.M. � � , � _J , �� ' , FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ' P��ASE SIGN NAME ADDRESS ANQ ITEM NUMBER INTERESTED IN � DATE: March 7, 1977 ' NAME ADpRESS ITEM NUMBER sc====cc=�a==mcc=_=c..=c..�=oa====cm==c=..-=_______�=__�___===�=aa�===a=3a==aa=a=aeca=_-=s=====o=-i L�. � � I [.��,U ��.k ¢.�t� �.�.-c-,-� ��/ 9� 7.3 a ��-e �! E: F� ' � /,, .�rr,v� �2 '� �',c,;u�� , ��' C�<< �� ! _. C � � ,..J �� .. , i , <� � / Gf ,% J S" l � G, � �, 4 „r c ar _ ..�,^' � � . � • � � _ �' G ��.G'LiCL7..� � � Sc.� ' � � �_` 9 C,� � I �-� �,L,� ' �' � i �� -- - � 7 R� � � `>%C . hi�. _ _: ._7 1 0 � A , FRIDLEY CITY COU�dCIL - REGUL�R i�IEETIi�� - i�lai�CH 7, 1y77 - 7:3� P, rl. 0 PLEllGE Of= ALLEGIA��dCE: ROLL C1�LL: ADOPT I i)�J OF AGtI�llA : 0 OPEi� FI�RUfh, V I S I TORS : �C+�NSIDERATION OF ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA - IS I"�INUTES) OLD BUS I iJESS : CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF AN I�RDINAIVCE FOR STREET � AND ALLEY VACATION StiV �t�b-U%, BY CITY OF FRIDLEY; GENERALLY LOCATED ON TALMADGE LANE AND TSTH WAY, � � � � . � � . � . . � 1 - 1 A 0 FRIDLEY' REGUL�IR MEETING, MARCH 7, 1�77 PAIiE 1 OLD BU��Ii�ESS (CONTIrdUED) CONSIDE:RATION OF SECOND I�EADING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4OZ OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED WATER /�ND SEWER �IDMINISTRATION; SECTION 402��4: t�EPAIRS TO CONNECTIONS � � � � � � � � � � . � � � � � � � � . . � . � Z CONSIDE.RATION OF SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDIN'G CHAPTER I.O4 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED TREE DISEASES BY ADDING SECTIONS IO��IZ, IU'��IS AND 104.14, AND AMENDING �HAPTER 11, $ECTION 11�1� OF THE CITY CO�DE RELATI NG TO FEES � � � � � . � � � � . � . � . � � � 3 - 3 A CONSIDERATION OF SECOND REaDING CF AN ORDINANCE AMEN�ING SECTION I.�S.11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY.CODE ENTITL.ED FIRE LANES� � . . � � � � � � � � . . � � � . � � . 4 � 0 ' FRIDLEY REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 7, 1977 P��E 3 , OLD BUSIi�ESS (CO�VTI►VUED) � CONSIDEIRATI ON OF SECOND READ I NG OF AN ORD I NAPJCE AMEtJD I iVG CHAPTER IOZ�UZ OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE FORMERLY ENTITLED � llISPOSAL OF LOST AND STOLEN PROPERTY ANll CHANGING TITLE TO UNCL,AIMED PROPERTY; 1JISPOSAL� � � � . � � � � � . � . � . � 5 � � . � � CONSIDEI�ATION OF REDUCTION OF PENALTIES ON SPECIAL # �SSESSME,NTS FOR PLAT 53912, PARCEL 9nO �TABLED 2�2��7�� .��. 6- 6�S � . , ;. ' � NEW BUS:[NESS: � RECEIVING THE T�IINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Pr�EETING - oF FEBRUARY Z3, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 CC l. Able Welding Inc., L.S. #77-01; 78�0 Main Street ............... 7A-7C . � Planning Comm. Recommendation: Approve & 7W Council Action Required: Consideration of recommendation ' � 2. Appeals Conmission Minutes of February 15, 1977 A. B�rkeley Pump Co., 181 Ely Street ......................... 7X-7AA Ap�eals Comm. Recommendation: Approve with two & 7CC stipulations Cmuncil Action Required: Consideration of recommenda- tion ' ' ' F�IDLEY REGULAR MEETING, i�ARCN 7, 1y77 PAGE 4 iVEW BllSIi�ESS (COiVTINUEi�) APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF FRIDLEY ,AND SMITH, �USTER, FEIKEMA, CHARTERED LAW FIRM FOR CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES BY CARL NEWQUIST� ��.�� 8- 8 A 0 APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF FR•I�LEY �►ND WEAVER, TALLE & HERRICK LAW FIRM F�R CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES BY VIRGIL C� hERRICK� � � � � � � � � . � � . 9 ' g a �LAIMS � � � � � � � � � � � . � � � � � � � � � � � . . � . . . 1� LI CENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 11 E u � FRIDLEY REGULAR P�1EETIi�G, MARCH 7, 1y77 P�IGE 5 NEW BUSINESS (COiVTINUED) ESTIMATES � � � � � � � � � . . � � . � �' � . � � � . . . . . . . IZ - ZL � COMMUiV I C�T I ONS : MINNESOT�� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: SIGNALIZATION AT T. H � �� AND 6�TH AVENUE � . . � . � � � � � � � � � . � . � . 13 - 13� � ADJOURi� : � ' , � ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CNARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE The Council of the City of Fridley do ordain as follows: �, � SECTION 1. For the vacation of an existing unneeded roadway easement on portions of the St. Paul Waterworks easement South of 75th Way N.E., described as follows: , The Southerly 59 feet of a parcel 66 feet in width located within Lot 49, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, said 66 foot parcel being adjacent to, and parallel with, and � bounded on the West by the Southerly extension of the East property line of Lot 50 of said Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, and also, � � � , ` � � That portion of Lot 48, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, lying within the following description: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 48, thence proceed 25.23 feet North along the West line of said lot to the actual point of beginning; thence continue North along said Westerly line a distance of 2.22 feet, thence deflect 74°53' to the East and proceed 34.18 feet along a line parallel with and 66 feet South of the North line of said Lot 48; thence deflect due South along a line parallel with the West line of Lot 48 to a point of intersection of the South line of Lot 48; thence proceed Southwesterly along the South line of said Lot 48 to a point lying 23.90 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Lot 48; thence deflect 44°49'55" to the North and proceed to the point of beginning, All located in the North Half of Section 10, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota, be and is hereby vacated. ' SECTIO�V 2. The said vacation has been made in conformance with Minnesota Statutes and pursuant to Section 12.07 of the City Charter and Appendix C of the City Code shall be so amended. r, � � ' LJ � PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 197T. ATTEST: CITY CLERK - MARVIN C. BRUNSELL Public Hearing: February 14, 1977 First Reading: Febrt�ar�, �A; ig7.� Second Reading: Publish....... MAYOR - WILLI M J. NEE ,� . � � :�Y � V�-n o,�e3s '�an�ra ' O.3o v , . �.r � _ . � ♦ + v '. i /- s ' �`��- V �-- ' � „ Q �r r � 0ajo Z�� '_ a�, \� syb�r6a� ��, ; �_�r- - �� ,.,�>n • 2�• r° . ,._ ,.,, • , 1 A � � , ' . �'. � ♦ `� ,,` •ss i! f /!00 �;. J!:'71F .. _ ^ Q. !n .� ,�j ♦ � t A �'a.w�. :1., � � <^ .� }�`a �� . � ,_ ^• �• �'' ` � i� jlv l N J'� � � V y/w-'�I �' `_ rJ �: � - ' • � { p � �� I G �� Y / ,µ' '•1�_—yI � "�(. � � (v � �• r / ru . .c../. �I � . , � � !3f � N . � 6 ,✓\ -r_ 3 ; v, _ r \ N `�► < <: _uo7 '� _. _ ..y • , v ..� .a �^-. � "� (fi Q .,�� e �u�ns� ' _ � � _�..3 f � � • '� • ,',j� _ ,... ��.Itr. �1 N � ,wI_. �� "� ' r1� '��'� . .. h 1�� M �I „ � :� � �' � r�� `-^- - / 'f . � � � t .47 a � ti�' .�' I b�/ `` b� � i�� \� P ti r e � '� G 4 �... � \ / . .�..•� : Yu 6 � �,!` � � a �i �-� 4 � t . •0j". - `6:� � a6oz � `` � � � o�- �`N ` p � ' � �,.at �'� t � � ��` r'�v °�— � � / k':�� " "''� a ze •� o a `- p o q��T . ' I zc •re' � -- ,0 0 _ � r �� - ,.-� �' ► e � .. : � `� �— M � �o0 9 , �. r` � fl �� :R o �� `� � /y� < �. W �'�' �A .�J �� . eb. r � � � � �, �1f� ` �ei� �� ` t.� _ M _Z �' ^ � 1 ` (`� h^' � nv ' � ..�. (' CJ' 15'" � r,� a, er�.. Y"� *` I � { +. � � ~ �� ; � 4� 3, o � �` `- 1�� . ., a m , P w � Q: , � � � ` � Q� Q - � � �C i �.�°-,�, �' �i�.:�, � : '�+v �' •�,y `• �,,,,,� h �L � ^a :� S � ��s ! ;w Sa a, �� -{ ' � � r a � ��y.i � � r x\ � �F�' �'QL� `r�� 1�c. � � �.j . � .al�°��' F O '� �j� ;�5 N \ �C ��' `r '�arl6�a� - .'�."Fai-. _ ` h._ .. � � `'t lsct '� 69�at � ys '.' � qt ` � focMU�ow� , -- � n ': o� � r .t� �""� .'(/j ,a� ;°. �� la,a�>� � 0 � � .c�i� _ � - e �*s: i �n � �� O � 3 h � --si�:/�G � `0 �•`'- �r., -- nat �coe'" .n t� 1- � � rrr� - e}✓ 'r ;� �,, • �� . �y ��d O L�' '� ` O ., P 1 - � . . - Z . taf ' � � e � q� g 1 6 ' `� _ [1 - ' ' .�� tE£f o � -- . i `j �ht /2i�� V � � �b �j .� �� 0 9¢9¢ Q � � Yg': � ��"` �� Y h`��,�t, �� 1--rF�, 'a � ,� �, (�� m h . �, f� �t �{ : <'� � a� C!� � � Rl�' F� ` � 7 \ � ize�s • � �O �� ' 1 ° - i� "' 66 _ ... ,s k , � .` —� •-, + z . �,` ..�.. ', e�M � � o .... '�y3¢j3 � \a o J '.' °` y ^ ��" `�'' . �' •� � '+�• ill I �, �� ' �� V: � ' �� 11{J�'! `■ t� o- � N o . �, � ^ �4tl � / •� � � h � I_ S • �'� O {-� 'II z e �'3 (� � � ,� o �' y r ° a' . N � e a. ,-� V % z% Z� _ . . � � � , � � {� �� m � - ,� 11 C _ ' �y� c rr �1 ,� C� '�FiJ � r3ff ^� � 25°�S-', i� c,.r��.�� , � � p i.1'�, , � i � ` �O� - -� �' :, _� ` O � C4O Ci ,_ --1� � S° -� Y` !n m 1 �' . . _ � ., M � t� ^ x .; � � t�' ss :: �� W � �I! O �i r .s`�o `( g � 'L � e /'� ' C 1 �Fn� m, 2 c � � e, /� g\ , ^ .+."' � �"! � � r �� o' 6� � – - � \ � _ .i, � .. --�_ � c�1 c .?E��1= sf- ��. � >- 9Z6F ,' S'j `^ b � �� Z � o.` y6 �. � � � ` '� �• � � '� � � F� 9D �.&"9t: - sL � / , C 0 ' b o . � °` C . � \ V � � � � JPP4i tip �� `d� �: `9ti ; s; ` . n S/ _ �,3i .'9/ � ,S�R4 . � �t-� �. s- _ �, ��f1�.� � �„� � r1r4 " c '\ �` t � � F-- �. `�' � . �� w i" a � _ ..�p ' 4 � Q � • �- m � b �, � ^� O � � . '- L �ry � . �76 r-� m �\ m e '^ � ;.,J °gF.� ` � ^� .-l� ,�f .. � s� �r' . � 0 ��'\•�` - ��v Y J � r 1;m� a;� I� � � � . �''9 0 � � C.�, �� ---: °°' �-� �. �� 9 �'„-- M�'':► -� k �. y LrJ7/ A ° •N �V � v' � � ¢ N . . � 1 � � (,� c••• \V � tie `�i ,� � °�� % 6� � �� ;�i.y� .\ �a ¢ j M�. ;� w 4 � r � � �� :cf `E• ��< � �` ,.. . �� ... ,e � �fo ��„ �. — .\ • —•►. w� � � ''�� } } e Q � .-..\ � & O �� : y', �� h- f- �� s cb;n� rT, � � � ; �• � d' t/!:a � a. . ,� ,�r w ts.i �.. � � . ; � % w �fi°� � N�N O O � l.! I C� ' '' �d c�� °�-6� _ --- . a.' C_' r! aj � /¢ �� -- {� ��: `, n� d a �� • � a� ` o l�1� . � r��`,i�, • ; , •• �� __ –�–/ '�,�,e, ',`y; �� . ., �' � � , . •� 4 � �. � �, � � ;�:� �- .! ' e� � ��. � � _ . . .. . � o ``� :� c ' � �� 1 sf ti � �� f � / � �s�' ' � 2 ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE A1�IENDING CHAPTER 402 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED WAnER AND SEWER ADMINISTRATION; SECTION 402.04: REPAIRS TO COPINECT IONS The: City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: Chapter 402, Section 402.04 shall be amended to read as follows: SECTION 402.04 Repairs to Connections Afi:er•the initial connection has been made to the water curb stop box or the sewer lead at the property line or a water service or sewer lead has been extended to the property line for connection, the appli- cant, owner, or the occupant or user of such premises shall be liable . fo�° all repairs required to any water line or any sewer lines necessary for connection of the premises from the pro erty line to the premises. Thc; City will be liable for all repairs required from the property line to the street mains, including ax�-�e�a��s-xeeessa��+-�e-�ke-wa�e� et��b-s�ep-be�-aad any necessary street repairs. It shallbe the re:sponsibility of the applicant, owner, occupant or user to maintain the: curb stop box at such height as will ensure that it remains above ,. the finished grade of the Iand or property. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1977. MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE ATTEST: CITY CLIiRK - b1ARVIN C. BRUNSELL � First Fteading : Februax�y 2 8, 19 7 7 Second Fteading : Publish,,...... � ' ' � � ._ � � ' � � ' , , � r ' � � � � ' ' ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 104 OF THE ENTITLED TREE DISEASES BY ADDIfdG SECTIONS 104.14, AND ANIENDIfJG CHAPTER 11 , SECTIOfJ RELATING TO FEES SECTIQNS lU4 & 11.10 FRIDLEY CITY CODE 104.12, 104.13 AND 11.10 OF THE CITY CODE The Council of the City of Fridley do ordain as follows: 104.12 License Required. It shall be unlawful for any individuals partner- ship or corporation to conduct as a business the cutting, trimming, pruning, removal, spraying or otherwise treating of trees, shrubs or vines in the city without first havinp secured a license from the city to conduct such business. 104.13 License Requirements. . a. Applicat�on. App7ication for a license under this ordinance shall be made at the office of the City Clerk of the city. b. Application Form. The application for a license shall be made on a form approved by the city which shows, among other things, the name and address of the applicant, the number and names of the employees of the applicant, the number of vehYCles of applicants together with a description and license number of each, and the type of equipment proposed to be used. c. Liability Insurance. No license or renewal shall be granted, nor shall the same be effective, until the applicant shall file with the City Clerk proof of a public liability insurance policy. - covering all operations of such applicant under this ordinance for the sum of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) against liability for bodily injuries or death for each person, for the sum of at least three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) against liabiiity for bodily injuries or death to more than one person from one accident and for at �east fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) against liability for damage or destruction of property. The city shall be named and the insurance provided shall include • _ the city as an additional party ins�red. Said policy shall pro- vide that it may not be cancelled by the insurer except after ten (10) days' written notice to the city, and if such insurance is so cancelted and licensee shall fail to replace the same with another po1icy conforming to the provisions of this ordinance said license shall be automatically suspended until such insurance shall have been replaced. � d. Workmen's Compensation Insurance. Each license applicant shall � file with the City Clerk a Certificate of Insurance of Workers' Compensation when such insurance is required by State Statute. e. Chemical Treatment Requirements. Applicants who prcpose to use chemicai substances in any activity re]ated to treatment or disease control of trees, shrubs or vines shall file with the City Clerk proof that the applicant or an employee of the applicant ad- ministering such treatment has been certified by the Agronomy Div- ision of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture as a"commercial pesticied applicator". Such certification shall include knowledge of tree disease chemical treatment. 3� SECTIONS 104 & 11.10 ORDINANCE N0. 104.14 P�nalty. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300.00). Chapter 11 of the Fridley Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 11.10 Fees. The annual license fee shall be the sum of twenty-five dollars 25.00) with the license year being from May 1 to April 31 of each year. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0� FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1977. WILLIAM J. NEE - 1�IRYOR ATf EST : P�ARVIN C. BRUNSELL - CITY CLERK Fi rst Readi ng : February 28, 1977 Second Reading: Publication: 3A � ORDINANCE N0. 4 ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 108.11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED FIRE LANES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: That Section 108.11 of the Fridley City Code be amended as follows: 108.11 Firelanes The Fire Prevention Officer his duly authorized assistant shall be empowered to order the establishment of fire1anes on public or private property as may be necessary in order that the travel of fire equipment may not be impeded or interfered with, and that access to fire hydrants and buildings may not be blocked off. When a firelane has been ordered to be estab1ished, it shall be marked by a sign bearing the words "No Parking - Fire Lane". When such firelane is established on public property or a public right of way, the necessary sign shall be provided by the City of Fridley, and when on private property, they shall be erected and maintained by the owner at his expense. Such signs shall be installed within thirty (30) days after notification of the order. Thereafter, no person shall park a vehicle or otherwise occupy or obstruct a firelane. In an rosecution charging a violation of this Section governing the standing of a vehicle, proof that the particular vehicle described in the complaint � c�as arked in violation of this Section together with proof that the defendant named in ihe complaint was aL ine iime of such parking the registered owner of such vehicle shall constitute a prima facie resumption that the registered owner of such vehicle was the person who parked or laced such vehicle at the oint where and for the time during_which such violation occurred. Ref. 423 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1977. MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE ATTES7: CITY CLERK - MARVIN C. BRUNSELL First Reading: February 28, 1977 Second Reading• Publish: JPH/pr , �.- , , 1 , ' , ' � , ' , ' � ' � , ORDINANCE N0._______ AN qRDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 102•02 �PE�TY AND CHANGING T��TLEF�pMERLY TIT�ED DISPOSAL OF LOST AND STOLEN PR UNC�.AIMED PROPERTY; DISPOSAL TNE CITY COUNCIL O�F� THE CITY OF FRIDELY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Tha.t Chapter 102.02 be amended as follows: ThE� Assistant City Manager/Public Safety Director shcomingld a public sale for the disposal PolpcepDepartmentlin the course in�o possession of the Fridley of municipal operation and remaining uncla�Publbc saleswshall fo� a period of at least sixty (60) days. be held at least annually, the proceeds from said sale shall be deposited with the treasurer of the Fridley Police Pension Fund and become part of saihtf to �aymentfofmthe�sale pricelfrom property shall have the r�g p roof of ownership within the fund upon application and satisfactory p six (6) months of the sale. Notice of said public �a1�� oasaide given in a legal newspaper at least ten (10) days p s�le after the PoliWneDeofrthenpropertyae every effort to ccmtact the legal o PASSED AND ADOPTED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS ATTEST: DAY OF �CITY CLERK - MARVIN C. BRUNSELL First Reading: F�rv 'L8, 1977 Second Reading: Publish: JPH/pr 1977. � MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE 5 0 �_� 6 ' FORMULA FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, TAXES AND . PENALTY ANQ INTEREST ON DELINQUENT PROPERTY ' BEFORE FQR�'EITURE: Special Assessments - City would get all special assessments . � Taxes - Each taxing body receives taxies levied. . Penalty and Interst - City get5 all penalty and interest on special assessments� � On taxes - Oistribution on basis of taxes levied. FORMULA FOR QISTRIBUTION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, TAXES AND PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR PROPERTY SOLD AT TAX FORFEIT SALE Total amount distributed depends on sale price. Priority of distributing proceeds of sale: � 1. Cost of sale (minimal amount usually) 2. Speci._al Assessments certified to County after property went forfeit 3. Special Assessments certified to County before property went forfeit 4. Tax levies far school , Ci ty and County bond issues , di stri buted on the basis of thei r i nte r�es t 5. Twenty percent of the remainder maybe appropri ated by the County� Board for County Park and Recreation areas 6. Any balance remaining is apportioned --forty percent to the County, ian►enty percent to the City, and forty percent to the school. . • �•. • I � � ' ' I�I� ' ' I �. � y�. �� > y �. CITY O� FRIDLEY 6431 UNfVERSITY AVENUE N.E.� FRIQLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 February 23, 1977 Virgil Nerrick, City Attorney 6279 University Avenue N E Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Virgil, The 133.64' lying South of 76th Between Central Avenue And Arthur Street, except Westerly 131' and except Hayes Street � � The above crudely described property has forfeited, but can still be rede,emed by the owners. The amount of special assessments with interest payments that have been certified to the County to date of forfeiture is � roughly: $44,000.+ > The amount of penalties and interest that have accruQd during this time for non-payment, amounts to roughly: This does not include the deferred assessment payments after date of forfeiture which amounts to: $22,000.+ $ 8,900.+ The bill against the property for the taxes with penalties and interest and other County costs is: $27,000.+ This amounts to a total of: $93,000.+ This does not include the $8,900 of deferred payments. This property could be divided into 13 lots and the $93,000 + would amount to: $7,200 per lot. The $8,900 would add: $ 685 per 1ot. For a total of: $7,885 per lot. These lots are a little low and need some fill, thereby adding to the cost: of developing. , Page� 2 Now, when this property goes up for tax sale, we have to notify the Coun�ty of the amount of specials at time of forfeiture and ali assessments cert:ified after forfeitures. This amounts to a total of: $51,000. Ther�e are no penalties and interest included when this happens ' and we end up not receiving any penalties and interest on spec:ial assessments, even if the property brings enough to pay for therri after all other bills are satisfied. Enclosed is a letter, sent by Karla Larson, representing the owners of t.his property. h ,,, Yours truly, � , � � Gt�v�'L� Mervi�rrmann, City Assessor City of Fridley Encl. ti : 0 � . � � ' � ' � � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COrIMISSION NIEETIhG - FEBRUARY 23, 1977 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairpe.rson Harris called the r�eeting to order at 7:31� P.2-I. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Lynch (sitting in for Shea), Schnabel Members Absent: Peterson Others :Present: Richard PI. Sobiech, Public i�lorks Director � NI�TION l�y I,angenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission accept �the agenda as ar�ended. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PLANPIING CO'��'�1ISSION riINUTES : FEB�UARY 9, 1977 rir. Lan�;enfeld stated that it was not his wish to go into a lengthy discussion ' on the :East River Road Project Commitiee, but the IIZViro�sntal auality Commiss:ion did want to conmend the Planning Cocnmission for itern #3 on page 12 of the minutes. He said he would li�ce to bring out that in item #�`l, � "the pl,an to reduce the width of East River Road is in conflict with the present trend of traffic volwae", was not totally correct. He stated that if the proposal were to take place the road would be widened by about 7�. ' CJ � � , Mr. Lan�;enfeld referred to item �2 on page 12, and said that the consult,snt who actually dreia up the NorthtoFm Corridor Program as well as the P4innesota Depaxtment of Transportation stated that the traffic would actuall;y be reduced if and trhen this corridor was finis.ned and �rouZd be directeci down University. He said that it could be reduced from the present 18,0�0 �to 20,0�0 to 12,000 to 15,OOJ cars. Chairpe:rson Harris said that he thought the intent of NIr. Bergman's motion Nas not the reduction in width, but the reduction in lanes, and t•`r. Bergman a�reed. i�Ir. Langenfeld said that the idea of the prop�sal was to have itro fast-noving lanes c��ith the other lanes to b� used for exiting, and �o on. He explained the way it was now and stated he hadn�t brought the plan with the pro��osed changes as he just wanted to make a statement instead of discuss'_Lng it over again. � . , . "� • a•. � • . � . 7 1 � � � �a Planning Commission Meeting - February 23, 19?? Page 2 � � � � � � � � � � � � � r � Mr. Ber,gman said that tie thought Mr. Langenfeld�s point was well taken. He stated .he would like a cnange made on page 12, and would like item #1 to read "T:hat the plan to reduce the number of lanes of East River Road is in conflict with the present trend of traffic volume". Mr. Langenfeld said again t;hat it was not the intent to reduce the lanes, and Mr. Bergman commentad that his impression was that was one of the major differences. He aske�i Mr. Langenfeld if it wasn't true that the number of lanes of active �traffic would be reduced by the proposed plan, and P•1r. I,angenfeld replied not really. He added that that idea had been the fallacy of this entire �proposal, and explained that there would be two main lanes moving North and South with the other lanes for exiting and so forth, so they wouldn�-t be eliminating any lanes at all. He added that right now it was almost :impossible to get across the on-coming traffic,.and the East River Road Project Co.mmittee's proposal would make it possible to do that. He stated �t was only his itent to try to clarify that. MOTION i�y Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Cor►mission minutes of February 9, 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the: motion carried unanimously. , I. I�OT SPLIT RE�UEST L.S. #77-01 ABLE T�rl�'LDIPJG INC.: Split off the Sout;h feet of Lot 7, Block l, Onaway Addition 7860 Main Street N.E.) and add to Lot 8, Block 1, Onaway Addition, (78l�0 P�iain Street Pd.E. ) to t�e used as part of a parking lot. P-ir. Jim Pariseau �ras present to represent Able Y7elding. Mr. Sobi.ech stated that the intent of the request was to obtain five feet of property from 786Q and add it to 7��0, which �rould then allow them to construct additional parking facilities. He said that they felt they needed addition.al parking in the area, and they would have a joint parking arrange- ment between 7860 and 78I�0. Mr. Sobiech said that it should be noted that a check was made to ensure the area coverage regarding the potential transfer of properties, 2nd in the case of 786Q they woula still be below the l�Oa area requirement even though they would be giving up five feet of their property. Chairperson Harris asked about the side lot setback, and Mr. Sobiech replied there was no problem in that joint parking was allowed by code. He said the only requirement would be that with construction of the parking lot they would be required to be 5' a*�ray froM the building. rir. Sobiech added that there was some confusion between Staff and the pe�itioner in that Staff �aas expectin;g there kould be a drawing tonight which would shot,r the plan, and there k*as none. He stated he had sketched in the proposed plan on page 17 of his a;�enda, and showed it to the Commission. He explained that at the present �time at 7860 (where Able 1rlelding presently resided) there was a parking :facility adjacent to the existing building with an�le parking and a driveca,�y back into the alley. 1•Ir. Sobiech stated he had noticed "for sale" signs, �zd asked the petitioner if it was his intent to move into the other facility„ Mr. Pariseau replied it was not. He explained that part of the +.. � Planning Comrnission Meeting - February 23, 19?? Page 3 � B � � 7$40 �ilding was for rent right now, and part of his building was either for sale or rent. He said that they had 6,000 square feet and only needed 3,000 for their operation. Mr. Sabiech said there did exist a present parking facility of about six parkir.ig stalls together ti�ith some additional parking (about seven stalls) � off of' the alley to the West of the 786o structure. He stated that the intent was the Southerly five feet o£ Lot 7 would be attached to Loi 8, � and tiie property owner at 7840 would construct a driver�ray identical to � that t,o the North with approximately six angle parking stalls and utilize the cammon driveway. , � ' 1'rlr. Pariseau explained the problem at 7840 (Creative Gears) was that they only had approximately six parking spaces in the back and their employees were F�arking in the street. He said they needed the area to park as it was a large building with only six parking spaces. Mr. Sobiech said that normally they didn't know i�rhat was going to go in a spec-type building (which 781�0 was Frhen it was constructed) so they make a determination percentage wise from manufacturing to warehouse to office. He said that for a 1/1� type office, 1/!� manufacturing and 1/2 warehouse, the six stalls would have been�fine, but when a particular outfit car�e in like Creative, apparently they need additional stalls. He said that in this particular case Staff would encourage this type of thing to solve the parking problems they had. i•ir. Sebiech pointed out that right now their landscaping and green areas �rere pretty r�aell taken care of, �rith berming that hid the parking areas tnat they already had. � I�r. Bergman asked if the problem could be solved without the lot split. Mr. Sobiech replied it couldn�t because a building permit was required and the City could only issue a buildino permit to one parce� of property, and at this time they didn't have enough property to construct the parking � lot they wished. He added that if they had an additional five feet of their ��n they Vrouldn't have had any problem. Chairp�rson Harris asked if the 5' line split the center of the common drivew,ay. Pir. Sobiech replied it didn't and explained that at the present time the driveway was at that 5' mark. rlr. Pariseau explained there was a curb in there right now at the end of the drive, and 7860 owned five feet Sc�uth of the curb which Ieft 781�0 only about t�relve or fourteen feet to the:ix building and they needed the 2dditional five feet to have angle parkin�;. Chairperson Harris asked Vrhat the total distance was between the t�ac� buildings, and r7r. Sobiech replied ronghly about 55'. Mr. Par.iseau showed the Commission the floor plan of his building and � explained they had 1t0' to the end of their lot, and pointed out the existing curb and angled parkin�. He said he believed the building was set right in the middle of the lot. � � � tir. Bei�gman asked if there r�ras some kind of a purchase agreement for that piece c�f property subject to the lot split approval. t�ir. Pariseau said � � v � � !J � � Planning Commission rfeeting - February 23, 19?7 p�e 4 � C there was, and explained that Mr. Herrick had drawn up � purchase agreement which had been signed by both parties. Chair�erson FIarris asked if a cor�.mon parking lot agreement was necessary before the lot split could be granted. P�Ir. Sobiech said yes, and also as far as the driveway was concerned so that they each would have easement to thE: other facility. Mr. Pariseau informed the Commi.ssion that the easemE:nt had already been drawn up a1so. Mrs. :ichnabel noted an error on the application form, and said the r1-1 class�.fication should be changed to ri-2. ' Mr. BE�rgman asked for clarification as to why a letter of agreement con- cernirig cornmon parking facilities z,ras standard and normal practice before approval of this kind of request. 2�1r. Sobiech explained the code alloired � paxkir.�g facilities in an area to be shared by two or more prer�ises. He said t,hat in order to ensure understanding that certain joint parking facili.ties can be used by these two premises, the two owners rnust get togeth.er and ensure there is proper understanding that they each have use , of these facilities together with the common easemPnt and the understanding that the property itself has access to this parking area. � MOTION by Bergr�an, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of Lot Split Pequest, L.S. �77-01, Able S7elding Inc.: Split off the South 5 feet of Lot 7, Block l, Ona4:ay � Addition, (786o r�iain Street N.E.) and add it to Lot 8, Block 1, Onaway Addition, (78�0 pqain Street N.E.) to be used as �a.rt of a parking lot, subject to the provisioning prior to Council atter�tion of a dimension � plan describing the request, the letter of common parking agreer�ent� and any re�lated easement or other pertinent docur►ents. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , � , � , � , 2. REI;EIVE I�T�iORANDITP•1 FROM DAVID ATE:•1�fAPJ TO VIPGIL HERRICf DATED JANUARY 12� ' MOTIOiV by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receivE; the memorandum from David Newman to Virgil Herrick dated January 12, 19P7. r1rs. Sc:hnabel explained that this memo came to her about two weeks ago i.n res��onse to a ca11 she had placed to 2•ir. Herrick asking for two opinions, which appear on page 18. She said she had a.I.so received pages 19 and 20 with he�r letter, and recomr.iended that copies be given to me:nbers of the Plannirng Commission as well as the City Council. P�Irs. Schnabel stated that pa.ge 18 really referred to questions from the Appeals Cora-�ission, and pages 19 and 20 referred to questions from the City Council. Chairperson Harris asked who David Newman was, and rlr. Sobiech replied he thaught he was like a legal aide and was an associate of Pir. Herrick�s. ?ir. Langenfeld said that the Commission might recall that he abstained from voting when the motion on the moratorium was made� and his reasoning ` ' ' w' . ' . . � . . • • � , Plannirig Cornr�ission rieeting - February 23, 197? Page 5 7 D � � � � � � ' ' ._..__ behind this was explained on pa�e 20 where it stated "...the commission must rE�port its findings to the council indicating its recommendation as to approval or disapproval". iie said he thought they had to either approve it or c�isapprove it, and that was �rhy he had abstained. I4r. Langenfeld said tYiat now he taas hung up again because in reading this he assumed a moratorium was proper as long as it was reasonable and not discriminatory, but in reading page 20 he was lead to be2ieve that they must make their minds up one w�y or the other concerning a Special Use Permit. He added that the very last paragraph almost led him to believe that Vras definitely so� and said he would like clarification on this. Chairp�:rson Harris stated that as he read it, one page gave one opi.nion and the: other page gave anotner opinion. rirs. Schnabel said that as she read the letter it struck her that perhaps in one way the City was within their prerogative to declare a moratorium because the planning study was in progress ai the time. Hocrever, she cont.inued, it also pointed out that a Speci_al Use Permit should be granted if the applicant complied with all the zoriing requirements and that only in the case of adversely affecting the put>lic health, safety or general welfare is there good reason for either denying or granting a moratorium. P�irs. Schnabel said th at at the time N�iegle's request carae through one of t-1r. Harris � chief concerns was the prc�ximity of thai sign to the railroad tracks and how that would affect the safety of the public. She said that her �uess was the City Counci7_ could base their moratorium judgement on that question. ' � l�ir. Langenfeld said he fully agreed, but he felt they were supposed to say ye:> or no to the Special Use PerMit and then go the route of the moratorium. Chairperson Harris said that as a general statement that was � true� but in this particular case he felt the procedure they had followed was correct. � � � ' , � rlrs. Sc:hnabel suggested that anotner procedure they could �ollow in the future might be that they should as a body either approve or deny the request and then ma�ce an additional motion sor a moratorium. 31r. Bergman said that would confuse him a little�; he didn�t �motis how they could vote ye;s on a request and then recowunend a moratorium. r4rs. Schnabel . stated that she felt it zaas their obligation, from what she had read, to either approve or deny any request that ca�e through them, but they could t�dditionally reco.mmend that Council declare a moratorium. 1+Ir. Bergmaxi quest�oned hoVr tney could possibly link in a sequence the recommenda- tion to approve something and then, as a second step, the recorl-�endation for a rnoratorium on what has jus� been approved. He said 'ne couldn't underst,and hota those two could be linked together, but could understand a deni<il followed by a moratorium. Chairp�:rson Harris said that he thou�ht that before they took any f'urther action� and he wasn't really clear tJhether this tiaas entirely legal, they 5hould at least recorru7end the upcoming change in the sign ordinance and then base their recommendation of Naegle's request on that recommendation to impi�ove the sign ordinance. Mr. Bei�gman asked if he was suggesting that administration should automatic- ally p�ace the Naegle request back on th�ir agenda after they had reviewed i� � . �... . , Planni.ng Comnission t•ieeting - February 23, 197? Page 6 7 E � , � � r � � LJ � , , � � � LJ � � and ma�de a recomriendation on the improvement of the sign ordinance. ��1r. Harris said that was correct, and that would be the reasoning for the mora- torium. 2�Ir. Bergman cor�rnented that he was not sure that was enLirely fair to Naeole. Chairperson Harris stated that as far as he was concerned, Naegle had privileged�information and abused that privileged information at the time they made the request. He said they knew there was a nPw ordinance coming, and he thought the reason they made that request :,ras to get in under the taire. :ie explained that the Sign Ordinance Cornmittee had used them as expert advisors on the new ordinance, and that was the thing that really disturbed hircabout the whole affair. Mr. Bergman said that his only thought was that idaegle obviously �et all elements of the existing ordinance. He said that assuming that the new sign ordinance involved some changes wnich would now be in conflict with the old Naegle request, he felt that they should at least have the opportunity to modify their request to match the proposed new ordinance. Chairperson Harris agreed, and said his main concern was that he thought there �,�as a flaw i:n the existing ordinance as far as proximity to existing railroad crossi�ngs went. He asked when they could expect a report fror� the committee. Mrs. S�chnabel said the report had to be in about the r�iddle of i•Iarch to start �the various steps through Planning Comriission to City Council, etc. Mr. Bergman commented that the first time he sa�r a date printed in 2xi offiai,31 document was along with the Council granting the moratorium, but ' r:a wou:ld have to go back to those minutes to see t,rha.t that was. Tirs. Schnab��l said that the co,-nmittee really had ta get done at least a nonth before that date. i�ir. Ber.gman stated that the Sign Ordinance Corrunittee was having soMe trouble as another member dropped out, and they were doi,m to four mer�bers. He said he had sugoested to Pat Gabel that rather than bring in a nea member cold at,, this point in time, perhaps the four remaining members were enough to polxsh the thing off, and she agreed to give it a try. Mr. Langenfeld said that he was going to use this meriorandum as the next thing t�o the Bible with regard to Special Use Permits. He stated that his personal opinion has that Naegle could say that they didn't feel this t•ras reason�ible time now on the moratorium based on the status of the project committ:ee. He said they could use that as a recourse to make the Planning Cornmis:>ion come to a final decision if they wanted to, and this could definit;ely prove to be a major problem later on. Chairperson Harris commented that if the ordinance hadn't been in the works, he didn't think they cauld have declared a moratorium. He added he didn�t think it �•rould have ey�en been brought up, and thought this was a special case. i•irs. Sc:hnabel noted it was interesting that the memorandum stated the City Code sa.id that once there had been an application they must hold a Public :iearing within.sixty days, but it didn't say when they must act on it. She said they could keep tabling something indefinitely if they chose to do so. t•Sr. Bergman referred back to page 18 and read "Economic feasibiZity - does this mean economic hardship? Generally I would conclude yes". He stated that was very confusing to hira� and he couldn't even relate to it. He asked a�. • C � � , , r ' � , � � � � �-� Planning Commission 2-leeting - February 23, 197? Page 7 if rir. AJewman was trying to say the two tArms were synonymous. ?Irs. Sc�inabel explai�ed that was the Appeals Commission's question to the legal office. She fu:rther explained that in the context of the original mer�o something had benn mentioned about economic feasibility and it had been �rorded in such a way that they had wondered if, in that context, it also could mean ari economic hardship on the part of the petitioner. She said it was on the basis c�f that sentence that they asked for further clarification oi that term. Mr. Be��gman noted the exa�nple given under that issue on page 18, and sa.id they had taken a look at the total neighborhood and as a result of a study of the total neighborhood determined thaL it was economically feasible to bui7_d a thirty-unit instead of having the ten-unit remodeled; but they had not; rea11y addressed the hardship question. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought; he was misreading it, and w'nat it.was saying was that it would have been a hardship on the petitioner to remodel the ten-unit apartment because he neve:r would have derived enouoh income out of the rental units to ma;ce it pay for himself. She said that instead the petitioner wa�ted to build a thirt,y-unit instead of remodel the existing ten, and the court upheld his rec�uest. Mr. Ber�gman said that made sense, but ti�i2nt back to the first paragraph which read "Hotrever, I do not believe that econo:nic hardship would apply where the economic hardship is the property owner himself. A destitute property owner does not constitute econonic �easibility". ?�:rs. 5chnabel said she agreed this was very fuzzy h�ording, 'out thought tha� because a person was destitute it didn't give them the ribht to request a variance that was too far out. She said that Vras not economic hardsnip. rir. Bergman noted the person could request it, but they shouldn�t approve it. He added he thought that Vras contrary to soMeiynat normal practice, and cited an example of an upstanding, tax paying, citizen of Fridley who came in with an econ��mic hardship problem. He asked if they �eren't going to be attentive to the :problern that poor citizen had. r•Irs. Schnabel said she didn't think all tha�t came out at the Public Hearing, and�petitioners �rho c a�e before the App��als Commission did not give them their income tax stater�ents. She . said th�� Appeals Commission didn't kno*.•r whether or not the petitioner had the means to finance whatever he proposed to do. For all we kno�r, she said, that petitioner could be rolling his last nickel around in his pocket or he coulci have a bank account worth Millions. 7F ' 1�Ir. Ber�;man referred to the example given on page 18, which the court approved. He said that seemed to be in conflict with t��e input he �sas receiving. Chair- person :iarris explained that what they were saying �•ras that every property � had to stand on its oT�rn ��erits whether the petitioner iras financially solvent , or not. He said it depended on the property itself �rhether there was economic feasibility, and had nothinb to do �sith whether the getitioner had a million dollars or ten cents. He added that he thought that was basically t�rhat they � had beer.� doing, and said that as he read throu�h this it st�uc�: him that the Appeals Commission had been usin; its o�•rn good sense and should continue to 1 1 � , C! L 7G Planning Commission 2•Ieeting - February 23, 1977 Page 8 do that. He com�nented that if you ask a law�,�er for an opinion he will give you two of ther�, and fou can pick the one you want. Mr. B�rgman said he noticed an interesting,term on page 20--"conditional special use permits". I�Ir. Sobiech said that most of the permits they issued were conditional because they say the Special Use Permit is approved �rith certain stipulations, and those are the conditions. I�ir. Bergman read to the Commission frorn page 19 of the agenda, "The Planning � Commission must hold a public hearing on the application for a special use permit within 60 days. The Comr.iission must then report its findings to the Council indicating its approval or denial." He noted it didn't say they ' must take action within that sixt�* days, and asked if there was an implied time f:rame in there. t4rs. Schnabel noted it said ��reasonable time" in the follo�ring paragraph. 2;r. Sobiech said they would also look back to previous � procedures, and added that if the Planning Commission inrlicated at a hearin� ' that they needed certain information and would have it within one or two meetin�;s, he didn't think that would be unreasonable before giving the recomrnE:ndation . � L� LJ , r � ' UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. REC�EI�TE LETTER FR0�1 JIi�? AARRIP3GTON COir�'ISSIO:`3ER 2•1It1i�lESOTA DEPA�TI•IF,1�1T OF TRANSPORTATI0:1, DATED FE3RUAFtY , 1977 2�SQTIO�? by Bergrnan, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Jim Harrin�ton, Commissioner, r:innesota Department of Transportation, dated February 8, 1977. I�ir. Sobiech s aid that this correspondence at this time was for inforriational purposes, and for everyone in Fridley to begin thinking about the typ�� of input they would like to provide. Chairpexsen Harris stated he thought they were looking for more than that, and read aloud items one through three on page 22. He said he thought they were as�cing the Commission to do two things: 1) Discuss the transportation issues t,hey thought were most important�and send the list to ihem by May 8, and/or plan to attend one of the March or April regional public neetings to present the viei•rs in person, and 2) Designate and identify someone who would be the ;�In/DOTfPLAN liaison. ' � Mr. Sobiech said that r�ras right, but they wanted to pass this information out to everyone and set this up for a conference meeting with Staff, City Council and tne Planning Conriission and then determine ho�l to proceed. He � noted they would still have a month after everyone provided input to take the action they wanted. He said this was just to let everyone know it is coMin� and will be up for discussion at the con£erence meeting. ' • � i � m . • • , R ^ . � . , Plaru�ir�g Commission 1•Ieeting - February 23, 1977 Page 9 7 y , � , �J � , ' , � , ' � Mr. $ergman suggested that it might not be out of context to set up a projeci committee to review the total city roadtiray/street system. t-Ir. Sobiecri said that r�ight not be too bad, but thought the problem �rould be the tin�ing. He said it would depend on how quickly sor�ething could be put togethE;r at the project committee level, and said ihat hopefully by that time pesriod the transportation plan would be complete (nid 1978). I1r. Harris said he didn't think so, because it really took three years to do that wk�o.le thing and it all had to come together in the last year. Mr. LarAgenfeld noted froM the letter that they were asking for help, and asked i.f it would be out of order to have someone like t�iike Paripovich attend the meetings from a procedure standpoint. Chairperson Harris said they cauld designate anyone they wanted, but thought they had to as�c the City Cc�uncil. TIr. Sabiech said this was what thef tirould discuss at the confere�nce r�eeting. Chairpe�rson Ha.rris said that obviously the easiest way out would be ta send a Staff person, but that cost money because it Urould take somebody�s time� a.nd he thought Staff had enough to do. l�is. I,yr,�ch sai.d it looked like they z�anted a list of priorities by P•iay 8th, and ad�ied that she �rould like to emphasize that she hoped they would look at othF�r transportation than just improving the road structure. Chairpe:rson Harris suggested that I�•ir. Sobiech find out �,rhen these raeetings were pr�oposed and some more about the prereeuisite for the liaisoa (if they ar•e looking for Stafi personnel, a political representative, etc.). He sai�. that maybe zJith that information they could r�a�:e a deterriination at the conference meeting. I•s. Sobiech said he i�ould obtain more facts. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. !t. RECEIVE ETdVIROT�`��'.��JTAL QU4LITY CO�II�-ffSSION P�?INUTES; FEBR'JARY 15, 1977 r10TI0N by Langenfeld� seconded by BerQman that the Planning Commission receiv�� the IIZVironmental �uality CorLY�:ission minutes of February 15, 19??. ' Mr. Langenfeld commented that this was another case where they received the minutes ri�ht at the meetinU, and said he would like permission to point out th��highlights. He stated that in the discussion of the F�vironmental I Educat:ion Program they talked about the best t•ray to infor�n people of the nature areas, parks, and ever} thing combined--a means to ma'�ce the citizens aware �hat such thin�s exist. He said �hey trere hoping to obtain some kind � of flxncis and found that they could not do so. He said he zrould appreciate everyone reading this, and it could be discussed again at a later date. ' � LJ tir. Latigenield said that ��rith regard to 1�loore Lake, they kne:� that the City was go'_Lng to hire a consultant, so there was nathing for t:ien to do. He said he t•rould like to cor:u:�en � that before they had the particular neeting , when the novie was shown r:itn YCA, he had planned to appear before the Parlcs . • N', ' . , . � , , Planriing Cor.imission 2�Ieeting - February 23, 19?? Page 11 � Nir. Langenfeld said that the only co;�ment he would like to make on the East , River Road Project Committee Report was there wasn't too much going on right, now. He cor�-nented that it seemed possihle the citizens might break away and go on their own, which they had the right to do. ' � , � ' 1 L� Mr. Sobiech referred to a sentence in the last paragraph on page 6, which read, "They are a little bit disappointed that the City of Fridley does not appear to be doing anything to expedite getting that function performed by that end of the job that was done by Anoka County", He said that for an update, the PTR project design report iahich is required for all Federally funded projects had been submitted by the county, reviec•red by the Federal people and returned to thP county which was noti•r in the process of modifying it according to the concerns of the Federal people. He continued that it would be subr�itted back to the Federal people for their review before ac�ual plans started running out of the presses, so to speak. He said he �ras a little confused as to �rhat they expected the City to do, and asked if they were :referring to the speed study at that point. He noted they �rere talking about the East River Road project cortimittee and then they started talking about the speed limit question, and then they were wondering �,�hy the City of Fr:idley wasn't doing anything. rlr. Sobiecn said they had proTrided resol�utions to the county� and.at Staff level had provided accident data to tha State. He asked P�1r. Langenfeld if there was anything in particular �,.that �they felt the City wasn't providing. r1r. Langenfeld said he was at a lit�tle bit of a loss to answer that question specifically, but it could be th,�t they felt the City should have pushed the lights and speed more than they 11ad. , 1fir. L��ngenfeld said they had briefly discussed the �Jater �uality 2-lanagement Planning Session, and asked the Planning Com-nission to bear in mind the motion on page 8 made by Lee Ann Sporre. Chairperson Harris com►nented that they r,ould ask for it, but he didn�t think the;rtiaould get it. rir. Langenfeld � noted that when this I�Jater Quality P�Ianagement progral-n had been discussed� the me;tro area was one of the least priori�ized for funding. He stated that t,here was a great deal of confusion as to non-point pollution ' and pc�int pollution, and Metro Council chose to take one route and follow - that. � Chairperson Haxris said that as he understood that, rietro Council felt it would be economically not feasible to try to handle both programs, and also not ec:onomically feasible to try to handle the non-point source pollution. He stated they felt it was much easier to go to the point source pollution , situat;ion and try to do a good job on that with the funds they had available. Air. Langenfeld explained that point source pollution �ras that which ca��e , about from poor sewage, drainage of oil, etc. (from a source that you could put yc�ur finger on). He said he would like to indicate that tahen they t•rere watchi.ng the PCA movie, it sho�-red a picture of alI the rain water gushing ' out of' the draina�e system, and the com�nent was made that that water �ras more polluted than human taaste. He further explained that non-point pollution could be somethino like soil erosion; a nature-caused thing and not man-Made.` ' 7I ' , � . • N.. • • ' . . , • • • ' Planning Commission Meeting - February 23, 1977 ' � ' ' r , � Page 10 7J and Recreation Corimission because he had quite a bit of inforrnation to present to them as they wanted to make a decision as to if they felt I�Ioore I,a'.�ce should be recreational, and so on. He stated that all this inforMation in turn lead the City to go the route of a consultant. t•ir. Langenfeld said h�: believed they had some funds available and were trying to obtain other ,ources of funds, but once this was acquired to obtain a consultant it wou:ld open the door for the City to have the proper continued research on the;;e lakes. He added that if they obtained the proper studies on the lake, t,hen they could detezriine which route to follow, and then the proper procedure would be to keep the lakes clean. Mr. Sobiech noted that on page 5 of the i3ivironmental Commission minutes it ind9.cates the Moore La'.�;e item tiaas in the hands of the City who had hired a consultant. He said it should say '�which is in the process of hiring a consultan�:". He explaine� that at this time they had not hired anyone to do it. r1r. Langenfeld said he had been lead to believe that from the cor�versation with Steve Olson, and that was urhy it carie out that w�}r in the mirAutes. NIr. Sobiech said that Rice Creek a.r�d Locke La'.�ce had been studiedi by Hickok & Associates, and maybe the tone of the discussion was it woul.d be appropriate for the same consultant to do the i�Ioo: e Lake study. , 2�Ir. Lan.genfeld corn�mented that the study V�ould be beneficial because, according to the PCA, this particular lake �rould have top priority. He said that the Commission might recall that back in 1973 �e chaired the first � Moore Lake citizen comnittee, and they had come to about a 50/50 decision then that a study should be made. At that time�, he said, the cost was in the area of �10,000 to $11,000; no�� the cost �aas between $15�000 and $Z7,000. He stated that was a good exarlple of inflation, and added that it was his � understanding that they had available about $7,000 to apply to the study. �� , ' ' C1 Chairperson Haxris asked what Ms. Sporre was digging for concernzng Dan Huff's budget. r1r. Langenfeld said they Z•rere talking about funds available for nat�ure axeas or parks education, and they were wondering if they c�uld get i.nv�olved to promote this educational-type t hing to the citizens. He . stated ihai then they got going on the budget of Dan's, which he believed was spe��ifically designated for tree removal, studies, etc., and could not be used for the educational-type service they were discussing. Chairperson Haxris :read from page 5 of the �vironmental Commission minutes, �fi�;s. Sporre stated that out of -the park project corrunittee car�e a statement which concern�ed her about coordinating the use of the naturalist�s progra.r► budget. Tnat was why she wanted the feelings of the Commission". i�ir. Harris said that i�Is. Sporre had called him the otner day and wanted to Imow if the �viroruy�ntal Commiss:Lon couldn�t take over Dan Huff's budget as she wanted the �hvironmental Cormiss�on to beco:ne an '�operative comriission" like Parks and Recreation. HIr. Langenfeld said he would try to narrow this do�m to a more understandable positiori, and explained that when the Park Project Committee becarze involved it seeme:d there might be possible funds in the Platnralist Program. He said they found they could not obtain those funds, and that was basically the summary of those three pages. � � � ' , � �I � � , Planni.ng Commission Pieeting , February 23, 1977 Page 12 Chairperson Harris said that wasn�t quite the way he read it. PJon-point, he said, would be something like wash-off of fertilizer or draina;e off of highways. r:rs. Schnabel asked what percenta.ge wou2d be that type of run-off, and rir. Langenfeld said he didn�t think there had been a designated per- centage. Mr. Langenfeld stated the last item they covered at their meeting was the environmental seminars, and urged the members of the Corunission to attend. Mrs. Schnabel stated it was unfortunate that these minutes couldn�t come to the members of the Planning Commission sooner because they had now spent twenty minutes discussing them, and if they had been able to read them prior to the meeting they could have saved that time. She noted tYiese minute,s were taken the same time as the Appeals Commission rninutes, which had been included in the agenda. i-Sr. Langenfeld commented that in addition, if the;y would have had to ;aait two r�ore weeks to have them included as part of the agenda they wouldn't have been as fresh in his mind. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried +ananimously. 5• RECOi•II'•1EPdDATION ON THE PROPOSED CHAAJGES IN CI-IAPTE.R 212, P�IINII�;G Cr T!iE FR7�.DLEY CITY CODE ' 2•Ir. Lar.�genfeld reminded the Commission that this had kept going back and forth f'or some time, and finally with aid from Staff it T,�as now in line with t,�h�at the Corunission had been after. He said that had brou�ht him to think about the rlaintenance Code and how long they had been wor'_�cing on , that, and wondered if the sarne thing shouldn't be applied. �Ir. Bergman suggested that this might be a good time for a short coffee ' break as covering this item might take some time. Chairperson Karris declared a recess at 9;05 and reconvened the meeting ai 9:�5 P.:�;. ' ' , Mr. Langenfeld stated that most of the Commission members might recall that t.t��were given the l�iining Ordinance 212 to look over, and really didn�t know hora to go about it. He said they had started to go into it word by word and were told not to do that because that i,ras a Staff function. He said tney had then reviewed one permit submitted by X company and found a great d�:a1 of information tiaas missing. rir. Langenfeld said they had wanted a revisE�d. application, and a copy of this was shoTan on page 3J�. He stated that th_is application coincided with the ordinance and both would work jointly as far as tne finding and purpose as indicated. � �ir. Lan�;enield referred the Comrnission back to page 25, 222.OZ Finding and Purpose. He said he thought this taould basically explain the route this ordinanc:e was intended to follow, and �vironmental CZuality definitely ' agreed hrith this ordinan�e with the idea they hoped the burden of the cost would gc� on the applicant to p�y for some of the�time sF,ent by Staff. ' Mr. Bergrnan said thai gersonal2y, he had not taken the tiMe to look this over as thoroughly as he would like. He added that he thou;ht a lot of 7K ' � , . ' , .�. , . .. ' 1 Planni.ng Commission t�feet2n� - February 23, 1977 � ' I� 7L Page 13 tirne Yaad been spent putting this together, and he would like to suggest they treat this some�rhat generally tonight �rith the idea of deferment prior to action to provide them time to do �t justice. Tlrs. Schnabel asked if there was a time element involved, and tir. Langenfeld replied not ta his lmotaledge. P�Ir. Sobiech added that general�y, this time of year w�as not conducive to mining operations anyway. Mrs. S�chnabel stated that ' to ask: some questions. S and asked if it couldn't application perriit called , sai.d they had thought tha all of the functions that Sobiech said that a furth , section was covered by ih mandated by. He said tha alteration and miningwas (there was actually sor�eo� ' whereas land alteration w actual extraction and sel� she had reviewed the ordinance and would like ►e noted that the title of this was "212 P�ining"� �e called "Land Alieration/:�Iining" since the for aland Alteration/P•Iining Permit. 2•Ir. Langenfeld , by using the Urord "mining" it r�rould include had to do wiih any movement of earth. 2•Ir. ;r explanation would be that the Land Alteration � Uniform Buildin� Code, zlhich ihey �;ere also , at Staff level, clarification between land ,hat mining was more of a com*�ercial-type venture .e re:noving things selling it off the site), .s more in the area of iilling instead of an .Z.nC?� NP_ furthar PXT1� AITPfi *}�7+. mininrr t.r.�c •_.'ne�.+e. a property owner actually hired sor�eone to come in and remove something ' (such as peat), and the person who was hired arranged for fill after the peat removal. � Mr. 3ergman said that on the permit he noted there was the permit didnpt actually have a Langen.feld said he thought the ' said that then the other land either list them all or don't � � � r ' ' � � new .application for the land alteration/mining reference to chapter 212. He asked if this broader reference than lirlited to 212. P-3r. inten� was 212 as it applies. P•Irs. Schnabel alteration chapter snould be listed also; list any. Mrs. S��hnabel asked if the mining code then, as stated, had nothing to do with the private development of an area as it would pertain to building a development of some type. She asked if it related strictly to the removal of minerals for resale value. P�;r. �obiech said that was correct, and added that f��r further clarification, for development of private property they had a building permi� for control. Pir. Langenield said he t•rould like to indicate that was where the Conmi.ssion had gotten all bogged do�m. He said they had the Uniform Code mixed up t•rith the T•lining and everything else, �nd they tried to train their thoughts to ttiao separate things and then pr.oeeed. Fie added that he would like to ma'.�ce it on record that he felt tiiat Staff did a real good job in pulling this together. Mrs. Sc;hnabel referred the Corrlimission to iteM !�a on page 28, "%iachinery shall be kept in good repair and painted regularly". She said that stze got hung up on "painted regularly" because she was back to thinking about the Ma�lntenance Code and the question of ho•a far government regulates an �individual with their private property. She said she really had some difficulty in her mind Making that requirerient. � A"x. Langenfeld said that he agre:ed with her� and it had only to do caith appearance. He added he thought it would be imposing a hardship to require that. Chairperson � � � � � PlanrAing Comrnission iieeting - February 23, 1977 7M Page llt Harri.s commented it would be ir,►possible. He said t�at any front-end loader or bu.11dozer that had been working in sand, dirt or gravel had no paint left on the bucket or the track�. Ntr. Bergman coru�ented it would be an economic hardship to try to keep it painted. Mrs. Schnabe2 questioned 5b on page 28, and asked for Mr. I,angenfeld�s definition of "r�reekdays'�. He said that would be 2�Ionday, Tuesday, :•Iednesd�y, Thursday and Friday. Mrs. Schnabel said that the definition in the dictionary was any day of the wee� except Sunday. Chairperson Harris said that if it was o:nly Monday through Friday it would r�rork a hardship on the homeo��er because that �ras usually the day the individual got a load of black dirt� sand� etc. h1r. Sobiech stated that was a good point and suggested they shoul�3 leave the statement as it was. Mr. L,�ngenfeld commented he felt I�a should be chanQed to eliminate "and ' paint�d regularly". rls. Lyncn said she understood they didn't want the machinery to sit on the prenises and rust, but on the other hand she felt !�a Sracs a little bit much. Chairperson Harris cor.unented that Yras really an arbitrary judgement type thing. Mrs. ;ichnabel questioned the second sentence in the � on pa€;e 29, and ;•ir. Sobiech said that should be "per thereof ". I�irs. Schnabel also questioned "d" on page � Uaid i;hat should read "7 ;00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. ", � � � � � � C � � , bottom paragraph (2) acre.or fraction 35, and i•ir. Sobiech Ms. I,}mch noted that 212.07 Standards on page 27 referred io fencing, and a:>ked what kind that F:ould be. T�Ir. Sobiech said what they had in mind �+ras really a snair fence type thing to prevent easy access. ?�,s. Lynch said she was thinkino of ttie safet�, factor, such as collections of water and the safety of children. She asked if this 1�' fence would keep children out. TIr. Sobiech stated it would hinder them as they wouldn't be able to walk right in. He explained the inten;t �aas not to make it sueh that a Gjrclone fence �ras necessary with an expense ihat would nake it economically unfeasible, but they felt that the !�� fence •aould deter to the point where it �rould be less accessible. NIr. Langenfeld cor:u�►ented that the fence also made it a trespassing situation ii sor�eone were to go on the premises. Msr Lynch said that really wouldn't make any difference to the younger children, and that was what she �ras concerned about. i1r. Sobiech said it should be noted that the majority of these operations were of a temporary nature; they usually went through a construction season. Chairp�rson Harris referred the Commission to 212.OZ Finding and Purpose on pag� 25. He said he found that paragraph kind of alar,ning, and especi.ally the first sentence t�...mining is a basic and essential activity making an important contribution to the econonic well-bezng of the coruaun- ity". He stated he disagreed t•rith that, and felt tha� every operation they h�a.d had in Fridley so far had not exactly been that. P�Ir. Sobiech said h'_is only com^�ent t�ould be that the basic intent of a mining situation was to remove unsuitable buiidino-type materials and replace them with suitab]Le materials such that the property could develop. rlr. Harris said % I�� Plannin� Commission P4eeting - February 23, 197? P�e i5 �. � � � � �� L__! that the next sentence stated, however, "The economical availability of sand, gravel, rock, soil, and other materials is vital to the continued growth of the region and the City". Fie sa.id that they were really talking about more than just the black dirt situation. t7r. Sobiech said he •.rould point to the Dailey Home situation, and right now with the grades they had they couldn't develop it. I•1r. Harris suggested that would be land altera- tion. Mr. Sobiech said yes, but he could be actually selling the material to some other owner who taas going to build his oc•m home. Chairperson Harris said that brought up an interesting point, and stated he wouldn't like to see the operations that were occuring in Osseo come to Fridley. He said he couldntt really see where that type of operation would be of economic benefit to Fridley. He said he could see where the selling of fill was of benefit to the total community, but he couldn't see �rhere the selling of sand. and gravel from a hill to a ready-mix operation in i�finneapolis or Osse�o was an economic advantage to the City of Fridley--not unless Fridley put a ton tax on the material leaving the City limits. Mr. Sobiech said h� had a good point. ChairpErson Harris said that his problem was, it sounded like they were promoting that type of operation, and he certainly hoped that rras not the intenti.on. lir. Langenfeld said the intent t:as not to promote it, but to recogni.ze the existing. rir. Harris said he understood that, but wnen they st:arted saying "econo:�ic well-being of the corimunity", it told him they wanted a little more mining. 2�ir. Langenfeld agreed it was implying that. Mr. Harris said that knowing the people in the construction business, if thi�� was published they :�ould interpret it that wa�r. He said he t;ould like to have the first paraoraoh reT,�arded saying they recoonized the situat�Lon with the soils in Fridley and it Vras an advantage if the un- buildab7.e soils were removed and suitable soils were replaced to bring them up to buildable.sites. Mr. Sobiech suggested that they word it as to what their intent really � was in:stead of promoting a mining operation, 2�Ir. Harris said that was correct, unless their intent was a tax for any material Ieaving the City of Fridl�y, which he didn't think was such a bad idea. He suggeste� that � . if the material stayed within the city limits it wouldn't be taxed, but if it :1eft the city he felt it should be. r`Is. Lynch asked how they could contro:l that, and hot� the destination could be deter:�ined. 2�ir. Harris � said that a lot of other peonle did this. He suggested that everyone be taxe:d:regardless, and if the material stayed in the Cit3• of Fridley the person who bought it could apply for a rebate on the tax. tis. Lynch � � suggested that if the najority of it stayed in Fridley they would actually be los�ing money because of the ad�:iinistrative costs. PIr. Harris said the situation was such that most of it didn't stay in Fridley. ` Mr. Bergnan said he different slant. He t�fould like to point � recognized as a comn � LJ taould like to follow up on this thought with a little said that in talking about finding and purpose he out that while mining of r�inerals, soils, etc. was • ion and norr.►al private enterprise, it did in fact have � , N�� • � � � .. � � � � �,J' Plannino Corrar►ission l�feetin� - February 23, 1977 Page 16 a detrimental affect to the City in terms of the results of soil condition, geographical affect, etc. He said that therefore, to get cor�pensation for the adverse affect, the City would put a tax on it for that reason (they wonld collect some roy.alt;� to compensate for that). 1�1r. I,angenfeld said that �aas why the bond was posted, thougz. � Mr. Sobiech said he thought they did get into that later on in that sane paragraph, when it said, "The City further finds that it is not practicable to extract minerals required by soc�ty c�ithout disturbing the surface of the earth and producing waste materials. �Fie danger exists that noncompat- ible land uses could unnecessarily deny the benefit of these materials to society in the future. It is further fo�.:nd that the character of Mining may create undesirable land and water conditions V:hich can be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare and property rights of the citizens of the Cit;� of Fridley". i�Ir. Bergman noted that nothing in there would return tn� surface to its original or better condition, but would try to control it to less than disaster. � Mr. Sobiech said it Vras a relative situation �rhen they talked about leavin� it in as good shape as when they started, because froM a developer's point of view its original condition might be detriment�l to him. iie said that the only rray it would be worse�in its final condztion than in its original '� condition was if �the site was eventually going to be used for a nature- type situation, such as a park. He said that if the end product resulted in a b�uilding on the site, he didn't think it r�ras deterir�ental. I1r. Bergman sugUested that a time lirnit should be put on it. He said that if the purpose of the excavation was to put a building on it, he would agree •�,rith i�7r. Sobiech, but if the purpose t.Tas to haul out thousands of tons of gravel and eventually some years later plan a developr�ent in there, then in the interim period there �aas a detrimental situation in there. Mr. Sobiech said they should try to control the bad effects of the situation. Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the II�virorunen�al Comrnission minutes there was a motion made that the application procedur� be reviewed on a yearly basis to make sure that the burden of the cost for the evaluation of a develop- , ment was on the developer. 2•ir. Sobiech said thai yearly review would be a ca].culation of the time Staff spent on the processing of the application to make sure they were collecting enough money for services rendered. He said t:hey taould also revie�r the starting and s-topping times of these opera- tions to ma.ke sure they were operating properly. He added that those costs that w�ould be reviewed on a yearly basis would also include inspection time. Chairperson Harris said that the whole question of bodies of �rater disturbed him a:li�ttle. He said that if the final plan called for bodies of t•rater, would that be for draina�e retention? And if so, he said, then the;� :•rould get all mixed up with public waters and things of that sort. iie explained he was referring to 6d and 6e on page 29� and thought that should be addressed specif:ically. . Mr. Sol�iech said that his interpretation was the resultant body of i,�ater that w.as forc�ed because of sor�e excavation would not remain. I�1r. �iarris m w.. . � . .. iPlannix�g Corunission iieeting - February 23, 1977 � � � Page 17 said he was wondering how they would address the situation if the body of water �3id remain. He added he felt it was a little fuzzy. 2��r. Sobiech stated it wasn't their intent to create any retention hasins. :•ir. Langenfeld added thai by the same token, it was not the intent to have a big no].e renain:ing whether there Yras water in it or not. I�?r. Sobiech agreed that a clar:ification was required, and that retention ponds resulting frorl excavation should be in line with overall storm sewers. He suggested that under (e} on page 29 item iii be added saying this resultant water body couldn't remain over a certain length of ti*ne. ' Mr. Sol�iech stated that Staff could make some clarifications and amendments and br:ing those changes back, and maybe the Pianning Corti-�ission could come to a canclusion at the next meeting. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by I,angenfeld, that the reco:�mendation on � proposE�d cnanges in Chapter 212, i•Zining, of the Fridley City Cods be contirnied until the next Meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, motion carried unanimously. � � � � � � � � � � 6. PRQPOSET? REGIONr1L TRAILS POLICY PLAId FROi�i _�IETRUPOLITAN COUPICIL the . the 2�10TIOR' by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergrnan, that tPie Plannin� Corimission ' r:ticeivE� the proposed regional trails policy plan fror� I�:etropolitan Counci=L and the accompanying letters from i�•:r. Boardman. Mr. Sobiech stated that ifr. Boardman had received these recor�rnendations fror� the 1letro Council, and in his revie:r he felt t�ro co:��ents �;ere necess��ry. First, he continued, in the regional designation of the trail system they designated 73rd Avenue instead of what the City felt should be in the area of Rice Creek. i•Sr. Sobiech added that together with not being on the alignment of Rice Creek, they also designated it as a snowmobiling/horseback trail and Stafi felt that was not appropriate for the Cit,y of Fridley. The second corunenL, he said, was to mention the concern for the regional facility in relation to the P�Iississippi River and Cr�itical Areas designation. Mr. Sobiech siated they did not want sno�rmobiling and horseback riding down 7:3rd Avenue, but did want biking and hiking down by the creek. He said that�basically, what they were doing iaas following up on what had been px�eviously suggested. He stated that at this tim� they felt this was fo�° informationa2 purposes only, unless the Commission felt some modific:ation to the correspondence was in order. :•Zr. Langenfeld noted that ttie Vrord "vicinity" had been I�IZJJpelled in the letter from P�Ir. Boardman dated February 22, 1977. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all votin� aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7P ri0TI0N by Lynch, seconded by Ber�man, that the Planning Com�,iission approve the lei,ter to 1•Sr. John Bol;3nd from I�'r. Boardrian � dated February 23, 1977 concerriing the proposed rebional trails policy plan. ' Pir. Bergman asked to what extent the map i,rhich was attached and rei'eri•ed to in t;he letter was consistent with the existing bikei,ray system. AIr. I� Planning Com�nission Meeting - February 23, 1977 Page 18 � Sobiech replied that was 4rhere their plan now called for bike trails and bike routes. He added they were trying to get the regional systeM to ', ,� match theirs. u � UPON A VOICE VOTE,.�l votirag aye, the motion carried unanimously. I�irs. Schn�bel asked who would be responsible for the cost of developing these trails that were being proposed. 2�Ir. Sobiech replied that he believed it wou:Ld be funded by State and Eederal only. T1r. Ber.gnan said that his impression was that if the letter and attached map that 2s:.Boardman proposed to send o�;t was approved as part of the Regional Trails Policy Plan, it would be a real benefit to getting tae bikeway syste:n impler�ented. Mr. Sobiech said that was correct, and that was the: whole purpose of it. He added it would be very costly to construct the bikeway in these areas to the standards that were accepted for bike�;ay/ walkway systems. i�Ir. Langenfeld said that ii they could prove that they could make the proper connection between the metro ar�a and surrounding areas, the funding possibilities would be great if they could be designated regiona.l. rSr. Bergman askeci if anything had been said regarding timing, and rlr. Sobiech replied no, they were still in the draft stage. i•1r. Bergman commented that the sooner this was adopted, the better. He added that funding was the criteria in the timing or, these, so he Vras curious as to tir►ing as it could be a real boon.��.i�Ir. Scbiech said he would try to find information concerning.the timing on this. �Ir. Langenfeld asked if this � overall regional special use. take into account the special � � � � particular itern would be included in the �Ir. Sobiech replied the trail system did use areas. 2�ir. Ber�;man said he had one comment on tne letter, and that was where 2�:r. Boar.dman said he would like to suggest the following "corrections" to the plan. He said that made him want to look for a list of errors. Mr. Sob;ech suggested that "modifications" might be better. � 7. REGIONAL SPECIAL USE POLICY PLAN ?�x. Sobi.ech explained that P-Ir. Board.~nan, as Head of the Planning Department, reviewed� what the rletro Council had put out and had determined that what they wer�e proposing did not exclude the Springbrook Nature Center or the Islands of Peace as Special Use facilities. He said it also should be noted that this was being reviewed by Dan Huff and the Department of Parks and Recreation, and they would come up with their orm comments which would be part of the input at ttie I�Iarch 3rd meeting. � PIOTION by Bergman, seconded by Lynch, the Regional Special Use Policy Plan. the moti�on carried unanimously. i that the Plannin� Coma-�ission receive Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, 76�� . � ` • w'. � ,. , . .. • 7R �. Plannin� Commission 2�eeting - February 23, 1977 � � �� Page 19 Mrs. Schnabel noted that her copy of the plan had some pages missing and duplications of others, and the other mernbers said the same was true of their r.opies. rir. Sobiech said he would find out what happened. 8. COIUTINUID: PROPOSED tIAIP1TENANCE CODE MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission proceed. Vrith the riaintenance Code in the following manner: 1. The first item for consideration would be the drafting of the Maintenance Code pertinent to residential rental units inspected on a systematic basis. ._ 2. The second task would be adoption of a Maintenance Code for single family'housing whicn zs owner-occupied, which would relate �o voluntary inspection of said progerties. � 3. The third itern in the process oi deliberation would be the 1�laintenance 1 Code on a sale basis of resideniial properties with sp�cial attention to ir.lmediate heal.th and safety hazards. !t. The fourth item for consideration would be inspection of the entire City properties on a systematic basis. The above four steps shall refer to structural. and/or interior maintenance . , 5. The fifth step �rould be review oi the Zoning Code witn reference to exterior maintenance on residential, commercial and industrial properties. Chairperson Harris eommented that he felt #�l�ti•rould be a Monumental task, and didn't lmow if they had either the funds or the resources to handle that. :Mr. Sobiech suggested that maybe they.should dwe11 on the systematic rental and then lea3�:into the possibilities of sale. He added that perhaps the intent of tne motion would be that after a certain period of experience with the previous enforce:�ent procedure, they would proceed into the next phase to see if it was feasible. I�ir. Lan,genfeld said it was his impression that the motion was presenting to the Commission a general outline as to how to approach the ;•iaintenance Code. �lrs. Scnnabel said she thought they wan�ed to focus on certai.n areas i;n terms of a riaintenance Code, and this outlined a certain procedure. rlr. Lan,�enfeld explained that when they hit the "systematic" part they could g�o after it at that point. Mrs. Schnabel explained that ,;�2 was voluntary inspection of sin�le fa-nily housing, and �4 took it out of volunta:y into involuntary. She said she thought they should review �ahether or not they even wanted to do that. A�faybe� she con�tinued, their decision tti�ould be that they dicin't want to, but they . should rross that bridge at that time. .•�. � . 7S I� Plannirig Cornmission P4eeting - February 23, 1977 Page 20 � Ms. Lyrich stated she didnft think the City could enter somebody's house and inspect: it without a search �rarrant, and only then iaith a good reason. rlrs. SchnabE:l said she thought they Vrere jumping the gun on that discussion and suggested they wait for that discussion until that time came. � - Mr. Larigenfeld said he wanted to stress that he thou�ht the intent of the Commis:sion and the City Council was to assist the citizen in this case and not be an oppressor. He added that he thought this Corunission was awaxe � that tYiey should walk into this water of maintenance slowly so they didn�t step irito a hole. rSr. Bergman agreed, and said they should try not to play "Big Br•other". � � � � � � � �� Mrs. Sc:hnabel said she thought that several points came out in the discussion with the City Council on this. One, she s aid, was that the goal should bs to maintain the character and the integrity of�the neighbarnood; number two t,ras th�it the emphasis should be on maintenance and not upgrading; and number three �ras that the property rights of the owner had to be regarded i.n any of their decisions. Mr. Bergman said he �rould li�ce to com,-nend rlrs. Schnabel on her motion, and he feli; positive about everything except Ttem !�. However, he said, if it rras a general direction-type proc2dure, he felt it was fine. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bergman said he taould like to ask a general question. He said that when they talked about maintenance, exterior came to his mind; he couldn�t get a�;rig on znterior/structura3. ?ie said he z,ras sure they vrere not as obvious or apparent or meaningful to pedestrians and drivers through the City as was the exterior. iir. Bergman continued that he had felt when they had started that they were talking about maintenance as related tot•rard the pre:sent trend toward blighted areas, which was the visual aspect of the th�.ng. He said he felt some priority or emphasis to treat the exterior bit, and asked the feelings of the other Commission members. Mr. Larigenfeld said he had a good�,point, but it tras possible to have a beautii?ul exterior and the inside structurs could be ready to collapse, or ther.e could be actual health hazards. Ivtr. Sobiech suggested that in the spirit of the previous motion the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare standards in the area of maintenance (not upgrading), together with the enforcement that wou2d allo:r them to take care of the first ite�, (rental properties). He said that together with that, they could address the exterior development of the zoning code. He saici that it trouldn�t be very difficult to provide recommendations for exterior maintenance as they got into the interior standards.and enforcement procedures of the rental properties. He added that he thought they could bring t�hose tV;o together. r;rs. Schnabel said she felt the Zoning Code had sorne specifics currently in it that would deal with exterior maintenance that m:Lght be applicable. ' . ` . . , . . , . . , 7T Plannin� Cor�ission Meeting - February 23, 19?? Page 21 Chairperson Harris said the reading he got from the discussion was that they were to test the water on tne i�laintenance Cade. He said 'ne thought they should take one step at a time and handle the first item and see hoca that t�rorked. NIr. Sabiech said tney could do that, but he didn't think it would be any additional work to have a couple of thinos together. r;r. Harris said he thought they should take it in the elements. MOTION by I,angenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission direct Staff to focus on the first item, stressing the standards as they relate to maintenance and then the enforcer�ent ior a systematic approacn to reni;al. Mr. Sobiech said he could see where they could tone do�m the 1�" thick documer.it they had. He said they could put in general requirements that affectFd all residential, then put in speciiic ones for R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-!�� th�en at the end put in the paragraph regarding the systematic approach to rental and then the volun�ary approach to single family. He said they woul.d dwell on the health, safety and welfare items, and t�ould not talk about bringing them up to the existing code. Chairperson Harris agreed. He•said that as long as the wiring, for instance, was good enough fifteen years ago, then as long as it tJas in good rep2ir it was good enough r.oT�. He said they �;ere not statinD that just because *i� is 197? a resident had to have a major overhaul of the house to come to present-day building codes. He added that that was i,�hat i�inneapolis had done, and he thought they �;ere dea�? iti*rong. Iir. Harris said that as long as some�thing irasn't a fire hazard, perhaps it Vras alright. Ms. T�ynch asked hoUr they would deal with a situation where a house was inspected, even on a voluntary basis, and it c•ras found that there Urere health hazards that irould be expensive to correct and the person didn�t have the money. Chairperson Harris said that if it occurred in a speciiic area� siicli as t�e Hyde Park area, it might be possible to get a grant. He said there were some programs for specific iterns, and he thought the county had one. r;rs. Sc:ulabel addea that there were low--cost loans available. Mr. Ber�;man asked what the enforcement procedure would be under the homestead, single-f'amily voluntary inspection process. P�Lr. Sobiech replied there wouldn't be any. He explained the ordinance would be providing a service to the homeowne�r for his informaiional purposes. He added that if there was a definite health hazard, that would ta,e it ac•�ay fron the voluntary basis, but it would be a little tricfcy. Fie said they could address that Vrhen they car.ee back with an appropriate proposal. ' tls. L�nch said i� there was a definite life and death situation and the City didn't do anything about it, they might be liable if the place burned dotim or the furnace gave off a poisonous �;as. Chairperson Harris sald that he thought on the voluntary ins�ections the City should have a disclaimer � that the property owner signed at the time of inspection removing the Cityy fro�n any liability. Airs. Schnabel said another point was, if the City Inspecto:r missed something which eventually caused a fire, the City r�ight � be respcnsible. rtr. Harris said he felt there should be a disclaimer to protect 'them from a lai,� suit. � I UPON A VQICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. N ' . � • . � ' . . Plann�n� Comrnission 2•ieeting - February 23, 1q77 Pa�e 22 9. RECEIVE APPEAI,S COP�C•tISSI0P1 i�iIPIUTFS : FEB�UARY 15, 197? IfOTI0r1 'by Schnabel, seconded by Bergr�an, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of February 15, 1977. Upon a voice vote� all vot:ing aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that the variance request was on the same property the Planning Comrnission had the Lot Split request on at the last meeting. 10. REC:EIVL_HUI�IAN RESOURCE CO2•�'•�ISSION t�IIP3UTES: FEBRUA.�tY 3�1977 2IOTION by Lynch� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the Hum�n Resource Commission minutes o.f February 3, 19?7. l�ir. Lang;enfeld referred to the second sentence at t,he top of page 3, and asked ab�out the "lot" tax. The Ca.^unission decided it should read "lo:�i" tax. I�irs. Schnabel referred to the bottom paragraph on page t;�o of the minutes, and asked where the figure $13,000 came from. I�7s. Lynch replied that was the base figure, and was always the sarr►e amount. UPON A Vi�ICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 11. OTH�ER BTJ5INESS : i�Ir. Langenfeld raised the question of the election of officers, and z•rondered if he could get a clarification of the exact time this tras supposed to take plac:e. Mrs. Schnabel said that the appointments were made in April and she t:hought they had the elections in P�Iay so the new board members could have one month to see the whole group in actian before voting on officers. rlr. Sobiech said that to help even further, the Council was trying to make appointme�nts in P•larch so there would be a ttro=month initiation. I�Ir. Bergman read. from the ordinance that the terms expired April 1, hut no date for election was given. , Chairperson Harris suggested that the Planning Commission could pass a resolution designating a tirne frarie when the member cornmissions would hold an election for Chairperson. i�;r. Sobiech read, "Follo�ring the appointment � of inemberships (which would be April 1), the Cor�riission shall meet, organize and elect officers as it dee:ns dssirable". He said he dic�.n't tnink it would be out of line for the Planning Com►�ission to adopt a polic;�. . � ' � ' I�IOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Corunission, in keepin;; with the intent of the ordinance, adopt the policy t}iat member eo-;u�issions hold an election for chairperson and vice chairperson at t'�eir first mee�ting in I�Iay. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimous:ly. . • ?1rs. Schnabel said it was her understanding that the Planning Corunission had carried ouer the discussion of the proposed intersection of 53rd and Central � 7U Planning Corunission t•ieeting - February 23, 1977 page 23 Avenue from their last meeting pending further information. Mr. Sobiech said he couldn't comment as he didn't �moia where it t�ras at this time. P•Irs. Schnabel explained the information that was needed, and I;r. Sobiech said it took some time to go through the files to find the accident records because of the way they were filed. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenield, that thE Planning Commission continue the discussion of the proposed improvernent at the intersection of 53rd and Central Avenue N.E. until the next r�eeting. Mr. Bergman said they had previously discussed the traffic problem there, and pointed out that the bikeway/walfcway plan called for a bikeway trail across that intersection, too. He said he was wondering if in the present- ation back of any relative data, that fact ought to be kept in mind, and perhaps included in that package a1so. r1r. Sobiech said that right r,ow he was correct; there was no room for cars let alone a bikecray system, but plans called for additional area for the �jiketi•ray system. t•irs. Schnabel noted she had brought that up at the last meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carrisd una.nirnously. ADJOURr1�4ENT : ri0TI0N by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meet�ng of February 23, 1977 adjourned at 11:23 F.1i. Respectfully submitted, _ � r � Sherri 0'Donnell Recording�Secretary �v ,,., . . . .. i ,� � � ,�i� � � � �,� , , �' ' � ; y I I � i JSO � � ' ,� � �.. ��',�: •''24' � ..s s--d: s,��.,�.:'�-� <f.�� f � � � r ' � ' ` � � _L�' � '' I D � �� L.S. #77-01 ABLE WEL'DING�Z � � � <\'' I � ��O i � _ _ � �. � _T y - , E \' �' • � � � ._ J/ \ �— — —� — -- --' _'^ _ �'" � J3U j� o 'v �.�_ � — -- •� -- �.. �- --' I �—''^ 2�!�-. ��'I _ � �r--�--�� ,� ' �, ;J9 f�T`:s�T :__•ii.0 . _t _ ` �i. i,.. — �, M /,�I.S N DL �� , w ii4 s � .. J�.I h vL� � 1 , � '� �4.Lp_ ti ilt��" � ; � �74.t�. . y�•U. � � � � � �('��`�V ?,__�___�. . , � o ,� zsr � q � /6 ; ._ / � � .. . ��f�'��''► � -= ,7 � 7 P �s 2 � � • r `� i� P.' 9.3 � � � °� t .� �"' y -- i il� e Z p � �� z ,� �- ��7�71 _� = <<s �.: .� � � �.�,� 'j- a. r6.a �,~i,! ls1 - ? €,:: *j -- — ,u:j �� z��-� 3 t�.f �8 3 _�� - W _�i�y — � G� ,''Jg�9 , i. I _ � � /9 ¢ � '"' 2D -S - ' � co.3 '¢ �" ZC _ S � : ZC _ S U3 _ , 6 Q . ,e� -� � � , z; 6 -'> �� ,;.�, 6 � z� 6 -- z , - _7 -Y a . : �: � � Z z � 7 � ��.- : � - ,� ��1 , �"� 7 23 : 8 �'1 Z3 � �4 � %�� i9e.e8 , 9 � . � = 24 g � 2 � ,Q � � n: / \ � P i.� a ,Z .J �� f .�' � �� s /G �' � � �� `� � ��r.� � z� // z � � ` �� /2 � !�. � Q � \ : , z r` �z � : � vl�! 4��, z 7 iz s a =-p �� ? � � �`' V ,� 8 �3,�p 28 �, • _ � _�: --- - �� ` -a-. ��4 �' Z9 `� m � _ � y;` > - `� ' � � �o �` �' ti � Z9 ' ' ' ` ` .�-a � c .: P. �S y EC ? '�o•s � •r i.�a.t v- . Q ^� � o O o .� ;'S�S a�°O � i�e..:. �• , _ �6 O \�,� 6o a i��..r �G �i,J�l�� f�'''W 4�.�. �E V ' 0 ��T � - ,': `� v \° / 7 i h O y 6G j ,s�._� �., �iw i.�a.r o- �G h /6r °��`� /�s o-� r />s.s �; � � .�i 9 4 t�� `. Tj f9g'°� � � ` ' ie�3=8---.� ? f � / T E ��, � !•��0 0 ° /7 �i:r � � V� i cy� � o t � � ^ ! c d' --------t . ' i %� .� �_ - �• /70 2 !i. I.i� � _ � 7 �' _ � 1: . ;e9•w) � p - '�1,, ' _ � . � -: � a �� 3 � �� ---q _ - �L9'r"�- �''� �'9 ''� '. 36g �— ,� , �, �'"� _ - ZG 5 2D � `" O �}i F�.� Q� ; � � � , ..� \�?/ S y- �� ": �j. l- 6 , y�� : F:�: \ S� . '. ` � ' . . N .) ! 'c_� ' 7/�--£ " . Y � t ✓ . � r �\� 6 � �i 2.� `�1 � 7 :iG � c-�, � Q. � � J � �_+,, �. (, ; ;� 7� 8 0: . � , ,2 J3��g � _ �� —._..��; = -R1-. �."'� "� � � .��_ ,��— �� +.�: 9i ' Q.�F. iyor4fioa r 7 a � �F- -- ` ; , r � s.q�. , � . ,9 , LEJ . : .• g � .�t o . 0 ` �� `� 7C.! � . �i,s o .�� ° �� °t, id a. �C� d� � p.1 �� => , . . � , n .,. �o � ct� 4 , --� z� 7��r� �a.° f� � � . ,r `S � T t � . �S ,^ \ � � � ,� ,� :y��1,j� � , // ,, � , �4. _*- , ., � �c„s v � �a s I�a s i.; a. _<" �,,;,;�.,;_ v � �,. /79. � � v �. � .J�3! . T .J>... ;� \ � .. .. �.. ::. .� ' 1 � . �� . .` . . _ _ � :� �h e, ;: � .-:> ��'.�'''�3t��?�3�? ��7 '7' PZ�'.3o�3�r23; ..._�,�.'I37 � �' ; 2 3 /4 /�'! /6 ! ; : ., , � , ; ��- �p1� � q ; ; ,r. : ',� � ,� 3� ,'♦ . . �0 1. , � � t p, _ 60 'J!�f . �I , . . sp .. ' ,r • y ; t, : ,� ; ,. , �'M ��vnY - ' ' � - - - - - 2 `" $. E. CORNE�� - ' . • . � SEC.3 ; , ' � t .. � - , �_,.�-�.-� , . � - ��y,�. �ari ' ' .f.er • T-i - Z � . . � �, ' . � Rcr °•G-i9 , • ' . ( . Rir /•1a. •t � fr+c 9 .1�e� /PCx >-� •64 .te��. � f G.� ' �ft� il•n6•RO ACC.:s- y .! �O �;PV %//-Fy � � . . . ' • ► . 141y C• f �9 R!✓ �.�; .4 0 � ��•p.' h ?'� F - , .. �r O•.f9•.�! ,Qdr J'Ju•62 ,P �yA. / e i'/ Rvw . 7.. �, . �� . � , . �`v >':. � . . . . � � � � �1 • .a'. . , , � � l . . . � ..�....... � . .. . .._..._. 1 i, ' � i � [� ' �J ' � � , , � , � � ' � � � , ' FRIDLEY APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1977 MF,�iBERS PRESENT: Schnabel, Barna, Gabel, Kemper MEMBERS ABSENT: Plemel OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:31 P.M. APPROVE APPEALS CON�IISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 13, 1977 Mrs. Gabel said that she would like to comment, because she didn't think secretaries got enough recognition, that she thought the secretary was to be commended as the minutes were always accurate and concise. The other members agreed, and P�Irs. Gabel stated she thought that should be in the minutes. Mr. Barna stated that he had a correction in the second paragraph on page 1�, and noted that into Stoneybrook Creek should read from Stoneybrook Creek. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission minutes of January 13, 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 207.34 (b), FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 100 FOOT SETBACK RE�UIRE.�?.ENT WHERE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO A DIFFEREI�T DISTRICT, TO 73 FEET, (M-1 AND R-1), TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIaL BUILDING ON LOT 1, BLOCK l, OF THE PROPOSED ARNAL ADDITION, (NI-1, LIG��T INDUSTRIAL AREAS ), THE SAP�IE BEING 8101 ASHTON AVEPNE N.E., FRIDLFY, P•1INNESOTA. (�equest by Berkeley Pump Company, 181 Ely Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55l�32). MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.131t (6), requiring a 100 ft. front yard setback for M-1 zoned buildings from street lot lines adjacent to other zoning. Public purpose served by this section is to avoid congestion in the public street and traffic hazards and oiher dangers and to protect and conserve the character of any adjoining neighborhoods and future neighborhoods in the same vacinity. , 7X 0 Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - February 15, 1977 Page 2 B. STATED HARDSHIP: Variance is necessary in order that the proposed building can be compatible with existing building for efficiency and aesthetics. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: _ A l00 foot setback is required because the property to the West (across Ashton Avenue) is a City Park. The existing building is at the 78 foot setback point because it was built on Lots 3, 1�, and 5 which were interior lots. Lots 1 and 2 were acquired later, making it a corner property. The owners were refused a permit to add on the West side, but were granted a permit to add on to the North side of the buildi.ng in 1966. The corner lots (Lots 1 and 2) were rezoned to M-1 in 1971�. The proposed Arnal Addition structure will occupy less than !t0% of the lot. The additional vehicles will occupy the existing parking areas for Berkely Pump Company, 181 Ely Street N.E, Letters of encroachment will.be required from the affected utility easement holders for construction in the vacated alley area. Mr.�Lee Snead was present representing Berkeley Pump Company. He stated , that they were asking for a variance from 100 feet to 73 feet as they would like to put an addition on their present property as their current building was no longer sufficient or adequate for their needs. He added that indica- tions were that their needs would increase considerably over the next few ' years, so an addition was badly needed. Mr. Snead said that in order to make the addition efficient and usable, they would like to be able to use the same facing line as the present building. He said that if the proposed � addition was to sit back too far, they would lose valuable access between the two buildings. Mr. Snead stated that the new building would follow the general angle of the road, and they also thought that having the two � buildings of somewhat similar construction and the same distance from the road would be more aesthetically pleasing. � �� ' Mr. Snead explained that they were not going to actually connect the two buildings together wall to wall, but would have an enclosed walkway between them measuring 12' high by 11�' wide. He stated that in between the two plots of land was a 6' utility easement, and they had received letters from a11 of the utility companies in the area saying that they did not mind if Berkeley crossed that easement with what they proposed. Mr. Snead added that they did have to guarantee their right to access, and noted that the wa].kway could not be over 15' high because of an overhead power line. He f�rther added that they felt the building would contribute to the neighbor- hood by providing a nice place, and Berkeley would provide shrubbery and grass. Mr. Snead said that he had just returned from talking to the main office in California, and they had a deviation from the original plans in that 1Y 1 , �_J i7z Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - February 15, 1977 Page 3 one wall would be moved back a bit. He explained th at the owner wanted to use the full Lt0% coverage instead of having square corners on the building, and it was also the owner's suggestion that the property follow the contour of the road to give them more office space in the front. Mr. Snead pointed out on the diagram where they had originally planned to � keep the office space, and where they had decided to move it. He said that the parking area would be extended out a little bit further than it showed, and where they had open space on the drawing they would just carry ' their parking over. He noted that the drive areas showed only 20' and 16'� and said they would probably want to make that wider so the trucks would have more room. He showed how the ramp would also be moved back to give them more room for office space. He explained this would be a completely- ' covered walkway with walls of similar construction as the building, and with a roof. He said it would not be as high as the rest of the building. � Chairperson Schnabel asked what the purpose of the proposed addition �aouZd be. Mr. Snead explained that his company was in the assembling, warehousing and sale of pumps. He said that the present building would be primarily � used for warehousing, and the proposed addition would be used for all three purposes. � , , ' , � ' Chairperson Schnabel asked if the number of employees would be increased, and Mr. Snead replied that they presently had eight full-time employees and.anticipated going as high as about 12 - 15 in the next year or two. He added that he didn't think tr,ey would go over fifteen employees at any time. Mrs. Gabel asked if the driveway areas were large enough, and H1r. Holden replied that they should be increased to 25'. Mr. Snead said he would do whatever was necessary to meet code. Mr. Holden asked why Berkeley didn't just add one building straight through. Mr. Snead said the basic reason was that if the business grew and they expanded out to the North, ihe small building that they now occupied could be lmocked down and that property sold s�eparately. Mr. Holden explained that a 15' sideyard setback was requi red in A7-1, so then they - would either need a variance fro:n 15' to 0', move back 15 feet, or plan not to sell the original (existing) building. Mr. Snead said the easiest thing would be to plan not to sell it. He stated he didn't want to join the two buildings together because he thought the new building would look better than the old bziilding. ' Chairperson Schnabel explained that one of the reasons there would have to be the 15� in between would be for fire protection, unless a"0" lot line construction was added with a fire wa11. l�ir. Holden said another option would be to go back to the utility.companies and ask for a greater square ' footage. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he was to go with the "0" lot line if a double fire wa11 would be necessary, and Mr. Holden replied that was correct--it would mean building a new wa11 right next to the existing wall. � Mr. Snead commented that their insurance company required that sprinklers be put in the new building, so they would add them to the existing building at the same time. He said the buildings would have good fire protection. ' Mrs. Gabel asked what kind of traffic was generated in terms of ].arge trucks, and Mr. Snead replied that during the busy season (early summer to late fall) ' __ _ _ Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - February 15, 1977 Page � � AA there could be seven to eight trucks a day. T4rs. Gabel asked if there was a fence around the park area, and 2-1r. Snead replied there wasn't, but a11 the playground equipment was on the other side of the park. He added that near his building was mostly a grass area, so there was no danger to children. Mrs. Gabel looked at the photograph of the present building and asked what was kept in the fenced area next to the building. Mr. Snead replied that was outside storage. He said he didn't anticipate any more outside storage, and would like to eliminate iahat they had. He added that they kept the area quite clean, and everything was neatly stacked. Mr. Holden asked the petitioner if he had understood what was said earlier about the different options, and rir. Snead replied he did. Chairperson Schnabel said that if he wanted to go to the "0" lot line concept and abut the two buildings together, he would have to apply for another variance. Nlr. Snead said he didn't intend to, and wanted to stay with the present plan. Chairperson Schnabel said that if the proposed addition was built as shown on the present plan, the petitioner wouldn't need another variance if he didn't intend to split this off for sa1e. r4r. Holden said that was correct; if they went with the present plan it would have to be with the intention of not splitting if off to sell at a later date. Mr. Kemper asked why it wasn�t necessary to go down to the "0" side yard � setback, and Mr. Barna explained that it wasn�t a side yard. A7r. Kemper ask�d if the existing building belonged to someone else if it would be a side yard, and Mr. �iolden said that was correct. � � , Mrs. Gabel asked ii the only reason the two buildings weren't being put together was because of the easement, and P•1r. Snead said that was correct. Mr. Barna commented that he had no objection, and thought it was one more reason to have signal lights at 79th. Chairperson Schnabel asked I�4r. Snead if he had the letters of encroachment, and he replied he did. MOTION by Baxna, seconded by Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council, through the Planning Commission, approval of the request for vaxiance with the following stipulations: ' 1. The letters of encroachment go on record with the City. 2. The existing building not be separated and sold off from the � proposed building because the petitioner did not present a request for a 15' setback vaxiance, and the petitioner understands that at this time. ' Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. i 1 �� Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting•- F�bruary 15, 197? Page 5 7 BB OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Schnabel handed out to the Commission copies of a letter she had received this last week from the City Attorney concerning the request that she had made to him of the interpretations of two items. She noted that pages 2 and 3 of the letter did not contai.n information that she had requested� but probably information that the City.Council had asked for. Mrs. Schnabel stated that this was for the Commission's enlightenment, and it would be put on the agenda for the next Appeals Corur.ission meeting. ADJOURNrIENT : MOTIOPd by Barna, seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission adjourn at 8:38 P.t•i. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' �RPspectfully submitted, , .��1 � Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary � 0 0 , f `,r.�t��. BERKELEY PUMP ,�. •i 131 ELY STREET NE �:: % CC :+a�... 1 \ � � � i ' � r � �8 AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF FRIDLEY AND SMITN, JUSTER, FEIKEMA, CHARTERED LAW FIRM FOR CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES � CITY PROSECUTOR APPOINTMENT: The firm of Smith, Juster, Feikema, Chartered, is appointed as City Prosecutar for the City of Frid�ey. . TERM OF THE AGREEMENT: March.l, 1977 to April 1, 1978 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COVERED BY THE RETAINER WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHARGE: 1. Prosecution of all city ordinance vioiations and state law violations. � 2. 3. 4. City Prosecutor sha11 be available for consultation with police officers and other city employees during normal working hours ' (8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday). The Prosecutor may be called occasionally after normal working hours for advice concerning emergency type situations. Attend city staff ineetings as requested by the City Manager. The Prosecutor shall devote sufficient time to police officers and to other city employees to achieve the following: a. To initiate discussion of each case with individual police officer or witnesses, when required, pr�or to the hour preceding the scheduled court appearance. b. To establish procedures outlining the minimum requirement � from police officers in regard to information required for prosecution. This may be achieved, in part, by the utili- zation of weli constructed forms. � LJ � ' ' � c. Establish a procedure for notifying witnesses settfng forth responsibility and time requirements. Several problems have developed in this area due to the short notice given by the prosecutor. Some witnesses require more tTme for notifica- tion than others, some require a subpoena to be released from their jobs, etc. � d. Establish a procedure regarding changes in status of a . case, such as continuances, changed pleas effecting time of court hearings. The procedure should be designed to notify the Police Departrient, in writing, as soon as possible after the change is known. Every effort should be made to eliminate art officer or other witnesses from appearing for cases that have been cancelled, etc. ' . . ' �•. . . � . , _ . . � ,�..��. .I ' . � � � _ AGREfMENT FOR LE(aAL SERVICES PAGE 2 . , e. In scheduling an off-duty police officer's time, consideration should be given to the fact that the union contract �^equires a minimum of 2 hours at time and one-half pay regardless of the time spent in court up to 2 hours.. f. The police officer issuing a citation or charge should be consulted prior to a change being made in the original charge. g. The prosecutor should consult with police officers in cases that are lost to determine if additional evidence or a different method of investigation is needed to prevent future acquittals. 5. Upon tf�e requesi of fihe City Manager, the Pr.osecutor should be available for training sessions with the Police Department on a quarterly � basis. Training should include changes in laws, court procedures, judicial decisions and advice on the Prosecutor's opinion as to the desired charge to be placed when more than one charge is applicable. � 6. Upon the request of tfie City Manager, the Prosecutor shall make , available two hours per week in addition to the above to discuss legal matters with City Manager, department heads and other employees. The time and place of these meetings shall be mutually agreed to by the City Prosecutor and the City Manager. � RETA►INER: 1. The retainer fee of $1300 per month is to cover the basic services listed in the paragraphs above. If the time spent on the above exceeds 30 hours per month, the City Prosecutor, upon prior approva7 of the City Manager, is authorized to bill the City at an hourly rate of $40 for legal services not covered by the retainer. 2: A monthly report of activities shall be prepared and submitted to the ' City Councii and City Manager. This may be incorporated into the monthly claim for services submitted to the City Council. � � OTHER EXPENSE: All oth2r expenses such as dues, subscriptiors, te�ephene, pub?icatior�s, secretarial services and overhead, etc. associated with performance of legai services, shaii be the responsiblity of the City Prasecutor. AGREED AND ENTERED INTO THIS DAY OF , 1977, SMITH, JUS7ER, FEIKEMA CHARTERED � ^ BY. � Attest: IMarvin C. Brunsell, City Clerk CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY: William J. Nee, Mayor BY: Nasim M. Qureshi, City Manager � .... ` . , w". • .. . .. ' . • � I � � � AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF FRIDLEY AND WEAVER, TALLE & HERRICK LAW FIRM FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES GITY ATTORNEY APPOINTMENT: The firm of Weaver, Talle & Nerrick is appointed City Attorney for the City of Fridley. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT: March 1, 1977 to April 1, 1978 m NJ DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COVERED BY THE RETAINER WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHARGE: l. Attend all reguTar and public hearing council meetings. Attend informa7 study session meetings of the Council when requested ' by the City Manager. 2. Attend department head staff ineetings twice a month and on call. of City Manager. 3. Advise city staff on all legal questions posed, provide inter- pretation of state laws, city charter and ordinances. 4. Advise and attend, upon request of the City Manager, meetings of boards, commissions and committees o-F the City of Fridley. 5. Defend the city in hearings before the Police Civil Service Commission and courts of law in cases of disciplinary action taken against city employees. 6. Upon the request of the City Manager, the City Attorney shall make available four (4) hours per week in addition to the above to discuss legal matters with City Manager, department heads and employees. The time and place of these meetings shall be mutually agreed to by the City Attorney and City Manager. 7. Defend city employees, when applicable, in civil suits arising out of the job performance non-negligent cases. RETAINER: i� 1. The retainer fee of $1300 per month is to cover the basic services listed in the paragraphs above. If the time spent on the above exceed 30 hours per month, the City Attorney, upon prior approval � of the City Manager, is authorized to bill the city at an hourly rate of $40 for lega] services not covered by the retainer. � � ... ` • • M'. +'�• . AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ' PaGE 2 9� � 2. All legal service fees for assessment district and condemnation proceedings are to be charged against the project and are not � included in the retainer fee. i.� 3. A monthly report of activities shall be prepared and submitted to the City Council and City Manager. This may be incorporated into the monthly claim for services submitted to the Council. � ' OTHER EXPENSE: � All other expenses such as dues, subscriptions, telephone, publications, secretarial services and overhead, ete. associated with performance of legal services, shall be the responsibility of the City Attorney. � AGREED AND ENTERED INTO THIS DAY OF ., 1977• � � 0 � � � WEAVER, TALLE, HERRICK LAW FIRM � � � . . " �� —��j BY • `':�--- �,. Attest: Marvin C. Brunsell, City Clerk CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION . BY: William J. Nee, Mayor BY: Nasim M. Qureshi, City Manager � � .,. . •' . - • . ...,,.. C L A I(�I S CHECKS �JO � Z�� - 4OO � 10 LICENSES TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT TliEIR REG�LAR hfEETIhG ON MARCt1 7, 1977. T��e of License: �: Appraved By: Feell Cigarette ' Country Kitchen R. John Wallenbecker James P. Hill $12.00 280 57th Place N.E. .Public Safety Director Fridley, b1n. 55432 Hudson Oil Company Koch hlarketing Co. James P. Hill $12.00 7315 Highway 65 N.E. . Public Safety Director Fridley, bin. 55432 � Little D's Pizza Theisen Vending James P. Hill $12.00 248 Mississippi Thomas Theisen Public Safety Director Fridley, bin. 55432 � . Metro 500 R.D. Johnson 3ames P. tiill $12.00 5701 University Ave. N.E. Public Safety Director Fridley, Mn. 55432 . Phillips 66 D.H. Buckman James P. Hill $12.00 5667 University Ave. N.E. Viking Pioneer Inc. Public Safety Director Fridley, Mn. 55432 Wickes Furniture Jerry Laugenburger James P. Hill $12.00 53.53 E. River Road Interstate United Public Safety Director Fridley, Mn. 55432 Club On Sale V.F.W. Post 363 1040 Osborne Rd. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Junk Yard Central Auto Parts 1201 732 Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Off Sale Beer Holiday Village North 250 57th Avenue N.E. Fridley, rin. 55432 PDQ Food Store 620 Osborne Road Fridley, rin. 55432 Q Petroleum Corporation 5301 Central Ave. No. Fridley, A1n. 55432 Lester G. Orton James P. Hill Public Safety Director John Buzick James P. Hill Public Sa£ety Director Darrel Clark Building Inspector Vincent T. Lorimer James D. Shelton John L. Olson � James P. Hill Public Safety Director James P. Hill Public Safety Director 3ames P. Nill Public Safety Director '� ' y". � • �100.00 $100,00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 LICENSES TO BE APFROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR REGUL�IR MEETING ON biARCH 7, 1977. ' Type of License: �: A_pproved By: 11 A Off Sale Beer � � Tom Thumb Food Market Herbert Koch James P. Hill $35.00 315 Osborne Road Public Safety Director I ' Fridley, Mn. 55432 � . � On Sale Liquor Sandee's Inc. ' , 6490 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 � Private Use Pumps City of Fridley , 400 72nd Ave. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 � rvic Station Se e , Hudson Oil Company 7415 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 � Metro S00 Inc. �5701 University Ave. N.E. � Fridley, Mn. 55432 � Phillips 66 6500 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 I . William Weiss $ Ann Leffingwell Ralph Volkman Joe Moeller President R. U. Johnson K.E. Waterbury 0 James P. Hill $4,500.00 Public Safety Director Robert Aldrich Fire Inspector Darrel Clark Building Inspector Robert Aldrich Fire Inspector Darrel Clark Building Inspector Robert Aldrich Fire Inspector Darrel Clark Building Inspector Robert Aldrich Fire Inspector Darrel Clark Building Inspector � Solicitor � , Agape Force Steve Harrison James P. Hill P.O. Box 386 . Public Safety Director � Lindale, Texas 75771 Merchandise to be solicited: Literature and records on a donational basis. � Sunday Liquor ' Sandee's Inc. 6490 Central Ave. N.E. � Fridley, Mn. 55432 � William iVeiss �, Ann Leffingwell -2- James P. Hill Public Safety Director exempt $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 asking fee waived $200.00 LICENSES TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT TtlEIR REGULAR 61EETING ON MARCH 7, 1977. Type of License: '. �; Approved By: . 11 B Sunday Liquor . V.F.W. Post 363 Lester G. Orton James P. Hill �200.00 1040 Osborne Road N.E.� Public Safety Director Fridley, Mn. 55432 Vending Machine Allied Aluminum Mfg. Inc. 7341 Commerce Lane N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Allied Aluminum Mfg. 7341 Commerce Lane N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Brunkow Music 370 Mississippi Fridley, Mn. 55432 Burlington Northern 80 44th Ave. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Champion Auto Stores 6471 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, hin. 55432 Columbia lce Arena 7011 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Commerce Park Office Bldg. 7362 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Gommerce Park Office Bldg. 7362 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Dick's Fridley Auto Parts 7300 Central Ave. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Dick's Fridley Auto Parts 7300 Central Ave. N.E. Fridley, b9n. 55432 Dr. b4udspringer 622? flighway 65 N.E. Fridley, r9n. 55432 Fridley Terrace 7400 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, hin. 55432 Vivian Gabeau Gold Medal Vivian Gabeau Medal Vivian Gabeau Gold Medal Vivian Gabeau Gold Medal Vivian Gabeau Gold Medal D.H. Buckman Mary Gnetz hfary Gnetz Coca Cola L.W. Hanson L.W. Hanson Coca Cola Sharon Brown Vivian Gabeau Gold bfedal Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Hea2th Inspector 5teve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector Steve Olson Health Inspector $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $105.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 , $15.00 • � M �. . . . . � . . . . LICEhSES TO BE APPROVIiD BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THF:IR REGULAR b1EETING ON MARCH 7, 1977. � Typc of License: �: � A roved By: � �- " 11 C , Vending hlachine � � Fridley Sr. �iigh School L.W. Hanson Steve Olson $15.00 b000 tiV. btoore Lake Drive Coca Cola Health Inspector � Fridley, Mn. 55432 , fi.B. Fuller L.W. Hanson Steve Olson $15.00 � 5220 btain St. Coca Cola Health Inspector • Fridley, Mn. 55432 . , H.B. Fuller Co. L.W. Hanson Steve Olson � $15,00 I' S220 D1ain St. Coca Cola Health Inspector Fridley, Mn. 55432 - iGeneral T.V. Inc. Vivian Gabeau Steve Olson $15.00 350 63rd Ave. N.E. Gold Medal Health Inspector Fridley, Mn. 55432 I' � Georgetown Courts H. Filister Steve 01 on s $15.00 5750 East River Road Health Inspector I� Fridley, Mn. 55432 � � � Holly Street Haix Stylists Dale Clausnitzer Steve Olson $15.00 I� 6574 University Ave. N.E. Health Inspector Fridley, Mn. 55432 i King Company Vivian Gabeau Steve Olson $15.00 �� 6554 University Ave. N.E. Gold Medal Health Inspector , Fridiey, Mn. 55432 I.ee iVards Vivian Gabeau Steve Olson $15.00 i, � 5225 Central Ave. N.E. Gold biedal Health Inspector Fridley, Mn. 55432 '� bletro 500 Inc. L.W. Hanson ' Steve Olson $15.00 5701 University Ave. N.E. Coca Cola Midwest Health Inspector Fridley, b1n. 55432 I '� rtetro 500 Inc. L W a . ' . H nson Steve Olson $15.00 � 5701 University Ave. N.E. Coca Cola Health Inspector ', � Fridley, b1n. 55432 . Red Owl Stores Inc. Vivian Gabeau Steve Olson $15.00 � 6525 University Ave. N.E. Gold hledal • Health Inspector I Fridley, htn. 55432 i� Safetran Systems Corp. Vivian Gabeau Steve Olson �15.00 4b50 t�lain St. N,E. Gold Medal Health Inspector Fridley, Din. 55432 ' Sears Roebuck �, Co. D.H. Buckman Steve Olson $15.00 6199 Highway 65 N.E. Viking Pioneer Inc. Health Inspector , Fridley, bin. 55432 , Sinclair Service Vivian Gabeau Steve Olson 15. 0 $ 0 6290 �lighwny 65 N.E. Gold �fedal Health Inspector � Fridley� rin. 55432 _ ' • LICENSES TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING ON htARCH 7, 1�77.� � Type of License: �: Approved By: Fee: 11 D � Vending Machine� � Wickes Furniture Jerry Langenburger Steve Olson $60.00 �5353 E. River Road Interstate United Health Inspector Fridley, Mn. 55432 ' . . . ' � � i . . r :� � .. � : . . i . . � i � -� 1 1 � � 1 � 1 . 1 � 1. . . , 1 �� 1 ��..�N:.�:...,...� LICENSES TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING ON 11 E MARCH 7, 1977 GENERAL CONTRACTOR APPROVED BY R. H. RAmens Construction 7300 Gallagher Drive Darrel Clark Edina, Mn. 55435 By: C. Vossen Com. Dev. Adm. t �� Q ESTIMATES FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - MARCH 7, 1977 Smith, Juster, Feikema, Chartered Suite 1250 Builders Exchange Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 For Legal Services Rendered as Prosecutor for February, 1977 Weaver, Talle & Herrick 316 East Main Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 For legal Services Rendered as City Attorney for February, 1977 � $ 1,388.75 $ 1,537.99 � � I,� '�1 , __ _. � 'CHARLES R. WEAVER HERMAN L. TAL�E VIRG�I C. HERRICK ROBERT MUNNS . 'WILI.IAM K. GOOORICH THOMAS A. GEDDE JEFFREY P. HICKEN OOUGlAS E. KLINT ' ' City of Fridley LAW OFFICES WEAVER, TALLE & HERRICK 316 EAST MAIN STREET ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 421�5413 March 2, 1977 �A INVOICE N� 2122 � ' I � February Retainer $1,000.00 Council Meetings 9'� hours ' �Staff Meetings 3 hours Conferences with Staff 4-'q hours Memos and Legal Research 10� hours � ,Citizens Inquiries 22 hours Ordinances 4 hours 34 hours '� Hours in Excess of 30 @$35.00 per hour 140.00 Secretarial Allowance 100.00 EXPENSES ADVANCED: Logan & Styrbicki (transcript of deposition) 64.45 i ' Photocopies 8.54 February Total $1,312.99 LEGAL SERVICES RE: �+�p��-�#e�-e€ �€€#ee��:�ee�e� �—�e�k$-�' '- • ^ } 1 ��--�4eA�a�e—ve-.—S�'iA��2iJeA� �I��i�--��j-8� � '-�, � �,�or�.. �5-0'0 � Legal Research Re: "Malicious Prosecution" 225.00 I . . + TOTAL . . . . . . . . . :, $2,312.99 _Z.Z�o, �0.� �''/�.537.99v� 0 ' � � TIP!tE RECORD FOR FEBRUARY, 1977 PROSECUTION WORK 1. Preparation, Travel and Time in Court for 1 Jury Trial, 2 Motion Appearances, 1 Pre- Trial Conference and 17 Court Trials. 2. Investigation and Process of Complaints including office conferences, phone con- ferences, correspondence and preparation of 21 Formal Complaints. 3. Court and Police Administration. TOTAL � DATE � � � FORWARDED FROM LAST STATEMENT 3-01-77 For legal services rendered as Prosecutor for the City of Fridley. February, 1977 Retainer. $1,000.00 Secretarial Services 100.00 Time in excess of 30 hours . (8 hours 15 minutes) 288.75 I dec�are under pen2'ti�s of iavr that this QC��.Ilt� C:�f�i: Cit ��i:�i C;I�:� i;i it�j<:: 'tai�:� �i' rect a�' ��; r- •! or �i �:7:: b i�, u -- ' n� re o` imant s � ` • SMITM. JUSTER, FEIKEMA, CHARTERED Y ATTORNEYS AT LAW I�� a�ia � 19 hours 25 minutes 8 hours 30 minutes 10 hours 20 minutes 38 hours 15 minutes • BALANCE $1,000.00 $1,100.00 $1,388.75 �� 0 � I � � ' � �\N�E�Ty 20 � : � �� a � i� � 3�yT �Qo � OF TRPt� � , � � ' February 22, 1977 Minnesota Department of Transportation Mr. Richard N. Sobiech Director of Public Works City of Fridley 6�+31 lJniversity Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 2055 No. Lilac Drive Golden VaV1ey, Minnesota 55422 In Reply Refer To: 315 C.S. �2�5 (TH 4?? At 69th Avenue NE Request f or Traff ic 5ignals Dear Mr. Sobiech: l3 (612)545-3761 Our District Traffic Section has just completed a study of the inter- � section of'1TH 47 and 69th Avenue NE to determine if traffic signals, as requested by the City of Fridley Resolution #9-'1977, are justified. Their investigation indicates that none of traffic volume nor acci- dent warrants listed in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Contrnl Devices are met. A review of the ac�ident history indicates that there were eight reported accidents in the first ten manths of 1976, f ive in 19?5, and eight in '4974 which resulted in accident rates of 1.19, Q.65, and 1.04 accidents per million vehicles in 1976, 1975, and 1974 respectively. These rates resulted in a District ranking of 269th in 1975 and 206th in 1974. At the present time, we know of 59 intersections on Trunk Highways within the District (excluding the City of Minneapolis) which meet one or more of the signal warrants but don't have signals because of limited funds and manpower. As statetl earlier, the subject in- tersection is not one af them. An Equef Opporluaity Empioyer °�� Mr. Richard N. Sobiech February 22, 1977 Page 2 Therefore, we must deny the City of Firdley's request to install a traffic signal on Trunk Highway 47 at 69th Avenue NE. Hawever, we will continue to monitor the location. If and when it meets any warrants published in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, we will prioritize it on our list of intersections to be signalized. l3q 0 0