03/30/1981 - 00013287THE P4INUTES OF THE PUSLIC HEARING MECTIPJG OF THE FRIDLEY rITY COUfJCIL O�
MARCH 30, 1981
A Public Hearing Meettng of the Fridley City Council was called to order at
7:35 p. m. by Mayor Nee.
Fiayor Nee stated this was a sad day for our country with the attempted
assassination of President Reagan. He stated his inclination was simply
not to have this meeting, however, a number of persons had made a special
effort to attend so felt they should proceecl.
1 Mayor Nee asked everyone to stand and reflect for a moment on today`s
happenings and then �oin in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PLEDGE OF FLLEGIANCE:
Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Alleg�ance to the
Flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Schneider,
Councilwoman Moses and Councilman Fitzpatrick
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
ADOPTID�� OF AGENDA:
Mayor Nee requested the following three resolutions be added to the agerida
(1) Consideration of a Resolution in opposition to House File No. 22 and
Senate File No. 73, a Bill Amending the State Industrial Revenue Bond Law.
(2} Considerat�on of a Resolution in opposition to a f3i11 allowing the Sale
of Strong Beer and Wine in Retail outlets.
� (3) Consideration of a Resolution in Opposit�on to Senate F�le No 694 and
House File No. 671 that would Require in all Counties and towns manufactured
Housing and Mobile Homes Certified under the National standards must be
constdered or permitted for single family use of property under local
zoning regulations.
Councilman Barnette also noted there were several persons present regarding
the alley improvement between Universtty and 4th Street from 53rd to 54th
Avenues.
Mayor Nee felt possibly staff could provtde those in attendance with a
status report regarding the question of the alley vacat�on.
The other two items to be considered this evening were a public hear�ng on
the Moore Lake Redevelopment Plan and a public hearing on a tax increment
district for this area.
MOTIOPd by Councilwcman Moses to adopt the agenda as noted abo�re. Seconded
by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, M�yor Nee
declared the motton carr�ed unanimously.
STATUS REPORT ON ALLEY VACATION:
Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated Dr. Schurstein is working w�th the
� residents �n the area to try and obtatn a petition for 100°o vacation of the
alley and until they hear further from him, they don't have a date when
this wtll come again before the Council.
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF t�ARCH 30, 1931
PAGE 2
Mr. Kappes, 5370 4th Street, stated he thought Dr. Schursetin had done thts
and further stated that Dr. Schurstein is willing to give him an easement
which was agreeable to him.
Counci7man Ftizpatrick asked Mr. Kappes if he had signed a petition to vacate
the alley to which Mr Kappes replted in the negative.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he would contact them when this item came
hack before the Council, but, at this time, they don't have any further
information.
� PUBLIC HEARING ON REDEVELOPP1ENT PLAN FOR THE MOORE LAKE AREA:
P10TION by Counc�lman Schneider to wa�ve the reading of the public hearing
notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon
a voice vote, all votiny aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carie� unanimously
and the public hearing opened at 7.40 p. m.
Mr Jerry Boardman, Executive Director Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
directed the Council's attention to the minutes received from the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority from their meeting��on March 26, 1981. He stated
the HRA passed Resolution fVo. 6-1981 request�ng the Council take action and
an applicat�on be made for approval of the Moore Lake Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Boardman stated there are two plans for the Council to consider, one is
the Redevelopment Plan for the Moore Lake �rea and the other is a Tax
Increment Plan for this area.
Mr. Boardman stated the action on the Redevelopment Plan is strictly to set
up a dtstr�ct tn which this type of fi nancing can take place and tt ts the
Tax Increment Plan itself that actually lays out the financing procedure
that can take place in tha± d,str�,+,
,
HP PvnlainPrl ±ha Pc,riP„P1Qnman± Plan �tipiilr� n,4�a ±hP f2±y a tnpl ±p iitl�lZ2 '
tax mcrement financing, where specifi c properttes would be tdentified and those
properties would have the assessed value frozen. He further stated the
Redevelopment Plan is set up for a period of 25 years.
Counci�man Schneider asked if, over the next 25 years, the Counctl did not
take any action what would be the effect. Mr. Boardman statetl the 11RA can
remove the district or can add to the distrtct, as long as the public hearing
process is used.
Councilwoman Moses asked if they did not approve the Redevelopment Plan what
would happen, Mr. Boardrnan stated then they couldn't establish a tax
increment financing d�strict
Mr. Boardman stated at the Hous�ng and Redevelopment Authority Meeting on
March 26, 1981 they did have expert testimony on the development and
establishment of a tax increment district. He explained one of the purposes
of establishing such a district is for the removal of conditions of blight.
Mr. Boardman stated the HRA also heard testimony from James H711, Pu61ic
Safety O�rector, Mr. Burch and Mr. Hermann of the City staff regarding blight
in this area
He pointed out other conditior�s in Lhr Redevelopment Area are the dangerous
interesections, poor soil, drainage problems,ard underutilized property.
Mr. Boardman felt the drive-in theatre property was underutilized in that
�t is used for only five or six months out of the year and, therefore, the
tax�ng on the property is a great deal less than it should be. Mr. Boardman
stated this is probabiy one of the most prime pieces of property left in the
C�ty for development
I�'
,
�
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 30, 1981 PAGE 3
Another area which was underutilized was �ust east of Old Central Avenue and
south of Rice Creek Road as there are small homes located on large pieces of
land. Mr. Boardman stated presently there is a plat before the Planntng
Commission toward the utilization and planned progression of development in
th�s area.
Mr. Boardman stated another area of undeveloped land and substandard structures
�s shown as Area 2 on the Redevelopment Plan. He pointed out th7s property
has the potential for development under the Redevelopment Plan.
� Mr. Boardman stated the findings the Council must make for establishment of
a Redevelopment Plan �s: (1) that the land in the pro�ect area would not be
made available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought, (2)
that the Redevelopment Plan for the area w�ll afford inaximum opportunity
consistent with the sound needs of the local�ty as a whole for development
by private enterprise; and {3) t�at the Redevelopment Plan conforms to a
general plan for development of the localtty as a whole.
Mr. Boardman pointed out th'�s Redevelopment Plan has been submitted to the
county and school districts and also reviewed by the Planning Commiss�on to
see if it was consistent with the overall planning of the City.
Mr. Boardman stated the Planning Commssion passed a resolution recommending
approval of the Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Boardman pointed out all the Redevelopment Plan does is lay the groundwork
for the tax increment district and there are no specific plans for a particular
piece of property.
Mr. Boardman stated if a developer comes in to develop a piece of property, he
still has to go through the same process because any amendment that changes
the tax tncrement district requires approval both by the HRA and C�ty Council.
Mayor Nee questioned the areas included in the Redevelopment Plan and why
' the drive-in theatre was �ncluded. Mr. Boardman stated, in talking to
developers, he didn't think that property would be developed privately in
the near future and the City is losing a valuable piece of property that
could be on the tax rolls. He stated the situation is that no one can afford
to purchase 38 acres of property and develop �t over a period of time at
today's high interest rates.
Mr. Boardman stated if the HRA gets involved in the pro�ect, they can afford
to hold the porperty.
Mayor �ee questioned if they weren't taxing the property for what it was worth
Mr. Boardman stated the assessor feels it can't be taxed anymore because of
its type of use. He stated the market value now on that property is around
$2,0�0,0�0 and �f you look at development on that property, it would 6e a6out
$60,000,000 to $II0,000,000.
Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated he wanted to make sure that by approving the
Redevelopment Plan and establishing a tax increment district, it does not mean
assistance will 6e given, but merely provides the option for the City to exercise,
if they wish to do so. He pointed out if the City felt the type o� development
proposed was not an asset to the community, they may chose not to act on �t or
it could be taken out of the tax increment d�strict if it was desired by the
HRA and Council.
� Mayor Nee stated it has been argued that once you draw a Redevelopment District
ltne on a piece of property, you encumber the marketability of the property.
/(
PUBLIC HEARIfdG MEETING ON MARCH 30, 1981
PAGE 4
Mr. Boardman stated it might have been that way under the old law for such
a district where you didn't have the gnverning action that had to be taken
by the Council. He felt, under the:nL:vlaw, you don't have--to a certain
degree--the prablems under the old law, as you are not freezing any values.
He pointed out all the district does is to identify some problems in the
area that need assistance.
Mr Qureshi felt the City has two options for properties within th�s tax
increment district. The property owner can develop it through the �oning
Ordinance process, however, if he wants some assistance from the City
whether for traffic �ontrol, soil condit�ons, or other problems with the
property, then the Council has the control to be able to provide certain
tools and assistance. He pointed out the C�ty can also requ�re certain
things from the developer and can exercise and foster a iype o`development
the Council feels appropriate for the City.
Mrs. Carol Fassett, 1001 Lynde Drive, wanted to know if an area is designated
as a ta�S increment district if the City is going to soltcit developers or
wait for them to approach the C�ty
Mr. 6oardman stated they will be talking to developers to see if they are
interested at all in developing and also talking with property owners to
see if they are willing to negot�ate a sale or development.
Mrs. Fassett asked the cost to the City at this point, and Mr. 8oardman
stated all costs to the City are covered through tax increment financing.
Mrs. Fassett asked when the district is establ�shed, if the City receives
money.
Mr. Boardman stated every year the Ctty bills the HRA and that money that
tvill be billed to the HRA will be coming from monies that will be generated
through tax increment when the d�strict is established.
Mrs Fassett questioned where the HRA is getting the money. Mayor Nee stated
as the value of property in the district goes up, the difference is what the
HRA has to work with.
Mrs. Fassett asked �rhat assistance they would give to a developer. Mr.
Boardman stated, under tax increment laws, certain things are laid out and
one of the things they can ass�st with is purchase of property.
Mr. 6oardman pointed out in the Center City Pro�ect, the HRA does have the
authority of eminent doma�n, however, they generally attempt to purchase
the property and sell it back at a low cost.
Mrs. Fassett asked �f the�r taxes would increase to �ay for this tax increment
district. Mayor iVee stated he can understand her feeling since her home is
located �n th�s area, however, this tax increment district would not cause
her taxes to increase.
Mrs. Fassett felt before any development could take place, ihe intersection
would have to be improved. Mr. Boardman felt this would have to be looked
at simultaneously with any development.
Mr. �ick Schultz, 640 57th Avenue, stated there was a strip of land wh�ch
was suppose�lto be a 6uffer zone and no�tE�.ing was supposcdto be built on this
property and questioned what would happen in th�s area.
'
1
�
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MARCH 30, 1981 PAGE 5
Mr. Qureshi stated the zoning of this strip is R-1 and if any commercial
development were to occur on this property, it would require notice for
rezon�n9. He also pointed out in this area there would have to be some
kind of buffer or screening between residential and commercial.
Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street, asked about open space and park
development for her area.
, Mr. Boardman stated he hasn't looked at any proposals for development in
this area and dependtng on the type of development, it may not require
any platting. He potnted out if any platting is required, then there
could be the requ��ement for some open space area under the ord�nance
provisions.
Mr. Boardman stated the City does not have control over a private investor,
but the City can encourage proper development for that area so it is
compatible w�th the neighborhood.
Councilman Fitzpatrick felt Ms. Jorgenson brought up an interesting
potnt and felt her concern should be part of the record.
P4ayor Nee asked if Ms. Jorgenson had some particualr property in mind
and she stated she was referring to the Ertckson property next to North
Park School.
Mr. Boardman pointed out the only way the City can acquire property is
�f tt will pay for the acquisition, therefore, there may be limitations
in acqu�ring property for park purposes.
61rs. Fassett stated her main concern was the �nteresection problem and
felt the Erickson property should be left out of the tax increment plan
because of the access.
� Mr. Boardman stated, by putting a property into a Redevelopment Plan,
it doesn't necessarily mean it will develop and they are only attempting
to come up wtth a solution for developmentin that area and a solution for
traffic generation. He pointed out that property may develop through
private initiative, 6ut having the City involved they could stir clear
of sane bad development.
Mr. Boardman stated this issue was discussed at the HRA meet7ng and the
feeling he received is that it may be better to keep the area in the district
�ust with the potential that �f they work with the neighbors, they may be
able to come up with a workable solution.
Mr. Qureshi stated the owner has a right to develop whatever the Zoning
Ordtnance allows, but possibly workin9 with him, they can come up with
a suitable development.
Mrs. Fassett stated she is not opposed to the Redevelopment Plan, but
wanted to have something to say about what is built in their back yard.
Councilman Schneider stated there was a rezonin9 proposal before the
Plann�ng Comnnssion to rezone all of that property so that an apartment
complex �ould be built. He stated this matter will come before the
Council in April and that it created qutte a controversy in the neighborhood
in opposition to tt and the Commission has recomnended denial of the rezon�ng.
� No other persons tn the audience spoke regarding this Redevelopment Plan
for the Moore Lake
,� �n
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING ON MARCH 30, 1981 PAGE 6
MOTION 6y Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Counc�lman F�tzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at
9:10 p. m.
� PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMEP�T OF A TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT IN THE MOORE
LAKE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
MOIION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing '
notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9 10 p. m.
Mr. Boardman, Executive �irector of Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
stated the only recomnendation from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
is actually a request for the Council to continue the publ�c hearing on
the tax increment plan since the Authority hasn't had an opportunity to
subm�t this plan to the Council.
He stated the Council did receive a document entitled "Tax Increment
Plan No. 1" which was submitted to the county and school districts as
well as to Jim Holmes because h�s f�rm are experts in the area of tax
increment financing distr�cts.
Mr. Boardman stated Mr. Holmes did review this document with he and the
City Attorney, Mr. Herrick, and came to the conclusion they had some
legal problems on how it was written. He stated they are now in the
process of re-writing thts document to come within the legal limits.
Mr. Boardman stated it is requested the hearing be continued so it
wouldn't be necessary to readvertise, however, the HRA suggested the
newspaper be contacted so an article can be placed indicating this item
will be heard by the Council on May 18, 1981.
Councilman Schneider asked if the tax increment plan will be a specific '
plan for that area.
Mr. Boardman stated there are three types of pro,7ects referred to in
tax increment financing and all of the pro�ects have to fall within
one of the following three classifications: (2) Redevelopment Pro�ect,
(2) Housing Pro,7ect and (3) Economic Development Pro�ect.
He pointed out they are attempting to utilize a redevelopment pro�ect
when and where they can as it gives qreater flexibility, however, it
is one of the hardest tests to meet. He stated the housing pro,7ect
cannot include any properties outside the pro,7ect area itself and
each and every pro,7ect requires 20% for low and moderate income persons.
Mr. Boardman stated, as far as the economic development pro,7ect, which
they would be looking at eventually in the commerical develop properties,
there is very little ,7ustification needed, however, there are time limits
on the amount of bonding and the bonds have to be paid off within 8 to
10 years. He stated, therefore, you have to have an extensive amount of
development in order to pay off the bonds.
Playor Nee felt it may be 6etter to readverttse this hearing for May 18, 1981.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to con±inue the public hearing on Tax
Increment Plan No. 1 to May 18, 1951 and direct staff to readvertise '
the hear�ng on this matter. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
,
�
�
PUBLIC HEARING P�EETING ON MARCH 30, 1981
'� RESOLUTION N0. 36-1981 IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE FILE
" FILE N0. 73, A BILL AMENDING THE STATE INDl1STRIAL
PAGE 7
AND SENATE
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to adopt Resolut�on No. 36-1981. Seconded
by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor P�ee
declared the moiion carried unanimously.
4�. RESOLUTI
OF
Councilwoman Moses asked if there was discussion in the past on why some
states have this law.
Mayor Nee stated there has been d�scussion about the possibility of it
affecting the City's own liquor sales. He stated that is only one of the
questions now addressed and they also bring up the question of proper
identifi cation, police problems, etc.
Councilwoman Moses felt she hasn't seen enough information for her to
go on record to oppose it.
Councilman F�tzpatrick felt, for some reason, the State wants to wipe
out the distinction between 3.2 and strong eeer.
MOTION by Copncilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 37-1981.
Seconded by Councilman Schneider.
Councilman Schneider asked if they had any facts regarding the statement
that it would add additional expense for the Pol�ce Department. Mayor
Nee stated they didn't have any information on that issue.
Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he would feel more comfortable if this was
backed up with something from the Police Department, rather than generated
from the League of Cities, but �nd�cated he would support the resolution.
Counc�lman Barnette stated he �s famtl}ar with our State where they have
such sale� tn grocery stores and could see some problems.
UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, Councilman Fitzpatrick,
Councilman Schneider, Mayor Nee and Councilman Barnette voted in favor of
the motion. Councilwoman Moses abstainedfrom voting. Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried by a 4 to 1 vote.
� RESOLUTI
1 IN OPPOSITIDN TO SEfdATE FILE
OR PERMIiTED FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE OF PROPERTY
4 AN� HOUSE FI
LOCAL ZONING RE
MOTICdV by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 38-1981. Seconded
by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to ad,7ourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman
Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the mot�on
carried unantmously and the Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council
of March 30, 1981 ad,7ourned at 9 30 p. m.
Respectful ly submi tted, � ) � � - �'� �r'� ��. `�_
��Gf��v �j��a�GC`,��— �,•'�,����-��l,rG�,�� „f'
�
Carole Haddad William J. Nee `
Secy. to the City Council Mayor
Approved• April 20, 19$1