Loading...
05/18/1992 - 00005516� � ' i15 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 16. 1992 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:44 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: MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Billings, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Fitzpatrick MEMBERS ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 4, 1992: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Mayor Nee stated that a letter was received from Fridley United Methodist Church requesting a waiver of the fee for the bloodmobile sign. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt the agenda with the above addition, (20) Request from Fridley United Methodist Church to Waive the Fee for the Bloodmobile Sign. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. PUBLIC HEARINGS: l. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAT REOUEST, P.S. #92-02, BY BRW, INC.. FOR WAL-MART, TO REPLAT AN AREA (PARCELS 1-4� INTO LOT l, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT A, SAM'S ADDITION, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 8200 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman 116 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 2 � Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 7:48 p.m. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this is a request to replat four parcels into Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1, Wal-Mart Addition at the site of Sam's Club, 8200 University Avenue. She stated that this plat is to allow a 30,o0D square foot addition to the north of the existing building, and it would create an outlot to be developed by another property owner. She stated that the property is zoned C-3, and all zoning requirements will be met. Ms. Dacy stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this plat subject to seven stipulations. She stated that one of the stipulations is in regards to the development agreement that was executed with the City and property owner in 1986. She stated that the purpose of the development agreement was to require two construction phases. She stated that Phase I was Sam's Club, and Phase IT required future construction in the amount of 60,000 square feet. Ms. Dacy stated Wal-Mart has decided that they cannot construct their store on this property, and they are proposing this � expansion. She requested that the Council concur with the recommendation for submission of a revised development agreement restricting uses and requiring participation in the installation of a traffic light at 81st and University. Councilman Billings asked if the 1986 development agreement was between the property owner and the HRA or if it was with the City Council. Ms. Dacy stated that the agreement with the City involved the amount of square footage and value of the construction. She stated that the HRA agreement provided for soil correction assistance and was adopted in the City's agreement by reference. Ms. Dacy stated that the proposal for the new construction will be half the value, or $1,500,000, that was stated in the 1986 development agreement which gives the property owner the most flexibility to market the site. Councilman Billings asked if Phase II was connected with the $100,000 soil correction. Ms. Dacy stated that the HRA was to provide $50,000 for the $3,000,000 Phase II portion of the construction, and $100,000 was provided for soil correction for Phase I of the construction. ' Ms. Dacy stated that due to the shape of the lot and its location, it may be best suited for a restaurant use or a smaller building. 117 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 3 � She stated that if the City dictates a minimum value, the property may not be developed for some time because of site constraints. She sta�ed that staff is recommending a minimum value not be imposed to allow the developer to have some flexibility. Councilman Billings stated that he can understand Wal-Mart's position in wanting to expand, but the question goes back to the credibility of the development agreement that was entered into by the City and developer. He stated that this agreement provided for a certain level of construction, and that it induced the City to participate in the soil correction. He stated that the property is now under new ownership, the previous developer got what they wanted from the City, and the current owner is saying they cannot live with the terms entered into in the 1986 agreement. Councilman Billings stated that he was not opposed to expansion of the Wal-Mart project, but he questioned the integrity of the agreements entered into with the previous property owner. Councilman Schneider stated that he shares Councilman Billings' concerns. He questioned the benefit to the City to renegotiate the value of Phase II construction. Mr. Dale Beckman, representing BRW, Inc., stated that he was involved in the original development, and he negotiated the � development agreement with staff. He stated that this was a two phase process as the developer had the Wholesale Club project in hand. He stated that the site was appropriate, but due to poor soil conditions, assistance was requested to develop the site. He stated that the majority of the poor soil was located where Sam's Club now exists. Mr. Beckman stated that the $100,00o contributed for soil correction by the HRA was for site improvements initiated originally as Phase I. He stated that the $50,000 was an incentive to add another 50,000 to 60,000 square feet. He stated that improvements were made which enhanced development, but there is no intention on Wal-Mart's part to request additional assistance from the City. Mr. Beckman stated that the development aqreement was for five years, and it was to provide the incentive to develop the property. He stated that the $100,000 in assistance allowed the construction of a nice facility in the area and has enhanced that site. He stated that other improvements were made to the entire site without requesting the additional $50,000. He stated he is now requesting that the Counoil work with the owner to give them some flexibility in today�s market to develop Phase II. Councilman Billings stated that in 1986, the City was looking at � the prospect of having a$3,000,000 improvement on the north half of this property. He stated that the proposal now is to improve the north half of the property with a$1,500,000 construction 118 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18. 1992 PAGE 4 � project. He stated that the question is why the City would want to give up the commitment for $3,000,00o in construction on that site. Mr. Beckman stated that the development agreement was to get the development started and have the anchor tenant. He stated that the developer does not intend to request the additional $50,000, and the City would be getting $1,500,000 in value at no additional cost. Councilman Billings felt that perhaps the City's role had to be better defined as to what happens on that site. Mr. Beckman stated that he is willing to work with City staff to try to come up with ideas. He stated that if there are too many conditions placed on the site, both the City and developer would lose the opportunity to develop the site. Councilman Billings stated that he felt language needed to be worked out in the development agreement that gives the City the potential for at least the same value. Mr. Beckman stated that he believed the 1986 agreement was for a five year period, and the $50,000 was an incentive to develop the � land in this time period. He stated he believed that the agreement was null and void because the time limitation has run out. Councilman Billings stated that he would not feel comfortable if a 5,000 or l0,DD0 square foot building was constructed on this site, but he would favor a much more substantial project. He stated his concern is that the City is protected. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed plat. MOTION by Councilman Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:13 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REOUEST, ZOA #92-02, BY EDWARD STANKE, TO REZONE FROM M-l. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, TO C-2, GENERAL HUSINESS. GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7�91 HIGHWAY 65 N.E.: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:14 p.m. � Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this property is located east of Highway 65 across from the Target Warehouse 119 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING QF MAY 18. 1942 PAGE 5 � building. She stated that the property is currently zoned M-1, and the request is to rezone to c-2. Ms. Dacy stated that during the last several months, there was a conflict between a potential tenant with the M-1 zoning regulations. She stated that staff inet with the developer and asked him to file this rezoning request. She stated that the use of this building is essentially commercial, and the zoning should be changed to reflect the use. She stated that the parcel where Kurt Manufacturing used to be located is ad�acent to this parcel, and it is also rezoned from light industrial to commercial. Councilman Schneider asked if this rezoning request is at City staff's request. Ms, Dacy stated that staff suggested the rezoning process since this building is essentially used for office space. Councilman Schneider asked if there are other similar areas in the City where the property is zoned industrial, but the uses are commercial. Ms. Dacy stated there are buildings to the north of this property that have commercial uses in an industrial zone. � Councilman Schneider asked if the same actions should not be taken for those properties and have the property rezoned. Ms. Dacy stated that she believed the City is doing that piece-by- piece. She stated that property owners have asked if they could continue with the same zoning so they do not have to go through the hearing process. She stated that it may be some time before these owners file rezoning applications unless a problem arises. Mr. Stanke, owner of the property, stated that the building has never really changed uses. It was built as an office building and approved as such. He stated that there has been no change in types of tenants. He stated that in 1970, when this building was constructed, he felt something should have been done with the zoning at that time. He stated that in 1990, there was an attempt to rezone, but the rezoning was left the same. Mr. Stanke stated that he purchased the building in 1990. He was told about the rezoning, but it was not changed and this was acceptable to him. He stated that when his newest tenant was not allowed to move into the building, he discussed this with City staff and what was necessary for this tenant to move into the building. He stated that he then filed for the rezoning, and he questioned why he had to suffer the financial burdens for the rezoning when the use has always been commercial. � Mayor Nee stated that he did not recall a rezoning request to which Mr. Stanke referred. 120 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 6 ' Ms. Dacy stated that there was a staff ineeting with property owners regarding the zoning, but a request was not considered by the Council. Councilman Schneider stated that he is sympathetic to Mr. Stanke's argument relative to the £ee, and it may be that the fee should be waived for the rezoning because the use has not changed. Councilman Schneider asked if the City rezoned an area, if the owners would be charged for the rezoning. Ms. Dacy stated that there has not been a Council policy on this issue. Councilman Billings asked what would happen if the property was not rezoned. Ms. Dacy stated that the alternative would be a special use permit to allow an office use in M-1 zoning district so every time a tenant would change, a special use permit would be required. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed rezoning request. � MOTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearinq closed at 8:27 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION REOUEST, 5AV #92-01, BY RONALD MERKEL OF PRODUCTION TUBE MACHINERY CO., TO VACATE THE EAST/WEST ALLEY. BETWEEN ELM AND BEECH STREETS, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7738 ELM STREET N.E.: � MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:28 p.m. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that in conjunction with this request for the alley vacation, the petitioner is requesting a variance in order to construct a 2,200 square foot manufacturing building on the property. She stated that the subject parcel is currently vacant and zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. She stated that the alley proposed to be vacated is unimproved, and a sanitary sewer line is located within the alley. She stated that a portion of the alley is utilized for access to several properties. Ms. Dacy stated it is recommended that only the east portion of the alley be vacated. � yl � ' �21 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18. 1942 PAGE 7 Ms. Dacy stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this alley vacation, because there was not unanimous support to vacate the alley. Mr. Merkel, the petitioner, stated that he would like to vacate the alley for extra side yard setback and clean up the alley. He stated that the alley vacation does not affect the size of his building. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Merkel how many persons he employs in his business. Mr. Merkel stated that it is basically himself, but he does have some part-time people occasionally. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Merkel if it was his intention that his business would be long-term venture at this location. Mr. Merkel answered in the affirmative. Mr. Krall, 19 77th Way, stated that he was opposed ta this vacation, and Mrs. Novak, another neighbor, has voiced ob�ections to him. He stated that, however, Mrs. Novak has not authorized him to speak for her. He stated that he used the alley and by not vacating it, it leaves more options open. He felt that if the alley was vacated, it would mean more variances in the future. Mr. Krall suggested that perhaps this may be a good time for the City to consider what should be done with the four lots. Mayor Nee stated he felt that by not vacating the alley, it increases the need for variances due to setbacks from the right- of-way. Ms. Dacy stated that in Mr. Merkel's case, vacating the alley would reduce the variance. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Krall if he felt by vacating the alley, it would limit the marketability af his property, and that this may be an appropriate time to sell his property. Mr. Krall answered in the affirmative. He stated that if the City was interested, something could probably be done at little or no cost. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Krall if he knew if Mrs. Novak shared his feelings. Mr. Krall stated that he knows Mrs. Novak agrees something needs to be done and that eventually his and Mrs. Novak's houses will be gone. He questioned if all properties need to be conforming. 122 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 8 � Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that if the property is zoned M-1, but there is a home which is a non-conforming use, the property owner can continue to use the residence. He stated that if the residence is destroyed, rebuilding it would not be permitted or the home could not be enlarged. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if the property could be sold as a single family residence. Mr. Herrick stated that it could and would continue the non- conforming use status. Councilman Billings stated that it is difficult to obtain mortgages if the home is a non-conforming use. He stated that if the residence is not used for that purpose for a one-year period, the non-conforming use ceases. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed alley vacation. MOTION by Councilman Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:50 p.m. � 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING TRE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING;" MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the readinq of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voioe vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:5o p.m. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this proposed ordinance amendment would create a new zoning district, M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive District. She stated that this zoning district would accommodate trucking terminals and uses which require large amounts of outdoor storage. Ms. Dacy stated that the amendment includes certain uses currently located in an M-2 zoning district which entail a lot of outdoor storage. She stated that these uses are currently listed under the special use permit section of the M-2 zoning district regulations and would be removed from the M-2 district. Ms. Dacy stated that the Council requested staff to evaluate the remaining vacant parcels in the City and determine the location of M-3 uses. She stated that the intent and purpose of the M-3 � district is to enable the City to control the location of these uses. 123 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 9 � She stated that the proposed M-3 district includes those uses already permitted in an M-1 and M-2 zoning district. Ms. Dacy stated that only three uses are permitted with a special use permit. The M-3 district does not include �unkyards and excludes uses which may be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, such as hazardous waste processing or storage facilities. She stated that there are screening standards involving extensive landscaping requirements. Ms. Dacy stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposed ordinance. She stated that staff has been working with the owners of these properties, and they are satisfied with the proposed ordinance. She stated that staff was unable to contact the property owner of a vacant parcel. She stated that letters were sent, but there was no response. Councilwoman Jorgenson suggested sending the letter by registered or oertified mail so that the City is sure notification has been received. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, stated that he was not sure what happens with the M-2 zoning district. � Ms. Dacy stated that a truck terminal or outdoor intensive storage is not permitted or uses whose principal operation requires the outdoor storage of materials, motor vehicles, or equipment, including the outdoor manipulation of said materials, motor vehicles, or equipment. Mr. Harris asked if the size for M-3 districts will be one and a half acres. Ms. Dacy stated that the parcels would still have to be platted as one and a half acres. Mr. Harris asked why the parcel sizes for M-3 are still the same as M-2 when there is more intensive outdoor storage in an M-3 district. Ms. Dacy stated the reason for maintaining the 1-1/2 acre requirement, as well as other lot requirements, is that M-1 and M-2 uses are permitted as a right within an M-3 district. She stated that the major intent is to encouraqe the M-1 and M-2 uses and control the M-3 uses. Mr. Harris felt that there was a little inconsistency and referred to the items the Council previously discussed in this meeting such as the single family homes which are non-conforming uses, and the ' rezoning which the City required for an office building that was located in a light industrial zoning district. 124 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 10 � MOTION by Councilman Billinqs to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:05 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: 5. APPOINTMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION jTABLED MAY 4, 1992): Mayor Nee removed this item from the table. Councilman Billings stated that one of the stipulations of the ordinance regarding Commissions is that the Council attempt to balance the Commission members between the wards in the Crty. He questioned the representation of the Commission in relation to the wards. He stated that the City has some very well qualified applicants and to assist in the decision making for the vacancy, it may be well to determine the composition of the Commission in reqard to ward representation. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table this item. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. � 6. ORDINANCE NO. 992 RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE BY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 32 ENTITLED "FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS " AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES," BY CHANGING ALL CQDE REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 111 TO CHAPTER 32: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 992 and adopt it on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7. ORDINANCE N0. 993 RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE. CHAPTER 603 ENTITLED "INTOXICATING LI9UOR," BY ADDING 603.05, "FEES," AND RENUMBERING THE REMAINING SECTIONS CONSECUTIVELY, AND AMENDING SECTION 603.09.01, "PLACES INELIGIBLE:" Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that at the last meeting she requested information from staff on what cities require taxes to be paid before issuance of an on-sale liquor license. She stated that this information has been rece�ved, and she would like it noted £or the record. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive the memorandum from Rick Pribyl dated May 14, 1992 regarding what cities require taxes ' be paid before issuance of an on-sale liquor license. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 125 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 11 � Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that school district funding is tied to property taxes paid, and if property taxes are not paid funding is lost for community education within the school district. She stated that one community ended up losing eleven percent of their funding because of non-payment of taxes. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 993 and adopt it on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Councilman Billings stated that on-sale liquor licenses are the only licenses the City requires that the property taxes be paid be£ore a license is issued. He stated that for a number of years, it has been an effective device, but times are changing. He stated that in past years, the property that houses the liquor establishment was a free-standing building, and the owner of the building was the same as the owner of the on-sale liquor license. He stated that more and more on-sale liquor licenses are being issued in shopping centers and other types of properties where the license holder may be paying their rent on a timely basis, but does not have control over whether the property owner is paying the real estate taxes. He cited that Joe DiMaggio's as an example, and he stated that the shopping center where they are located has a tremendous amount of vacancies and there are rumors the bank will � be foreclosing on that property. He felt that it was time to bring the ordinance into conformity with what is happening in the real world. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Billings, Councilman Fitzpatrick and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Jorgenson voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. 8. ORDINANCE N0. 994 TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS (FRIDLEY V.F.W. POST #363 L MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 994 and adopt it on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 9. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #92-04, BY TIME TO TRAVEL. TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A WALL SIGN FROM 3 SQUARE FEET TO 34 SQUARE FEET. TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A BACK-LIT AWNING, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 203 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E. (TABLED MAY 4, 1992): � Mayor Nee removed this item from the table. 126 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 12 � Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the reason this was tabled on May 4 was to enable the petitioner to be heard this evening. She stated that she understands a representative of Time to Travel is in attendance. Ms. Lorraine Mack, representing Time to Travel, stated that she was present on behalf of the petitioner. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the petitioner was not present during the public hearing held by the Commission and wondered why no one was present at the Council's last meeting. Ms. Dacy stated that Ms. McPherson of the City staff advised the petitioner, Ms. Olson, about the meeting, but apparently there was a misunderstanding about the necessity to attend the meeting. Ms. Dacy stated that the maximum allowable sign in an R-3 district is 3 square feet, and the request is for a variance to 34 square feet which would allow the petitioner to install a back-lit awning. Ms. Dacy stated that the Appeals Commission has recommended approval of the variance. Mayor Nee asked if there was any objection from the other property 1 owner. Ms. Dacy stated that the City has received no ob�ections to this variance. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to grant Variance Request, VAR #92-04, with the following stipulations: (1) this var�ance, unless otherwise specified by Council, shall remain in effect until (a) the sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages, which makes the sign less in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 214 than it was before the alterations; (b) the supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled; (c) the face of the sign is replaced or remodeled; (d) the sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than fifty percent (500) of the value of said sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed; and (e) notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on this sign. At such time, the owner of said sign will have three (3) months to obtain a sign permit and construct a sign which meets all requirements of Chapter 214, or obtain a variance for any new or existing sign which does not meet all requirements of Chapter 214. Seconded by Councilman Billinqs. Councilman Billings explained these stipulations to Ms. Mack. � Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that this was why it was important to have the petitioner or a representative attend the meeting to make sure the stipulations were understood. 127 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF hfAY 18, 1992 PAGE 13 � UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, asked if an office building was a permitted use in an R-3 district. Ms. Dacy stated that this is a non-conforming use. She stated that this property was the subject to a rezoning request last summer, and there were a number of issues involved and the rezoning was denied. Mr. Harris felt that the City should have the same laws for everyone. He stated that if the rules are changed, it should apply to everybody. Councilman Billings stated that Mr. Harris had commented earlier that the Council was inconsistent. He pointed out that no action has been taken on the items in question, and the reference to the Council's inconsistency may or may not be correct. 10. APPROVAL OF DISPOSITION OF TAX FORFEIT PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY {TABLED MAY 4. 19921: Mayor Nee removed this item from the table. � Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that the City received notice from the County of five tax forfeit properties in the City. He stated that it is recommended the Council request the County to hold properties No. l, 29 and 30 from their tax forfeit list for a period of twelve months. MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the recommendation of staff and request the County to hold properties No. 1, 29 and 30 from the tax forfeit list for a period of twelve months. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. RESOLUTION N0. 40-1992 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF HOUSES IN RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS PARK TO ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the Anoka County Community Action Program has contacted the City in regards to obtaining the two homes that remain in the Riverview Heights project. She stated that ACCAP would like to move these homes to two sites in Coon Rapids, and this would satisfy the Federal relocation requirements under the Barney Frank Amendment. She stated that this resolution would authorize the City to transfer the homes to ACCAP and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to � execute any related documents. � � 128 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18. 1992 PAGE 14 MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 40-1992. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Billings voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Nee abstained from votinq on the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. Mayor Nee stated that his reason for abstaining on the vote was not that he was opposed to this motion, but he has an interest in ACCAP. 12. RESOLUTION N0. 41-1992 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1992 - 1& 2: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that this resolution orders the improvement and final plans and specifications and estimates of costs £or Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1992 - 1& 2. He stated that Pro�ect No. ST. 1992 - 1 covers the Flanery Park parking lot, Moore Lake Beach parking lot, and the 1992 overlay program. He stated that Project No. ST. 1992-2 covers mill and overlay of Main Street, Mississippi Street, and Gardena Avenue and overlay and new curb and gutter for 67th Avenue, 68th Avenue, Alden Way, Hathaway Lane, Hillwind Road, Rice Creek Road, and Rice Creek Terrace. Mr. Flora stated that the Council received Petitions No. 3 and 4 at the public hearing held on May 4, 1992, and another petition has been submitted from residents on Alden Way ob�ecting to the project assessment and suggesting that City street funds be used for this project. He stated it is recommended that the Council proceed with this project but delete 68th Avenue, Rice Creek Road, and Alden Way. The Council received Petition No. 7-1992 from residents on Alden Way in opposition to this project. Councilman Schneider stated that he has been in contact with a number o£ residents on Rice Creek Road, and the question arose if there were any options that may lower the cost. Mr. Flora stated that the option deals with the City 's policy. He stated that since 1977, the City had the policy of constructing streets with concrete curb and gutters. He stated that the option is keeping the policy or changing it. Councilman Schneider stated that this policy is fifteen years old, and times have changed and the use of taxes and assessments have changed. He stated that it seems appropriate there should be some � options. He stated that he is not suggesting that S�reet "A" and Street "B" be assessed differently for the same level of improvement. He stated that his concern is, if by bypassing one 129 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18 1992 PAGE 15 � street where there is 100 percent agreement, the City precludes looking at other options. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that the project would be governed under Chapter 429 of the State statute, which states if the City has a petition of 35 percent or more, than a ma�ority of the Council can approve the project. He stated if there is not 35 percent or more then it takes a four-fifths vote of the Council. He stated that the Charter is more restrictive than the State statute and, in his opinion, five affirmative votes would be required, if there is not an affirmative petition signed by 35 percent of the property owners. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she received a call from Mrs. Olson, who resides on Van Buren, who said this street was improved in 1975. She stated that she was assessed in 1960 and again in 1975 for improvements. She stated that she paid $14.40 a front foot for the improvement. She stated that her question was how many times the City assesses them for the street and why this assessment project would be only $9.50 a front foot and hers was $14.40 a front foot. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that Mrs. Olson felt MSA funds should be available for all streets in the City, and she wanted to know � why the City changed their policy on street assessments. She stated that a letter was sent to Mrs. Olson addressing her questions. Mr. Flora stated that in 1960, the City was installing utilities, and the $150.00 assessment was for an oil treatment of the street. He stated that in 1975, when the street was constructed with concrete curb and gutter, asphalt pavement, and crown, the assessment was $14.40 a foot for the improvements. He stated that there was only one assessment on the street and the other charge was for the oil treatment to keep the dust down. Mr. Burns asked if this item were to be tabled to address the issue Councilman Schneider brought up, if the construction could still be completed in the 1992-93 season. Mr. Flora stated that if action is taken by the next meeting, he felt the work could probably be completed. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that if the City is going to charge $9.50 a front foot for curb and gutter on some streets and is willing to negotiate on the others, she did not believe it was fair. Councilman Schneider stated that he is not suggesting that one � street be charged a certain price for curb and gutter and another street be charged something different for the same improvement. � ' 130 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 16 Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he is not prepared to vote for the project. ' Mr. Flora stated it is proposed that the cost for the concrete curb and gutter be assessed and that cost will change every year. He stated that the current policy is if the City rebuilds the street and it has concrete curb and gutter, the City will absorb the rebuilding costs. He stated that property owners would only be assessed once for concrete curb and gutter. Mr. Jim Ring, 1500 Rice Creek Road, asked if residents on Rice Creek Road were assessed more because of the width of the street. Mr. Flora stated that residents on Rice Creek Road were not assessed, because it is a County road. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 41-1992. Seconded by Councilman Billings. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to amend Resolution No. 41-1992 by deleting 68th Avenue, Alden Way, and Rice Creek Road from this project. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Billings, Councilman Fitzpatrick and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Jorgenson voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. MOTION by Councilman Billings to further amend Resolution No. 41-1992 by deleting 67th Avenue, Hathaway Lane, Hillwind Road, and Rice Creek Terrace from this pro�ect. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 13. RESOLUTION N0. 42-1992 IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO THE CHURCH OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 42-1992. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 14. RESOLUTION N0. 43-1992 ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH RESMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE: Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that effective March 2, 1992, there was a new regulation dealing with reimbursement bonds to � reimburse the City for previously expended dollars for future projects. He stated that the assessment portion of a street project was normally self-funded by the City, and the City � � I� 131 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 17 accumulated as many of these funds as possible so that these bonds are not marketed every year. He stated that the Internal Revenue Service now restricts how many times the City can go to market with the bonds and the City can only issue a bond within one year of the last expenditure of the project or one year after the project has been put in service. He stated that if the City is reimbursed for those expenses, it must declare an intent to reimburse themselves. Mr. Pribyl stated this resolution will assign that responsibility to the Finance Director to post at the Municipal Center that declaration to reimburse. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, asked what would happen if the deadline is missed. Mr. Pribyl stated as he understands, the City could not proceed and issue a bond. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 43-1992. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 15. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA - FIRE MARSHAL DIVISION AND THE CITY OF FRIDLEY FOR TRIENNIAL INSPECTION OF HOTELS: Mr. Dick Larson, Fire Department, stated that the City conducts inspections annually and what is received from the State is schooling for the State Fire Code. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into this agreement with the State for triennial inspection of hotels. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 16. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that there were no informal status reports. 17. CLAIMS: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize payment of Claim Nos. 43146 through 43388. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 18. LICENSES: MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the licenses as submitted and as on file in the License Clerk's Office. Seconded by � � 132 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING QF MAY 18, 1942 PAGE 18 Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 19. ESTIMATES: MOTION by Councilwoman Sorgenson to approve the estimates as submitted: Northdale Construction Co., Inc. 14450 Northdale Boulevard Rogers, MN 55374 5kywood Lane Water Extension ProjeCt No. 220 FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . . Volk Sewer & Water, Inc. 8909 Bass Creek Court Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 East River Road Storm Sewer Projeot No. 223 FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . Chemlawn Services Corp. P. O. Box 9280 MapleWOOd, MN 55109 Corridor Maintenance Project No. 227 Estimate No. 1 . . . W.B. Miller, Inc. 16765 Nutria Street Ramsey, MN 55303 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1991 - 1& 2 Estimate No. 14. . . . . . . Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson & Associates, InC. (TKDA) 2500 American National Bank Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55101 0 Well No. 13 Electrical Motor Conversion Project No. 230 Estimate No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,4b4.38 $11,307.50 $ 4,143.90 $10,283.59 $ 500.00 ' Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 1 � J 133 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 PAGE 19 20. RECEIVE LETTER FROM FRIDLEY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH REGARDING WAIVER OF FEE FOR BLOODMOBILE SIGN: MOTION by Councilwoman Sorgenson to grant the request by Fridley United Methodist Church for a waiver of the fee for the bloodmobile sign. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADSOURNMENT: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of May 18, 1992 adjourned at lo:oo pm. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Secretary to the City Council Approved: William J. Nee Mayor