The URL can be used to link to this page

04/22/1996 - 4850� OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 1996 � �� ,,� ;; * ' FRIDLEY CITY COUNCZL MEETING '� anror � F�� ATTENDENCE SHEET Ma nda�y, Apn.i.e. 2 2, 19 9 6 � 7:30 P.M. , � PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITE�+i NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN � � ITEM PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESI NUMBER j; _____ ,, � �� . �---:_.. .,/�S / /j'`!1�'�//��r,� %�Ci% ZJ,�L � % / -- `il` ,:t � . , �� j_ � _..— / � �� =.. , r "�� :�--�.;� �'.i � �s� .��,_..t-.-� / �1 3 ` j l!�/?��; � �r� ; ;� �., . ,. � �-� '� C�� ✓�� '_'�-,�--:�.. /� �� .,` �_ - r-L, / �. � j ,� �--.� � � ✓ l � ! � ? �--` � � ��'�' �'�`�`� `7 � � I �' �� l �-`, � � �,,�, � 07 . �� -� � - �` -- � � �- � `7 ��) T'�� c .� . �/ %� � ,,% i/c Lf � �� l ,, ��-`.C�J �J' 7 __ 1 i` r � - ,/ C li,r„�- C-�,,, ,,��,,��,� �� v `��Y.-.. .2-�.� — � L.'1�•�k. /� � i : % ''� ,�jl G `-� � �"�2?' y - � �' `� � , �1 � �,� � �— �'� � � l � � � � v , � � � :�'d�41�'��t � ��-�—_ �..�t'�G �n � �C Z� 5 5 ��S ' 2 / �c2 .�2 � ��U' �" ��-� %1 �GL' /L' S ��-' �CI � r � s " ��✓ � � �c�-� �..�.�.�.,�---� � =-�, _ �. 5�- f�� --, , �-� , --' \'� i� �n ;�f; ` ' ��''-��1�`"�� ,_, . _ � �, �� "� �� .t�=�� , �r � �� - - ;'.�, ;h�'�G_ l � � > �`��-��= %� ' ' � c?�C..1. � � �� .c.+ � tE./ �-' � �� - �� %v �,� ,J � �� 1 � L(--� �� '- t� � '� � � �� "",�� 1� . v�, 9 �� - � -!.. ' �. /- �� ! � � � ' � __' _,_ _ � . Z� ' - ` � � �.. �. � ' r . �1 . � � ,, lr __ _, -� _5 �� -z�' , ��_ _.. � <-- �� <. �G � �� L:�., G �- i � _ ' /;/t�', l! �! !I� �, ;�� 3 c`' /-.�" ��'� ` � z �:.�x f�=�. �-�z� .s 1� �' 7/ s�s �' vti�:� " /�=��- /�o, j� �Tv�-1 n�� 7,� y�',I%�� ii" ai:� �;/ L, rl� �-�( �� r � .�iZ ' �' � f, � �f � �. i t '!O✓ � r , , �"'i'i'v � �; �;-.l %�.✓� 7 ?1 �^--= /'�' w � < :'�1 �f' ? 5 � i�t��C-S �n``� � � _� I �� I �.;; ; V �' ^.:i:.y,��. � �'�,.. ,".� , p�::� � � cxrY oF FRIDIEY FRIDLEY C�TY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 The City of Fridley will not discriminate ag st or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or a tiviries because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orien tion or siatus with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation wiIt be provided to allow in viduals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired ersons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contac Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PROCLAMATION: Poppy Day: May 17, 1996 Continuation of Board of Review: L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.05 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting ofApril 8,�1996 � , 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA- NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 3, 1996 Page 2 ........... 2.01 -2.43 Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Pian Amendment, CPA #96-01, by the City of Fridley, for Modification of the Language Adding Policy No. 4 to Page 6-5, Chapter 6, Water, Sewer and Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.07 Special Use Permit, SP #96-03, by Wayne Dahl, to Allow an Automatic Changeable Sign, Generally Located at 7699 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) . . : . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.06 Resolution Requesting the Reduction of Speed On County Highway 132 (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.06 _ _; � � � .� FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 Page 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA• NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Resolution in Support of a Renewal � Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to the Church of the Immaculate Concep#ion (Knights of Columbus Hall, 6831 Highway 65 N. E. ) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0'1 - 6.02 Appointment: City Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.01 Claims .................................... 8.01 Licenses ................................. 9.01-9.36 Estimates ............. ................... 10.01 . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Senator pon Betzold OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) PUBLIC HEARINGS: Page 4 Ordinance Amendment to Classify Gravel and/or Dirt Driveways as a ' Nuisance and Prohibit Their Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.01 - 11.09 Ordinance Amendment to Limit Hard Surface Driveway or Parking Stall . Surface Material to No More Than 30 Percent of the Calculated Front Yard Area in R-1 and R-2 Districts ................. 12.01 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED,j- Ordinance Amendment to Include Provisions Related to the Definition and Removal of Junk or Unsafe Vehicles � from Private Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 - 13.13 Ordinance Amendment Prohibiting the . Return of Abated Property to its Original Location if it Continues to be in Violation of City Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.01 -14.03 Vacation Request, SAV #96-01, by Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., to Vacate a Drainage and Utility Easement, Generally Located at 1435 Royal Oak Court N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OLD BUSINESS: ............ 15.01-15.20 Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning . Request, ZOA #95-01, by The Rottlund Company, Inc., Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellite Lane) (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0'I - 16.07 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 OLD BUSINESS (CONTINUED): Second Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.07 of the City Charger to Vacate Streets and Alleys and to Amend Appendix C of the City Code (Vacation Request, SAV #95-02, by The Rottlund � Company, Inc., Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellite Lane) (Ward 1) ................................... Page 6 . 17.01 - 17.04 Approve Change Order No. 4 for Locke Lake Dam Reconstruction Project No. 211 (Tabled April 8, 1996)(Ward 3) ................................. NEW BUSINESS: Special Use Permit, SP #96-04, by Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet, to Allow Automobile Agencies Selling or Displaying New and/or Used Motor Vehicles in Order for a Showroom/Office Expansion, Generally Located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) 18.01 - 18.04 ................... 19.01 -'l9.14 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Receive Petition from the Residents East of the Railroad Tracks on Locke Lake ..................................... 20.01-20.04 Approve Change Order No. 1 for Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.01 - 21.03 Approv� Flood Hazard Nlitigation Grant .•. Agreement w°ith the State of � Minnesota, Department of Natural � Resources; and, � Approve Contract with Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, lnc., to Compiete Mississippi River Flood Elevation Study ..................................... 22.01-22.14 Informal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.01 ADJOURN: . r � FRrDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1996 .x� ✓ '� � L Ti�c City of Pridley wi(I not discriminate against or harass anyone in tl�e admission or access to, or treatment, or employmeni in its services, progra►ns, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, na[ional orisin, sex, disability, a�e, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation wi11 be provided to allow individuals �vitl� disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. liearing impaired persons who need an ic�terpreier or other persons with disabilities wl�o require auxiliary aids sl�ould contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- PROCLAMATION- Poppy Day: May 17, 1996 �� CONTINUATION OF BOARO OF REVIEW MEETING: Continuation of Board of Review: . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.05 a .�z�-j� _ �%'SJ� � �� j CfTY COUNCIL MEETING• APPROVA! OF MINUTES• i 'j � J,� -�,,-�.�- _r 4��%� — � City Cou � ii Meeting of April 8, 1996 f �'2% ,�`�t"-- ��n r � � / APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 3, 1996 ..-•----•-�--•-...... 2.01-2_43 �E�� . Resolution Approving a Comp�ehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #96-01, by the City of Fridley, for Modification of the Language Adding Policy No. 4 to Page 6-5, Chapter 6, Water, Sewer and Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.07 ��-�.�� . NEW BUSINESS: Special Use Permit, SP #96-03, by Wayne Dahi, to Allow an Automatic Changeable Sign, Generatly Located at 7699 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) ..... 4.01 - 4.06 ��`z�� w/ �--�-� Resolution Requesting the Reduction of Speed On County Highway 132 (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - �.^vo C�'� Resolution in Support of a Renewal Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to the Ghurch of the lmmac�.�late Conception (Knights of Columbus Hall, 6831 Highway 65 N.E.) {Ward 2) .... 6.01 - 6.02 Q.��%k��-� " ".�__-_ Appointment: City Employee . . . . 7.01 - L- Claims ..-•--- `��---••---. 8.01 �; ° Licenses . . . . �.� _ . 9.01 - 9.36 � /L.�� - G�-- �°�- - ��-.�.� -- �� Estimatas _ .-�-� ............. ��-��.�-�,--� � �.�� ¢---''� 10.01 �,-,.w �� . ADOPTION OF AGENDA: �c�, C�7,�� r� ��-�� ; � �..��,/ � d Cr ��''�✓`�'',,(�e.� LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Gti��"_ Senato�.Befl-�e�� s�-�,� /1 ��' OPEN FORUM. VISITORS• (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Mi�utes � � �Z,- �� ` ��.. � PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ordinance Amendment to Ciassify Gravel and/or Di�t Driveways as a Nuisance ancj,_Prohibit Their Use . . . . . . . . 11.01 -11.09 (��% � -�,r �� Ordinance Amendment to Limit Hard Surface Driveway or Parking Stall Surface Material to No More Than 30 Percent of the Calculated Front Yard Area in R-1 and'R-2 Districts ...... 12.01 � — � � S--v _,,� ��-�--,,�-�G �- �-��-� Ordinance Amendment to Include P�ovisions Related to the Oefinition and Removal ofi Junk or Unsafe Vehicles from Private Property . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 13.01 -13.13 C� — �; S�S�" �� C � a .o.� �"" 3✓� /��' Ordinance Amendment Prohibiting the � j G� Retum of Abated Property to its Original Location if it Continues to be in Viofation of City Ordinan�es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14_01 -14.03 �� -/��,o f- . � — /U�, 0 d * s OLD BUSINESS: � � Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridtey, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-01, by The Rottlund Company, Inc., Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellite Lane) (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 -16.07 � -�,�� -�' � w/��;� (� e�.�-� 3-�--'( �—°c''.� �� Second Readi f an O dinance U��r' Section 12.07 of the City Charger to Vacate Streets and AAeys and to Amend Appendix C of the City Code (Vacation Request, SAV #95-02, by The Rottlund Company, lnc., GeneraJly Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellite Lane) (Ward1) ..................... 17.01-1704 � ��c�riZ� �"� . �— �� –�t,�-� ��1�--�=� Approve Change Order No. 4 for Locke Lake Dam Rsconstruction Project No. 211 (Tabled April 8, 1 �96) (Wa�d 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.01-18.04 � � � f ��- NEW BUSINESS: Special Use Permit, SP #96-04, by Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet, to Allow Automobile Agencies Selling or Displaying New and/or Used Motor Vehicles in Order for a Showroom/O�ce Expansio�, Generally Located at 7509 Highway 65 N.E. {Ward 2) �.;� -� � ....... 19.01-19.14 � ��!� ` / Vacation Request, SAV #96-09, by Royal Oaks Realty, inc., to Vacate a Receive Petition from the Residents Drainage and Utility Easement, Generally East of the Railroad Tracks on Locke Located at 1435 Royal Oak Court N.E. Lake .. y'��.�,. �.. . 20.01 - 20.04 (Wa�d 2i CQ. . _.�.v. � .� . . . - - • - - 15.01 - 1520 �-� ��G^'�`--� � / � ��-�'..� _. . o�'-�..-�-�-�-' �� E. // ��w�-�- ,�-,�--....., �-�c w,� ,��/ ��-- - / � , �.-v �-- 0 "`-- � ° `� � �-- � . NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI: Approve Change Order No. 1 fo� Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization P�oject No. 246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.01 - 21.03 d/�L/°`�--3'-°�� Approve Flood Hazard Mi6gation Grant Agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources; and, Approve Contract with Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, lnc., to Complete Mississippi River Flood Elevation Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.01 - 22.14 �� %"u�� ✓�`� '� ��_ � � �� l — _ �Q'��`� � �- - � _ � �,,�„� �� -, s�� .� �-�-� �-�- S � � �� ,�.-�-- Informal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.01 'G� � � ��'�� d �`�---R--- 6 0 / _ �`"� v� _,�_� ` i�2�� 4;� . ADJOURN: �Z-,� 3 � �/l�l � 0 THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF APRIL 8, 1996 a j THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF APRIL 8, 1996 Mayor Nee called the meeting of the Board of Review to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL- MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilwoman Bolkcom and Councilman Billings MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Schneider Mayor Nee stated the purpose of this meeting is to review the assessor's estimated market value for 1996 for taxes payable in 1997 . _. _ _ _ Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, asked Mr. Hervin, City Assessor, to review the process of equalization and methods used for this evaluation. Mr. Al Ba�k, representative from Anoka County, wa5 also present to answer any questions. Mr. Ed Hervin, City Assessor, stated this meeting was designed to review 1996 values placed on property in the City. He stated the purpose of the meeting is not to review the taxes. He stated the values were arrived at primarily by a mass appraisal. He stated the County establishes the rates and the City establishes land values based on sales. ` Mr. Hervin stated the City's assessment ratio is 94.4 percent. He stated there was about a 3-1/2 percent overall increase in value basically for inflation. He stated the increase in commercial values was about one to two percent, but the market is getting slightly stronger. " Mr. Hervin stated if property owners are not satisfied with the actions of this Board, they can appeal to the County Board of Equalization or to the State Board of Equalization. He stated the final step in the appeal process is the State Tax Court. DONALD CRISPIN, 6820 OA�EY DRIVE: Mr. Crispin stated it is hard to believe that someone would pay $90,000 to $100,000 for his home. He stated he believed his home was compared to those on Rice Creek Terrace, as there are not many homes sold along his street. He stated he would like to take his appeal to the County and chailenges the value of $92,500 placed on his property. Mr. Crispin stated last year the City Assessor, Mr. Madsen, advised him that his lot was worth more than the ones on the other side of the street and he would like to know the reason. He stated his home is built better because he has two by six construction and a two car garage, but it does not have a patio or fireplace. Mr. Hervin stated that fireplaces can raise the value as it adds to the resale of a home. He stated the value piaced on fireplaces is from $500 to $1,500. Mr. Crispin stated he is one of the very few property owners in the block that does not have a fireplace or patio and neighbors that have these amenities have lower taxes. Mr. Hervin stated fireplaces are just one of many factors that can raise the value of property. Mr. Crispin stated it seems he is paying the highest taxes compared to neighboring property owners. Mr. Hervin stated there seems to be a lot of misinformation when property owners are discussing taxes, and he would need to review the issues. Mr. Crispin stated he understands the City does not set the taxes, but when the value is raised it does, in essence, set the taxes. He stated this year there was a sizable increase in his taxes of about $147.00. He stated the value itself did not increase that much. Mr. Hervin stated last year Mr. Crispin's value went down $700.00. Councilman Billings stated he understands that Mr. Crispin does not agree with the value of $92,500 placed on his property. He asked Mr. Crispin what he felt was a fair market value. Mr. Crispin stated he felt a true value would be $85,000. Mr. Hervin stated there were some comparisons done, which were similar to Mr. Crispin's property, and felt the value placed on this property was justified. Mr. Crispin was provided with a copy of the comparisons which were completed by staff. Councilwoman Jorgenson reviewed similar properties in the area at 6840 Brookview Drive, 6840 and 6845 Washington, 6850 Jefferson, and 7896 Jackson. She noted that these property values ranged from $85,700 to $121,800 and sold from $89,000 to $135,000. Mr. Crispin stated there are differences in his property from these other properties. � � l BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Hervin stated adjustments were made for the differences. Mr. Crispin stated the home next to his was sold last year and questioned the selling price. Mayor Nee felt Mr. Crispin's appeal should be submitted to staff for review and brought back at the April 22 meeting. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to refer this appeal by Mr. Crispin to staff for further review. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. No other persons spoke regarding the values placed on their property. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to continue the Board of Review meeting to April 22, 1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad William J. Nee Recording Secretary Mayor THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF APRIL 8, 1996 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:55 p.m. by Mayor Nee after the meeting of the Board of Review. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL• MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Billings and Councilwoman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Schneider PROCLAMATION: DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOiACAUST: APRIL 14-21 1996• Mr. Burns, City Manager, read this proclamation proclaiming the week of April 14 through 21, 1996 as Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust. Mayor Nee issued this, proclamation and stated that in memory of those victims we,<as`citizens of the City, should collectively and individually strive to overcome bigotry, hatred and indifference through learning, tolerance and remembrance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, MARCH 18 1996• MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimausly. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1996• RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1996. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 PAGE 2 3. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 22 1996 FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO LIMIT HARD SURFACE DRIVEWAY OR PARKING STALL SURFACE MATERIAL TO NO MORE THAN 30 PERCENT OF THE CALCULATED FRONT YARD AREA IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS: SET PUBLIC HEARiNG FOR APRIL 22, 1996. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1996• RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1996. 5. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #96-01, BY RONALD AND JANET ZACZKOWSKI, TO ALLOW A SECONDARY ACCESSORY BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 240 SQUARE FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 314 HUGO STREET N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this is a request for a special use permit to allow a second accessory building at 314 Hugo Street. He stated that the petitioner is proposing to construct a 22 foot by 36 foot attached garage and to keep the existing 12 by 24 foot tuck-under garage. He stated that the tuck-und�r garage will be used for storage of the family car, and the proposed attached garage is to be used for storage of a second car, a boat, and a hobby shop. Mr. Burns stated that in the past, the City has allowed two garages and two driveways. Mr. Burns stated that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this request, and staff also recommends approval with the stipulation that the existing 8 foot by 10 foot utiiity shed and an off-street parking place be removed within one year of the construction of the new garage. APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-01, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE EXISTING 8 FOOT BY 10 FOOT UTILITY SHED AND AN OFF- STREET PARKING PLACE BE REMOVED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE CONSTRUCTION FROM THE NEW GARAGE. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 27-1996 APPROVING A SUBDIVISION, LOT SPLIT L.S. #96-01, TO SPLIT PROPERTY INTO TWO SEPARATE PARCELS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 276-78 58TH AVENUE N.E. (BY VALLEY INVESTMENT COMPANY) (WARD 3): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this lot split will create two lots; Lot A which will be 77 by 135 feet or 10,406 square feet, and Lot B which will be 65 by 134.9 feet or 8,839 square feet. He stated that Lot B will be non- conforming in that its width will be less than the required 80 feet, and its area will be less than the required 9, 000 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8 1996 PAGE 3 square feet. He stated that the lot split will also have the impact of officially redesignating the front and rear yards of the duplex which now fronts on Third Street. Mr. Burns stated that, currently, the duplex has a non- conforming rear yard of only 14 feet instead of the required 35.61 feet. He stated that if the lot split is approved, the 58th Avenue side of the property will become the front yard, and the new front yard will measure only 14 feet instead of the required 35 feet. He stated that, in essence, the lot split has the effect of swapping non- conformities for the duplex. He stated the garage that now serves the southern most half of the duplex will be moved to Lot A, and a driveway will be constructed along the west side of the duplex to serve the relocated garage. Mr. Burns stated that the newly created Lot B is being sold for development of a new single family home that must be built within a 42.94 foot by 66.18 foot area or 2,841.77 square feet. He stated that the lot split was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission subject to the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner acknowledges that the City's action creates a non-conforming front yard setback for the existing duplex; (2) if the petitioner fails to obtain a building permit within twelve months and a certificate of occupancy within eighteen months after approval of the lot split, then the petitioner shall remove tne garage on Lot B; (3) the petitioner acknowledges that Lot B has a long, narrow buildable area and shall design a house to fit that area; and (4) the petitioner shall provide adequate parking for the duplex. Mr. Burns stated that there were no objections raised by surrounding neighbors, and staff recommends Council approval with the four stipulations. � ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 27-1996 WITH THE ABOVE FOUR STIPULATIONS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A. 7. ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 22, 1996, ON A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #96-01, BY IMPERIAL HOMES, INC., TO VACATE A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1435 ROYAL OAK COURT N.E. (WARD 2): SET THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS VACATION REQUEST, SAV #96-01 FOR APRIL 22, 1996. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 _ PAGE 4 8. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 TO LOCKE LAKE DAM RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 211• Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that in finalizing the payment of the Locke Lake dam, staff recognized that additional rebar was used in construction of the dam. He stated that although the additional rebar was not included in the original design, it was agreed to jointly by the contractor, Lunda Construction Company, and the City's consulting engineer, Ayres & Associates, at the tima of construction. Altogether 7,493 additional�pounds of steel was installed, raising the value of the steel from $25,300 to $29,421.15 or by $4,121.15. He stated that staff recommends approval of the change order to Lunda Con- struction Company in the amount of $4,121.15 for the Locke Lake Dam reconstruction. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 28-1996 AUTHORIZING CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE FIRST 4UARTER OF 1996: Mr. Burns, City Manager stated that the adjustments have arisen as a result of unforeseen expenditures, donations, and reclassification of line items. He stated that all of the General Fund adjustments ($4,950) are covered by donations from community organizations, particularly the Fridley Lions Club, who contributed $4,500 for construction of a dec�ntamination area at our main fire station. Mr. Burns stated that this resolution also covers $25,000 in expenditures for investigation of a fuel oil leak from one of two fuel oil tanks located between the main Municipal Center and the Police Department garages. He stated that thus far we have spent about $9,000 for the services of an environmental consultant, Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, and expect to spend up to $25, 000 in 1996. He stated that ninety percent of the City's costs are recoverable from Petro Funds. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 28-1996. 10. CLAIMS• AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 67194 THROUGH 67553. 11. LICENSES• APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LICENSE CLERK'S OFFICE. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8 1996 PAGE 5 12. ESTIMATES• APPROVED THE ESTIMATES, AS FOLLOWS: Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard, N.W. Coon Rapids, MN 55435-5489 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of March, 1996 . . . . . . . . $ 1,135.34 Frederic W. Knaak, Esq. Holstad and Larson, P.L.C. - 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of March, 1996 . . . . . . . . $ 4,250.00 Schield Construction Company 13604 Ferris Avenue South Apple Valley, MN 55124 Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 246 Estimate No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $108,085.89 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. Councilwoman Bolkcom requested that �tem 8 be removed from the consent agenda. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to approve the consent agenda items, with the exception of Item 8. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to adopt the agenda with the „ addition of Item 8 from the consent agenda. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unani�mously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Mr. Michael LaFave, 640 Dover Street, stated that he was at this meeting because of an article in the spring newsletter by Councilman Schneider with regard to prevailing wages. He stated that he finds prevailing wages a very good tool and is not here FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 __________.PAGE 6 to debate the pros and cons. He stated he felt that there is some misinformation regarding prevailing wages for the development of the Southwest Quadrant of University Avenue and Mississippi Street, as the article states that prevailing wage is based on union scale. He questioned what union scale was. Mr. LaFave stated that he represents the Sheet Metal Workers, Local 10, and they have many workers in the City employed at various businesses. He stated that union scale depends on the industry, the market, and levels of experience. He stated that he felt this article slights members of organized labor. He stated that most of their members are in the middle class category, and to say this is based on union scale and that the cost impact of the project is about $500,000 over scale is offensive. Mr. LaFave stated that in discussing prevailing wages with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, prevailing wages are determined by a survey process and based on the most common wage in the area. He stated that in this case, it would be Anoka County, and the survey process is done for each individual trade. He stated that he would challenge Councilman Schneider to bring forth any information that prevailing wages are based on union scale. He stated that in the United States, 71 percent of prevailing wage determinations were based on non-union wages. He stated that in many counties in the state, prevailing wages are below building trade wages. Mr. LaFave said the article further states that the likely outcome is that the City will modify the prevailing wage require- ment to exempt residential developments. He questioned if this has been done. Councilman Billings stated that there was a resolution before Council that was adopted by a three to two vote. Mr. LaFave stated he understands that Councilwoman Jorgenson and Councilman Billings voted to keep the prevailing wage requirement and Mayor Nee, Councilman Schneider, and Councilwoman Bolkcom voted to eliminate it. He stated he understands that prevailing wages no longer exist in the City. Mr. LaFave stated that the southwest quadrant project came about because of inadequate housing and the type of problems in this area. He finds it ironic that the City, because of this project, uses prevailing wages as a tool to lower the wages of people in Anoka County and the City. He stated that he finds this unacceptable. Mr. LaFave requested that Council correct the misinformation in the newsletter. He stated that there is no way prevailing wages FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 PAGE 7 are based on union scale, and he felt that this was an insult to the workers employed in the businesses in the City. Councilman Billings stated that he did not believe there were any real delays in the Southwest Quadrant project created by the fact that the City had a prevailing wage resolution. He felt that any slowdown in negotiations with the developer was probably based on the fact that the chosen developer was the only developer of single family housing that did not pay prevailing wages. He stated that the other developers that built single family housing did pay prevailing wages to their workers, but they were not chosen by a vote of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Council. He stated that the homes built by contractors that pay prevailing wages are as competitively priced as the homes built by Rottlund. He stated that by paying prevailing wages, it does not necessarily increase the cost of the project. Mr. LaFave stated the article mentioned that residential con- tractors do not pay prevailing wages to their employees. He stated that he believed Rottlund does not pay prevailing wages because they have no workers that do the construction. He stated that they sub-contract their work out. That is used as a tool to not pay worker's compensation and other benefits that are due employees in this state. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if Rottlund stated that most builders do not pay prevailing wages on residential construction. Ms. Dacy stated that what was said was that the home construction industry is primarily non-union, but some could.pay prevailing wage rates. She stated that in the development agreement with Rottlund, despite the repeal of the resolution, there is a requirement that Rottlund comply with all the state insurance and tax rate issues for their contractors and sub-contractors. She stated there is language that addresses the original issue, which was in the resolution adopted six years ago, that if Rottlund uses out of state contractors, or if twenty percent or more of the employees come from out of state, they do have to pay prevailing wages. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the Southwest Quadrant was not developed to get rid of any certain types of persons in the City, She stated that it was an area of redevelopment, and there were apartment buildings that needed to be torn down. Mr. LaFave stated that the apartments had become low income housing and the buildings were in bad shape. He stated that by repealing prevailing wage, the City is not looking for standards for the City. He stated that good workers are being punished when the City repeals prevailing wages. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8 1996 PAGE 8 Mayor Nee stated that he did not believe the City was repealing prevailing wages, as it is generally understood, as further requirements were adopted. Mr. LaFave stated he understands that prevailing wages in the City have been eliminated. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that there is no longer any re- quirement for the payment of prevailing wages when City funds are involved. Mr. LaFave stated that this means the City will not do business with any contractors in the City because they pay prevailing wages. He stated that the prevailing__wage laws in the City have been completely watered down as far as City funds. Mayor Nee advised Mr. LaFave that he was sure Councilman Schneider will review his remarks and take them very seriously. NEW BUSINESS• 13. RESOLUTION NO. 29-1996 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT ESTABLISHING THAT A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET IS NOT REOUIRED FOR LAKE POINTE OFFICE PARK AND RELATED TRUNK HIGHWAY 65/WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE/CENTRAL AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: Ms. Dacy, Community Development ' Director, stated `that this reso�- � lution establishes that the findings of fact of a new" environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is not required in this matter. She stated that the City can determine if a new EAW is required. She stated if the City fincis that one is not required, then the City needs to establish findings of fact that such a document is not required. � Ms. Dacy stated that ten years ago, the City reviewed the work- sheet prepared by the developer and found it was sufficient and that an environmental impact statement would not need to be completed. She stated that last fall, the Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority hired Linda Fisher of Larkin, Hoffman, Dal� & Lindgren to coordinate the environmental review permit processes. She stated that Jim Benshoof and Associates was hired to complete the traffic, air and noise analysis required for the indirect source permit application. Ms . Dacy stated that MEPC entered into a contract for exclusive negotiations with the HRA to develop the site and has submitted a master plan. She stated that there is a substantial amount of. documentation that there have been no significant changes in the last ten years. She stated that the proposed development is less intensive than what was proposed ten years ago. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 PAGE 9 Ms. Dacy stated that a neighborhood meeting has been scheduled, and the Planning Commission, the HRA, and the City Council will review the master plan in May and June prior to review of the plat and zoning. Ms. Linda Fisher, of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, stated that she was asked by the HRA to assist them with the environmen- tal law to determine if an EAW is needed. She stated that the City was taking a very pro-active approach and put together a team of consultants necessary to address two primary state law issues. She stated that one issue was whether a new environmen- tal review was necessary. The other issue was to obtain a new indirect source permit and that formal application process would begin for a new air quality permit. Ms. Fisher stated that the resolution before Council basically documents that the preparation of a new EAW is not required under state law. She stated that there has not been a substantial change in the project or site area and that such a change. If it had occurred, it does not affect the potential for adverse environmental effects. She stated that City staff did a very professional and thorough job, taking their role under state law seriously. She stated that the calculations were compared to the 1986 project as opposed to MEPC's proposed project. She stated that changes in the surrounding area were evaluated and the HRA retained a consultant to conduct traffic, noise, and wetland studies. Ms. Fisher stated that with respect to traffic, air quality, and noise, those studies are very conservative. She stated that they are less intense than what was originally proposed in 1986. She stated that even under the worse case scenario, noise, traffic, and water quality was within the limits. She stated that she supports staff's recommendation that a new EAW would not be required for this site which contain very detailed findings. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the project area is primarily west of Highway 65, and she was concerned about the West Moore Lake Drive and Central Avenue intersection. She stated that the traffic analysis indicates that in 1999, without the Lake Pointe development, the Old Central/Hackmann Avenues intersection shows 3,320 vehicles per day going through that area. She stated that with the Lake Pointe development, there would be 5,750 vehicles per day. She stated that in the year 2008, the traffic projections are 3,600 vehicles per day, without the Lake Pointe development; and 8,270 vehicles per day vehicles with the Lake Pointe development. She stated that her concern is for persons on the east side of the highway and how they are going to get out. Ms. Dacy stated that the information from the consultant on an estimate of the traffic is 9,650 vehicles in 1999 and, with the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 PAGE 10 Lake Pointe development, it would increase to 10,140 vehicles. She stated that with improvement of the intersection, the level of service will improve from an F to a D. She stated that for the year 2008, the existing 9,650 vehicles would increase to 11,630 vehicles with the Lake Pointe development. She stated that if the Lake Pointe development did not occur, the traffic projections are 10,830 vehicles. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked why there is such an increase in the traffic. Ms. Dacy stated that applies to the west leg of the intersection and does not apply to Hacl�aann Avenue. She stated that the improvements to the intersection are_.essential and affects both areas east and west of Highway 65. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if there would be two ieft turn lanes and one lane to proceed straight ahead at Highway 65 if a person is proceeding west on Old Central Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated that this is correct. Councilwoman Jorgenson questioned how traffic coming off I-694 and going northbound on Highway 65 would be handled. Ms. Dacy stated that this will be reviewed with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to modify the exit ramp from west- bound'I-694 to northbound Highway 65 to provide traffic signal control at the intersection of the ramp and northbound Highway �� 65. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that an ISTEA grant of $1.5 million was received, and the changes probably would not be funded until 1999. Ms. Dacy stated that staff will be evaluating if the improvements should be completed prior to the funding being available and requesting reimbursement at a later date. She stated that a report would be sent to Council on this issue. Ms. Fisher stated that from a legal standpoint and in terms of the findings, they are looking at whether there has been a sub- stantial change that would affect the facts. She stated that when the initial traffic analysis was done in 1986, the intersection was identified as near capacity. She stated that ten years ago and today, there continues to be a problem at that intersection. She stated that, in 1986, the EAW identified a need to improve the intersection, on both the east and the west sides, to accommodate full development of Lake Pointe and traffic growth in the area. A conceptual design was also proposed. She stated that the updated traffic study confirmed that and will identify the need for the improvement. She stated that a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8 1996 PAGE 11 question Council will be addressing is the timetable for con- struction of that intersection. Councilman Billings pointed out that on Page 3, paragraph 1, lines 2 and 4 of this resolution, the year 1996 should be changed to 1986. MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 29-1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. MOTION by Councilman Billings to as follows: in paragraph l, line changed to "1986" and in line changed to "March 17, 1986." amend Page 3 of this resolution 2, the second "1996" should be 4, "March 17, 1996" should be Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 14. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #96-02 BY CORINNE JESPERSEN AND JANET PALMER TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 27 FEET TO 26 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE ENCROACHMENT OF A DECK IN THE REAR YARD FROM 10 FEET TO 12 FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6496/98 RIVERVIEW TERRACE N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this was a request for two variances, one for a rear yard setback and the other to increase the encroachment of a deck in the rear yard. He stated that when the home was constructed in 1979, it was built cl�oser to the rear lot line at 26 feet, rather than 27 feet. He stated that staff has no recommendation on this one foot variance, and it is within previously granted requests. Mr. Hickok stated that in regard to the variance for encroachment of a deck in the rear yard from 10 feet to 12 feet, staff is recommending denial, as the petitioner can reduce the width of the deck to comply. He stated that when the deck is constructed, the petitioner can reduce the size of the deck to the required ten foot width by removing the two foot cantilever. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances with stipulations. He stated that the petitioner submitted letters from three homeowners who are in agreement with the variances. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the deck was constructed without a permit, and if the variance was approved there are some issues with the railing and actual footing. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1996 PAGE 12 Mr. Hickok stated that the Chief Building Official has outlined a number of items that need to be addressed, and one is the footings which should not be part of the concrete slab. He stated that because a permit was not issued, there was no inspection by the City. Mr. Hickcock stated that because of the existing porch, it is difficult to determine how the deck was affixed to the home. Ms. Corinne Jespersen, the petitioner, stated that there was a tiny deck on the home when she purchased it. She stated that her son-in-law built the deck without even considering permits or variances. Councilwoman Jorgenson felt that it was an improvement to the property over what existed. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Variance Request, VAR #96-02, with the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit; (2) the deck and footings shall be inspected; (3) changes shall be made to the deck so that it complies with the Uniform Building code; and (4) the screen porch shall be removed. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 15. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #96-06, BY COR3NNE JESPERSEN AND JANET PALMER TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 27 FEET TO 15. FEET GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6496-98 RIVERVIEW TERRACE N.E. (WARD 31: Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 27 feet to 15 feet to bring into compliance a recently constructed screened porch. He stated that this relates to Variance Request, VAR #96- 02. Once the deck was constructed, the petitioners had a screened porch constructed. Mr. Hickok stated that staff is recommending denial of the variance, as the petitioner can construct a detached, screen enclosed gazebo without a variance. He stated that the Appeals Commission recommended approval of this variance, as they felt a detached gazebo would be more of an imposition on the neighbors. He stated that the three adjacent neighbors support this variance. Mr. Hickok stated that the screened porch is considered living space and should have the same setback as the home. He stated that since it protrudes into the rear yard the variance is, therefore, requested. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8 1996 PAGE 13 MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Variance Request, VAR #96-06, with the stipulation that the porch meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and, if necessary, any modifications, additions, or deletions should be completed in order to meet these requirements. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 16. VARIANCE RE4UEST, VAR #96-04, BY JOE MAERTENS, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 100 FEET TO 35 FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 160 - 83RD AVENUE N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 100 feet to 35 feet for the construction of an industrial building. He stated that in 1987, a site plan was submitted and a variance was granted. He stated that when the site plan was submitted the petitioner proposed a three phase multi-tenant development. He stated that in 1987, the first phase was completed with construction of an industrial building at 8251 Main Street. In 1989, the second phase was completed with the construction of an industrial building at 100 - 83rd Avenue. He stated that this building would be the third and final phase. He stated that a five-year time period was placed on the variance that was granted and which has expired. He stated that the site plan is the same as the plan Council reviewed in 1987. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission voted four to one to approve the variance. He stated that the request is within previously granted variances, and staff has no recommendation. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated it is her understanding that the issue about changing the building raised questions about traffic flow and parking. Mr. Hickok stated that there was concern about the petitioner's south building that has an enclosed outdoor storage yard. He stated that there was discussion about extending this building or combining the buildings. He stated that the petitioner expressed concern about that yard area being lost and the inability to get circulation for the uses that exist. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the issue of landscaping and trash was discussed at the Appeals Commission meeting. Mr. Maertens, the petitioner, stated that the landscaping is quite extensive. He felt that the buildings are kept free of trash. He stated that if they moved the driveway it would cause a traffic problem. He stated that the two buildings constructed are better construction than originally proposed. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG OF APRIL 8 1996 PAGE 14 Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if the building he was proposing is similar to the other two. Mr. Maertens stated that it will be virtually identical. He stated that it is his intention to construct it this year. He stated that in 1987 when the variance was granted, he knew all the buildings would not be constructed at once. He stated that because of the soft real estate market the third building was not constructed. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that when Springbrook Apartments were constructed there was discussion on the zoning and how it would affect the industrial and commercial areas. Mayor Nee stated that there was discussion on setbacks when Springbrook Apartments were constructed, and this would not be applied to Mr. Maerten's project. He stated that the project has been exceptionally well done and would actually improve the area. Mr. Hickok review the three stipulations. Mr. Maertens stated that he had no objection to these stipulations. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Variance Request, VAR #96-04, with the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner shall submit a final grading and drainage plan and the appropriate hydraulic calculations; (2) the petitioner shall submit a landscape plan complying with the M-2, Heavy Industrial District requirements; and (3) the petitioner shall execute and record joint parking and driveway agreements between the subject parcel and the parcel to the west. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 17. RESOLUTION RE4UESTING THE REDUCTION OF SPEED ON COUNTY HIGHWAY 132: Councilwoman Jorgenson stated it has come to her attention that the County has reduced the speed limit on 85th Avenue (County Road 132) from Highway 47 westbound to the Wal-Mart entrance. She voiced concern over the inconsistency of speed limits on different segments of 85th Avenue (County Road 132). She felt that it would make sense to keep the speed limit consistent at 35 mph. She stated that 85th Avenue is heavily used by people visiting Springbrook Nature Center. Many residents walk in that area, and there have been numerous accidents involving deer. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to adopt this resolution. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Councilman Billings stated that as he understands it, the speed limit has been 50 mph for a considerable period of time and was recently reduced to 35 mph for a portion of 85th Avenue. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8 1996 PAGE 15 Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she believes the speed limit may have been reduced due to the construction on the east side of Highway 47 near the Northtown Shopping Center entrance. Councilman Billings asked if the County establishes the speed limit for this road if this resolution is adopted. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that the County would petition the Minnesota Department of Transportation to conduct a series of traffic counts, and they would set the speed at the 85th percentile. Councilman Billings stated that if the majority of the vehicles are traveling at 65 mph, there is the possibility they could raise the speed limit. Mr. Flora stated that the speed limit would be based on the 85th percentile. Councilwoman Bolkcom suggested that the City ask the County why the speed limit is not consistent before acting on this resolution. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to table this item until the County is contacted to determine why there is a difference in speed limits on this road. Seconded by Councilwo�an Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that in the meantime, she will be talking to Coon Rapids officials to determine what they can also do to reduce the speed limit on this road. 8. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 TO LOCKE LAKE DAM RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 211• Councilman Billings asked if this change order would require four votes. He stated that since Councilwoman Bolkcom will probably be abstaining from voting on the mo�ion, it would not be possible to have the four affirmative votes. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that in order to approve the change order four affirmative votes would be necessary. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the original contract was let for $537,375.75, and the revised contract, including this change order, is $509,279.36. She questioned if the four votes were necessary, since the project was less than the original contract. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the change order amount is not budgeted in the 1996 budget; therefore, it would require four affirmative votes. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8 1996 PAGE 16 MOTION by Councilman Billings to table this item to the next meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 18. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that there are several items to be discussed at the conference session. He stated that the department managers would be presenting their goals and objec- tives and, if there was time, he would like to discuss the Hyde Park redevelopment project. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom 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 April 8, 1996 adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad William J. Nee Secretary to the City Council Mayor ci� oF �LEY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: William Burns, City Manager �� Rick Pribyl, Finance Director From: Ed Hervi Cit Assessor �,� n, Y �'' _/� �/ Subject:1996 Board of Review, Second Meeting Date: April 18, 1996 Attached is the information that was requested at the ftrst meeting of the Board. We have included the detaiied review of sales comparisons and a synopsis of the same review with some detail omitted. We have also included a copy of the field card of the property next to Mr. Crispin's, located at 6810 Oakley St. N. E., that sold in 1994. We have no detail on this sale so we don't know if it is a good sale comparison or not. We generally need to know if the sale was an azrns length transaction, if it was offered on the market for a sufficient amount of time to know that it sold for as much as it could ha.ve. A very short market time may indicate the property was offered at a below market rate. Both buyer and seller ha,ve to have an opportunity ta maximize their values. As a result of our review we feel that the Crispin property is valued at or below its true market value. 1.01 1995 Board of Review Case # 2 Owner: Don & Dorothy Crispin Address: 6820 Oakley flr. N.E. PIN #: 13-30-24 22-0042 Property Type: Residential, Homestead Lot Size: 85' x 123' Style: Rambler Bldg Area: 1,245 sq ft Year Built: 1961 1996 EMV Land: $29,900 Bldg: 62,600 Total: $92,500 Notes: The property is located between Rice Creek and Mississippi St and between Hwy #65 and University. Issues: � The value for 1996 is 2.5% higher than 1995. This is somewhat less than the avera.ge increase for the city. Last year the value for the air conditioning was removed because the system has apparently not worked for some time: There does not seem to be any other extenuating circumstances affecting the property value. Analysis: The house is a rambler, built in 1961. The main floor is 1245 square feet with an attached two-car garage. There are a few amenities that have added value. I,ast year the details of our infocmation were discussed and were considered to be accurate. Fow similar properties that sold during 1995 were compared to the subject properly and adjustments were made for differences in the properties. All of the properties sold for more than the estimated value of the subject both before and after the adjustments. The average sale price after adjustments is $99,400. Ttus is neazly $7,000 more than the estimated market value of the subject. ! Recommendation: - ' No chan�e recommended since the subject is valued below numerous sales of similar properties in the city. 1.03 SUBJECT PID 13-22-42 ADDRESS 6820 OAKLEY BASE AREA 1245 STYI E RB STYLE ADJ YR BUILT 1961 AGE COND ( S°b PER YR) X-BATHS 1 GRADE 27 QUAL ADJ FPL 0 AIR COND �0 GARAGE 504 BSMT/FIN 228 FIN QUAL �2 PCH/DECKS - �0 SALE AMT SALE DATE LAND VALUE STR VALUE NO FPL AIR COND • X BATHS GARAGE BFIN GRADE/QUAL PCH/DECKS S'TYLE SIZE SIZE S AGE ADJ TOTALS ADJUSTED SALE AMOUNT - LOCATION ADJUSTED STRUCTURE ADJUSTED TO SUBJECT $29,900 COMP #1 14-12-98 6893 MADISON 1114 RB o.00� 1958 iso� 1 27 0.00% 0 51,200 498 529 �2 SO s�,soo 4/95 528,200 �71,300 SO (51,200) SO �72 (5602) �0 So SO 111.76% 53,958 51,070 53,298 5102,798 528,200 5104,498 REVtEV1/ COMP #2 14-14-22 6730 JACKSON 1225 RB o.00� 1959 1.00% 1 27 0.00% 0 51,200 528 6S8 S2 5758 s94,9o0 3/95 529,900 565,000 SO �$1•�) �o ��) (5860) S0 (5758) SO 101.63°ro 5604 5650 {�1,851) �93,049 529,900 563,149 593,049 GAR VALUE a12 FPLC VAL 51,200 AVG STRUCTURE VAL BATH VAL �1,200 SUBJEGT LAND VAL AVERAGE AFTER ADJUSTMENTS •SIZE ADJUSTMENT PER S.F �30.21 1.04 COMP #3 14-42-43 63Si 7 ST 1164 RB aoo� 1958 1.50% 0 27 0.00% 1 51,200 252 0 SO 52,530 s9z,000 S/95 525,600 566,400 (Si,2oo) (51,200) 51,200 �3,024 5456 So (52,53U) SO 106.96% 52,447 5996 53,194 595,194 525,600 �69,594 599,494 COMP #4 13-13-29 1399 66 AVE 1292 RB o.00� 1959 1.00Rb 1 2� 0.00% 0 51,200 536 374 S2 5.3,267 sio�,soo 3/95 5��,� �76,600 So (�1,200) $0 (�384) {5292) SO (53,26� SO 9636% (a1,420) �766 (SS,796) 5101,704 �30,900 570,804 5100,704 569,536 529,900 599,436 CITY OF FRiDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MBSTING, APRIL 3, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Newman called the April 3, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Dave Newman, Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Members Absent: Dave Rondrick Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michelle McPherson, Planning Assistant Lori & Dick Kempe, 5235 Taylor Street Jackie & Jerry Sypnieski, 5251 Taylor Street Bill Job, 5250 Taylor Street Kwin Zemke, 5299 Taylor Street Jim Rosemeyer, 5285 Taylor Street John Egelkrout, 5234 Taylor Street � . James Cook, 1338 - 53rd Avenue N.E. �� Dean Bliss, 5212 Fillmore Street Ronald Parizek, 5258 Fillmore Street James Petron, 5300 Fillmore Straet • Mary Matthews, 1259 Skywood Lane - Ron Stelter, Friendly Chevrolet Michael Klein, Phillips Klein Co., Inc. John & June Linder, 1350 Skywood Lane N.E. Nancy Jark, 5201 Central Avenue N.E. Wayne Dahl, 7699 Highway 65 Charlotte Nessman, 8019 - 6th Street N.E., Spring Lake Park, Minnesota Marvin Nunemaker, 5060 Topper Lane N.E. Sheldon Mortenson, 1289 Skywood Lane N.E. Gary Colby, Menards Steve Soltau, Skywood Mall Brian Malkerson, Esq., 901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota Pat Conlin, Milestone Hotel Investments, 681 E. Lake Street, Wayzata, Minnesota Donald Delich, 5284 Taylor Street N.E. Judy Engebretson, 5216 Taylor Street N.E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms: Savage, to approve the agenda. 2.� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAG$ 2 IIPON A VOIC$ VOT$� ALL VOTINQ AYB, CHAIRPERSON NBWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. APPROVAL OF MARCH 20, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MIN[TTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the March 20, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICI� VOTR, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPBRSON NB�MAN DECLARED THL MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA #96-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: In accardance with State Statute 462.355, Subdivision 2, procedure for plan adoption and amendment. The proposal would add policy #4 to Page 6-5, Chapter 6, Water, Sewer and Solid Waste: 4. The City will apply National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for the design of new storrawater ponds and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) urban best management practices titled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas to the review of any proposed development occurrin� in the City of Fridley to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadinqs in stormwater runoff. The City will incorporate these standards and requirements in its stormwater management plan and land use controls to implement thi� policy. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYS, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TH8 PIIBLIC HEARIN(� OPEN AT 7:38 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment is being proposed by the City of Fridley. The amendment would add policy #4 to Chapter 6, "Water, Sewer and Solid Waste", and addresses the City's stormwater runoff and water quality policies. The amendment is actually related to a Comprehensive Plan change associated with the Home Depot request. In 1995, the City changed the land use designation for the Home Depot site located at Main Street and I-694 from industrial to commercial. The site consists of 14.5 acres. The Metropolitan Council is reviewing that Comprehensive Plan amendYnent indicated the City would also amend its water, sewer and solid waste chapter to include best management practices and National Urban Runoff Program requirements. �' � PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAGS 3 Ms. McPherson stated the City has already adopted an erosion control ordinance and adopted the MPCA's best manaqement practices by reference so the cities have been incorporating these water quality standards for a number of years prior to this amendment. This amendment is a housekeeping item to comply with the Metropolitan Council directive. The only action for the Planning Commission is to take public comment and to approve the language included in the agenda packet. The Planning Commission had no questions of staff. No public comment was received. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYS, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARL�D THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:42 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #96-01, by the City of Fridley, in accordance with State Statute 362.355, Subdivision 2,. procedure for plan adopti.on and amendment, to add policy #4 to Chapter 6, Water, Sewer and Solid Waste, as follows: 4. The City will apply National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for the design of new stormwater ponds and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) urban best management practices titled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas to the review of any proposed development occurring in the City of Fridley to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff. The City will incorporate these standards and requirements in its stormwater management plan and land use controls to implement this policy. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, 40TING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARBD T$E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this item at their meeting on April 22. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, #96- 03, BY WAYNE DAHL• Per Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code, to allow an automatic changeable sign, generally located at 7699 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. 2.03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAGB 4 IIPON A VOIC$ VOTE� ALL VOTING AY$� CBAIRPERSON Ni�WMAN DBCLARED THS MOTION CARRIED AND TH$ PQBLIC HEARING OP$N AT 7:44 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit request is �for 7699 Highway 65, which is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 65 and Osborne Road. The special use permit is in relation to Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Sign Code which requires that a special use permit be issued prior to the installation of any automatic changeable sign. Mr. Dahl is proposing to install a new sign advertising his chiropractic clinic located on the subject parcel. Ms. McPherson stated the sign in question is a 4.8 square foot sign located on the sign which will display the time and temperature. The sign area with the two portions of the sign is less than the 80 square feet allowed by code. There are two other time and temperature signs in the City - one at Home Value along I-694 and the second at TCF Bank at 52nd and Central. Menards also has an automatic changeable sign; however, the conditions of the Menards sign are such that the message may change only once every 15 minutes. In the case of Mr. Dahl's sign, the message may change more often as it is a time and temperature sign.• Ms. McPherson stated, as the sign meets the criteria of the sign code, staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulation: 1. If the use of this sign becomes more than time and temperature, the message shall change no more than once every I5 minutes. The Planning Commission had no questions of staff. Mr. Dahl stated he had no additional information. Mr. Newman asked if the petitioner was comfortable with the stipulation. Mr. Dahl stated yes. No comment was received from the public. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by•Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICS VOT$, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TH8 PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:46 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-03, by Wayne Dahl, to allow an 2.04 PLANNING COMMISSION MESTINd. APRIL 3. 1996 PAG$ 5 automatic changeable sign, generally located at 7699 Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. If the use of this sign becomes more than time and� temperature, the message shall change no more than once every 15 minutes. IIPON A VOICS VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPBRSON N$WMAN D$CLARED THE MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of April 22. , 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-04, BY ROGER MOODY OF FRIENDLY CHEVROLET: Per Section 205.15.01.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles in order for a showroom/office expansion, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. ., QPON A VOICL VOTE, ALI, DOTINQ AYE, CHAIRPERSO�T NEWMAN D]3CLARED THL MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC HEARIN(i OPEN AT 7:48 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the special,use permit request is for • property located at 7501 Highway 65. � The subject parcel is located on Highway 65 and Fireside Drive in the northeast corner of the intersection. Directly to the north is Rurt Manufacturing and to the south is the trailer court. The petitioner�s request is to expand the showroom area of the facility. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner.is proposing to construct a_. two-story office and showroom addition along the north side of the facility. The footprint of the addition is 3,904 square feet. In addition, the petitioner is also proposing to install some new curb and gutter along the frontage road along Iiighway 65 and install some additional landscaping along this same frontage. Ms. McPherson stated staff, in reviewinq the request, determined there are a number of outstanding issues with this particular property in terms of code requirements specifically dealing with the curb and gutter around the perimeter. The 1971 building permit issued for the original dealership required that curbing was to be installed around all blacktop parking and driveway areas which were to be located in front of the building and also that additional curbing was to be installed along the perimeter along Fireside Drive. Unfortunately, a date was never 2.05 PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAG$ 6 established between the original developer and the City for installation of the curbing along Fireside Drive. Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the request in ternis of all setback and lot coverage requirements. All building setback requirements are met by the proposed addition. There are three areas in which the parking area does not meet the setback requirements. Those are along the frontage road along Highway 65, along Fireside Drive, and along the rear property line which is adjacent to a vacant parcel. Ms. McPherson stated the parking requirements are met by the petitioner. As calculated by the code, the use requires 76 parking spaces. However, there are 586 parking spaces available on the site as striped on the site plan. If the City anticipates a change in the building use, the potential parking spaces required is based on the speculative parking ratio of 1:200 square feet. Using that ratio, the building would require 196 spaces. There is more than adequate parking available on the site to meet this parking requirement. Ms. McPherson stated there is potentially an issue with the building code requirement. The State of Minnesota recently �passed a handicap code which would require that handicap access be provided to the second floor offices. The City has indicated that there may be an elevator required as a stipulation of approval; however, in speaking with the building official and the architect, that stipulation is stiil up for debate and the City is looking to the State of Minnesota for guidance on that issue. Ms. McPherson stated, regarding qrading and drainage, the petitioner will be replacing existing green area along the north side of the building plus along the front side with a cancrete display area for cars. The engineering department has indicated that, if additional green space is provided along the Highway 65 frontage as indicated in the stipulations, the engineering department will not require a grading and drainage plan. The petitioner also submitted a landscape plan specificalZy dealing with the Highway 65 frontage. The petitioner has indicated a hedge of junipers directly in front of the building. One of the areas for screening not currently provided is adjacent to the Fireside Drive frontage. Staff has indicated that additional __ screening and landscaping should be provided along Fireside Drive. Ms. McPherson stated;staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. The boulevard area along the front of the property (facing Highway 65) shall be expanded to meet the 20 foot hardsurface area. 206 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 7 2. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the entire perimeter of the parking area. 3. The petitioner shall install additional street trees along the center part of the boulevard area. 4. The petitioner shall expand the boulevard area along Fireside Drive to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback and provide the required landscaping, a three foot berm or hedge, to provide screening for the adjacent residential property. 5. No cars shall be displayed on the boulevard. Mr. Sielaff stated staff indicated that part of the problem previously was that the improvements were bit made because no time frame was stipulated. What is the assurance that this will not be a problem in this case? Ms. McPherson stated the City requires for all building construction a performance bond that would be the City�s compliance tool. Ms. Savage asked i� they needed a time frame to complete the stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated it would be an added assurance the - improvements would be completed in a timely fashion. Staff is working with a different property owner than the person who originally developed the property. Mr. Newman stated the issue is installing the elevator is a building code issue rather than a zoning code issue. Ms. McPherson stated yes. This is not a stipulation. It is just a note of interest in the staff report. Mr. Sielaff stated the site is required to have 196 parking spaces. Does this prevent the petitioner from putting vehicles in those.196 spaces? Ms. McPherson stated no. The purpose of making the calculation was to determine if the number of spaces is adequate should the use change from a car dealership with an office and showroom to a more intensive manufacturing use. Staff wanted to make sure there would be adequate parking spaces should the use change in the future. The code has no parking calculations for car dealerships. Mr. Sielaff asked if there were required parking spaces for retail customers. 2.07 PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAGE 8 Ms. McPherson stated the parking stalls are all put together. The original calculation indicated 76 spaces are required by the existing use. 20 spaces are directly in front and would be used for customers who are coming to view cars. � Mr. Stelter, controller for Friendly Chevrolet, stated Mr. Moody was unable to attend the meeting. He and Mr. Klein were present to answer any questions. Mr. Klein stated he would like to review some items on the staff report and to ask to reconsider based on plans the owner has for future development of the property. Mr. Klein presented a site plan for the property. Mr. Klein stated, regarding the first stipulation, the petitioner is proposing they retain the existing setback line as previously established but that they provide curbing along that line. In front of the building, they are in compliance with a 20-foot setback. They would retain that and re-curb with concrete curb and gutter. Just to the north and south, they are deficient with the setback by 8-10 feet. They are proposing they be allowed to retain that deficiency that curb that front line. The reason for that request is that the front line is already established with some landscaping. There is a'security fencing which exists along that front setback. The owner recently replaced the entire parking lot lighting and was replaced with respect'to the existing setback. Mr. Klein stated they are asking that stipulation #1 be changed or revised to read that the boulevard area be expanded to meet the hardsurface setback area or the applicant obtain the necessary variances. That has to do with what is already is place. Historically, the original property line was out an additional 30 feet. Over the history of the property, the land for the frontage road was taken out of this original property as a road access easement. That is how it became not in compliance. Mr. Klein stated the owner has purchased some additional property behind the site. That land measures approximately 200 feet x 700 feet going all the way back to old Central Avenue. He is also negotiating with Brick Brothers building owners to swap some of that land so that he ends up with a parcel of equal size running along the back property line. If this can be done, he would then develop that piece of property. If they are required to put concrete curb along the back property line today, that might have to be changed in one.or two years when the property is expanded. As part of a phased construction, the second phase is expected to be done in a year or two. The owner wants to set up an inside ser�ice write up area which they anticipate would require a second addition of 3,000 to 5,000 square feet. There would then be reconstruction of the curb line and relocation of the curb 2.�8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING, APRIL 3. 1996 PAG$ 9 cuts along Fireside Drive. They would like additional time to plan this second addition and the reconstruction of the back parking lot. The owner would like the staff report to be amended to allow him additional time to either meet the present setback along Fireside Drive and to meet the curb requirements along the west and east property lines with respect to how the rest of the property may develop. The owner has requested three to five years to plan this out. Mr. Klein stated the north property line has changed from the original. Six additional feet were purchased along the north side of the property. There is a fence line between Kurt Manufacturing and Friendly Chevrolet and that fence line is on the property line. They ask that they be given an opportunity to seed a variance with respect to the setback and the curbing along the north property line. They are proposing to curb the entire west property line from corner to corner but they would like to have the opportunity to request a variance for the setback. Mr. Klein stated, regarding stipulation #3, they would be happy to re-submit a landscape plan to show additional plantings along the frontage road. Mr. Newman stated stipulation #4 raises the issue of curb cuts and the fact that the petitioner does not know what the future plans will be. Mr. Klein stated this was correct. Along Fireside Drive, he realizes there are deficiencies. They would like an opportunity to sit down with staff to work out a plan where they can accomplish curbing and landscaping and also look at the nature of the property, how they think the property will develop over time, and work out a plan that works for all. Using the 20 foot setback as recommended would result in a net loss of 90 cars from the property. They would virtually lose one row of cars along Fireside Drive if the 20-foot setback were enforced. They would like an opportunity to work with staff in developing this service write up addition, finding where the curb cuts go, and try to come up with a compromise plan to minimize the loss of the cars but still address the City's concerns with respect to the landscape boulevard line. Mr. Klein stated they have no problem with stipulation �5. Mr. Sielaff asked if it was correct that the petitioner was proposing delaying curb and gutter on the entire east side and on the entire south side. Mr. Klein stated this was correct. 2.09 P_LANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAGE 10 Mr. Sielaff asked what the petitioner was proposing for the north side. Mr. Klein stated they would like to delay that or be provided the opportunity as part of approval to request a variance on that side. The reason they are requesting this is that neither they nor Kurt Manufacturing utilizes that green space. Ms. Savage asked on which stipulation would the petitioner need a variance before the Appeals Commission. Ms. McPherson stated this would include stipulations #1 and #4. Curb and gutter requirement is in the zoning code. Theoretically, they could come before the Appeals Commission and asked that this requirement be waived. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner planned to appeal in the near future. Mr. Klein stated they were prepared to curb the front this year. If no variance is granted on the north, they would also do that this year. Any work along the south and east property lines would come at a later date with the:proposed future addition. Mr. Sielaff stated the petitioner had requested three to five years. Why does it take so long? Mr. Stelter stated it takes time to generate profits in ord�r to justify the addition. Mr. Klein stated, if they ask for a year, they may be back next year for an extension. The owner has owned the property in back for about one year. It may take another year to resolve the issues associated with the proposed swap. Mr. Stelter stated the reason for the addition is to get rid of the trailer house, which was something the City had asked them to do. No comment was received from the public. Mr. Newman stated, as he understands, stipulations 3 and 5 are okay. The petitioner is asking, under stipulation #1, the alternative of obtaining a variance from having to provide the 20 foot setback area. The petitioner would also like to have a variance from having to comply with stipulation #4 which is the setback area along Fireside Drive. The issue is that the getitioner wants to have the option of asking for a variance from providing curb and gutter.along�the north property line and three to five years to be able to provide curb and gutter along the south and east property lines. 2,14 PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING. APRII, 3. 1996 PAGE 11 Mr. Klein stated this was correct. Mr. Newman stated he would assume that, if the petitioner fails in getting a variance for the west property line, you will be prepared to complete that work in a more timely fashion. Mr. Klein stated this was correct. They would proceed with this along with the showroom and office addition. Mr. Sielaff stated he was bothered by the Fact that the City has had problems at this location already. Is three to five years a commitment to do this? Mr. Klein stated he thought the owners commitment would be that in five years, if they had not proceeded with the addition or the development of that back lot, they would then put in the curb and gutter along the south and east property line or attempt to obtain a variance. Ms. Savage stated she thought the problem of a lack of compliance was with a previous owner. There has been a history of lack of compliance so this is a concern. ' Mr. Newman stated he thought the Commission wauld be more comfortable if there was some sort of security to look to in order to insure compliance. There is a history on this site of delayed compliance. There is a problem if, for whatever reason, the petitioner or a successive owner of that property does not comply with these conditions, the alternative is to bring criminal charges or attempt to have the certificate of occupancy revoked or end up pleading with a successor to perform. Mr. Newman stated he would feel more comfortable approvinq the additional time if they knew there was something they could go to in the event compliance was not forthcoming. Mr. Klein stated the discrepancies have been on the books for 25 years. They bought the property in 1991 and they asked the City what these discrepancies were. They were told only about the sprinklers. The City never discussed the setback discrepancies. He would have to get the owner's permission to get a letter of credit. Mr. Newman stated he fully recognizes the petitioner is a recent owner. These problems are from the previous owners. Staff has as a goal to bring nonconforming property up to compliance. Staff would like this to work for the petitioner, but they also need assurance that this will happen. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. 2.11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAGE 12 OPON A VOICE DOTE� ALL VOTING AY$, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED T$E MOTION CARRIED AND THS PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:24 P.M. Ms. Modig asked, when the petitioner received the permit for the lighting, why was the setback not brought to their attention then. Ms. McPherson stated typically when someone pulls electrical permits to change the lights, it is not required to submit a site plan, etc. They work with the electrical contractor. Staff did not have an opportunity to comment on that change. Mr. Saba asked if it was true that the setbacks were caused by the service road and Fireside Drive expansion. Ms. McPherson stated she could not speak to that. There was no discussion in the address file regarding any taking by the City in terms of the frontage road or Fireside Drive. Staff would need to do further research. She did indicate she would be willing to look at that as an issue prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Sielaff stated he is leaning toward tabling this until staff can get assurances. The people who can do that are not here. If the petitioner seeks variances, this could continue on. Ms. McPherson stated she believed the commission could move this request forward by amending the stipulations. Stipulation #1 could say, ". .. to meet the 20 foot hard surface setback or apply for and receive a variance to maintain the existing setbacks." Assuming if they did not receive a variance, they would then be required to improve the boulevard area to the 20 foot setback. Mr. Sielaff asked what about the curb and gutter issues and the three to five year time frame. Mr. Newman asked the history of compliance with the current owner of this property. Ms. McPherson stated the current owner has been very compliant to work with. He has gone through the process for the trailer permit. There was an extension to the trailer permit license to have additional time for this proposed expansion plan and he is co�ing in within the time frame that he stated before the City Council. The City has not had any complaints. She received no phone calls regarding the request this evening. Mr. Moody have been very cooperative with the City. Mr. Newman stated he was not comfortable with a five-year time frame but he could go with three years. Before going to the City 2.12 PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING, APRIL 3. 1996 _PAGE 13 Council, perhaps the petitioner could work with staff to develop assurances that this will be done within three years. That would move the request forward. The Planning Commission can address the issue of security and make the Council aware of it.' Mr. Saba stated he was comfortable with that as well as working with staff on the time period for curb and gutter prior to the Council meeting. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission could add a stipulation #6 that would require some type of performance bond or security. Staff could then work with the petitioner to come up with some type of accommodating in that regard. Mr. Newman stated he preferred the work assurances. Although there is a 25 year history of non-compliance, that is not the case with this owner. Staff may feel comfortable with other assurances. Mr. Newman suggested the following stipulations: l. The boulevard area along the front of the property (facing Highway 65) shall be e�anded to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback area unless the applicant obtains a variance for the same. 2. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the west perimeter and the north perimeter of the parking area except where they may obtain a variance therefrom. 3. The petitioner shall install additional street trees along the center part of the boulevard area. 4. No cars shall be displayed in the boulevard. 5. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the east and south perimeter of the parking area within three years of the issuance of the special use permit. 6. The petitioner shall expand the boulevard area along Fireside Drive to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback and provide the required landscaping, a three foot berm or hedge, to provide screening for the adjacent residential property; which work shall be completed in three years unless the petitioner obtains a variance therefrom. 7. All items, except for those that have a three year grace period, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 2.13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3, 1996 PAGE 14 8. Prior to going to the City Council, the petitioner shall work with staff to come up with reasonable assurances that those items not completed at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy will be completed within the time period as provided. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-04, by Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles in order for a showroom/office expansion, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The boulevard area along the front of the property (facing Highway 65) shall be e�anded to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback area unless the applicant obtains a variance for the same. 2. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the west perimeter and the north perimeter of the parking area except where they may obtain a variance therefrom. 3. The getitioner shall install additional street trees along the center part of the boulevard area. 4. No cars shall be displayed in the boulevard. 5. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the east and south perimeter of the parking area within three years of the issuance of the special use permit. 6. The petitioner shall expand the boulevard area along Fireside Drive to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback and provide the required landscaping, a three foot berm or hedge, to provide screening for the adjacent residential property; which work shall be completed in three years unless the petitioner obtains a variance therefrom. 7. R11 items, except for those that have a three year grace period, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8. Prior to going to the City Council, the petitioner shall work with staff to come up with reasonable assurances that those items not completed at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy will be completed within tha time period as provided. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED � THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMODSLY. 2.14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3. 1996 PAGE 15 Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of April 22. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-05, BY MENARD, INC.: Per Section 205.15.O1.C.(3) of the Fridley City Code, to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicles, boats, and marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (the Menards property). Mr. Hickok stated the four special use permit requests are related to Menards interest in purchasing the Skywood Mall. The Skywood Mall is adjacent to and south of Menards as it exists in the southeast quadrant of I-694 and Highway 65. Two special use permits are for Skywood Mall and two are for the existing Menards facility. Mr. Hickok stated Special Use Permit, SP #96-05, deals with the outdoor display of inerchandise on the Menards property. Special Use Permit, SP #96-02, deals with the outdoor unscreened storage of materials and equipment at the Skywood Mall'property. Special Use Permit, SP #96-07, deals with the outdoor display of merchandise at the Skywood Mall property. Special Use Permit, SP #96-06. deals with unscreened outdoor storage of materials and equipment on the Menards property. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTING AYS, CBAIRPBRSON NBWMAN D$CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:37 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this special use permit is related to the Menards site located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. and would allow the outdoor display of inerchandise not within an enclosed structure. He showed photos of the site. In the southwest corner of the site is an existing screening fence. Above that fence is material that is stored and is visible. Along the front, merchandise is stored in the open. Along the northwest corner of the building is displayed yard barn structures which are displayed in the open. Menards has a fenced enclosure which has outside storage of materials. The ma�erials visible above that fence is considered outdoor storage of materials. Mr. Newman stated, to clarify, that this public hearing is for the merchandise displayed in front of the building. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct and also includes any merchandise behind the building that can be seen from adjacent. 2.15 PLANNING COMMISSION MESTING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAGE 16 properties or the public right-of-way. This would include items stored above the fence. Mr. Newman stated the second permit deals with what is�stored behind the fence. Mr. Hickok stated yes. That deals with items stored outside which could include pallets, equipment, etc. Mr. Sielaff asked if the pallets is a large part of the outside storage. Mr. Hickok stated it is fairly large. There are pallet racks which are which are considered outdoor storage. These are not merchandise but meant to facilitate the merchandise. Along the north wall, there are materials stored above the screening fence. Mr. Hickok stated this is an existing facility with existing conditions. At the time a modification is made to an existing facility, it causes the entire site to go through an evaluation to review the compatibility of the proposal. This case is related to Menards' interest in purchasing the Skywood Mall and modify the rear storage area between the �wo buildings to open contiguous storage behind Menards and behind the mall structure. Mr. Hickok stated the City has a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses on the public health, safety and general welfare. The City may consider the nature of the land upon which the uses are to be located, the nature of adjoining land and buildings, the effect upon traffic into and fro� the premises and on adjoining roads, and such other facilities that the City shall reasonably be affected by such use. Mr. Hickok stated the current site is zoned C-3. Menards has been in that location since 1974. At the time they located on the site, the zoning was C-2S. The zoning has changed and now causes the site to be reviewed as a result of the proposed modification. Zoning is defined as a municipalities ability to control the compatibility of land uses throuqh land use regulation. Mr. Hickok stated, as staff analyzed the site, they looked at surrounding natural features and considered the impacts of the outside storage of inerchandise. One of the natural features considered was the natural elevation of the storage area at the base of the hill. As you move to the east, there is a drastic increase in elevation toward the single family residential area. T�ae natural features include a severe grade change and woodland vegetation that heips separate the existing use from the residential area to the east. 2.16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAGS 17 Mr. Hickok stated the significant difference in elevation causes a distinct difficulty in the ability to fully screen merchandise outside or items being stored outside in the rear storage.area. With the difference in elevation and the fact that outdoor storage can cause additional noise to the surrounding area, can create impacts of light and glare, can cause unsightliness from merchandise and materials being stored outdoors, cause conflicts with physically challenged individuals, can compromise the safety of the materials themselves, can compromise enjoyment of the surrounding property, and a potential aesthetic decline associated with outdoor unscreened storage and display. Mr. Hickok stated staff is recommending denial of the request. In the event that this project does not move forward, the existing conditions on the site would remain. Any modification would cause the current standards to prevail. Mr. Newman stated, if this permit were denied not occur, this would not necessarily prohibit from conducting business as they do today. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. and expansion did the petitioner Mr. Newman asked, when dealing with outside display, does this include items that are in front of the store as well. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Newman asked if there was a natural screen of the building itself in front. Mr. Hickok stated, if the only area of concern was the residential area to the east, the building as a screen would be good argument. But, if looking at all perspectives including that as you drive by the site, those views would be considered well. a as Mr. Newman asked if other retailers have wanted outside display. What has been the City's practice? Mr. Hickok stated other retailers have requested outside display. The City has a standard policy of stipulation that no outdoor storage happen outside of the structures such as garden centers. In previous requests by Home Depot and Wal-Mart for their garden centers, sales and display is to be confined within the garden center. Other "big box" commercial properties who have expressed outdoor display have�not been allowed. One small commercial property that sells snowmobile trailers has been permitted to have those outdoors. Their situation is quite different. They have an area back from the pedestrian way. 2:17 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAGE 18 Mr. Soltau, an owner from Skywood Mall, stated they are currently under contract with Menards. He has some degree of difficulty in addressing these issues four separate times. He asked if the Commission would be voting on the requests separately.� Mr. Newman stated he thought they needed to vote on the requests separately. He thought they would conduct all the public hearings, discuss the requests, but vote on them separately. He is comfortable with the petitioner giving one presentation, and those comments can be reflected in the following public hearings. Mr. Soltau introduced Mr. Malkerson, Mr. Colby, and l�r. Conlin. They would like to provide an appreciation of the evolution of this property both historically and today, why they are here with Menards, why they think this is proper utilization of the property, and the benefits that will be derived. Mr. Malkerson, attorney for Mr. Soltau of the Skywood Mall, stated he thought it would be beneficial to expedite the hearings and to get clarification of some of the legal aspects. He thought the applicant was somewhat surprised when he received the staff report. Based upon private meetings, he thought that it would get a positive recommendation from sta�f. At this time, they are trying to figure out what they can do to get the support of the staff, the Planning Commission, and the neighborhood. Mr. Malkerson stated, as he understands it, there are two parcels. To the north is the existing Menards building and in the back is a fence with some storage. As he understands the presentation of staff, the storage that is outside the building and outside the fence is the subject�of the first hearinge Mr. Hickok stated this hearing includes merchandise stored outdoors whether inside or outside the fence. Mr. Malkerson stated, if he assumes that no materials could be viewed above the fence, that behind the building where there is a fence all materials were below the top of the fence, they would not need a special use permit for future use. Mr. Newman stated they would not need a special use permit for the issue of storage according to the original C-2S zoning on the property. For the question of expanding outside display, they would still need a special use permit for exterior storage. Mr. Malkerson stated anytime material is outside, even though it is fully screened by a fence, it still needs a special use permit. Mr. Newman stated this was correct. 2.18 PLANNINQ COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3, 1996 PAGB 19 Mr. Malkerson stated he did not agree. As he understands it, there is the Menards building and the rear storage area. Menards is proposing to purchase the property next door and have an operation there with fencing and outside storage in the back. It is his understanding that Menards is asking that, if they expand, that they can put some materials outside here as they have on the existing site. Mr. Hickok stated the outdoor storage would pertain to anything they would have outdoors. If staff were recommending approval, he would talk about and stipulate what would be on the sidewalk out front, any merchandise that can be seen from the right-of-way or adjacent properties that is outside on the Skywood property as well as Menards. Mr. Malkerson stated he did not think, if Menards acquires the second parcel, that this is an expansion of a nonconforming use. He believes it is stand alone. They happen to be side-by-side but, if they get a permit for the second, he thought they were unrelated as it relates to an expansion of a nonconforming use as to an existing building on a separate site. Mr. Malkerson stated, on the conditional use standards, as he understands the law, when a use is allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, that although there are some pretty general standards, it really is not the their duty to prove that they comply with the use. Unless there are specific standards that call out decibel levels, etc., it is not their burden to meet. It is the City's burden to show that they don't meet the standards. They are here to do whatever they can to try to bring about a change to existing Menards structure and use to make a_ better situation for everyone. That is the attitude they bring forward. They need to get some direction before they proceed. Mr. Newman stated, if the applicant is desirous to continue this hearing based on the statement that the recommendation in the staff report came as a surprise, if you need additional time to address these comments or to work with the neighbors, that is something the Planning Commission is willing to consider. Mr. Malkerson stated they were there to find out what it will take to make the City feel comfortable with however this should be done and to make the neighborhood feel comfortable too. Otherwise, Menards will continue to do what is has been doing. Frankly, if Menards does not expand, you will see continuation of the second building area as being one with vacant stores and vacant office space which is not good for the City or the neighborhood. Mr. Colby, Menards, stated he was there to explain their intentions and answer any questions. They are hoping to purchase 2.19 pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3, 1996 PAGB 21 Ms. Savage stated, as she understands it, they would not need a special use permit to purchase the Skywood Mall if they were not going to store products outside. The proposal is to consider all of the outdoor storage that would be within the fence as described. Mr. Colby stated there would still be outdoor storage. The new fence would allow more material in the fenced, screened area and materials in the 40,000 square foot Skywood Ma1Z area, but there would still be material outside. Mr. Saba asked if everything would be in the back and not visible- because of the fence. Mr. Colby stated the materials would not be visible from ground level, but unfortunately it would still be visible because of the elevation to the east. Ms. Modig stated she had seen this type of fence installed at a Menards in Waite Park. The change in appearance was phenomenal. She was very impressed by the change. Mr. Colby stated this would be the same type of fence. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner was planning to tear down a portion of the mall. Mr. Colby stated the current"two-story office area is planned to be demolished. _,.,,..,, Mr. Sielaff stated the plan is then to take out the office area and the additional space would be used for storage and there would be outdoor storage behind the existing mall. Mr. Colby stated yes. Mr. Sielaff asked if the space in the mall would then be retail space. Mr. Colby stated this would be a drive through warehouse space. For example, plywood would be stored in that building. If you wanted 20 sheets of plywood, you would pull up to the display, load what you wanted, and drive away. It is almost identical to what is being done on the existing site. Ms. Savage asked, if;the special use permits were denied, what effect would this have on your plans. Mr. Colby stated they would not�purchase the mall. '' 2.21 PLP,NNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAGB 22 Ms. Modig asked if that was true if the denial was only for the front storage and the storage in the back could be maintained in the manner talked about. Mr. Colby stated they have yard barns in front and a fence along the building. The only thing this store has is a chain link fence which is different from the store in question. Mr. Sielaff asked how car exhaust was handled in the proposed area. Mr. Colby stated the area will be unheated. The sprinkler system will be changed to a dry system. There will be a series of openings placed in the exterior walls without doors. It will be open but not as open as the existing structures. In this case of handling car exhaust, they will have to examine that and the architect will have to determine if additional ventilation will be required. Mr. Sielaff asked if it was a problem to surrounding areas to ventilate that exhaust. He is concerned that this will affect the residents. Mr. Colby stated it is vented out the roof. He did not think it would be any different than traffic on I-694. Mr. Newman asked if Mr. Colby knew the height of the building. Mr. Colby stated he did not know. Mr. Newman stated he assumed Menards would have storage in the yard area as well. How high will that be? Mr. Colby stated most of the material is not stored in a rack so it is then limited to how high a forklift can go. If it is felt there is a need to limit that, they will consider it. Mr. Newman stated, in reading the staff report and in reading the letters and comments from the neighbors over the years, there is a concern about noise from the activity in the yard. Is there any way to reduce the impact of noise to the neighborhood? _ Mr. Colby stated one of the things this will act as is somewhat of a sound wall. The existing fence is eight to ten feet high. Most of the fence is in a somewhat run down condition. The proposed fence is 14;feet high and acts as a better sound barrier than what currently exists. This could only be an improvement. Mr. Mortenson stated-.he built the mall which has ended up to be more trouble than what it is worth. Through the years, they have had quite a few different developments there which did not work 2.22 PLANNING COMMISSION MESTING. APRIL 3, 1996 PAQ$ 23 out. For some reason, the center has never done well. Now they have Menards which is a stronq store and has a good business. He lives above there on the hill about a block away, and he has a vested interested in the property. In living in that close proximity, he has not really noticed noise problems from Menards. In the past, he used to hear some of the trains in the railroad yard about five miles away. Then the freeway came along. They now have the freeway noise. Menards is an insignificant noise. He does not hear the railroad now. He only hears the semis and traffic on I-694. Mr. Mortenson stated, as far as addressing the noise of Menards, he did not know if that would be significant in that area any more because of the traffic of the freeway. He is in support of the proposal and thought it would be good for the community. He showed photos of the existing view from the parking lot of the hill. Residents have a screen so they cannot see the existing site. He thought the expansion would benefit Menards and the community. He thought they would be strong tenants that could keep the center up and keep it nice. Mr. Newman stated he realized this was a particularly tricky site because of the difference of elevation between residential and commercial. - Mr. Mortenson stated, when he first moved to that area, there was nothing but farmland below the hill. The trees were:�not.;;quite as thick around his house. At that time, there was a lot of junk so it was not that pretty. Mr. Newman asked if there was any way to landscape the side of that hill to block the impact of Menards but without obstructing the view the residents currently have. Mr. Hickok stated there may be some possibilities there. At,one time, Mr. Mortenson indicated he had planted as many as 1,000 evergreen trees of which some remain. It is a difficult slope with a severe grade. Only certain vegetation will adhere to the slope in this location. Mr. Mortenson stated, when he finished the center, the hill was problem. He asked City staff to walk the hill and they agreed that planting trees was probably the best they could do. That was the year of the drought. There is some natural growth and put in some drainage sleuths. There is no drainage problem. When on a hill, one �till see and hear stuff. Mr. Newman asked if the property line ran up the hill. Mr. Mortenson stated yes. 2.23 a he PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING. APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 24 Mr. Soltau stated he will explain how they came to the project, their enthusiasm for the location, and their frustrations with some of the site limitations caused by the site characteristics. He thought the proposed combination of uses is the site's highest and best use. Mr. Soltau stated they bought the property is late 1994. This property has had a troubled history. It has had limited occupancy both in the original facility and limited success in the expanded facility, with the exception of the hotel. Mr. Soltau stated they are excited about Skywood Mall. When making leasing calls or talking to retailers, he gets excited about it. There is tremendous density and commercial recognition along Central Avenue. The area is zoned commercial and should be zoned commercial. It is at a major interchange. The traffic counts are phenomenal. There is potential for retail here. The site is currently under-utilized. Mr. Soltau stated, when they acquired the property, they felt it was an opportunity for redevelopment. The interior mall configuration has not succeeded. It is an unanchored situation and has had limited success. They see the evalution vf this property as a combination retaining the retail, retaining the existing frontage, utilizing the depth of the building and trying to bring in "big boxn tenants. •The mall is very deep. If they pursue a large retailer, they want the front and then there is no opportunity to occupy the back. Retailers look for frontage compared to the depth. Their objective was to find that first big user. That big user has one thing that comes with it - demand for parking. That is a challenge for this site. They have tried to be creative in ways to redevelop this site, but they are against the wall. They cannot provide the parking for the site if it has retail uses. He does not have a solution for that. The Ground Round restaurant does not have enough parking for its current needs. They have 70,000 square feet of building area, not including the office tower. Other limitations are the adjacencies. They need the major anchor to get the small tenants. Menards is a fantastic operation as is the Kelly Inn but they do nothing to attract the fashion retail tenants. The adjacencies that are there have created some concern on the part of the tenants. They cannot do anything about the adjacencies, the depth or the parking. What can they do with this property? They have considered tearing it down, razing part of it, and shifting it back to gain more parking. Mr. Soltau stated they have a unique situation to work with Menards, alleviate the parking for what would otherwise be 70,000 square feet of retail, reconfigure the-�existing retail to a product that is marketable that will work, and reconfigure the 2.24 PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 25 mix and type of tenants. This has been a degenerating situation for so�e time, and they want to turn it around. Mr. Soltau stated another limitation is visibility. There is limited visibility to attract the "big box" user. He did not think they would be able to get one. When coming back to the Menards proposal, they tear down the existing office structure which has a good portion that is not occupied. Tenants that are occupying that space do so because of very favorable economics and the adjacencies to other retail operations. They do not want to lose those tenants and can provide space for them. Mr. Soltau stated one of the conclusions and findings in the staff report is that there would be a reduction in the tax base. There has already been a reduction in the tax base. This property has income producing potentials showing it is somewhat limited. Revitalization of the site is an opportunity to increase that base. The other findings that he disagrees with is that there is opportunity to mitigate because of the elevation difference. He thought something cQUld be done. They are all receptive to suggestions in that area. The fence itself is screening. There are other conditions that could be worked with. They thought this was the best mix and the best use. Mr. Soltau stated this is a window of opportunity but they cannot wait long or they will lose tenants. The tenants want stability �� and a new lease. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the overall impact on this project is what is best and appropriate. There is an opportunity to mitigate the problems because of concerns with the neighbors and this is also an opportunity to work with the neighbors in the area. Mr. Newman stated Mr. Soltau had talked about a"big box" user. Is it feasible that there might be a single tenant that would take the entire mall. Mr. Soltau stated he hoped that would happen and has worked on it. He has a background in this area and has extensive retail contacts. There are not that many "big box" players out there and they have contacted them all. Mr. Newman asked, if you had a tenant such as Best Buy, how many parking stalls would be needed. Mr. Soltau stated many of these retailers have needs which are reflective of the city codes. Most cities have a ratio of 5:1,000. Any retailer will need parking. Mr. Newman stated he can see that certain big users would need more parking than others. 2.25 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAGB 26 Mr. Soltau stated Central Avenue is its own commercial area. mall is un-anchored. The location is an "in-betweener". The area is in-between Rosedale, Brookdale and Northtown. There trade areas and "big box" users locate in these areas. � The are Mr. Conlin stated his company is a partner in the Kelly Inn. They share a common wall with the mall. They purchased the Kelly Inn about four years ago. At that time, the hotel had also failed. It was taken back by the lender, and they purchased it from lender. They have invested a significant amount of money in this property. In the meantime, they have turned the property around. They continue to invest in t�e property each year to keep it in first class condition. One of their concerns is that over the years the mall has become more distressed. They look at that as potentially threatening the viability and the continuing success of the hotel as well as the value of the property. As a neighbor, they are directly impacted by the use of that property. He spent some time with Mr. Soltau and Mr. Colby discussing their proposal and think their plan is very favorable to the situation. The plans for shrinking the retail and moving it to the front of building and enhancing the facade would create a better image for the property overall. They feel it is an excellent proposal. Their fear is that, if nothing is done, the mall will continue to deteriorate and will then have an impact of their property. Mr. Sielaff asked if the hotel had rooms adjacent to the common wall with the proposed drive through area for Menards. Mr. Conlin stated no. There is some separation between the areas. Ms. Engebretson stated their property is adjacent to the Skywood Mall. They have been residents for 32 years. She has seen changes. When the mall was built, she came home to find that bulldozers had been in her yard. She was told the mall would be close to Central Avenue and a 40-foot buffer was the grade of the hill. She does have problems with the fact. She cannot say she had been as directly impacted by Menards but she would be impacted if Menards moved behind the mall. It is hard to believe but they can hear conversations that take place in the parking lot. These are normal conversations that take place outside which will hit hill and the sound carries right up. She does not know how one could screen that. That is just the way the landscape is. Ms. Engebretson stated she has concerns about the impact of the lighting. How are you going to control the light from going up? She is already dealing with the lights from the motel which are at eye level. She has invested in her home by adding an addition. She does not need to turn the lights on because.of the light from the motel. She has invested in her property thinking 2.26 PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING. APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 27 that what they have down there is now contained under a roof. Now they are talking about outside storage that will bring traffic to the back of the mall. She is concerned about exhaust fumes and the impact that will have on them. � Ms. Engebretson submitted a petition signed by the members of the neighborhood. The objections listed included the lighting. Rear lighting of buildings illuminates the surrounding area and the residential homes above. The noise is a concern. Menards is a 12-hour a day, seven day a week operation. There is no rest. After coming home after work, they can open their windows and listen to the rooftop air conditioning units, the backup beepers of fork- lifts and semis, vehicles with doors and tailgates slamming. Now, they are invading even more her right to come home to her castle. Ms. Engebretson stated the issue of fire has not been addressed. There will be a partition dividing the area. She presumed there would be one way in so emergency vehicles can only enter on each side and not be able to complete drive through. This needs to be addressed. Menards has had a fire which was contained. Menards will be dealing with flammable materials. Cinders tend to rise. The hill in the fall is dry. • Ms. Engebretson stated debris and spillage of wrappers is a concern. She was not sure, if more is stored outside, what you could promise them. You talk about a distressed area. What about the value of the homes? They now not only have a distressed shopping center but will this now start on the neighborhood? Ms. Engebretson stated, in the past, there have been requests for outdoor special use permits, requests for trailer sales, and a request for a bumper car business that were denied. She thought this was a piece of property that is overdeveloped. It cannot manage what is presently there. The side roads were not designed to carry the current level of traffic. She is concerned about water flow. When the motel went in, she asked what would happen to all that rain. She was told the roof pitch would handle the water. There is no water on the roof but now there is drainage on 52nd which cannot contain the water. The water overflows into- the street. in the winter, it ices up and creates a very slippery intersection. Now they are proposing more outdoor storage with more blacktop and more runoff. Ms. Engebretson stated she felt bad that the shopping center has not taken off. People do not want to enter because there is already a traffic situation. She feels bad for Menards. She understands why they want to expand but she also wonders if it would be easier to go elsewhere where there are not so many obstacles. She also understood that they are proposing to cut 2.27 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 FAG$ 28 into the hill 20 feet. It has taken them 32 years to get the hill under control to prevent erosion. Their fence went down in the first ten years due to erosion. Sumac was planted.on the hill and she now has sumac in her yard. They do not have a very good feeling for what they have been promised in the past and what they have gotten. She hoped the neighborhood would be considered and the request be denied. Mr. Newman stated he got a sense from the comments that Ms. Engebretson might be more willing to accept this project if more of the issues were addressed. Ms. Engebretson stated addressing the problems is one thing; making them work is another. They have always been told it is workable. The neighbors have given up a lot. They have worked out some things. It has made an impact on their lives. A motel is not a business where it is constantly going. Menards busy time is summer when residents want their windows open. You can address the issues and come up with workable solutions, but to guarantee that you can enforce those is another thing. Companies can agree but do not do. Mr. Newman asked Mr. Hickok if the hill would be �ut back 20 feet. Mr. Hickok stated the hill is proposed to be cut back 20 feet at the back of the mali where it meets the.Kelly Inn from the point where the curb currently exists. Moving to the north of the mall, this will be reduced to approximately 5 feet. A retaining structure and fence combination is proposed. Mr. Newman asked the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Hickok stated the height would vary depending on the slope between two feet and eight feet. The storage fence structure will be no more than 14 feet. The screening wall will not be more than six feet above that. Mr. Petron stated he occupied the residence whose property abuts Menards directly to the east and to the south. He has lived in the neighborhood for 26 years. He would like to comment on the noise. He can honestly say that any noise that Menards has made has been no more disturbing than his neighbor mowing the lawn or doing any other outside work. He was at one time concerned about fire. There was a fire at Menards, but it was handled well. He has confidence in the fire department. There is no more noise, as far as he is concerned, from Menards yard than there is from I-694 that he has to deal with. It is difficult to sit on the deck and carry on a conversation. In 26 years, they have used their deck probably a dozen times. He is concerned about the mall being vacant. He did not think anything is more ugly in the 2.28. PLANNINQ COMMISSION MS$TINQ, APRIL 3, 1996 pAQ$ 29 neighborhood than seeing empty buildings. When driving by and seeing empty building, people say the neighborhood is getting run down. He is part of the neighborhood and is concerned about that. He would support the application. � Mr. Delich stated he lives behind the mall and has lived there for 30 years. He was the first renter in the mall when it was built. His problem is that he is at the highest point on the hill and would be looking down into their yard. He wondered just how junky it will be. The map sent out was very poor. He would liked to have seen where the storage would be and what would be covered and not covered. Behind his lot is a buffer strip of 75 feet which comes to his lot line where there should be nothing. He is concerned about the noise. He felt the noise could be limited. They come in on nights and Sundays and unload merchandise. He thought there should be a limit on emptying trucks at night. They are adjacent to a residential area and this should be limited. The big concern for him is looking down and seeing what is in that area. Will this be a conglomeration of all kinds of stuff without a system? He stated he can live with almost anything, but they must keep our neighborhoods. If they have to sell their home, he would like to get a good price and not have it devalued. Mr. Newman asked Mr. Delich is he thought the proposed 14 foot fence would be an improvement over what is there now. Mr. Delich stated it would be an improvement over what now exists. There is nothing now behind Skywood Mall except garbage which is a problem. He also has a hedge that blocks some of the view. The fence will not make much difference to me. He can see the top of the building which is horrible looking with the air conditioning units, but it is necessary for commercial so he can Iive with it. Mr. Saba stated it sounded as though Mr. Delich was seeking order. Mr. Delich stated that and noise are the factors for him. The lights are not a problem because they do not shine on his property. Ms. Engebretson is at a lower elevation so it is a problem for her. Ms. Matthews handed out copies of letters which represents a 22 year history of promises. It is difficult for her not to be emotional about this.because it has been 22 years to try to get a noise barrier in. She lives right above Menards and the noise travels up the hili. She can hear voices and the forklifts. The issue is the outside operation and the noise. The problem is worse with extended hours. Menards is now requesting more of the same only moving down the block. The neighborhood needs 2.29 PLANNING COMMIBSION MEBTING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAa$ 30 cooperation from Menards - not just words. They need a written, legally binding agreement signed by Menards, the City and the neighbors for a sound wall. In 1988, the noise issue was reviewed and a sound barrier recommended. She had plans from Menards to reduce the noise and plans for storage sheds with roofs. A sound barrier would have to be 28 feet tall in order to reduce the decibel level. None of this happened. It has been a long battle. They have tried to cooperate and have not had very good living above Menards. Ms. Modig asked if the sound wall was installed. Ms. Matthews stated no. Some of the other neighbors who did not object to the noise live further away. They do not live right there. Mr. Job stated he is concerned about cutting 20 feet into the hill. Only 40 feet separates them now so that is half the distance. The few trees at the base of the hill will be gone. With a 14-foot wall cut 20 feet into the hill, what will they be looking at? This will not block out noise. He can hear voices from the parking lot and he lives behind the mall. He works for a realtor and he k�ows what will happen to the property values on Taylor Street. Tr.ees will help block some of the noise. As you go down the hill, there are trees but, if cutting into the hill, it will be a disaster for the people on Taylor Street. Mr. Newman stated he wanted to address the concerns about-the 40- foot distance being reduced to 20 feet. He asked staff to indicate where that is located. Mr. Hickok stated the illustration shows 100 feet from the curb line to the rear property line of the Skywood Mall. 20 feet would be into the slope. Mr. Sielaff asked the reason for cutting 20 feet into the slope. Mr. Hickok stated doing so would square off the proposed area behind the mall. Mr. Job stated 20 feet wiii be a big difference. What assurances to the neighborhood will they have to not want another 20 feet in the future? This is a concern. People purchasing property in this area will be concerned as well. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner may be able to address that. The fence line as it is'proposed follows the contour at the base of the slope which brings them close to lining up with the existing Menards corner. There�is a.cut in the curb line to the south and this then follows a contour to match up with the existing fence at Menards. 2.30 PLANNING COMMISSION MTsLTING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAGE 31 Mr. Sielaff asked if it could be closer to the building. Mr. Hickok stated it could be closer to the building. �The maneuverability of vehicles may then be a concern. • Ms. Modig asked, if someone owns property that abuts the Menards or Skywood Mall property, is there anything that says they cannot build up to the hill to within a few feet of the property line. Mr. Hickok stated, if the building could be supported structurally, they could do so. The code would allow that. Ms. Modig asked if they would need a special use permit to do that. Mr. Hickok stated, if this special use permit were granted, the modification as suggested wouid require them to go back through the process. There is a way to prevent that from happening. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive into the public record a Petition to Request Denial in the Granting of Special Use Permits, SP #96-02, 05, 06 and 07 to the Said Property known as the Menards Property and Skywood Mall Property as described in the legal notices. IIPON A VOICL VOTB, lilLL VOTINQ AYE, CBAIRPBRSON NEWMAiT DECLARED T8$ MOTION CARRIED DNANIMOIISLY. . MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the public record the packet of information as provided by Ms. Mary Matthews, which included a letter from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated 7/7/88, drawings, and letters from City staff. IIPON A VOICL VOT$, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THS MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Zemke stated he lives on the edge of one of the ravines that Ms. Matthews talked about. In the summertime, he wakes up on weekends to the stacking of lumber and the conversations that are going on at Menards. In the winter, he can see into the Menards lot. An additional six feet of fence will not do anything. They will still be able to look directly down into the lot. The height of the fence would have to be phenomenal to block out the view and the sound. If you allow the proposal to go through, it will be the same all the way down the block. Everyone will be looking into the lumiier yard. There will be noise that will go right up the hill. Mr. Nunemaker stated he is not adjacent to the properties. He is asking about the position he would be in as a tenant of the 2.31 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 32 Skywood Mall office complex. They have maintained an office in that building since 1984 and have operated without a lease for the past three or four years. He represents the Midland Co-op Credit Union. This issue came up last month at their meeting when they learned of the proposal for Menards to purchase the property and demolish the office complex. Without a lease, where do they stand as tenants? If everything is granted, how much time would the tenants have to look for other office space or what are the plans to provide something for them? They have been told a space would be provided. They don't know what it would be like to have an office in the front of the Skywood Mall and traffic and lumber loading to the rear. Mr. Newman stated this is a question the Planning Commission cannot answer. This would best be answered by the owner of the building. The request is scheduled to go to the City Council on May 6. If they take final action that night, that would conclude the City's involvement. The City would need to review the applications for building permits, etc. It then becomes a function of how quickly the owner wishes to proceed. It could move rather quickly. Mr. Bliss asked how far south the proposed fence would go. Mr. Hickok stated the new fence would extend to the corner of the Skywood Mall where it meets the Kelly Inn and extend toward the hillside. The fence would not be behind the Kelly Inn. Mr. Bliss asked if semis would be unloading that far south. Mr. Colby stated yes. Mr. Bliss stated he drives by there to go to work. He of trash blowing around. They clear it a couple times Has this issue been addressed in the past? Mr. Hickok stated yes, this issue has been addressed. sees a lot a year. Mr. Kempe stated he can hear the noise from Menards and he is on the east side of the street. They can also hear the signals on the forklifts when they are backing up. In the summer, this goes on until 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. He does not want to hear any more of it. It appears to him that, if they are piling things on top of the fences that they have now, they are not a good neighbor now. They are not taking care of the fence now. Mr. Parizek stated he has been listening to that have come up from Menards. One of the him is the traffic flow. He has lived there has nearly gotten run over a number of times area where they turn in and out of Menards. 2.32 all of the problems things that concerns for 33 years. He at the stoplight There are stop signs PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 33 and people don't see them. Also, the new exit on the west side where the old ATM machine was located is another area where customers do not want to stop. In the wintertime, it is dangerous. He is not against the proposal per se, but-he would like to have some these concerns addressed. He did not know who would take care of the traffic problems. Ms. Matthews stated, in the agreement drawn up with the City 22 years ago, they agreed to the construction of a sound wall, lights that would shine down, and agreed that Menards would not extend their hours. If the hours were expanded or noise intensified, it was to be reviewed. This did not happen. She feels that the residents did not get a fair shake. Mr. Delich stated, when they built their house, he understood there would be a 75 foot buffer between the house and the mall building. They have talked about cutting into the bank, building a wall and expanding the property. Ms. Engebretson stated she has lived here for 32 years. If Menards were to take over the mall, what is to say in a few years, if the Lake Pointe property is developed and the Kelly Inn moved there, that the neighborhood could be looking at a lumber .yard expanding across the whole area. She never thought she would live above a lumber yard. She did not think anyone could look 10 years out. There is no guarantee that the Kelly Inn will stay if they have an opportunity to move to a more viable situation. Granting these special use permits could create further expansion and further deterioration. Mr. Malkerson thanked the Planning Commission and the public. The meeting was a good discussion of the issues. He tried to take verbatim notes to address some of the issues raised. He could talk about noise standards. There are State noise standards. The MPCA has been out and their report showed there was compliance with the guidelines of the State and City. There was a question that, if the project is approved and there is cutting into the hill, could they cut into the hill further. The answer is no, they cannot because that would part of the approved conditions of the plans. Perhaps staff would give residents an open space easement or some other sort of conservation easement over the balance to assure that this could not happen. There are other things they could address but, instead of doing that, he asked that they have an opportunity to come back to see where they are and answer any questions. He has not seen all of the information that was submitted at the meeting. If the Planning Commission's inclination is to deny the request, they will not ask for a continuance. They do not want to go through this again. If there is dialogue that they can help with or conditions discussed that they can respond to, that is the direction they would iike to take. 2.33 PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING, APRIL 3. 1996 PAGE 34 Mr. Newman stated he was concerned that, if he is given a chance to respond, then others will also want to do so. Within some limitation, he will provide a chance to respond if necessary and he asks that the remarks be very brief. He will also give the neighbors the same amount of time collectively to respond. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICF VOTE� ALL VOTINQr AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEIPMAN Di3CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSSD AT 10:45 P.M. 5. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #96-02, BY MENARD, INC.: Per Section 205.15.01.C.(8) of the Fridley City Code, to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally located at 5207 Central Avenue N.E. (presently the Skywood Mall property). 6. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-07, BY MENARD, INC.: Per Section 205.15.O1.C.(3) of the Fridley City Code, to allow agencies selli.ng or displa�ting recreational vehicles, boats, and marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 5207 Central Avenue N.E. (presently the Skywood Mall property). 7. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, #96- 06, BY MENARD, INC.: Per Section 205.15.01.C.(8) of the Fridley City Code, to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (the Menards property). MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notices, to conduct the three public hearings simultaneously, and to open the public hearing to consider Special Use Permit requests, SP #96-02, #96-07, and #96- 06. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPLRSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:47 P.M. Mr. Newman stated he would like to have the record reflect that all of the comments and documents submitted, and all of the record that was made as part of the public hearing for Special Use Permit, #96-05, be incorporated by reference into these other three public hearings. If anyone has an objection to this, please indicate so. 2.34 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAG$ 35 No one present at the meeting e�cpressed an objection. Mr. Hickok showed photos of the Skywood Mall site. The proposal is to have the tenants moved to the front of buildinqs: Staff anticipates the front face wi11 be modified for those tenants who will be located to the front of the center. Behind the mall is a severe slope between the property and the residential area. The slope is quite open and would require additional vegetation for screening purposes. Mr. Hickok stated Special Use Permit, SP �96-02, deals with the unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment at the Skywood Mall. As a proposal comes in, staff ineets with the developers and recommends what the petitioner must do to move the process forward and point out what steps are involved. It does take a full analysis by staff to come to a determination and provide a recommendation. In the existing Menards building there is a portion along the southern edge of the building that is now interior storage space. He believed it was Menards intent to modify some of the internal space by moving that internal storage to the mall. The space gained inside the Skywood Mall is not necessarily to house what had been stored in the rear yard. It is Mena•rd� intent to modify the existing internal print of the building into a retail space. Mr. Hickok stated topography is an issue. There is a slope of 1 to 2.2 feet for every one foot of vertical dimension. I� other words, there is about 50 feet of elevation in about 110 feet. There is a lack of ability<to successfully screen the view of outdoor materials and outdoor merchandise from adjacent properties. The petitioner is proposing the remova3 of an existing office complex to be used for outdoor storage. A similar request had come to the assessor�s attention some years ago. The assessor did respond that there is a significant difference in tax generation from outdoor storage to office/internal retail space. There is no opportunity for rear inventory receiving for the remaining tenants. The plan is to put tenants toward the front. Staff is concerned that receiving for those tenants would be in the front of the facility in the circulation route also used by customers. Another concern is increased noise in terms of the rear retail use. Staff has limited information regarding the use of the outdoor storage area. The plan is a concept at this time. Staff has limited information about the new buiiding elevation including customer circulation for the area behind the mall. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends denial of special use permit, SP #96-02, due to the findings that the request will cause an increase in noise, light and`glare; unsightliness of materials from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, conflicts with physically challenged individuals on the site, compromised 2.35 pLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAGE 36 safety of individuals and materials, compromised enjoyment of surrounding property, aesthetic decline associated with outdoor unscreened storage/display and the decreased tax base as a result of removing the office space and replacing it with out�oor storage. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends denial of special use permit, SP #96-07, due to the findings that the request will cause an increase in noise, light and glare, unsightliness of materials from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, conflicts with physically challenged individuals on the site, compromised safety of individuals and materials, compromised enjoyment of surrounding property, aesthetic decline associated with outdoor unscreened storage/display and the decreased tax base as a result of removing the office space and replacing it with outdoor storage. Mr. Hickok stated special use permit, SP #96-06, deals with unscreened storage of materials and equipment that can be seen from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. The issues with the Menards are much like those of the Skywood Mall property including topography and the lack of ability to screen the view from adjacent properties, increased noise in•the rear, limited information about the use of the rear yard storage area, and limited information regarding the rear building elevation and customer circulation. Also, there is a requirement for a gate around a petroleum pipeline that exists between the properties. In our discussions, staff asked for information about building over a gasoline pipeline. Our experience has been that pipeline companies do aerial inspections and they do not like landscape materials or anything of the like over 18 inches high because of the shadows that are cast. Staff is concerned about surrounding a pipeline with a gate, any potential hazards that may be caused by interruption and the ability to get in to that pipeline. The attorney for Menards responded that they are comfortable with the stipulations in their easement agreement and feel that what they are doing would not be in conflict with what they are doing between the two properties. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends denial of special use permit, SP #96-06, due to the potential of limiting access to physically challenged individuals a potential for compromised safety of individuals and the materials stored/displayed, and the potential of aesthetic decline caused by the outside displays. The petitioner does have the alternative of integrating the sales items into their operation in a manner that is consistent with the other retailers. Ms. Modig stated staff is recommending denial for the same reasons. 2.36 PLANNING COMMISSION MBETING, APRIL 3, 1996 _ PAGE 37 Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of any or all of the special use permits, they may want to table the issue in order to staff to lay out mitigating.stipulations to address the issues outlined and discussed. Mr. Saba asked how they could do that with the existing track record. Is there any way to enforce? Mr. Newman stated he thought the answer is that you have those options be it financial arrangements to secure performance as well as a host of other options. Staff does not know why they did not execute the original agreement. Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to summarize. As he sees it, there are those items that are existing and those proposed. SP #96-02 is dealing with what is proposed. Mr. Hickok stated SP #96-02 deals with the Skywood Mall and anything that is not screened and cannot be viewed from the adjacent properties. This is only outside. SP #96-07 also deals with merchandise that is outside at the Skywood Mall property. Mr. Sielaff stated that SP #�6-05 deals with outside merchandise at the current Menards and SP #96-06 deals with outside storage at the current Menards. � Ms. Modig asked if there was some way to separate the items stored inside the fence from those items stored outside the fence. It seems to be two different issues. Mr. Hickok stated they can do so through stipulations to identify what standards would be applied to what materials. Mr. Newman stated, if the Planning Commission were inclined to recommend approval, staff could have time to come up with stipulations. Staff could have one set of stipulations that would apply to all four requests. Mr. Newman stated the public testimony received as part of the previous public hearing will be incorporated into this public hearing by reference. He asked if anyone frdm the public had any additional comments or any additional information to provide. No additional comments were received from the public. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the three public hearings. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIiiQ AY$� CBAIRPERBON NEIPMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN(3 CLOSED AT 11:10 P.M. 2.37 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 38 Ms. Savage stated her initial reaction is to recommend denial of the requests for a number of reasons. First, there is simply an incompatible use with a lumber yard and a residential area. There were problems earlier. In the late 1980's, this�was in front of the Appeals Commission when the sound barrier issue was brought up. There have been problems since the 1960's. At this point, she sees the problems as being compounded by granting the special use permits. Second, she has a lot of concern about the precedent for outdoor display. The "big box" retail operations have all expressed an interest in having outdoor display and the City has declined. If this is granted, the City will have other requests. This is not good for the City. Mr. Saba stated he would be inclined to vote the same way for those same reasons as well as others. He is concerned about Menards' past performance or lack of same in dealing with the City as well as the neighbors. There has been a battle to enforce past agreements, stipulations, and neighborhood concerns. While he likes Menards and shops there, he is reluctant to go behind the store. He would hope any improvements they make would address that situation. He cannot help but feel there could be a meeting with the neighbors and staff regarding the issues and come back with a. revised plan. He agrees that the•intended use does not seem compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. They could come up with another plan with the storage closer to i-694 area. He did not know what the prime layout of that area would be but he does not agree that the proposal fits into a mall area. Regarding an agreement, he would like to see that in any additional proposal brought before the Planning Commission. He would be inclined to vote against the proposals. Ms. Modig stated, having seen what Menards did with their store in St. Cloud and the difference it made in the area, she would be inclined not to do anything that would eliminate the possibility that this could happen here. For those of us living in the City, we have seen how that area is deteriorating and, she thought, they were losing a lot of potential people because of what is happening there. She would like to see a separation of what is outside the fence area from inside the fence area. The City has told others what we expect them to do. The City did not say they could not store material outside in a fenced area. The City told them how high they could store stuff in the fenced area and allowed one business to have a special use permit until they constructed a garden area. She did not think they could do that much less for Menards. It is unfortunate that any of this was ever built there but the fact is that it is there and, if there is anything the City"can do to enhance it to make it better, we should do that. You cannot hide a lumber yard from the neighbors. She would be inclined to table the requests, have the petitioners meet with staff and the neighbor-hood, and see if some of these issues can be resolved. It would be a positive 2.38 PLANNINa COMMISBIpN MEETING, APRIL 3. 1996 PAG$ 39 thing for the area and for the City. It is not everyone's idea to have a lwnber yard in their backyard, but it is there and something needs to be done to make it a better area. She is concerned about the previous lack of response to the saund wall. She would like to table these items and have staff work with the petitioners and representation from the neighborhood to come up with something that would be positive for all. Mr. Sielaff stated, regarding the issue of storing merchandise outside, historically the City has not allowed. He does not want to diverge from that. This is something the City should not encourage. Another issue is the outside storage of unscreened material. They need to have it screened. He is inclined to recommend denial of the special use permits. Another issue is the noise and nuisance conditions in that storage area. He did not think they could do anything about the existing storage area, but it should be screened. In the proposed area behind the mall, he is inclined to think there should be no storage at all. He does not like the idea that the wall is being placed 20 feet back and that it could potentially go back another 20 feet. He is inclined to say no storage should be allowed outside the mall, only inside. As the requests are laid out now, he would be inclined to recommend denial. Mr. Newman stated, in reading the staff report, he thought this might be an opportunity. The uses are incompatible. If the City Council had to do it over, the zoning would probably be different. But, there is outside storage and outside merchandising and an area that does not provide the kind of appearance the City wants for the area. In driving down Central Avenue, he was surprised by the number of vacant buildings. He is aware of some of the financial concerns of the owners of the Skywood Mall. There is a history of tension between the neighbors and Menards, but there is an opportunity from which the City can benefit. He is inclined to table these requests if the parties could work together. The petitioner seems willing to work and the neighbors are willing to work to make it better. Mr. Newman stated some of his concerns include the issue of lighting. Downcast lighting can be installed so that the glare does not impact the neighbors. They cannot control the Ke11y Inn because that is outside this request, but this could be an improvement at the Skywood Mall and Menards properties. Another issue is noise. Shrubbery may dampen sound. Other alternatives including restricting the hours of operation of delivery trucks and forklifts. He would like to limit the height of yard storage. Mr. Colby stated storage is to the height of a forklift. Mr. Newman did not know how high that was, but he does not want storage any higher than the fenae. He would limit the outside merchandise display. He thought it was ugly out there. The City has a concern about precedent in retail areas and, he 2.39 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 40 thought the distinction staff can make is that now they have a lot of nonconforming use that permits them to do outside storage without restriction. If staff allows them to expand, we can restrict this outside storage. That might distinguish�this from some of the other retailers. There was a concern about drainage that needs to be addressed. On the issue of enforcement, unfortunately Mr. Colby's predecessors have not set a good track record. He suspected that an agreement could be reached that could be enforceable and the City Attorney could give assurances to the City Council that the City could enforce. He is concerned about where they are proposing to cut into the hill and also that what was a 14-foot fence no longer becomes a 14-foot fence and perhaps there are some areas where they may need to raise the height of that fence so that the neighbors can have the same kind of benefit. There is concern about expansion. Mr. Malkerson proposed the possibility of a conservation easement. Mr. Newman was first inclined to restrict expansion by requiring an additional special use permit. If it is done by easement, they cannot expand even if the City wanted to give them a special use permit. That may be an attractive way to accomplish this. There is concern about trash and traffic. Traffic is not Menards problem but he can appreciate the concerns the neighbors have if people are not.stqpping for stop�signs. He thought the City could do something through enforce'ment. Staff raised a very good concern about pipelines. This is a private contractual arrangement with the property owner and the holder of the pipeline. To a large degree, if the holder is not concerned about it, he was not sure they should be concerned. The City should verify the fact that they are comfortable with what is being proposed. Mr. Newman stated there is a whole host of issues there. If the neighbors and Menards got together with the help of staff, they could come up with some reasonable compromises recognizing there will be some instances where people will not be totally happy. He thought they could improve on the situation. He agrees with Ms. Modig that this would merit tabling these requests to give everyone an opportunity to see if they can work together. Mr. Sielaff asked Mr. Newman if there may not be a need for special use permits. Mr. Newman stated special use permits are needed, but they could write out conditions to address a number of the concerns. Mr. Sielaff stated two requests are for unscreened outside storage so they could screen it but not need the permit. Mr. Newman stated this is something they have now. He would have difficulty if the City continues to allow unscreened outside storage in front of the Skywood Mall. He did not think they need 2.40 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRZL 3. 1996 PAG$ 41 to e�and it. Menards is not going to be using that as a store front for their facility. He did not know if the other users would be using that for part of their retail. Perhaps the City can go so far as to get Menards to curtail some of the�outside storage from their present level. Mr. Sielaff asked, if they put a 14-foot wall on the existing facility in the back, would that constitute screened storage. Mr. Newman stated it would be screened storage. But there would still be the display of outdoor merchandise. Mr. Sielaff stated his view is that they already have storage in back. His feeling is that he does not want to improve on what they have but then the City doesn't want�to make it worse by adding additional storage behind the mall facility. Mr. Newman stated his guess is that Menards is saying they need additional space in order to compete. Ms. Savage stated, if the requests are tabled, it would mean that some of these issues and concerns are addressed and that could improve the current situation. _ - Mr. Newman asked if Mr. Malkerson would like to address the subject of tabling action on the requests. Mr. Malkerson stated he thought there was an opportunity to work. They need to know the concerns in order to address those concerns. They are willing to work with staff and the neighborhood. He would also prefer the request be tabled because there was much information provided that was not available before. There is much to be worked out. Ms. Matthews stated she would go along with tabling because they worked it out once before. Mr. Newman suggested consideration of these items be tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Colby suggested delaying for one month to be sure the petitioners are ready. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of Special Use Permit requests SP #96-05, SP #96-02, SP #96-07, and SP #96-08, subject to the call of the chair. QPON A VOICE VOTL� ALL VOTINQ AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ZJNANIMOIISLY. 2,41 PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING. APRIL 3, 1996 PAG$ 42 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 4. 1996 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive�the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of March 4, 1996. - IIPON A VOICB VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NSWMl1N DLCLARED THE MOTIOii CARRILD IINANIMOIIBLY. 9. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 13, 1996 MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of March 13, 1996. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY1:, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the meeting. _ 0 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(i AYTs, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN D8C?�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE APRIL 3� 1996� PLANNINQ� COMMISSION MFLTING ADJOIIRNED AT 12:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lv Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary e 2.42 S I G N— IN S H E E T . . PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING, -Wednesday, April 3, 1996 N - �_ �.. G " /Si�� J�13 ,�w � �. Z � �-, ,� e J�.,-, ascr►-►cyF ✓'� �j�� G�G��ov� � ,q.2r� 5 C=��iL � �a n .�_ � /� ss L) �,v'�� ;� �//r�.�i1�=5 � , %r %/?, o�i/ �o,� �'�E. ��C�, _ t�� • . � � � �C>�I, - t�� o � � ��-� ��- c� n l; � � Address/ Sd�s�i � � � � %'y� �-�, s z� s �rc { / � ��z f�� T �„�;T� ��,��f �2.�0 % LGr� l i �Zq�( % /a.-- '� Sz� S —T� ��2 ' � 5�3 �f T,o yc,� S� ,l>.-E . � 3.3 g' �.� ,e D .� F, �52 I 2 i�� are St�✓F- �„ �L �d�� 1a�6� ST . - � 1 . . 5'' 3 0 �.�L o� S`� � �� 1 Z� 5�'( �� Cv o o t�_ G tl% �r:a.� 1�`Y C�.�evv-o" e�- 15a1 (�S !U E �� - i �,,�. �-- - - �3 s� �°� �� SU Sj Z%,�'_ 52� � ('euif'nzQ .��1 P Ili � �ri �%��L, . t/VIA % �o iq � 3'06o T °//� �� iY! -l',�.�ey�Irv 3'�f a i �.�.; � � � � � � � , � � A � � � � � S �s �� 6� ��-c �2��1�� 2.43 �,� -'�-� � �I � ��. _ a �A s� �-� Y2 �,�-� m � _` [��7 / Cfln� � f a�.Q �C �L� � . n f.-� . 1 .. ,J� ��' MEMOI�;ANDUM PLANNING DIVISION DATE: April 18, 1996 TO: William W. Burns, City Manager,�!�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Revision to the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding non- point source pollution. A minor Comprehensive Plan amendment has been requested by the Metropolitan Council to align the non-point source water pollution language in the City's Zoning text•with that'in its Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the'City requires a City Council resolution of approval, prior to review and action by the Metropolitan Council. ISSIIE In August 1995, the Metropolitan Council approved an amendment to the City's Comprehensive plan for Home Depot to change land use designation from Indust�ial to Commercial on a 14.5 acre site. At that time, the Metropolitan Council stipulated that its approval was tied to a requirement that the City amend its Comprehensive Plan to coincide with the City�s existing ordinance language. The City's non-point source pollution ordinance (Ord.1010, Adopted May 11, 1993) was adopted to protect the environment and was an attempt to comply with the Metropolitan Council's earlier mandate regarding non-point source pollution. The Met Council recognized the City's effort as having the impact they had hoped for, but asked that the City amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide consistency. SIIGGLSTED COMPRBHENSIVS PLAN AMENDMBNT (ATTACHED) RECOMMENDATION " Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA �96-01 as submitted. SH/ M-96-190 3.01 RESOLIITION NO. - RESOLIITION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT� CPA �96-01� BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, FOR MODIFICATION OF TH8 LANGIIAGE ADDING POLICY #4� TO PAGTs 6-5, CHAPTER 6 WATER� SBWER� AND SOLID WASTE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #96-01, on April 3, 1996 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council also conducted a public review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at their April 22, 1996 City Council meeting and approved the amendment at their April 22, 1996 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Stat. 473.851 - 473.872) requires that local government units prepare.and submit minor amendments to their Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, a minor amendment is defined as changes to the future land use plan where the affected area is small or where the proposed future land use will result in minor changes in metropolitan urban service demand: changes in the urban service area involving less. than 40 acres; change to plan goals and policies that do not change the overall thrust of the comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the City has determined this to be a minor amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #96-01, with the language as attached as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 1996. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 3.02 WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR E%HIBIT A The proposal would add policy #4, to Page 6-5, Chapter 6, Water, Sewer and Solid Waste: 4. The City will adopt by reference the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP� standards for the desiqn of new stornawater nonds and the Minnesota Pollution Control Aaency's (MPCA) "Protecting Water 4uality in Urban Areas" in order to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadincrs in stormwater runoff. The City will incorporate these standards and requirements in its stormwater management plan and land use controls to imnlement this policv. 3.03 � . . Exhibit B � �: !�g � ffi� Q� Fi�(� �TII� F%� S� �F'. Zhe stocm drain system p�ovides for ef f icient removal of storm_ water nmo�f. Hawever, even with sud� a system, there are still urban ruaio�ff :prohle�ns. 7.hese problems consist of 1) non-point source pollution of creeks, river, and lakes (which are the �ying outlets for most storm drain syste�ns) , and. 2) flooc3 potential as more open areas are developed creating higher volimies of water rimoff. It will be important to the City to carefully analyze it's system and take necessary steps to teciuce negative i.mpacts on the City's environnent. 1.. The City should oontinue to e�valaate tbe effects of peak storms and storm runoff to �.�nimixg potential P��tY �- . A. �e (�ty �ould be ap� to inno�rativ�e desig�s and tec�i,ques a� vontra�l.l.ic�g stotm runa�. B. �e Ci.ty should ooa�ti��e to enforoe regulations tp �inimi� Qppa � pO�Ilt1.31. 2. Tbe City should �f�oe the g�ide].ines of the �� Pl z£c�r W3tpr !!a� fc�r � i cr �cQek W t�r�hed n,� wit�in the �tire (5.ty li.mits. 3. �e City shoa.id w�rk with aajoania9 cities to c3�velap �a� mnagement gl,ans for the ta�ined waters�eas within the City li.mits. •�i _ _��-�M i:� � SOURCE: City of Fridfey Com,p�'efiensive Plan, Chapter 6, Page 6-5 , F, . 3.-{�4 , .' ��#:, S= }i Page 2- Ordinance No. 1010 i�1• In computing the depth of a rear yard for any building where the rear line of the lot adjoins an alley, one half (1/2) of the width of the alley may be included as rear yard depth, provided that the actual rear yard depth on the lot shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in any residential district and not less than twenty-five (25) feet in any other district. . ' I. No land shall be altered and no use shall be permitted that results in water run-off causing flooding, erosion or deposits of minerals� � on adjacent properties. The following standards shall be implemented: (1) The City hereby adopts by reference the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Water Quality, "Protecting Water Quality in. Urban Areas, Best Management Practices for Minnesota" within which are Lhe National Urban Runoff Pollution Standards and Best Management Practices. (2) A grading and drainage plan shall be submi.tted in conjunction with a building or land alteration permit and shall be drawn at a scale no smal�ler than one (1) incti equals two hundred feet, and shall contain, but is not limited to, the following information: \��; ,�: ?3 ;: i;3F ' �1� (a) existing and proposed grades wi.th a•minimum of two foot � contour intervals to a'known sea level datum; (b) sufficient spot elevations on all proposed hard surface . areas; _ . (c) estimated run-off of the'area based upon fine (5) and one hundred {100) year_24 hour storm events:;with a minimum time o� intensity"of twenty (20) minutes; (d) provisions to carry run-off to the nearest adequate outlet, such as a storm drain, natural drainage way or street; (e) location of any proposed ponding areas, indicating the size and depth of the pond and amount of acre feet of water to be stored; (f) finished floor elevations of all buildings; (g) identification of soil conditions by type and location, including identification of the water table, and suitability of the soil for the proposed development, and � _ • (h) identification..of any areas located within a flood r � . hazard zone as identified by the City•s floodplain � � overlays_ ,.. . , � ;� 3.05 �'��4 �,; �R��~`` ,,,�;• �1�i� Page 3- Ordinance No. 1010 (3) A grading and drainage plan is not required for the following development activities: (a) minor land disturbance activities such as home gardens and individuai residential landscaping, repairs, and maintenance work; :! . (b) construction, installation, maintenance of above ground �`-�� electric and telephone utility lines or individual service connection to the utility lines; 0 � � (c) preparation for single-family residences separately built on lots with slopes less than twelve (12) percent, unless in conjunction_with multiple construction in subdivision development; � (d) disturbance of land areas less than 9,000 square feet � for commercial or noncommercial uses, except that the City may reduce this exception to a smaller area of disturbed land or qualify the conditions under which this exception applies; (e) installation of �ence, sign, telephone and electric poles and other.kinds of posts or poles; • (f) emergency work and repairs to protect life, limb or property; and . (g) federal, state, county� and municipal road construction ` designed and� installed according to standard specifications. (4) A conservation plan and time schedule shail be submitted in accordance with Chapter 208. (S) Stormwater run-off from a developed site will leave at no greater rate or lesser quality than the stormwater run-off from the site in an undeveloped condition. Stormwater run-off shall not exceed the rate of run-off of the undeveloped iand for a 24 hour storm with a i year return frequency. Detention facilities shall be designed for a 24 hour storm with a 100 year return frequency. All run-off shall be properly channeled into a storm drain water course, ponding area. or other public facility designed for that purpose. Any change in grade affecting water run-off onto an adj acent property must be approved by the City. (6) In order to ensure the construction was completed in accordance with the approved design and plans, an "as-built" survey of detention facilities on the property shall be prepared and submitted to the City. The plan shall indicate 3.06 � Page 4- Ordinance No. 1010 the size� location, as the location of elevations on them. ;: :.,; ,,. _:;,_. �"{,�b. - ^� C�L� �,�:: �� , i."s'4•'�� . C � i � DESCRIPTION OF REGIUEST: The petitioner requests that a special use permit be issued to allow the installation of an automatic changeable time and temperature sign in conjunction with a new permanent sign. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Section 214.07 of the Fridley sign code requires that a special use permit be issued prior to the installation of automatic changeable sigr�s. . The proposed request meets the requireme.nts of tfie sign code. The primary sign measures 72 square feet in area, and reads "North Metro Neck and Back Specialists". The time and temperature sign is 4.8 square feet. The total sign area is less than the maximum 80 square feet permitted by code (76.8 square fe�. The City has tv�ro time and temperature signs; one at Home Valu and the other at TCF Bank on Centr�al Avenue. Menards also has an automatic changeable sign as part of its iree-standing sign. Menards' sign is permitted to change only once every 15 .minutes. Time and temperature signs may change more frequently. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit request, to allow an automatic changeable time and temperature sign, with the following s�tipulation: 1. If the use of this sign becomes more than time and temperature, the message shall change no more than once every 15 minutes. RECOMMENDED ACTlON: Staff recommends that the Cify Counal ooncur with the Planning Commission acctaon. 4.01 Staff Report SP #96-03, Wayne Dahi Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Piatting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering lssues: Site Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS � A special use perrnit to allow an automatic changeable time/temperature sign. 7699 Highway 65 N.E. West 230 feet and the North 233 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest G�uarter of Section 12. 53,590 square feet; 1.23 acres Flat Typical shrubs and sod C-3, Genera! Shopping Center District; unplatted _ :_ : , Connected . Osbome Road,` Highway 65 Walkway along Osbome Road None 4:02 Staff Report SP #96-03, Wayne Dahl Page 3 ADJACENT SITES WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: REQUEST Zoning: G2, C,enerai Business Land Use: Gas s�tion Zoning: G3, General Shopping Cr�tr Land Use: Restaurant Zoning: G2, Geneial Business Zoning: Unknown, Spring Lk Pk Land Use: Prof. offices Land Use: Gas stafion The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this location. No one from the audience spoke regar+ding this request. The petitioner requests that a special use permit be issued to allow the installation of an automatic time and temperature sign in conjunction with a new perrnanent sign. Section 214.07 of the Fridl� �sign oode requires that a� speaal use permit be issued prior to the installation of automatic changeable signs. ' . 3; : PARCEL DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The subject pancel is located in the southeast comer of the irrtersection of Highway _ 65 and Osbome Road. The properly was originally a drive-in res�aurant known as the "Frost Top". In 1964, a building permit was issued to construct a 26' x 26' : _ restaurant and canopy on the site. Additional building permit activity inctudes: 1969 - Construction of a 38' x 38' storage building 1976 - Addition of a miniature goff course 1981 - Petitioner acquired the property and remod�ed it from the drive-in restaurarrt use to the chiropractic ciinic 1987 - The petitioner added a 1,656 square foot addition ;. e:; ; ��4.03 0 Staff Report SP #96-03, Wayne Dahl Page 4 ANALYSIS Section 214.07 of the City's sign code requires approval of a special use permit prior to the installation of any automatic changeable sign. The section limits the change of message for automatic changeable signs to once every 15 minutes with the exception of time and temperature signs, which may change more frequerrtly. There are two time and temperature signs located in Fridley; one at Home Value and the oth� at TCF Bank on Central Avenue. The Menards sign is also an automatic change�able sign; however, its m�ssage changes once every 15 minutes as permitted by code. The total square footage of the signage is proposed to be 76.8 square feet. This is broken down as to 72 square feet for the primary sign which reads "North Metro Neck and Back Specialists", and 4.8 square fee� for the time and temperature sign which is proposed to be located on top of the sign. The total of the proposed square footage of the signage is less than the 80 square feet maximum permitted by code. RECOMMENDATION The proposed sign meets the standards set forth in the sign code; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request, with the following stipulation: 1. If the use of this sign becomes more than time and temperature, the message shall change no more than once every 15 minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission concurred with the staff recommendation. 4.04 SP �96-03 N S P #96-03 �� 7699 H ig hway 65 ,�s .�. CATION MAP �4. 1� �'� ��:�' .'�• �� i •� ♦� . .�{ • � • � . • • • • • •• •��• • • . • • • • • • •��• • •��• • • •• • •• � � � � � � �� r � � �� ■t��a��r��■ i�= �■��r�� ;.,. �T �'"' ,,;> �.. � �:.y !F1. .�1 NUR�'` H MET � : r�o . ' ` . ' . . � .� . � . . , , . .. R . . -�'. � , . . . ` . . . , ?, ' 1 ... . , � � ' � .� . . . � � . _ ._ . . .. . � . . i, '1 � � . - , , - � � . � , � . ' � � _ - _ � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ - - _ - - _ _-_-�--------------�-�_____-� � � - _ _ � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------___�---�--------------� �_--_-___-_�--��-S�_._--��-�_-� -_--_--�_---__--_�__--______� ■��l�� r� ��a`��a��o��7��1 �� ■ ��■ �� ■�� ■��■ ��■ �rr� ■�� ■��■ +■��■ �� ■�� •��■ i■��■ �� •�� •��■ ��■ �� ■�� ■��■ �■�■ �� ■�� ■��■ ��■ ..�....� ■ � � ,,�,,. C'(�)L(�)[�S City of Fridley TO: William W. Bums, City Manager �,��. PW96-089 FROM: John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director DATE: April 17, 1996 SUBJECT: 85th Avenue Speed Limits We received a response from Anoka County indicating that the last time a speed zone study was conducted on 88th Avenue (CR 132) was in March, 1984. That time the speeds were such that the study resulted in a 55 mph speed zone from Springbrook Drive west to East River Road and 35 mph'from Springbrook Drive east to Highway 47 (University Avenue). The County would be willing to request MnDOT to conduct another speed study but first they cautioned the City that the resulting speed could be higher and in order to do so, they would need concurrence from the cities of Blaine and Coon Rapids. If the City Council desires to proceed with the attached. resolution, recommend that we forward a copy with a cover letter to the cities of Blaine and Coon Rapids requesting that they submit a similar request to the County. JGF:cz Attachment �5.01 RE�pLUl.'IO�iT ND. - 1996 • �: • •; •�5� 1 :r. � �:�� •�a�� ; • � a�a�� •� •� u :� r:�^r. �RF�P,3, Council mexnbers of the City of Fridley have determined that there is excessive speed on County Highway 132 (85th Avenue) betw�een East River R,oad (County Road 1) arid State Trunk Highway 47 (Univexsity Avenue), and �, County Hiqhway 132 a�.its the City of Fridley's Springbrook Nature Centex, and WI�REAS, the Nature Center is visited by children and adults of all ages, in searah of quiet arid wi.ldlife experiences, arx� Wi�;REAS, the aooess, safety and natural expe.riexices at the Sprinc�rook Nature Center are hindered by the speed of vehicles on Coun�y Hic�way 132, and �i.S, the City Council believes that the vehicle speed on this route sh�zld be reduc:ed. NOW, Ti�REFORE, 8E IT 12�'SOLVED TI�T, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka countY, Mir�nesota, that the Anoka County Highway Department is requested to reduoe the traf�ic speed on County Highway 132 to a �r�axinann of 40 miles per hour. PASSID 1�,1�ID ADOPI'ID BY Tf� Cl'1'Y �IL OF TI� CITY O�' F'RIDIrL3C TAIS 82H DAii OF APRIL, 1996. _ �f�� [�.1/�i1i�'uil��:►_ul'o �MY`�«f�:i;� e 5.02 WILLIAM J. N� - MAYOR i�-1- lti: 9G 13:00 F�1 ti12 iS-1 �532 A\'OKa CO HR'I DPT ��p� J'ohrt Flora Speed Limits an CR 132 Apr�l 16, 1996 Fage Two srudy may result in speed li.mits which are a.ctually higher than those currently in effect, since a major i.�fluence on the outcome a£ a spe�d zone study is tl�e results of tbe radar speed samples. In essence, what this means is if the majority of traffic is currently e�c�eding the posted speed limits, zhe results of the radar speed data collected through a speEd zone study would indicate that a higher speed li.mit than what is cunently posted would be more appropria�e far this roadway. i�ile it is impassible to deteruune what the new speed limits woul� be, the worst case scenario of a speed zone study conducted at tlus time wo�ld be a Sa NIl'�i limit on this entire sectian of CR 132. Consequer�tiy, the City of Fridley may wish to approaeh this issue with cautio�. Tn addition, since C� I32 is a boundary roadway, and the Cities of �laine, Coon Rapids and Fzidle}� may pQtentially be responsible for the proper enfarcement of an.y new speed Iimits on this raute, Anoka County would require written concurrence with the need for a nevv speed zone study on this section of CR 132 from all of the affected cities, While this•caacurrence fram ea.ch city must be in vvriting, it may be in.eitber Ietter or � resolutian forrn. U'pan receipt of the necessary written cancurrence from eaeh of the affected rities, �noka County would then pass a County �oard res�lution requesting a neu� speed zone study on CR 132, from CSAH 1(�ast �.2iver Road} to TH 47, to ini.tiate the speed zone study process with Mn/DOT. � Far youx i.nfarmatian and use, S've attached a brachure wbich explai.ns the speed lirni.t/zaning process. Feel free to contact me if you need further i�£orrnation. �; : Sincerel ' � s�.ne K. P��o.bl� ra�f'ic Engineer En�losure ec: Jon Olson, Count�� Engineer tmk/spced32 5.04 �• � � � � � � r � � . � � .;..��'- �. . • �. � . : ..�r �' _. � . tir� � � � .� � ... .:.. _�,r �y:;�s'-��1@Il�lil�lf'M-� ��■... � , . . . ' . . O�;t�lE a .. �� q C1 IA :7 � �m�'�d m G > °� p� °�' � E " � " ° � . � C j �j C � p G! a � � C Ca�df�� Q ��q « y O � � i_ � ~ C � � � 7 W OQF�++ ��Q � � w o � � � �°� �� . G7 � . �"...:•:.�.�y.... : .+� � v'.: .�n.i:,� c.� �' �'�'N.. . � Q �� ^�{�:�_ . � � �J ~ O a� � � : , �. � . p. a,._. _ �� G o�c � � .��:: n.'''.... a� c�.a— _� � �A� w�°i0.%�a�i �} � _�d,' �� a� �.. � R Q [Z � ..+ � C'a Ri U `�' � � ` fr � f„7 y 1+ � .� .0,.a � �,�j�'�"V.� �y�Tl� " :� 1 �' � ��'� o .�F � d�� V �C W= �� .� o >, d t i p� • $ ��'�:.a': : v m N d� �� Nw d 4�'�e C .m � �` � p � O�: • .g y,.� L . � m � � ° a`� �� •a�i::�' -a . �4o.vLa �� .�c�,�.-.. � � F o .�' c.� .-•.cv . � a .8.�a . � �C � H G ��; o�= � v � m � � O b �' m c. � � � a � Q d �� v m � A T � � o s °° � N a A . � � � 0 � o _ .°. � °m ° �� o �u � N� ± e `po 5� � `? e n a� c ° � � �.� '� a � � ,. o .a ° .. m ��-'=. .'E-v°=•r<;,•.�', � 3 0 � v � : � _. u , ' a� �, o -='.;.��. . ,9 � �y�� .,� '.��.:-:� ..� ..:..:_: o� � = a 3 L � � :�:.'�C C.'. , :- o �.:r`: ;:� .� � .r'`: �::=�:: � � . ao �t7 p 0 y'. a:.' a:�: • � �" : m � � F .. : � � : " � �i </. :=. . ��!-p ar �'^r =" " ` � �: r.. O T,, . °'•y' �� d � .. � `. �•..µ �.R 4� '.:"' 4 . F+ �i � CJ Q7 .�. y W''V �-%-'• �4 ."%�. C � � .� � tl . . . -- 6i Q .- � v fi. � v.` � p � 7�'i�v �S`t_: � � � � . °' ° � .°-. c � . � �.'. .�' ' , - 4:�� °"'-�:.,:P..,,. ,, � v Q � � $ � } � ..� �;�:��;- ' :.',g-.�i:'��'z� X -.t � . E � . ' -`y'.v' .,,,�:- • " > �. � } a s,,� � � °' d •'' _� a • �; . a,; a �.�'�:�:_:: -..a S p� a, . ' a �c, " o. -�.�• - .w �..,..:.; ,.. . a �. C y Cw'lCv�� O q� +'.a'�� C'Atl. � � � ��E � . . � o � p�•�� . ,=,.�f=.:."w m �� . p• y: ..�'7. � o:�=� �-�. < �Z � � a a, � o � � � � o � � �' . �:g, Q_;. n��: a �w� d �_; p .��" ��` �'' a E e � L �- � � . v 4 v :::;; . Y�� " ',�', � ��•:' �G- � '� � � di � a � Q� .�' � �+ � � ' • �f � � .,F� O @ r w, _ C � ,� .. S:�•°•�st��ra�� q �� 'o a � C 0.�.'� `�,� u. '—'-: �r:�'�a -ca .i ..� a � � o � C. ,:.� Q �'•• •�j � � �, 3 �:.a: r"'� �Ja FCS� '=`o.��.�`si�� 3 ;;�,.... w �o rc: � o �'"�","v��c� "_ _._...... . _.. _ � ' ' - - _�_ . . - •. .- . ,� � a 7, �� z � W a7� i r � M�" v � � � • • r. �... �p� •Q � -, � �. : •'?,.. ol' � d�,,, � G q �-N � .. �.�i '. •. ' L � 'r�' lii � y wd y � � �?-;�; • � V O ._ ' ; � � 33 ` • c. �.. 0 : ...; �• a O� o � a�� N �.�, M°- p c. �. .. �.1r•$:$•`;� p • "'��' s �C (/� w� �� a.R 3' 61. - �:�-:Q'.,,5�'.�•`•' p6 -- p F+�..y . �. �- �. m � �'�� 5 �. .- - ;;;�:m -�;� = �. r� o � N p. y_ ..._ � a � � � � � � �� .: �;-: � ��. � � � � � � m � � q � �.' i► :. � g �: �D �.�-" rOca = � �- � O �W� C u m��y v o:'�i d".'. -'<:��'CO � a� L o �3voQ� �v�i�o�.:..+��Q�� ;o:.�� °° •��s� r+, o � aw a �; � a�i ° a o. �, w � �� ;�,'•�.5� � � o :; � a T� � �i O Q� � � �^ p �� . Q'O ..`•','. ..�.�:.. . . Z -� jp � � .. a �+ Qi � v 'x �r � � A '� 10 � � '� �': �5 �'.� u: - v, °� a �N �_ � -p Q -� �: d� �' � 0�� ? � dJ�tti�' m A�� .. ?�.� � . � . � �� }� � � � '0 G $ v � � �.� C 7 �G �j �� a. p � � y�� in � a� iu d A 7�� c� eif. ��, .� F� � a� 'O b F' N U V'C � a�'9 �O .+ p A� N � � L Y7 a� ' �Ctg_� �� r�� a, �a � � V F� F-� 7� 3 r � x � � � m. � N C C7 � � � � � � � oa, w � � � 'O � � y v � �u y W M 0. b � � �r�� • � • L � N � ~ N � � �� o � � N C ID H �� r g � �� z � ° o�� m � '� ¢ � y � a�� ,�+fi � � � Q' � � � �� , �$�� F��w � 0 � � � � � ` +�- �� . QA�� ,g � oQ� � � � .rr' � Cq q � � w, G.^ u �a�`= 4 � a � �E�� ; � �3= � �a� ��4 ` � a . �� d�. '-%$y w•r's �C � y � p �. R," n'C a .aa� .��o�a '� �-+ E� m� a ..� � ' . = o v o ` �� a$�''�o �}� F+� o: �� J7 r F �:'' �.� �'pm�C w $ � •� W �o ra :R '"� �oqnE :p..� � a� y%� E "Q t°��a�, .-: `o �� u,. ? �, � V d � �o� �� C g 4 yi��►�C � 0.0 � .. Y ��> � .r'J C mt� e�0t4ip r p p � d ��3 � =�o�� n � a G V � ��v � � O �.+ o a. •< �J�� v � oVcg� �<zo�� '� u � � V d d �V3 �► ��b .%. �' �y �.s �q� 0.41'�C p 4� � p C � �=%3�a � � p V U �i°a+v. ��a�� w V V i0 t� � •-�. � �' q �,o.�zy o�+v� i�� e �, e C u � U4/16� 96 13:01 F.�T �12 754 3532 AAVOK� CO HWY DPT �044 b � �, d �, c a ,c c� Q L� � ,� v � � o m a � d� �� s. �j m C m'd y � v,s �� '+�" W e�� m m� c.�f p > u GI � �� m� Q � Q Q� d�'�� = c°ro>,c y `� � � � � m '�. w w C � d W 0 d 7 O � d �� C: iC C � A � � � C � � 4 •^ � 0 � V^d�-iy C d �b C Q? C! p� �y �� Gl O y � C N C�•� ji m � m�! �o7�,= m oz-j a�:'. >GS11 � Q �+�.� U v�5 ' . .. f 3� 1 7 G � m G ,� � C ,�,f,j- ro i m "' � m V�ac �� v C� a W� � V a' j� � w�' m�aE��j� ti a � d C�.� �� a° ar � �, W �y � � � G. ."�J O `,�R;:� �,p��,G Vi�y3 tl ��,,',.�m�,., :_�y ,.. � v: tr � 3 �y � � � �' it�!�::� ��.C�7� F.� di u a� O ��'� �C ��o S O a� o�3 Q �� .��,. � , . . .. ...� u 'e � � � � � �. � � m .�,� C. a � a. � � � � �� rt� ° � � u y CA � � m w v �.� A .�d� A�� c �� „ o = �� C m�m G. s�n m � � O O Q�.� � �� o � R d w .a.o m ,= a� ty � �i en y' O � C �� 8�°oE � � � ��r a a�� ay� o � � i.i 4+ y ` Ry vi .. O a � y. � � � � � � � ` � � .-..o�c,�o�g" Q;��aoo�,c:5� o; �.d z p � �v '° � r �U7apq C� m� � 47 'a V. y � C' � � � t . . o p. p`�p � d� �� d� 4. {%} � � � ^ � _ � v � O.+ � �p �� y N� C � r� � o � � � � y �i � � a°�i c :'� �'{� p � � �» 'v0 .A aai m �'° ?, n � a x � �E�° ° ��= i�n°....'�o ..°"v3°'a,c �.rmc � ° ' , °p � e� i o , '�' ° d m _ � a o o��ro Qo-o¢�„ y �O'�-U.�N�ta4.:p4 � � � L�s �i. 'O O..0 � � 0... � �o � ��.�:. � ct � .� � 9:1�`b�.t��.-5�•O'a W Q7 CN E E O �p o.C.7s.0� �'� �C m� '17�0� 6t L p'�A C m m N� Rx � �j p.�'L1� ��_�,O.N��J'.O .;_"` C O � . '�. � � ' �� . d � ° O13 0 W~� ��m��W��C �"a� ��$�~�.c.�oC.�od� � 4 W� p o 4 3 c Q'g °`�`o O � 9 b � �� o � y p � G.C�C � � m� � b �� '� � O � � � p ~ N "p � � O a� O F q � � b d � S,��Q�� a �,#��7E �F��E°v C7 «Q � '"'' � � L .� � m �j � .�^�y _�� , � m � �y.p C i �;.�: p, m � +� � � � �.'O a �,a.m;� �_c $ �� '� o �.7d Vi d � ' � M � � � �,,, vi � Q1 '�'� p • �'• G r° gy � 'C � ..G u a � .b m � ' = �+.:� > t7 �, u,.•: . �r.. '�d aO�Q. ��a .�� C �� c C �j �t � a � � a � � d b � � V � � O .-. � � � O W � O � � y^ O.a�i �'�F„ °v °' A � �.d G,,,�+� q m C V�� O w '� V q �o � C O d� 4� L 7 � �- 'U „ � ._ m �, ,. v .. .... �,, c � � �.. p,'� C y C� t� °1 C y 0 > aq .,�, � () O m � � C . m „�d U � � w �N ? V�r�i.. � � � � V w ..0 � �. N O 4 p G � CA a � .� ..- m � axi ..�. � `.�' m : Q: W N �. • • ♦ • • � • ! • � = C N m � � L 'b y a C �.,. � � � � a� � � �a y w U n' w .'�+ C w 'b L M o,Go � V � � rn c� :u .c � �� d o a cd � � � � t � k- u � � � a d! � .�'Lr 41 V m o d ^ �� W a s''+ d y d � w � Q: y 7 � 'E • �� Q� y � � � � C V O C 9 av. �C �p � ��.� .�°v�� b v �� b� 4 a cn -° � � u�� .� 3ti� m } ? a � 'fl a a� � m �a C �-'' �. ` -a °.i .m � v'�. v o° m. M ° � � >, F � .,� � v � �� d a. m V p,,a O��Q� O � � a 7� �y�.A� 0,�� `FJ �G'.w.,�� p v. �'vaocb.+ c � � o � v � � � a° � °�y-o 0 a�,'��ao,°—'do. o, a w�: d+ Q� tdJ u q a��r,voa��nm°y3� ��a'7 C.V� M l0 tA� . m"��: w�10A.� o � � � q�Q r.e � ��m G }d��O? � 4 �� W L r" LL T C� �' � .� � � �:� yo � � d i � � � � t d 5a�m a; ym � � � � � ' o a, � � . ` � �i o �., .:g � d p E� � c� v o .r:Qi� �C � � vO. a�i C�' y'�"� .�1 �� p C � {. � m O st � c�o c c oa 5r'� 'a o r� � 's � .o .c ^ � �Ec� E E E3 �mo �^ Q� o' o' u1 io � v, v o �. � w�`j tD � � v� � oa, > �.V V.'• � � • � 0 G n � �y � C � � 4��r. O � y �� d � p 6i � [ �,�� m � � ;; � � 0 T d � � E � d � � # N .�7 � a l 3 °: E y, ya��' • aQ,o- m �k z° a a�' t e�. CITY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER � r� � FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR WILLIAM A. CAAMPA, CITY �LERK SUBJECT: 1ViINN�SOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING BINGO HALL LICENSE FOR THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HALL DATE: APRIL 18, 1996 Attached is a resolution approving the application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit for the Church of the Immaculate Conception for bingo in the Knights of Columbus Hall at 6831 Highway 65. The Minnesota Gambling Control Board requires the adoption of a resolution approving or denying this premise permit renewal application. This application elcpires every two years. .s.o� RESOLUTION N0. - 1996 RES4LIITION IN SITPPO&T OF A RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA IAWFIIL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO THE CHiJRCH OF TIiE IMMACUI.ATE CONCEPTION WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been served with a copy of a Renewal Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit for the Church of the Immaculate Conception; and WHEREAS, the location of the Premise Permit is for the Knights of Colwnbus Hall, 6831 Highway 65 Northeast; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has not found any reason to restrict the location for the charitable gambling operation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley approves the Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to the Church of the Immaculate Conception. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COitNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1996. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 6.�2 WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR 0 � CffY OF FRIDLEY Type of License• By: LICENSES APRIL 22,1996 Approved By: Fees• CIGARETTE Burlington No.(Hump Tower) MN Viking Food Serv David Sallman $30.00 5200 W 74th St Public Safety Fridley, Mn 55432 Director East River Road Texaco Don Kisch " "$30.00 8100 E River Rd Fridley, MN 55432 Fireside Rice Bowl Oliver Tam " "$30.00 6310 Hwy 65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 Freedom Valu Center#58 Erickson oil " "$30.00 7600 University Ave NE Product Inc Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley Amoco Bob Ring .- " - " $30.00 7680 Highway 65 NE � Fridley, MN 55432 � - Knights of Columbus North Air `" "$30.00 6831 Highway 65 NE Home Assoc. Fridley, MN 55432 PDQ Store W. McGuire " " $30.00 620 Osborne Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Shorewood Inn� Am Amusement " " $30.00 6161 Hwy 65 NE Arcades Fridley, MN 55432 ENTERTAINMENT Knights of Columbus 6831 Hwy 65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 . North Air Home Assoc. � 9.01 u m $85.00 � cmr oF FRIDLEY LICENSES April 22, 1996 FOOD ESTABLISI��+IENT East River Road Texaco Don Kirsch 8100 E River Rd Fridley, MN 55432 Fireside Rice Bowl Oliver Tam 1160 Fireside Dr NE Fridley, MN 55432 Freedom Valu Center#58 Erickson oil 7600 University Ave NE Product Inc Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley Amoco Bob Ring 7680 Highway 65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley Dairy Queen Don Fitch 225 Osborne Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 God Father's Pizza#24501 G. Batenhorst 7910 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 Knights of Columbus . North Air 6831 Highway 65 NE Home Assoc Fridley, MN 55432 McDonald's Mark Wheeldon 250 57th Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 McDonald's Mark Wheeldon 8100 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 Moore Lk Racquet Swim & Health H. Ratner 1200 E Moore Lk Dr NE Fridley, MN 55432 , PDQ Karen Kwan 620 Osborne Rd NE � Fridley, MN 55432 9.02 David Sallman $45.00 Public Safety Director " " $45.00 � � . ' n � � � � � " $45.00 " $45.00 " $45.U0 " $45.00 " $45.00 " $45.00 " $45.00 ° $45.00 " $45.00 � CtTY bP FRIDLEY LICENSES April 22, 1996 Pizza Flame D. Anderson 317 Osborne Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 United Defense(FMC Corp) Aramark 4800 E River Rd M270 Fridley, MN 55432 GAMBLING Sharx Sports Bar Totino Grace HS 3710 E River Rd Fridley, MN 55432 RETAIL GASOLINE SALES East River Road Texaco Don Kisch 8100 E River Rd Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley Amoco Bob Ring 7680 Highway 65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 Freedom Valu Center#58 Erickson oil 7600 University Ave NE Product Inc Fridley, MN 55432 HOTEL/MOTEL Budget Host Inn WMKS Motel Inc 6881 Highway 65 Fridley, MN 55432 KENNEL Pet Food Warehouse Same 753 53rd Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 OFF SALE BEER - Pizza Flame Daniel Anderson 317 Osborne Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 9.03 Dave Sallman $45.00 Public Safety Director " " $45.00 �� u n u u n n " $300.00 " $60.00 � . � 1 1 " $60.00 " $600.00 " $25.00 " $60.00 / � arir oF FRIDLEY LICENSES � April 22, 1996 CLUB ON SALE LI4UOR & SUNDAY LIOUOR North Air Home Assoc C. Geiger 6831 Highway 65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 - ON SALE LIOUOR & SUNDAY LI4UOR Fireside Rice Bowl Oliver Tam 1160 Fireside Dr NE Fridley, MN 55432 The Ground Round Gr. of Minn Inc 5277 Central Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 .Joe Dimaggio's Sports Bar G. Vespa 8298 University Ave NE ' . � Fridley, MN 55432 Maple Lanes Restaurant Same 6310 Hwy 65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 Sandee's Braam Investments 6490 Central Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 David Sallman $650.00 Pub 1 i c Sutxlay$200 . 00 Safety Director � m m m � Shorewood Inn Shorewood Inn Inc " 6161 Hwy 65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 Stuart Anderson's Cattle Co Rest ARG 5696 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 PAWN SHOP Cash-N-Pawn Same 5807 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 � Express Auto Pawnbrokers Inc W. Richards 7976 University Ave Fridley, MN 55432 9.04 m m � "$7,000.00 Suriday$200. 00 " $8,000.00 Sunday$200.00 " $7,000.00 Sunday$200.00 " $6,000.00 Suriday$200. 00 "$6,000.00 Surlday$200. 00 "$8,000.00 Suriday$200. 00 "$8,000.00 Sunday$200.00 " $15000.00 " $10,000.00 � � � ClTY OF FRIDLEY LICENSES April 22, 1996 Pawn America II, LTD Same 1027 E Moore Lk Dr Fridley, MN 55432 PEDDLERSfSOLICITORS/TRANSIENT MERCHANTS Edgar Fernando Letran Same 4800 4th St NE Columbia Hts, MN 55421 David Sheldon Rohrbach Same 5851 2nd St Fridley, MN 55432 REFUSE HAULER Browning Ferris Ind of MN Inc Same 9813 Flying Cloud Dr Eden Prairie, MN 55347 TAXICAB Town Taxi J. Schultz 7000 57th Ave No Crystal, MN 55428 TREE REMOVAL The Tree-Stump Co R. Hutcheson 13677 Dan Patch Dr Fridley, MN 55432 William Nelson & John Drobnick Same 13055 Riverdale Dr Coon Rapids, MN 55448 USED MOTOR VEHICLE Jim Lupient Bargain Lot C. Huntley 7810 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 Pomaville's Motor Valet Inc J. Pomaville 5649 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 9.05. Dave Sallman $10,000.00 Public Safety Director m ,� � � m n m �� " $60.00 " $60.00 " $60.00 " $50.00 " $40.00 " $40.00 " $150.00 " $150.00 � � CffY OF FRIOLEY BLACKTOPPING Minnesota Roadways Co 147 N Jonathan Blvd #9 Chaska MN 55318 Northern Asphalt Construction Inc 11064 Raddison Rd NE . Blaine MN 55449 ELECTRICAL Abel Electrical Contractors 17701 149 Ave N Dayton MN 55327-9515 Advanced Electric Co Inc 4407 Loretta Ln Minnetonka MN SS345-0731 Aid Electric Service Inc 7101 Hwy 65 NE Fridley MN 55432-3302 Alpha & Omega Electric Inc 12705 Eveleth Path Apple Valley MN 55124 American Eagle Electric Inc 18475 Rum River Blvd NW Anoka MN 55303-8970 Anderson Claude M Electric Co 1551 Payne Ave St Paul MN 55101-3218 Bacons Electric Co 7731 Main St NE Fridley MN 55432 Bassing Electric Inc 1354 McKay Dr Ham Lake MN 55304-6128 LICENSES April 22, 1996 Jack Mueller Jeannette Larson Tom Demers Ronald Leidall • G. Koskiniemi Wayne Bezanson Bill Masloski John Schrcepfer Richard Paddock Richard Bassing 9.07 RON 7ULKOWSKI Building Official Same STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Same Same Same Sazne Blaine Heating AC & Electric Inc 13562 Central Ave NE Anoka MN 55304-6920 Braastad Electric Inc 17620 Hwy 65 NE Soderville MN 55304-4303 Collins Electrical Systems Co1liSys 4990 N Hwy 169 Minneapolis MN 55428-4026 Commonwealth Electric of MN Inc 554 Broadway St Paul MN 55101-2441 Donnelly Electric Inc 1126 Rice St St Paul MN 55117-4923 Egan McKay Electrical Contr Inc 7100 Medicine Lake Rd Minneapolis MN 55427-3673 Electric Repair & Construction Co Inc 4024 Washington Ave N Minneapolis MN 55412-1790 Electric Service Co of Mpls 1609 Chicago Ave S Minneapolis MN 55404-1697 Electrical Contractors Inc 123 N 3 St Ste 202 Minneapolis MN 55401-1660 Gilbert Mechanical Contrs Inc 4451 W 76 St Edina MN 55435 Gunnar Electric Company Inc - 7960 Eden Prairie Rd Eden Prairie MN 55347 Harrison Electric Inc 2525 Nevada Ave N #301 Golden Valley MN 55427-3643 Kenneth Chouinard Rick Braastad Gregg LaBonne Terry Towey Edward Sobanski James Rivard Donald Cole Wally Cisewski D Wermerskirchen P Dan Gilbert Forrest Waiter Michael Harrison 9.08 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same � Heights Electric Inc 704 40 Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55421-2998 Highland Electric Inc 2030 St Clair Ave St Paul MN 55105-1100 Industrial Electric Co 600S9St Minneapolis MN 55404 Killmer Electric Co Inc 9702 85 Ave N Maple Grove MN 55369-4537 Lakeview Electric Co 8116 Pillsbury Ave S Bloomington MN 55420-1107 Lindell Electric Inc 1366 108 Ave NE Blaine MN 55434 Mayer Electric Corp 5128 Hanson Ct Minneapolis MN 55429-3182 Mik-Lyn Electric Co Inc 1305 Jefferson Hwy Champlin MN 55316-1427 Muska Electric Co 1985 Oakcrest Ave Roseville MN 55113-2686 North Side Electric Co 1405 44 Ave N Minneapolis MN 55412-1343 Olympic Electric Co Inc 7103 Amundson Ave S . Edina MN 55439-2020 Petes Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445-1829 Steven Nelson William LaLonde Gary Novak Duane Palmer Les Froysa Romy Dokter Cheri Holm Micha.el Belko Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Mahlon Christensen Same James Stumpfa Paul Kosmides Pete Perusse 9.09 Same Same Same Phasor Electric Co 13809 Industrial Park Blvd Plymouth MN 55441-3746 Positively Electric Inc 23060 Oakdale Dr Rogers MN 55374 Prairie Electric Co Inc 6595 Edenvale Blvd #120 Eden Prairie MN 55346-2567 Pro-Tec Design Inc 2405 N Annapolis Ln #210 Plymouth MN 55441-3619 R& O Elevator Co Inc 8324 Pillsbury Ave S Bloomington MN 55420 Richmond & Sons 5182 W Broadway Crystal MN 55429-3591 Ries Electric Co 777 N Concord So St Paul MN 55075-1195 Rivard Electric Co Inc 7Q87 Progress Rd Centerville MN 55038 Service Inc 232 Shorewood Cir Rush City MN 55069-2747 Shortstop Electric Inc 16481 Flintwood St NW Andover MN 55304 Snyder Electric Co 6112 Excelsior Blvd St Louis Park MN 55416-2766 South Side Electric Inc 9201 E Bloomington Frwy Ste H Bloomington MN 55420-3494 Kirk Herman Larry Weniger Ronald Oswald Tim Warner . Lee Arnold Scott Follese John Ries Donald Rivard Dennis Wood �i�� :� � Jerry Snyder David VVintheiser 9.10 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Spark Electric Co 2114 Washington St NE Minneapolis MN 55418-4440 Sterling Electric Construction 2817 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis MN 55408-2109 Tele-Tech Communications 3851 Central Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421 Total Electric Inc 1537 92 Ln NE Blaine MN 55449-4398 West Star Electric Inc 6324 Lakeland Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55428-2309 Wiring By Weir Inc 410 Ensign Ave N Golden Valley MN 55427 EXCAVATING Bolander Carl & Sons Co 251 Starkey St Paul MN 55107 Stanway Excavating Inc 2501 101 Ave NE Blaine MN 55449 United Water & Sewer Co 11666 Wayzata Blvd Minnetonka MN 55305-2009 GAS SERVICES A-abc Appliance & Heating 2638 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis MN 55408-1321 Air Conditioning Associates Inc 689 Pierce Butler Rte St Paul MN 55104 Walt Swierczek Dale Beaumont Morris Fraenkel Richard LeVoir James Houg 7ohn Weir Dominique Najjar Stanley Zawistowski James Spetz John Schouweiler John Matthews 9.11 Same Same Same Same Same Same RON NLKOWSKI Building Official RON NLKOWSKI Building Official Same RON NLKOWski Building O�cial Same Air Mechanical Inc 16411 Aberdeen St Ne Ham Lake MN 55304 Associated Mechanical Contractors Inc 1257 Marschall Rd #104 PO Box 237 Shakopee MN 55379-0237 Blaine Htg A/C & Elec Inc 13562 Central Ave NE Anoka MN 55304-6920 Carbonic Machines Inc 2900 5 Ave S Minneapolis MN 55408-2484 Carlson C O Air Cond Co 1203 Bryant Ave N Minneapolis MN 55411-4087 Carlyle Heating & AC 301 Ironton St NE Fridley MN 55432 Centraire Heating & AC Co 7402 Washington Ave Eden Prairie MN 55344 Cool Air Mechanical Inc 1441 Rice St St Paul MN 55117-3899 DJ's Heating & Air Cond Inc 6060 LaBeau�c Ave NE Albertville MN 55301-9715 Daves Refrigeration 1601 37 Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421 Egan Mechanical Contractors Inc 7100 Medicine Lake Rd Minneapolis MN 55427-3671 ELK Mechanical HVAC Inc 15940 Radium St Ramsey MN 55303 Ross Erickson Joseph Sand Jr Kenneth Chouinard Steven Kelly Thomas Lindskog Steve Carlyle LeRoy Seurer Charles Worms Don Savitski David Roberts Gerald Egan William Kerns 9.12 Same Same Same Same Same Sazne Same Same Same Same Same Same � Fireside Corner 2700 N Fairview Ave Roseville MN 55113 G R Mechanical 12055 Tilton Tr1 Rogers MN 55374 Gilbert Mechanical Contractors Inc 4451 W 76 St Edina MN 55435 Golden Valley Heating & A/C 5182 W Broadway Crystal MN 55429-3591 Heatco Inc/Fletcher's Box 5 North Branch MN 55056-0005 Home Energy Center 15200 25 Ave N #128 � Plymouth MN 55447 Horwitz Inc 5000 N Hwy 169 Minneapolis MN 55428 Kath Heating & AC 3096 Rice St Little Canada MN 55113 Knott Mechanical Services Co 5941 142 Ave NW Ramsey MN 55303-5645 Lakeland North Heating & AC Inc 16041 Kangaroo St NW .Anoka MN 55303 Maple Grove Heating & AC Inc 441 Co Rd 81 . Osseo MN 55369-1647 Master Mobile Home Service 1486 Cloud Dr NE Blaine MN 55449 Kirk Sorenson Gordon Reinking P Dan Gilbert S Follese Tosh/C�rt Carl Norman Larry Swanson Charlie Meisner Debra Knott Jim Nelson Steve Macdonald Barry Fassett 9.13 Same Same Same Same Same Same � Same Same Same Same Same Same NewMech Companies Inc 1633 Eustis St St Paul MN 55108-1288 Newscope Technology Inc 5000 N Hwy 169 Minneapolis MN 55428 Owens Services Corp 930 E 80 St Bloomington MN 55420-1499 P& H Services Co Inc 1601 67 Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430-1743 Petes Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445-1829 Preferred Mechanical Services 7643 Logan Ave S Richfield MN 55442 Quality Air Inc Larry Jordan Helen Hagberg R H Owens David Steffens Mike Perusse Wayne Johnson 7907 5 St NE Spring Lake Park MN 55432 Robert Y.ilya Riverside Mechanical LLC 141098LnNW Coon Rapids MN 55433-1410 Ron's Mechanical Inc i2011 Old Brick Yard Rd Shakopee MN 55379-2942 Royalton Heating & Cooling 4120 85 Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55443 St Cloud Refrigeration Inc 604 Lincoln Ave NE , St Cloud MN 56304 St Marie Sheet Metal Inc 7940 Spring Lake Park Rd Spring Lake Pazk MN 55432-2253 Kipp Knuteson Ron Coster Tom Stewart Joe Lyon Pau1 St Marie 9.14 - Same 3ame Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Sedgwick Htg & Air Cond Co 8910 Wentworth Ave S Minneapolis MN 55420-2853 Sharp Heating & AC Inc 4854 Central Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55421-1950 Standard Heating & Air Cond 410 West Lake St Minneapolis MN 55408-2998 Superior Contractors Inc 6121 42 Ave N Minneapolis MN 55422-1601 TEK Mechanical Services Inc 220 5 Ave NW Hutchinson MN 55350 Vogt Heating & AC 3260 Gorham Ave • 'St Louis Park MN 55426-4189 Thomas Sedgwick Kevin Hanson Dave Melnick Donald Hoglund Tim Krasen Don Bell GENERAL CONTRACTOR- CONIlVtERCIAL Amcon Corp 200 W Hwy 13 Bumsville MN 55337 Tim Menning Braden Construction 3880 Laveme Ave N Lake Elmo MN 55042 Building & Property Services Co 7528 Arthur St NE Fridley MN 55432 Construction 70 Inc 3550 N Lexington Ave #100 St Paul MN 55126 Cook G W Construction . 3133 Nicollet Ave Minneapolis MN 55408 Dalco Roofmg & Sheet Metal Inc 15525 32 Ave N Pymouth MN 55447 Rick Vezina Larry Schatz Gary Cook Gary Cook Richatd Trumble 9.15 Same Same Same Same Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Same Same Same Same • Elder-Jones Inc 1120 E 80 St #211 Bloomington MN 55420 Everest Construction Co 2665 Long Lake Rd Roseville MN 55113 Facilitech 7206 Washington Ave S Eden Prairie MN 55344 Industrial Equities LLP 1660 S Hwy 200 Ste 536W Minneapolis MN 55416 Innovative Building Concepts Inc 849 W 80 St Bloomington MN 55420 Johnson Milton Co 525 Lowry Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55418 Kraus Anderson Construction 525S8St Minneapolis MN 55404-1077 Norsten Exteriors 37 Territorial Rd Blaine MN 55434 Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs 5525 Cedar Lake Rd St Louis Park MN 55416 Opus Corporation 9900 Bren Rd E #8Q0 Minnetonka MN 55440-0150 Papa's Building Solutions 13877 30 St N . Stillwater MN 55082 Petes Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445-1829 Robert Kanne Richard Baker Randy Pavey John Allen Raymond Kangas Judith Erickson Marcia Lindberg Lonnie Norsten Tom Willoughby John McKenzie Robert Wiese Pete Perusse 9.1s Same Same Same Same Same Same . Same Same Same Same Same Same ,� � ■ River Road Investors 7841 Wayzata Blvd #111 Minneapolis MN 54426-1488 Ryan Construction Co 900 2 Ave S #700 Minneapolis MN 55402-3387 Steiner Development Inc 3610 S Hwy 101 Wayzata MN 55391 Stephens Home Remodeling 4359 Sheridan Ave N Minneapolis MN 55412 Stock Roofing Inc 289 Liberty St NE Fridley MN 55432 Timco Construction Inc 9421 West River Rd Brooklyn Park MN 55444-1141 Welsh Construction Corp 8200 Normandale Blvd Bloomington MN 55437-i060 Zeman Construction Co 2246 Edgewood Ave Po Box 26007 St I.ouis Park MN 55426 Chris Johnson Brian Rathke Galen Tongen Timothy Stephens Warren Stock Timothy McKee Greg Anderson David Zeman GENERAL CONTRAGTOR-RESIDENTIAL Addition & Remodeling Spec (1109) 2618 Coon Rapids Blvd NW Coon Rapids MN 55433-3962 Roger Harju Advance Companies of MN (4423) 6400 Central Ave NE Fridley MN 55432 Al-Ko Home Improvements (1927) 8090 4 Ave Lino Lakes MN 55014-2008 Frank Kitterman A1 Kopecky 9.17 [• .�TT Same Same Same Same Same Same Same STATE OF MINN Same Same Allstar Construction (3247) 3315 N Hwy 10 Minneapolis MN 55422 American Designers & Builders {3$87) 2835 Centrai Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55418 Archadeck of River Valley (20016435) 5608 O'Brien Ave N Stillwater MN 55082 Arness Inc (20004826) 366 S Snelling St Paul MN 55105 B & B Roofing Service (9042) 6760 Madison St Fridley MN 55432 Budget Exteriors Inc (6564) 8017 Nicallet Ave S Bloomington MN 55420-1229 Citywide Home Imp(3013) 1005 W Broadway Minneapolis MN 55411-2503 Columbus Exteriors Inc (3509) 2131 111 Ln Coon Rapids MN 55433 Cole Dale Construction (6907) 6452 Bluebird Cir Maple Grove MN 55369 Country Concrete & Const Inc (2675) 16214 Xenia St NW Andover MN 55304-2352 C�stom Remodelers Inc (1748) 8729 Central Ave NE . Blaine MIV 55434-331 S D & B Home Improvements (7773) 1568 Ballantyne Ln NE Spring Lake Park MN 55432 Robert Vassallo Michael Welsh Dennis Mencke Rich Smith Jerry Bethel Ken Thompson Paul Ocken Larry Columbus Dale Cole Wayne Knudson Chad Carpenter Williatn Friedrichs 9.18. Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same D& D Home Improvement Inc (4840) 7401 Central Ave NE Fridley MN 55432-3571 Davis Systems of Greater St Paul (8535) 3065 Spruce St #101 St Paul MN 55117-1062 DuAll Services Inc (3178) 636 39 Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421 EJD Development (8262) 4055 126 Ave NW Andover MN 55304 Elk River Exteriors (4457) 825 Main St Elk River MN 55330 Embassy Homes Inc (3479) 3131 Fembrook Ln N #206 Plymouth MN 55447-5321 ' Felix Construction LLC(8682) 4410 379 St Donavan Olson Paul Davis Gary Dooner Eugene Dudziak Jack Gracik Jack Gassner North Branch MN 55056 Paul Felix Fireside Comer Inc (1068) 2700 N Fairview Ave Roseville MN 55113-1306 Gladstone's Window & Door (2110) 1870 English St Maplewood MN 55109 Hastings Richard Contr (4051) 6331 Riverview Ter NE Fridley MN 55432-4846 Holmlund Construction (8454) 3949 Idaho Ave N Crystal MN 55427 Home Enhancers Inc (1949) 8609 Lyndale Ave S #201 Bloomington MN 55420 Kirk Sorensen Robert Long Richard Hastings Bob Holmlund Jim Wiebusch 9.19 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Ideal Construction Inc (4240) 12621 Tyler Cir NE Blaine MN 55434 Blair George JMR Construction (9227) 6870 164 Ln NW Ramsey MN 55303-3669 Joseph Rinehart Johnson George B (1016) 5410 Girard Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 George Johnson Johnson, Milton Co (2083) 525 Lowry Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55418-2868 Bruce Erickson Kastle Co Corp(20029530) 7044 Elliot Ave S Richfield MN 55423 Robert Schuller LaMere Construction (3588) 714 18 1/2 Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55418 Bruce T.eMere Lang Builders Inc (2651) 3702 Bunker Lake Rd Ham Lake MN 55304-7403 Tun Lang Lindstrom Cleaning & Const (1087) 9621 10 Ave N Plymouth MN 55441-5098 Robert Hennen Lloyds Home Improvements Inc ( Z 798) 1012 42 1/2 Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421-3159 Lloyd Graczyk Manufactured Housing Systems 8465 Center Dr Spring Lake Park MN 55432 Kim Stanley Marquis Inc (8439) 1556 McClung Dr , Arden Hills MN 55112-1950 Mark Pignatello Merchants Maintenance & Const (4359) 12020 Radisson Rd NE Blaine MN 55449-5424 Bruce Bogie 9.20 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Midwest Restoration & Const(5267) 1628 Hwy 10 NE Spring Lake Park MN 55432-2171 Gary Wruck Midwest Window Co (2130) 3739 Minnehaha Ave S Minneapolis MN 55406-2630 Gary Hartke Miller R Construction Inc (6354) 953 Mississippi St NE Fridley MN 55432 Ron Miller Modeen Company (3867) 6572 Meadowlark Ln Maple Grove MN 55369 Ken Modeen Netko Dan Roofing Inc (20060494) 7118 Riverdale Rd Brooklyn Center MN 55430-1318 Dan Netko New Leaf Builders Inc (20047617) 2561 Mayflower Ave Minnetonka MN 55305 ` Tom Filla � Northland Siding & Insulation (4158) 2158 Main St NW Coon Rapids MN 55448-2504 Donald Kiphuth Northstar Home Improvement Inc (5336) 6121 Excelsior Blvd #207 St Louis Park MN 55416 Jim Nash Olympia Construction Co Inc (2138) 2105 Long Lake Rd New Brighton MN 55112 Lennie Benson Ovall Glen A Roofmg (3604) 6730 213 Ave NW Elk River MN 55330-8466 Glen Ovall PTL Contracting (5294) 2526 Ferry St N Anoka MN 55303 � Paul I.eyendecker Pacesetter Corporation (2414) 4343 S 96 St Omaha NE 68127 Ken Ose 1110 New Brighton Blvd, Mpls MN 55413 9.21: Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same , Panelcraft of MN (2179) 3118 Snelling Ave S Minneapolis MN 55406 Paradise Construction (20014209) 5853 Fa�eld Rd Mound MN 55364 Patio Enclosures Inc (1676) 2123 Old Hwy 8 New Brighton MN 55112 R & M Associates (4391) 3482 Auger Ave White Bear Lake MN 55110 Renewal by Andersen 100 4 Ave N Bayport MN 55003-1096 Rite Way Mobile Home Repair Inc(8201) 1175 73 1/2 Ave NE Fridley MN 55432 � Saltzman Construction (5732) 4205 Raleigh Ave S St Louis Park MN 55416 Sharp Y R Inc (4540) 10907 93 Ave N Maple Grove MN 55369-4199 Skyway Quality Homes Inc (3005) 8025 G�eld St Spring Lake Park MN 55432 Stock Roofmg Inc 289 Liberty St NE Fridley MN 55432 Superior Sash & Siding Inc (1312) 1784 E 7 St . St Paul MN 55119 Tams Inc(9338) 1160 Fireside Dr NE Fridley MN 55432 Gary Robideau Wayne Eli Joe Yohn Ray Palme Jeff Solsvig Scott Lund Neal Saltzman Dennis Sharp Rob Shimanski Warren Stock Larry Browne Oliver Tam 9.22- Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Thornton & Associates Inc (8904) 18920 Wynnfield Rd Eden Prairie MN 55347 Twin City Exteriors Co Inc (2535) 9060 Zachary Ln N #108 Maple Grove MN 55369-4083 Wiger, David J Construction (8392) 901 Rice Creek Ter NE Fridley MN 55432 Williams Ron Construction (2350) 600 Janesville St NE Fridley MN 55432 Woodland Stoves & Fireplaces (2558) 1203 Washington Ave S Minneapolis MN 55415 HEATING A-abc Appliance & Heating 2638 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis MN 55408-1321 Air Conditioning Associates Inc 689 Pierce Butler Rte St Paul MN 55104 Air Mechanical Inc 16411 Aberdeen St Ne Ham Lake MN 55304 Allan Mechanical Inc 6020 C�lligan Way Minnetonlca MN 55345-5917 Associated Mechanical Contractors Inc 1257 Marshall Rd #104 PO Box 237 Shakopee MN 55379-0237 Blaine Htg A/C & Elec Inc 13562 Central Ave NE Anoka MN 55304-6920 Thomas Thornton Claudia Sundseth David Wiger Ron Williams Peter Solac John Schouweiler John Matthews Ross Erickson Elmer Wedel 7oseph Sand Jr Kenneth Chouinard 9.23 Same Same Same Same Same RON JULKOWski Building Off'icial Same Same Same Same Same Carbonic Machines Inc 2900 S Ave S Minneapolis MN 55408-2484 Carlson C O Air Cond Co 1203 Bryant Ave N Minneapolis MN 55411-4087 Carlyle Heating & AC 301 Ironton St NE Fridiey MN 55432 Centraire Heating & AC Co 7402 Washington Ave Eden Prairie MN 55344 Cool Air Mechanical Inc 1441 Rice St St Paul MN 55117-3899 DJ's Heating & Air Cond Inc 6060 LaBeawc Ave NE �Slbertville MN 55301-9715 Daves Refrigeration 1601 37 Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421 Egan Mechanical Contractors Inc 7100 Medicine Lake Rd Minneapolis MN 55427-3671 EI,K Mechanical HVAC Inc 15940 Radium St Ramsey MN 55303 G R Mechanical 12055 Tilton Trl Rogers MN 55374 Gilbert Mechanical Contractors Inc 4451 W 76 St . Edina MN 55435 Golden Valley Heating & A/C 5182 W Broadway Crystal MN 55429-3591 Steven Kelly Thomas Lindskog Steve Carlyle LeRoy Seurer Charles Worms Don �Savitski David Roberts Gerald Egan William Kerns Gordon Reinking P Dan Gilbert S Follese 9.24 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Heatco Inc/Fletcher's Bax 5 North Branch MN 55056-0005 Home Energy Center 15200 25 Ave N #128 Plymouth MN SS447 Horwitz Inc 5000 N Hwy 169 Minneapolis MN 55428 Kath Heating & AC 3096 Rice St Little Canada MN 55113 Knott Mechanical Services Co 5941 142 Ave NW Ramsey MN 55303-5645 Lakeland North Heating & AC Inc 16041 Kangaroo St NW Anoka MN 55303 � Maple Grove Heating & AC Inc 401 Co Rd 81 Osseo MN 55369-1647 Master Mechanical Inc 901 E 79 St Bloomington MN 55420 Master Mobile Home Service 1486 Cloud Dr NE Blaine MN 55449 NewMech Companies Inc 1633 Eustis St St Paul MN 55108-12$8 Newscope Technology Inc 5000 N Hwy 169 Minneapolis MN 55428 North Country Aire 29301 Hwy 65 Isanti MN 55040 ToshlCurt Carl Norman Larry Swanson Charlie Meisner Debra Knott Jim Nelson Steve Macdonald Gordon Peters Barry Fassett Larry Jordan Helen Hagberg Kyle Bergman 9.25 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Northwest Sheetmetal Co of St Paul 2136 Wabash Ave St Paul MN 55114-1832 Owens Services Corp 930 E 80 St Bloomington MN 55420-1499 P& H Services Co Inc 1601 67 Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430-1743 Petes Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445-1829 Preferred Mechanical Services 7643 Logan Ave S Richfield MN 55442 Quality Air Inc 7907 5 St NE Spring Lake Parlc MN 55432 Riverside Mechanical LLC 1410 98 Ln NW Coan Rapids MN 55433-1410 Ron's Mechanical Inc 12011 Old Brick Yard Rd Shakopee MN 55379-2942 Royalton Heating & Cooling 4120 85 Ave N � Brooklyn Park MN 55443 St Cloud Refrigeration Inc 604 Lincoln Ave NE St Cloud MN 56304 St Marie Sheet Metal Inc 7940 Spring Lake Park Rd . Spring Lake Park MN 55432-2253 Sedgwick Htg & Air Cond Co 8910 Wentworth Ave S Minneapolis MN 55420-2853 Rodney Albers R H Owens David Steffens Pete Perusse Wayne Johnson Robert Lilya Kipp Knuteson Ron Coster Tom Stewart Joe Lyon Paul St Marie Thomas Sedgwick 9.26 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same ■ � Sharp Heating & AC Inc 4854 Central Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55421-1950 Standard Heating & Air Cond 410 West I,alce St Minneapolis MN 55408-2998 Superior Contractors Inc b 121 42 Ave N Minneapalis MN 55422-1601 TEK Mechanical Services Inc 220 5 Ave NW Hutchinson MN 55350 Vogt Heating & AC 3260 Gorham Ave St Louis Park MN 55426-4189 Yale Incorporated 9649 Girard Ave S . Bloomington MN 55431-2619 MASONRY Jesco Inc 7175 Cahill Rd Edina MN 55439 Midwest Concrete Inc 6423 Osland Ave NVV Annandale MN 55302-3453 MOBILE HOME INSTALLATION Manufactured Housing Systems 8465 Center Dr Spring Lake Park MN 55432 Parco Mobile Home Service PO Box 59 Mora MN 55051 Rite Way Mobile Home Repair Inc 1175 73 1/2 Ave NE Fridley MN 55432 Kevin Hanson Dave Melnick Donald Hoglund Tim Krasen Don Bell John Deblon Daniel Stanley Bill Merrill Kim Stanley Paul Rowland Scott Lund 9.27 Same Same Same Same Same Same RON NLKOWSKI Building Official Same STATE OF MINN Same Same � MOVING Ernst Machinery & Housemovers Corp 9400 85 Ave N Minneapolis MN 55445-2198 Semple Building Movers Inc 1045 Jessie St St Paul MN 55101-3810 OIL SERVICES Egan Mechanical Contractors Inc 7100 Medicine Lake Rd Minneapolis MN 55427-3671 PLUMBING A-Able Plumbing Co 5816 Dupont Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430-2745 AAA-Abbott Plumbing and Htg Inc 1126 2 St NE Minneapolis MN 55413-1128 Associated Mechanical Contractors Inc 1257 Marschall Rd #104 PO Box 237 Shakopee MN 55379-0237 Bardwell Mechanical Inc 4059 Chicago Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 Barnes Plumbing Co inc 3923 Washington Ave N Minneapolis MN 55412-2143 Bobs Circle Plumbing 52 East Rd Circle Pines MN 55014-1644 Boedeker Plumbing & Heating 2905 Garf'ield Ave S , Minneapolis MN 55408-2107 Buchman Plumbing Co Inc PO Box 11070 Minneapolis MN 55412 Kenneth Ernst Terry Semple Gerald Egan Tim Dehn Gary Stelton Joseph Sand Jr Braxton Bardwell Williams Bames Robert Schneider Chester Boedeker Walter Buchman 9.28 STATE OF MINN Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Sarne Same Same Same ■ Captain Plumbing Service 7307 Co Rd 5 Princeton MN 55371 Century Plumbing Inc 444 Maple St Mahtomedi MN 55115-1957 City Plumbing Co 4550 Central Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421 Culligan Soft Water Service Co 6030 Culligan Way Minnetonka MN 55345 Dalby Plumbing 1212 East 94 St Bloomington MN 55425-2528 Delson Plumbing Inc 1308 42 1/2 Ave NE Columbia Hgts MN 55421-3165 Dempsey Dave Plumbing 15985 Barth Dr Big Lake MN 55309 Dinius Plumbing Co 7816 Stillwater Bivd Oakdale MN 55128-4018 Duda, Leon Plumbing Services 208 17 Ave N Hopkins MN 55343-7341 Egan Mechanical Contractors Inc 7100 Medicine Lake Rd Minneapolis MN 55427-3671 Fignar Plumbing Co 2844 Johnson St NE . Minneapolis MN 55418 G R Mechanical 12055 Tilton Trl Rogers MN 55374 Robert Meier Jim Blasena Lawrence Beckman John Packard Charles Dalby David Olson David Dempsey George Dinius Leon Duda Gerald Egan Bill Fignar Gordon Reinking 9.29 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same ; Gadtke Plumbing Inc 4926 N Hwy 169 New Hope MN 55428 Gilbert Mech Contr Inc 4451 W 76 St Edina MN 55435-3810 Gopher Mechanical Contractors PO Box 120792 New Brighton MN 55112-0024 Hedler S M Plumbing Inc 2519 4th St NE Minneapolis MN 55418-3436 Horwitz Inc 5000 N Hwy 169 Minneapolis MN 55428 Jerry's Plumbing 1838�Northdale Blvd Coon Rapids MN 55448-3059 Klamm Mechanical Contractors Inc 12409 Co Rd #11 Burnsville MN 55337 Kramer Mechanical Plbg & Htg 7860 Fawn Lake Dr NE Stacy MN 55079-9322 LBP Mechanical Inc 315 Royalston Ave N Minneapolis MN 55405-1535 Lane Randy & Sons Plbg & Htg Inc 1501 W Broadway Minneapolis MN 55411 LeVahn Bros Plumbing 3200 Penn Ave N Minneapolis MN 554i2 Lindman Plumbing Co 12000 53 Ave N Plymouth MN 55442 Duane Gadtke P Dan Gilbert Lee Watkins Sylvester Hedler Larry Swanson Gerald Thrall Robert Klamm Edward Kramer Doug Hayes Randy Lane Loren LeVahn Gary Lindman 9.�0 C._�T"!T". Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same 9 Miller R J Plbg & Htg Inc 834 40 Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55421-2905 Montbriand Plumbing 28690 Green Lake Ave Chisago City MN 55013 Murr Jim Plumbing 925 Southview Blvd South St Paul MN 55075 Nasseff Plumbing & Htg Inc 6712 40 St N Oakdaie MN 55128-3104 Neu Plumbing 32b0 Gorham Ave St Louis Park MN 55426 NewMech Companies Inc 1633 Eustis St St Paul MN 55108-1288 Newscope Technology Inc 5000 N Hwy 169 Minneapolis MN 55428 Norblom Plumbing Co 2905 G�eld Ave S Minneapolis MN 55408 North Anoka Plumbing Inc 4218 Viking Blvd NW Anoka MN 55303 Northridge Plumbing Co 6960 Madison Ave W #10 Golden Valley MN 55427-3627 P& D Mechanical Contr Co 4629 41 Ave N Robbinsdale MN 55422-1802 P& H Services Co Inc 1601 67 Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430-1743 Robert Miller Danell Montbriand 7im Mun Mickey Nasseff Patrick New Jerry Poser Helen Hagberg Mike Vande Kamp Bill Jansen Darwin Baack William Daugherty David Steffens 9.31 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same PRS Mechanical Inc PO Box 68111 Minneapolis MN 55418-8111 Piperight Plumbing 4029 Penrod Ln NE St Anthony MN 55421 Plumb Right 1216 82 Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55444 Plumbing Services Inc 1628 Hwy 10 NE Minneapolis MN 55432-2171 Pride Mechanical Inc 3025 Randolph St NE Minneapolis MN 55418-1825 Richfield Plumbing Co 509 W 77 lJ2 St Richfield MN 55423 Roys Plumbing 17420 Iguana St NW Ramsey MN 55303-5587 Schulties Plumbing Inc 1521 94 Ln NE Blaine MN 55449-4322 Sorensen, Dale Company 150 W 88 St Bloomington MN 55420-2800 Southtown Plumbing Inc 6636 Penn Ave S Richfield MN 55423-2091 State Mechanical Inc 5050 W 220 St , Farmington MN 55024-9625 TEK Mechanical Service 220 5 Ave NW Hutchinson MN 55350 Reggie Crawford John Tomas Dale Carter Michael Nally Richard Hjelm Wilfred Schulz Elroy Haselius Doug Jones Dale Sorensen LaVern Veit Marv Heintz Tim Krasen 9.32 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Thielbaz Plumbing Co Inc 1865 440 St Harris MN 55032 Tim's Quality Plumbing Inc PO Box 292 Osseo MN 55369-0292 United Water & Sewer Co 11666 Wayzata Blvd Minnetonka MN 55305-2009 Voson Plumbing Inc 1515A 5 St S Hopkins MN 55343 Walsh Plumbing Inc 9711 6 St NE Blaine MN 55434-1309 Welter & Blaylock Inc 1509 E Hwy 13 Burnsville 1ViN 55337-2917 PUBLIC SWIMNIING POOLS US Swim & Fitness 4801 W 81 St Bloomington MN 55437 Black Forest Condo Assoc. 1601 N Innsbruck Dr NE Fridley MN 55432 Edric Associates 5024 Normandale Ct Edina, MN 55436 Ellen/Milton Hughes 4410 Douglas Ave S Golden Valley, MN 55416 River Pointe LTD Partnership : 7855 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Harold D. Morrow 50 Glendale River Falls, WI 54022 Scott Thielbar Tim Lindholm James Spetz Don Voss Dave Walsh William Yetzer 7200 University Ave Same Same Same Same Same Same GARY FORD CONTR.ACT INSP 1601 N Innsbruck Dr Same 1200- 72 Ave NE Same 6670-90 Lucia Ln NE Same 7855 East River Rd Same 5430 7th St 9.33 Same Independent School Dist. #14 6000 West Moore Lk Dr NE Fridley, MN 55432 Innsbruck North Townhouse Assn c/o Bailey Enterprises Inc 484 Wabasha St Paul MN 55102 Kelly Fridley Ventures 2600 N Louise Ave Sioux Falls SD 57107 K�� Management 3010 Hennepin Ave S #72 Minneapolis MN 55408 JSG Inc 2434 Western Ave N Roseville MN 55113 Maurice Filister 5750 East River Rd NE Fridley MN 55432 Northwest Ra.cquet/Swun/Health Club 5525 Cedar Lake Rd St Louis Pk MN 55416 River Road East Apartments C/O KCS Property Mgmt 8100 12 Ave S #200 Bloomington MN 55425 Belgarde Property Services 7841 Wayzata Blvd Minneapolis, MN 55426 ROOFING AWR Inc 3023 Snelling Ave S Minneapolis MN 55406-1910: Central Roofing Co 4550 Main St NE Fridley MN 55421 6100 W Moore Lk Dr Same 5506 Meister Rd 5201 Central Ave 5460 - 7th St NE 1120 - 52 Ave NE Same Same Same Same 5750 East River Rd Same 1200 E Moore Lk Dr Same 6540 East River Rd Same 111 83 Ave NE George Heriot Anthony Spigarelli 9.34 Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Local Roofing Co Inc 2645 Harlem St Eau Claire WI 54701-4506 McPhillips Bros Roofing Co 2590 Centennial Dr St Paul MN 55109-3017 SIGN ERECTOR Attracta Sign 7420 W Lake St St Louis Park MN 55426-4323 Crosstown Sign 10166 Central Ave Blaine MN 55434 Lawrence Sign 945 Pierce Butler Rte St Paul MN 55104-1595 Naegele Outdoor Adv Inc 1700 W 78 St Minneapolis MN 55423-3899 Nordquist Sign Co Inc 312 W Lake St Minneapolis MN 55408-3099 Sign Source Inc 7801 Park Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Suburban Lighting Inc 6077 Lake Elmo Ave N Stillwater MN 55082-9375 TRAILERS Friendly Chevrolet 7501 Hwy #65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 Ona.n Corporation 1400 73 Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 Gene Hanson John McPhillips Thomas Buettner Mitch Demars Dan Ginkel Paul Radermacher Richard Nordquist Randy Herman Ray Roemmich 7501 Hwy 65 NE 1400 73 Ave NE � 9.35 Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Same Same Same Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Park Construction 7900 Beech St NE Fridiey MN 55432 Fridley Convalescent Home 7590 Lyric Ln NE Fridley MN 55432 WRECKING Bolander Carl & Sons Co 251 Starkey St Paul MN 55107 7900 Beech St NE 7590 Lyric Ln Dominique Najjar 9.36 Same Same RON NLKOWSKI Building Official MEMOI�:ANDUM PLANNING DIVTSION DATE: April 18, 1996 TO: William Burns, City Ma.nager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Council Action - Apri122, 1996 Driveway Nuisance Public Hearing. The Counci.l has scheduled an Apri122, 1996 public h�aring to receive public comment o�• the proposed driveway ordinance modification. In preparation for that meeting staff has summarized public inquiries, conducted individual case studies of 21� concerned citizen driveways, and constructed a possible modifica.tion to the existing language of the driveway ordinance proposal. _ Public Inauiries The initial mailing list of gravel driveway properties throughout Fridley consisted of 328 addresses. The Planning Commission public hearing mailing and staffs invitation to a 7anuary 31, 1996 informal public meeting raised the interest of numerous residents. A number of residents on the mailing list (aprox. 30) reported that they have already paved their driveway. Upon being contacted by these residents the mailing list was updated. In addition, an informal survey of their concems and opuuons about the proposal was conducted. A summary of the individual concerns and opinions of each of these residents is included as Eahibit A. Of the thirty�ne residents that contacted sta� fifteen indicated general support for the proposal, two indicated they are against the proposal, and fourteen indicated a general lack of concern or opinion. Case Studies As a direct result of public comment and input at the Planning Commission Public Hearing and January 31, 1996 informational meeting�staffconducted a detailed review of 21 unpaved driveways located throughout the community (Eahibit B). 11.01 Council Action - Apri122, 1996 Driveway Nuisance Public Hearing. April 18, 1996 Page 2 The purpose of the Case Studies was to evaluate the possibility for exemptions or modifications to the ordinance proposal. In evaluating each individual parcel, a number of categories including existing driveway length, lot size and dimensions, topography features, subdividability and current parking surfaces were recorded. The end result of these case studies was the development of possible exempt and non-exempt caxegories. Ezempt: In evaluating the 21 properties, staff has concluded that there are certain circumstances in which Council may choose to exempt property owners from paving their full drivev�ay. Conditions that were instrumental in categorizing a p�operty as exempt include: Existing driveways which cross an excessive width of platted right-of-way or dedicated street easement or alley. (Not under the private property owner's control). A case in point is Ashton Avenue, east of east river road. 2. Properties that could be subdivided into two or more lots. Paving the entire drive at this time may cauwse future conflicts with subdividing. 3. Properties which would require a hardsurface driveway in excess of 100 feet. 4. Properties which have driveways that access onto an unimproved alley. Conditions that would be attached to these exempt situations would include: 1. Once the platted right-of-way or dedicated street is improved a hardsurface driveway sha11 be installed. 2. If the existing unpaved drive exceeds 1Q0 feet, a minimum of 43 feet would be required to be paved. Of the 43 feet, 20 feet would provide a hardsurface apron at the street. The remaining 23 feet could be placed on the property at the discretion of the homeowner. (The distance of 43 feet equates to a 35 foot setback plus a typical 8 foot boulevard). For drives less than 100 feet staff reccommends, a full hard surface drive. 3. Parking of vehicles on an unpaved surface would be strictly prohibited. in accordance with current City Code, all portions of the driveway must be maintained in an attractive, weli kept condition ` 11.02 Council Action - Apri122, 1996 Driveway Nuisance Public Hearing. April 18, 1996 Page 3 4. Re-subdivision of the site would extinguish any hardsuiface drive exemption and require full pavement be instalted. Five of the 21 driveways in the study would be required to be fully paved. The remaining driveways would be partially or fully exempt. Non-Eaempt: Properties that do not present extenuating physical obstacles or features and would not be exempt for the above reasons would be required to install a full size hardsurface driveway. Driveways on lots that are not subdivideable and not intersected by platted right-of-ways or dedicated street easements would be paved unless they exceed 100 feet in length. If a driveway exceeds 100 feet, that property owner would have the option of paving a minimum of 43 feet which would include a mandatory 20 foot hardsurface apron at the street. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council conduct the driveway nuisance public hearing, take public comment and provide staff direction on the ordinance and proposed modification. Staff also reccomends that the Council concur with sta�s proposed "exernption° criteria. Specific language will be developed prior to first reading. KJS:kjs M 96-195 11.03 Exhibit A � ('' �� ` � . I . �� I'' � � 1 : �� °, `, � It\ �A, + �; I'' ' ' � � � .:.>.<. iiiF-:i:i::�-::i:i:;iii�:ii:::i::i::4%ri�?:�i�:4:: � i:F. �:i:f�:•:•:�::•::=i::::i::;:::: i:;: ;i:sr:i'•:':;:: ' � �:f '{:::•,•:•''•':•:? i:f:�:•:�::�::�:•r:�:•:+:�:•:•::: i:':�:•:�:•:�::�i:�:•:!�r:�ii:� 'Yi'j':'i'�':•'�f.�S':�}'+�"' ! ...................... .................... ::: : ........,-; .......... .....'_ ::�i:::.;v:::::::::.� ::. .......... ::v..:.:: � �r r„ n; x rc..r.. ......... ... ..�n :.::::::.:::::n:. ....:.::.�::::::::::n w::.�:�4i::::: �.� :............ ... . . .:..n:..:...:.. ^i'i...n....... ....::n.:......n............ �:t! :. '{,f+•`w..i.: +�""�iir%fr u{f.{, ..f. F. vfi:F v: r.. � v/..• f............f....::n....... ...................... .......n......n..............�...nn :................ ..n............n.............................. ...'�... .. r. . .... . . .. .. .....�.. .. : ...::..�f...fLw:.•:....r .... ....... .... . .. .. :....:..:............: ...:.:.:.v..:::............e::::::•:,-,-f.;:............:.::..._�..._,...;..,-......,-.....;.... i. r..f..fi�n...n. � x3.... n .;.p.. .r..f:i: iY:i�:i+::�::i;:;�':i.`•::�ii: J./i r, f. f{{ f f{r: r.� .. ...:.. j� .;.i2nY? x;if,'::r jr: i+f•.. :. `��, .+/ i �1 �I: . �:r3l+i F: f / /.rr /.•� ':%: : /. •.. fi, . �''l',!/f j ., f�:nf{ {fif:/fxF�' .<::•••:•••:�::�%'i . �:}:':i' ,. n ,;. .f.//. F :�`"•`i'r.::•.:�':�:''•:•f•. •: a •� . j� •:.�f •. G •.•f/••;'•�:• :'•:♦ :rr..%/%� : :�•'r ♦• r . .i...f/••::: � ,o, :•,yf•.:� x%f••:::t•... :♦ f {; .. t.f r.t / '�i:ji::t.•.x.:• ri • l.. �•• / :?•� '•. i�� r /i.h.:i5:4'�i: :5��'��Y�?'��• r/i.•i :'��. %F.rxx•/ifrr �ifi%r/r .. "i �' : �. : ' � 4.i� :i��r ..i1k�L�......... r ...F. r:.;-�:..;•n.......:Y.cfF� • ..:�:'!�i.•::f1•:., ;f ...,,s . r•'•rt. . •{,.�'::/...� •: f•: •::f/.. : ..�..... f.� :• -. . .f.r .t �. .I./.:f:.r:f . .{.{f/. .. ...�i.•.:,.wr•::.. �.: • ;rr - - ;: .' ..........,.:.::•::•. . .�.�:.�._:.,.:.�:..:....... . ..:........ . .......................... .,,.. ;;: :.;;�..;,..:.,x-: :.;.•:..:: :.�.�:.�:: /. ......:..�::::.:......../i....:::::..:'::::::!.I�.F.::: :a::•:r:::.>:>:a.:;.::r..>::.:.r.;-::.•..,:•..�%�f: •:�if./.....f,.:...�...ffr�`..�..f.�.....::.Fa.•::uf�.•.-:r..r::r.•::.:.::............r..:%/.�/....f........::::::.:........ 1/23 Kathy Scholl 6524 Jackson Paved 10 years ago. Believes gravel is ok when it is kept clean. Leave decision open to the property owner. 1/23 Eilaine Mamner 800 Pandora Paved 3-4 years ago. Looks better and is much easier to maintain. 1/23 Teresa Bailey 5179 Horizon Paved 6 years ago. Driveways should be improved, creates visual problems in the neighborhood. 1/23 Barb Inman 4610 2 1/2 Paved last fa11. Don't understand why it is a nuisance. 1J23 William 7517 East River Easier to maintain. Baumgardner Rd. 1/23 Donna Olson 6430 East River Paved already. Changed address. Rd. (140 64 1/2 • � Way) " 1/23 Larry Johnson 7120 Riverview Paved when he did the garage. It's a good idea. Terrace. 1/23 Michele Bush 5060 Hughes Her driveway on main street is not used, other drive is paved. Believes it's a good idea, helps keep the city maintained. What about the cost? 1/23 Lloyd Smith 7301 University All his properties are paved. Establish a commission to study them. 1/23 Margaret 5132 Hughes Paved in 1969. Keeps getting these letters. It's nice Eisenshank to have pavement, people don't park in the front lawn. 1/23 Mrs. Robert Locker 1601 Onandoga Paved 2 years ago. Makes no difference. Has a problem with landscape rock in streets, affordability for others? 1J23 Martha Morin 5861 Poured a concrete drive in 1992. A lot easier to Washington snow plow. 1/23 Adolph Bipes 4601 2 1/2 St. Paved already. Adolph resides their but his daughter called. 1/24 Deb Strand 590 Hugo Paved five years ago. Hated her gravel driveway. 1l24 Brian Hanmer 7501. East River Paved the year after they moved. Adds to the value, Rd. major improvement. . 1/24 Dorothy Baxter 1465 Gardena Paved 34 years ago. 1/24 Mrs. Closkins 7130 Riverview Paved already, people should do it, get rid of Terrace vehicles as well. 1/24 Mr. Kluscar 1420 Rice Creek Has a drive but does not use it. Burned less than 5 Road gallons of gas last year. 1/24 Margaret Carlier 374 66th Ave. 85 years old, concerned about cost. "Why worry if it doesn't have to be done for five years". 1/24 Jim Langenfield 79 63 1/2 Way Paved in 1991. Driveway nuisance crappy, call it driveway ordinance. Not exceptionally harsh. Benefits entire neighborhood. Neighbors sand runs down the street in front of his house. When he needed fiil once he took the wheel banel and collected it from the street. 1/24 Louis Bennington 368 66th Ave. Has a paved driveway. 1/24 Gene Norway 1329 Gardena Paved already. Take her offthe list. 1/25 Thomas Gray 6062 Central Paved already, always wanted one. Much easier to . � • clear in the wintertime"(asphalt). Concerned if ordinance is passed that future homeowners will not be informed of the hardsurface requirement. 1/25 Donna Hess 7600 Vanburen Paved. Believes people should pave but is concerned about cost for those who can't afford it. 1/25 Daryl Madsen 7191 East River H'is is paved to the ashton street easement but not to Rd. the street. Mother in-taw next door does not have pavement. 1/25 Mary Mathews 1259 Skywood Talked to Jon Flora about a variance. Agrees with Lane the idea but believes her situation might require special attention. 1/26 Carol Hatcher 1O151Vrssissippi Moved in and it was already hardsurfaced. 1/30 Roger Plessel 861 Overton Installed brick pavers in 1985. Small approach at the street. 1/30 Tom Blomberg 961 H'illwind No driveways in violation. All are paved. 1/30 Lila Holmgren 8001 Riverview Has a paved driveway. Would help ciean the Terrace neighborhood, affordability is a concem. 4/17 Michele Bush 5060 Hughes Agrees that this is an issue that should be addressed. Believes it should not effect their property because they have closed off their main street drive. 11.05 � � � � ^ � � O� O� � � � �� Q � � W � � Q :� � a Z a � � � > cfi A A � � � � �� o > > pG v� , 1 a � M N N M � � � � � � � � � Irnl� � z z � � � y y � � � � O� �O O � .-+ �-+ O p� .� .-� � � � a a a � � � � c� Ur 3 � � o � o A cfi� c�� . 0 _ � � � a r� a � z z � . b , �, , � s � , � � a�� o i i a a� ,r > > .o� � c� c� � a � �, � ° � � � � a a a � � � � � M M C � �O � n cv oo .� V o � rn o°o rn oNO V � o°o v�i es r� � � t� t� � W � , � o "v� o � r�-+ N � i � O�0 M � i i � z � z ; z z � � � � � � � � V�1 V�J H 1 f� V�1 f� � � Q � j � � � �/1 V� 00 � tt �D � N O O � O O � 11.06 Exhibit B �� a � �� 3� � a � � �� 0 � � � � � � � f v� W O U � U `t � � a � � . � � � i 00 � � � � � � � ; �, ; � � 1 � 1 � � N i i � '�" � U � � � � � � � � 1� R W .� R R H � y � z a z a, a a a � � � ai ._.. -d a�a � � a�i O �� v � 'C � � pN„C � � � s� � o.a v � � 3� � 3� ��.� � •� � � � � � � °' � � A" a � 'C ¢��¢ A C� A C�7 A� C� Ad ¢�C7-u � � � � � N N � C/� V] C/� � � � � � � � � � •O y � � � N � N N � a .� x�� a� a� a a a O o�0 M '�d' � 0�0 v� N et O � � [� �O � r.+ M � N � et vi vi N �O N v'i �O � � � � � � � � � �n o o 'v� in o � Ct O � M �—Mi .�r � � � ..-� z �� z z � z° z z° i �i �i �i �-+ �'i �i �i �i � � H � H y y y y � N �O O '�7 v1 O� � O� tio p� �-+ �o .-+ ao v� �n +n M O Q� l� �t t� [� t� l� "'' Q� M � '�T' �f M M M ^i\ \ti•:� `. :+�t i:.h+?:: v .a •: itk Y� + -i :Sti i ' -i \ :v•: •: 'i:t\i Fti�'� • ii•US �"{�`•: ' �. •'A}:::? ..} ` '. }. • �:<i.. . •`:i$:T.••`.\Ki9: `-. h. ;•.}ti• : ;.tia. \. .3.1:<i::i\Ci ..v..2{ir`'4,:..v .. ,�'v22• ; t. . ...:...� .:.i.•�` +.t .:`.'•.'.t • • .+\ -. ti,..� <;. :: . n �: t v::v}•. •} ::S•�', ' 1� � h <4 . +Li '::4..v. :. '''v�'vv v,:n:tiii•1 \v. � �. Y n�: �.�Y { . .. \. ::. \ h •: i� .4 . �:�i.�V'�ii'i:� '� r • , \ . �'i'{q�:•'i: i iv�L:..�y �":\`?:: •\{.'?.i:n�': i :.}....r. :ti::tiw '{J:: ` v'.v\4: 'v O�' :�:' �v�`. �M1w>.�... �•�� :;:;,t; . .. : .:. \\?)... `v �vk� �.,. ,. tit'�4 w:. '{. �'s.wk :i��'i�v:'v i. •J�'ti: :i:��i':.�1'> {t�\�'v��:��'\k\- :Vi�. 5�:,{� .;\c;v., •y ;VV•.¢f . 4; :t: •\vt..�. :`',<:5`-ti.\��.�;:;.:, ;...;:;h :a...\��bc.. ��.�..\,,,�.;i�.�,?s.�:, ,.�... � `k:.�::o;.,`�1'c,. `w�.�.`�a.y �r.a. :.v��s��.��: ,. ;'c�t• . �`.ti,.`s ?{:�:��..i•i.i:;}:;:•;: t�{:',\} i �1i� :i:X:ii?\}, i v'Y..`��•:: ..��4,-;.}: +}.��,.,., � �.�4:� . ":+i4?�: :i�:1C`i't • 8.. +.v\ v .'•' \\•;,:.vvv .n..�WF�. :;.:,i��Yi1�;�.� :��:Iii::'C}�.'Y."�. �i:;\:::�i:i�i: ' .v�4M1-: `;::�. i-:'�•.v -�t:: -h . :t\• �'-.��i :::�::'>',<'.<,.:.. . •<�':�::: > .. � . �}" � ;;.•� ';.\:;:;> i�t4th:i:: '«:1�!;�.�� :';}ir..;••`:i�2'.t:: ```� ":�?j�'�:;. � •;h� . ., '� ' ?r 'x �v:��::.: `�.�\\;;: ' •:<� :'y,ti,..>:.;:;; •<.. � "�.�ct.:�. 2..y�.�:• :'t:i `.`t • •��.Z',.ti�.::`: .fi\�T,. �:;`: :?:;::::.<,2:::'it�titi �.•x •.• :�:� ti. :�SS;:;:.?.?�.'ti1 :::��"''M1. :�` 2 �'�'.; v:�:i�iH. �� `' :�'�.,. .y�`��•.,. . �,��'::;.;`.;>:,;:;:•>: � �:-2:;:�:'t� + ..:�., . ...;`.`tk. . ,�\ ` y�`.K�`i�".� ;.q."'t, •'��t'iw'?�� . ��;a,«�`..'t>. •'�{i{:i:{•;••S• 8�t ••$::}�, : '+'4i: ,'<}. 4Y "}. ��v�i'i+ � ^�i4.`��' `�:x ;}:: k�i'CL\�'S �K ".\��,..`:; :;;;::p;. ,� �.,:�` .. �. .�:?i`; :,, M1 , . ` . � .�.::: -{�\�}r.�• 'ti� . C • y�\;, �A�Qv � �h •• �: :�� i• }'�\'�. :S: ... �:.: :::�t\�� v;: :�ti\ :':< ; t k� \t C�� >.. v • r'..; ' • ��: ,�`xMww:•: s +; '\ •� � �\�::.:�!.� ::4i:�,ti �w�WP.:i \:\�:>iy. tiv�.'" : K}}.. :�\�.� nttf h':ti.. .;�� i�i:} ��:. .' • .k.;:ES;"•'. ,.�,` ' • ;:.;; � '.iti: •..`�:•.\': t: ` .<. a. :it4 .;. \r•,; {,,•=: . 4 , .;�.. :w , � . i`.; `:<;�?:>:::.t+ k :ww�: :;�::`....,::.. �.t•. . � i�;r. ��°`� :�� • :::;:.�ti.•.:t::.v:;•.'• :�`:.�' :?: � :` ; �.: :':.::::�,:c:;`.: :: :: t . ;.n,�';. . .,v.,`;.'�c . t ., : :x:•.'' .:C .�;., :.'•, ;w;;:t.i::::::�:5 :'t��.. �:..�:..y .:,;.;; .: .,...�+i:`.,:x;�,- �y .; :ti,,. . . :.i: .:.E.:+�.��_. ' •:v}�!^-0:i• 'ti �iC` :r .v .'L,. t x .�.y .4. �'-i�. }}.<y, • y}{v;:;`. ,.:;�}.v:;;:};:3 y} ::,,..v • ' � ry . . �`. , l''^ i$'�" ,j� v�� v+�v n¢6~ t4 1 ' .:n..:• , ..tiq<:;.;;.: :<;i�;� .� r;�,`. ?� �`.�,�l,....�`.,a�_�.•. . . .:.<; : . :.;'c..�`�.``..-K',�;x.., i i:i�4::}�;::?'� �' ::•\h:•i:-:....4 .::. :: .v.�} t:: •::\x.vti v :i+�v'��.� hv. ry :::\::n • .... , . ::titi�::::;:z ,;<ti::s> :: �,•.... :,�y ;'�.�•� <•>:�;: ,••*:3;;; e`:i+''.w:<� ��3:�!!a:4�;;,, .. •::x: `.' _:`:" "`-a:�:� :,. .,.,�.. .... ..:'- :� ........ • .,.'i1:••:�:#t.:::::: . <.<i:�k . .;:..- ..:: : :. : :..,.:...::: .:,_s,�::;: ::... ......: �: .,�,z., ?. .::��rs; � , �� :;;. L \ Yi's� .. {y.v� . `'il. . •i-ti+ . k�.; >. : ;;.,.'' .�u;: ,. .�:<��,`,��.,.°?:� o:... •L:t: `vtii;i.; �h. j�� . p�::ti :.,4. :::�!:';:?�:�•,'••: i?;: `:'� `��i:`� �:��'1:•`:� :. �:`•:�::`:i<• ;:��'i:�� .`� � p '�•s4. • ;..\ .\; .t : Ti}.....:.: .., ) �� •; { ' � .. . :>?: �•y� �•}\,y.. \ �.n 4.. .`.•tT"::' :'t`�:'~` :� .:{�ry.+r'kx�:•`. vv\:•:� M1{•,.4:C'i.,v M1..\til�: ::1!!!L;:>?�w:....::.: :. vC:v�:ii3 � : i.�~ :w . ..,. .;: . �::�=:<::�:.>.� ::<:t��:>�:' ::�i►::<..�>- :::<!�... :::�.:,:..�.-:.:::::::�::>.�..::...:::. E ::.� . ..., ......... :::. :>: ;: :.;:: � . . ...... ..... ... :: :�::...:.: • :.:.:.::::.::;.. :..:::�: :...:;.. ,.....,».. :: �:�;;�:s: :::�:'!t�!>-: ::.:�<�<s::�:>:•:: ?:�::v:»'r•:- ;.^•.; :; ;+'`::: `:.v:�:: �:�.i�«i:�w ?a?:: it`>i�:'t��x E;:��:r � ...�:;-:.�::>:•:::::•:.:>:: ...?3�,.. .xY''�:::::�, ., .,.;�,�:_:.. �:. �.�...., ��.•<�•: ;;,t.�.,:• �. z>.->-•�.»:,: `o�:;:•:.. :;;•:.:..•::.:::::x•:::•:::.•: ......... ........ .::•.•::.:::�:- -...... .....:..... :.....,.:.: ...:.... ..., �.:.:. ......... .............. :a:�»:->::•: : ..: .. . . ..::.:.....:. ..:.:�::., : ..:. :.:,,. ......................... ::.::::..: .........,......:. :..::::•::....-::., ..;...: : . .:x.:. c.;::.,>.;.....-:..::R•`.::....})...:::>•:::.;>....,- 11.07 y b � o a3i � •C .E -v .�r � .� .O ..� � � � � ' � o� Q, .� � �� Q � y � �0 '� o � � � � C� O F � �L O� y �,.� � 4" � � o � o � � � > � a� �, � '� �, ?, �H � � a�+ '� V�i � � � a� y � ��.+ � � •� � � � U � .� °� 'C � C". � � y � � �3 •C � � � 3 ��o ;�� h � � � Q •� D '2 `� y .o b � y � .r � � n � � � a� � E ,� " '2 � � � � � � 7 •� b4 n b + � O � � 3 a % � � � Q � � � � � '� t) � � b 0 3 a M � � H i�r a� � � .� � v � � � a� � `C � y � � ..r�i � o Q" 4n M � �' � � � � � •� � � � � � W o'"'d a� -a �� N � � 3 '� 3 � .5 O � 1� � � 3 o ��a ' � � � y � � �� K i � y � � ii H � � c� � 0 � � � � � � Cl. w � O � O � •o •� ,� '� � � � � > � .� � N Q. .� � 4" •� .f: b �� 3 o � � o a� a'� VJ .±y � �.� y � � ,� �ir � H � � � � � � •� � A �� ,� � �S '� � � H 3 � a� � •� � � � .1: O «+ a `�'�' 0 a� �, �' ��, � � H '� �(] � V V� od « � � > 'd .� � 0 0 � 0 c, � � .� � � � � a� N � b ..�i 3 � � � �. H � � a�i � � 0 L. � .� � N H � :.� � � � � .� A � � x 1C 110. PUBLIC NUISANCE 3� n� nc r�c+�tarmT� 110.10 DRIVEWAY NUISANCE Gravel., dirt. or unpaved driveways endanqer the safety, health, comfort or repose of a considerable number of inembers of the public. Deposits from these drivewa,ys obstruct City storm sewers and detention ponds, and detract from the aesthetic character of the property. Furthermore. c�ravel, dirt or unpaved driveways do not adequately define orderly parking areas, they allow unsightiv ruts and ditches, and can cause excessive sp�yinq of qravel, dirt and dust on neighboring properties. Finally, gravel, dirt, or unpaved drivewavs do not protect the environment from the seepaqe of vehicle fluids which can cause significant environmental health risks to the community. Therefore, gravel, dirt and unpaved driveways are hereby declared a public nuisance. 110.11 COMPLIANCE Owners of residential properties coritaining gravel, dirt, or unpaved driveways shall construct hardsurface driveways by April 1, 2001. All driveways shall be surfaced with blacktop, concrete or other hardsurface material apnroved by the City. 110.12 ASSESSMENT All assessments levied for the re�avment of a hardsurface drivewav installation shall be reimbursed in accordance with terms and conditions outlined by the City Council. Such assessment shall be levied under authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 429.061. 110.13 PENALTIES Any violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of chapter 901 of this Code. 11.08 FINANCE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT: By categorizing gravel, dirt, or unpaved driveways as a nuisance the City will have the authority to assess the paving cost. TERMS: The interest and payback period can be set at the discretion of the Council. State Statute limits any special assessment of this nature to no more than a 30 year period. For senior citizens and the disabled State Statute would allow the City to defer the cost until the property is sold. The deferral can be with or without accumulated interest. In a January 4, 1996 informational memo, staff recommended that all driveway assessments take the form of a 5 year term at 7 percent. Staff also recommended that a 5 percent administrative charge be added to total and a$1,250 minimum assessment be required. HOUSrNG PROGRAM LOAN: � The driveway cost would qualify for a 5% home improvement loan. The loan would have a variable payback period depending on the overall amount of the loan. Certai.n income and credit eligibility requirements would apply. Example: Principal Rate Term Payment $10,000 $5,000 $2,500 5% 5% 5% 120 60 36 $111.02 $96.66 $76.05 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Participation in the yearly Fridley Street Improvement Project Bid may provide a lower overall price due to the high volume of the contract. 1994 price included: Driveway grading plus 4 in. of Class 5 and 2 1/2 in of asphait for $9.90 per square yard. or Driveway grading plus 4 in. of Class 5 and 6-in of of concrete for $26.40 per square yard. 11.09 MEMOI�:ANDUM PLANNING DIVISION DATE: Apri1 18, 1996 � TO: William W. Burns, City Manager h�9{' /it FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator Kurt Schneider, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: 30� Lot Coverage / Driveway Ordinance The Planning Commission has asked for additional information prior to forwarding their recommendation on the driveway coverage issue. Therefore, staff requests that..the City Council table the public hearing on this issue. � Staff has prepared the additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and is prepared to present that information to the Commission on May 1, 1996. Their recommendation will likely be sent forward from the May l, meeting and this item would be - rescheduled for the City Council's May 20, 1996 agenda. SH/ M-96-193 ' 12.01 MEMORANDUM PLA,NNING DIVISION DATE: TO April 18, 1996 William Burns, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott H'ickok, Planning Coordinator Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Council Action - Apri122, 1996 Junk or Unsafe Vehicle Public Hearing. Review of the junk vehicle ordinance began in November of 1995. Since that time, staff has worked to prepare an ordinance amendment to chapter 114 to define junk/unsafe� vehicles and to define the process for their removal from private propeity. Preliminary modifications and revisions to the City Code had been drafted and reviewed at a February 7, 1996 Planning Commission public hearing. . Analysis In summary the proposed ordina.nce modification includes the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A more detailed description of the criteria necessary to define a junk vehicle. An additional definition of unsafe motor vehicles to include reference to State Statutes 169.468 ta 169.75. A definition of motor vehicle. A detailed five day notification and abatement process along with specific impound, reclaim and public sale requirements. An aggrieved ownec hearing process using the City Hearing Examiner. A one year "sunset date" to allow for re-examination of the ordinance one year from it's adoption. 13.01 Council Action - April 22, April 18, 1996 Page 2 Staff Recommendation 1996 Junk or Unsafe Vehicle Public Hearing. Staff recommends the City Council review and approve the proposed ordinance revision. The proposed changes clarify and broaden the junk vehicle enforcement options. The proposed ordinance will allow staff to be more efficient and responsive to the residents of Fridley. Commission Recommendation At the February 7, 1996 Planning Commission public hearing, the commission recommended approval af the ordinance revision. In addition, one member of the public was present to voice his support for the changes. {Mnutes Attached) Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Council conduct the Junk Vehicle public hearing, take public comriaent and provide staff direction on the proposed modification. KJS:kjs M-96-194 13.02 114. ABANDONED JUNK OR UNSAFE MOTOR VEHICLES 114.01 PURPOSE Abandoned Zunk and unsafe motor vehicles constitute a hazard to the health and welfare of the residents of the community in that such vehicles can harbor noxious diseases, furnish shelter and breeding places for vermin, and present physical dangers to the safety and well being of children and other citizens. Motor vehicles contain fluids which if released into the environment can and do cause sianificant health risks to the communit�. The condition of vehicles that are junked and abandoned junk or unsafe significantly increase the likelihood that these dangerous fluids might be so released. Abandoned junk or unsafe motor vehicles and other scrap metals also constitute a blight on the landscape of the City and therefore are detrimental to the environment. The abandonment and retirement of motor vehicles and other scrap metal constitutes a waste of a valuable source of useful metal. It is therefore in the public interest that the present accumulation of abandoned iunk or unsafe motor vehicles and other scrap metals be eliminated, that future abandonment of motor vehicles and other scrap metals be prevented, that the expansion of existing scrap recycling facilities be developed, and that other acceptable and economically useful methods for the disposal of abandoned junk or unsafe motor vehicles and other forms of scrap metal be developed. Because of throuah March 30. 1997 at which point the amendments to this section will have no further force and effect unless a further amendment is enacted. 114.02 DEFINITIONS 1. A.bandoned Motor Vehicle. A motor vehicle which has remained outdoors on property within the City for a period of more than 48 hours on public property illegally , r has remained for a period of more than 48 hours on private property without consent of the person in control o.f. such property or in an inoperak�le condition such that it has no substantial potential for further use consistent with its usual functions, unless it is kept in an enclosed garage or storage building. It shall also mean a motor vehicle voluntarily surrendered by its owner to the City or a duly authorized agent of the City. A classic car or pioneer car, as defined in MinnesQta Statutes, Section 168.10 shall not be considered an abandoned motor vehicle with the meaning of this Section. 2. Unsafe Motor Vehicle Any vehicle located outdoors on uroperty within the City in which anv svstems including; braking steering suspension, electrical liahtina, motor, drive train svstems are not functionina or a � 3.03 vehicle which cannot legally be driven or is in violation of anv state. federal or local vehicle equi�ment or safetv regulation includina, but not limited to Minnesota Statutes 169 468 to 169 75 3. Junk Motor Vehicle. junk vehicle• a. Anv motor vehicle which is not in operable condition. b. Anv motor vehicle which is partially dismantled c. Anv motor vehicle which is a source of repair ar reDlacement parts for other vehicles d. Anv motor vehicle which lacks component parts e. Anv motor vehicle which is not current registered and �ro�erlv licensed for operation with and by the State of Minnesota. 4. Vital Component Parts. Those parts of a motor vehicle that are essential to the mechanical functioning of the vehicle,� including, but not limited to, the motor, drive train and wheels. 5. Motor Vehicle Definition. incluae, without limitation automobiles, trucks trailers. motorcvcles, tractors 3-wheelers 4-wheelers and snowmobiles. 114 . 0 3 ��P9�3��--ABATEMENT The City, or its duly authQrized agent, may take into custody and impound any abandoned junk or unsafe motor vehicle. A vehicle mav be impounded after notice of such proposed - ---- ----- ,- � - • - • - - - - Saturdavs, Sundavs and city holidays for the following reasons: a. When such vehicle is parked and/or used in violation of any law, ordinance or regulation• or b. When such vehicle is abandoned junk or unsafe 13.04 114.04 VEHICLES IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SALE When an abandoned motor vehicle is more than seven (7) model years of age, lacks vital component parts and does not display a license plate currently valid in Minnesota or in any other state or foreign country, it shall immediately be eligible for sale at public auction and shall not be subject to the notification or reclamation procedures established by this Chapter. 114.05 NOTICE l. When an abandoned motor vehicle does not fall within the provisions of Section 114.04, The city shall give notice of the taking within ten (10) days. The notice shall set forth the date and place of the taking, the year, make, model and serial number of the abandoned -iunk or unsafe motor vehicle and the place where the vehicle is being held, shall inform the owner and any lienholder of their right to reclaim the vehicle under Section 114.06 and shall state that failure of the owner or lienholder to exercise their right to reclaim the vehicle shall be deemed a waiver by them of all rights, title and interest in the vehicle and a consent to the sale of the vehicle at a public auction pursuant to Section 114.07. 2. The any, of readily notice shall be sent by mail to the the abandoned junk or unsafe motor identifiable lienholder of record. registered owner, if vehicle and to' all The notice shall be to him or her. If it is impossible to determine with reasonable certainty the identity and address of the registered owner and all lienholder, the notice shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the motor vehicle was abandoned iunk or unsafe. Published notices may be grouped together for convenience and economy. 114.06 RECLAIM 1. The owner or any lienholder of an abandoned iunk or unsafe motor vehicle shall have a right to reclaim such vehicle from the City upon payment of all towing and storage charges resulting from taking the vehicle into custody with fifteen (15) days after the date of the notice required by Section 114.05. 2. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to impair any lien of a garagekeeper under the laws of this State, or the right of a 13.05 lienholder to foreclose. For the purposes of this Section, "garagekeeper" is an operator of a parking place or establishment, an operator of a motor vehicle storage facility, or an operator of an establishment for the servicing, repair or maintenance of motor vehicles. 3. To reclaim a motor vehicle impounded pursuant to this ordinance, the owner or lien holder must pay anv costs and administrative fees incurred by the City and must aqree to relocate the vehicle in accordance with locate state and federal imnoundment without notice if such vehicle again violates this section. In addition� the City may require a bond to be �osted if said vehicle has been subject to a�rior impoundment 114.Q7 HEARING Anv vroperty owner who feels aggrieved by an im.poundment of a vehicle under this chapter may request a hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Such request shall be filed in writinq with the office of the Communitv Development Director within twenty (20,� days after the date of service of the notice by the Code Enforcement Officer or other dulv authorized agent. The Community Development Director shall notifv the Hearincr Examiner who shall notifY the pro�erty owner of the date, time and place of the hearing The hearing shall be conducted no more than�twentv (20) days after the HearinQ Examiner receives notice of the recruest, unless a later date is mutuallv aqreed to by the Hearing Examiner the property owner and the City. Both the praperty owner and the City may appear at the hearina with counsel and may call such witnesses an�i present such affirm, reAeal or modify the order of th�e Code Enforcement Officer or other dulv authorized agent. Notice of the decision shall be mailed to the owner at the address given in the hearin_g request The Hearincr Examiner�s order shall be accompanied by written Develoument Director within twenty (20) days of the mailing of the HAarin�r F.vaminnr+c Ao..;�;.,,, a�- ;�-� .,.,�.� �....:�.,1.�.. �_�.._�_� ...__L�.�� review the decision and findings of fact of the Hearina Examiner after twentv (20) davs following the Council's final determination, unless the urooerty owner obtains a court order to the contrary within said twentv (20l days 114.0�8 PUBLIC SALE 13.06 1. An abandoned iunk or unsafe motor vehicle taken into custody and not reclaimed under Section 114.06 shall be sold to the highest bidder at public auction or sale, following notice published a reasonable time in advance. The purchaser shall be given a receipt in a form prescribed by the City which shall be sufficient title to dispose of the vehicle. The receipt shall also entitle the purchaser to register the vehicle and receive a certificate of title, free and clear of all liens and claims of ownership. 2. Disposinq ot unsold vehicles. Abandoned vehicles not sold pursuant to subdivision 1 shall be disposed of in accordance with �innesota Statute 168B.08 and 168B.09 3. Disposition of sale proceeds. From the nroceeds of a sale under this section of abandoned motor vehicle the City shall reimburse itself for the cost of towing Qreservinq and storing the vehicle. and all administrative notice and publication costs incurred in handlinq the vehicle pursuant to sections 114 01 to 114.09 DISPOSAL AUTHORITY government may utilize its own equipment and �ersonnel for the period. 13.07 PLANNING COMMISSIQN MggTING, FEHRQARY 7, 1996 PAGE 17 He thought they could define or regulate where that is goinq to be. Perhaps we indicate that is.must be an area that is clearly �. define and contains aqqregate no less than one inch in diameter, �:'� ;�; it cannot be wider than the garaqe area or no wider than 24 feet, -� and/or indicate that parking needs to occur on that driveway : �::a:: -,�.. surface. In this way, we can define parameters. He knows they*,�-�- will qet into the issue of inoperable vehicles, but perhaps we . can say in the ordinance that, if you do not have a hardsurface-°- driveway, then we will set a limit to the number of cars that can be parked there. It seems there are other alternatives to be considered. From an aesthetic standpoint, many of these driveways are unacceptable. He was no�t sure there are not other solutions short of a bituminous surface. Mr. Newman stated, from a financial standpoint, he knows that staff and the City are concerned about the quality of housing and want to maintain the quality of housing. His concern is that some of these individuals who are goinq to be hard pressed to pay for the driveway. They may be divertinq funds for that driveway when in fact they should be using that money to reroof their house, repaint, or do other necessary maintenance that would have an effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Savage stated she realizes that for those people who spoke this is a grave problem. To put i�t in perspective, these are a handful of people who are having problems•. She still thought that basically the ordinance is in�the best•:finterest of the City. She would not�like to see"it lessened but�rather'see the �-- individual problems handled and still��keep the ordinance: otherwise, if you are qoing to chip-away at.the-ordinance, it will not solve the problem. When�livi�g in a City,�you need to have a hardsurface driveway. Mr. Newman stated that is the reason they previously talked about the alternative of requiring the drive to be paved upon sale. People who moved here many years ago have seen the tone of the neighborhood change...�Staff felt this'would be�a way to address`' the need and the new person would need to make the� transformation. Two more public hearings will be held. He suggested a motion to.recommend that�•the Planning Commission recommend approval: only- if.�-'-there 'were appropriate amendments that would allow flexibility to address situations where it is not a public nuisance or where it creates a financial hardship. �If the staff and/or Council could come.up with a solution, he thought they would be more supportive of the ordinance. If they cannot, then the alternative is that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council considering an alternative approach where - they look at alternative surfaces.such as crushed rock not less than one inch in diameter, clearly define the driveway area using minim�a widths, where they provide for a minimwn apron area to 13.08 .. . . .... .. ...... . .. . ...._.... .......,. ....>.....,..._e o.,�:>r.<..>.:a.>�>.>oaua�;.......::�:.,....�naoas: P7�ANNING COMMI88ION M$ETIN�3 BRQARY 1996 8 avoid runoff and erosion in to the street, and consider restrictinq the number of cars parked on a non-hardeurface area. Mr. Saba stated he has sympathy_for the gentlemen•who has-a:.. driveway at the back of the lot and who has a driveway with trees. Perhaps we have to talk about so�e type of a maximum,'� such as 100 feet, where they have a hardsurface or crushed rock surface up to a specific limit. When a homeowner has a long driveway that is part of the landscape, he was not sure that crushed rock would serve any purpose. He supported Mr. Newman�s proposal. Mr. Oquist asked if crushed rxk would cause a financial burden for those with a long driveway. Mr. Newman stated some of the driveways al�eady have rock. Some will have a financial hardship but he thought it would be reduced. The City aiso needs to consider the quality of housing. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modiq, to recommend to the City Council approval of the ordinance only if the ordinance is amended to provide for flexibility to address situations where it is not a public nuisance or where it•creates a financial hardship; if that cannot be accomplished, the alternative is to modify the proposed ordinance to allow for alternative surfaces such as crushed rock not less than 3/4 inch or one inch in diameter, to clearly define the width of driveway area, to provide for a minimum apron area where the driveway enters the street, and to consider restricting the number of cars parked outside on a non-hardsurface area. . OPON A`10ICE VOTB, ALL VOTIIit� 1►YS, CSAIRPSRSO�i N8AliA�l DRCLAR$D THE MOTION CARRI$D IINANI1�iOII8LY. Mr. Newm.an stated the Planninq Commission acts in an advisory capacity. The City Council will consider this item at their meetinq of March 18. � �'�� •� •' �� • i� '� • � 1��! /. s_� � ' �+ � c»�+ � �• � � •• MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICB oOT$, ALT, VOTI�iGi Ayg, CHAIgpgggOM � DECLAR$D TH$ MOTIODT CARRIED AND TS$ pIIBLIC HSARI�ia OPffi� ]►T 9 s Z 5 P.l�L. Mr. Hickok stated, at the direction of the City Council, staff is presenting modifications to the sections of the code that deal with junk motor vehicles. The purpose is to increase the 13.09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. F$BRIIARY 7. 1996 PAGE 19 effectiveness and efficiency in resolving junk vehicle code issues. Staff has proposed an ordinance modification to include the following: - 1. To incorporate the definition of "unsafe for operation" to include reference to any state, local or federal regulations including but not limited to Minnesota State Statutes 169.468 to 169.75. � 2. To include any vehicle which is not reqularly used on City streets as an abandoned, junk or unsafe.vehicle. 3. �To increase the expediency af junk or unsafe vehicle processing and abatements by using a 5-day notification period which exceeds the 72-hour minimum required by law. 4. To detail the notice, reclamation, and pubic sale requirements concerning abated v.ehicles. 5. To implement a hearing process for aggrieved vehicle owners. 6. To include a one-year sunset date from the effective date of this ordinarice. • Mr. Hickok stated this ordinance was deemed �ecessary as staff worked through different code situations in the field and determined there is overlap in the two sections.of the code, and need some efficiency.in addressing the issues with unsafe or . inoperable vehicles. Included in the agenda packet was a handout that indicated what'staff�would look for in the field for unsafe conditions and'jurik and/or inoperabie conditions. Staff's recommendation is that a vehicle owner`be qiven notice and given five days to correct a situation if the vehicle has either two of the unsafe or one of the junk/inoperable conditions. Mr. Hickok stated the recommended modifications were included in the agenda packet with the proposed changes indicated. -. Mr. Oquist stated he supported the ordinance. He felt the City could not be tough enough.� When talkinq about vehicles, do they need to be`motorized vehicles?' What about recreational vehicles that are parked year-around and seldom used? What about a trailer home parked on a resident's property, damaged a number of years ago, still parked there and still damaged? Is that considered a vehicle? Mr. Hickok stated motor vehicies are defined in state statutes as being self-propelled on the highway. The question of the trailer is considered, if demolished, an open storage situat�on. ��Staff:,; can look at that under a separate section of the code. 1�.10 .__.. :� .......�.-.._... .�.:.:.:�: .��.:.,.�.:. . ':�;>;:2:.i.��::-��.: 1...�..i.>o.,:...` ..... .,�,i.>?c.....,..�)2>.i......��.t.t}.>.1.r ei>2 32iY2�:.Wi7��31�bh�2sls2>w�...,.>....>>o�,....>i�i ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. �2 > - ' i:�22'1 i2;231i2�2N � `:ti� PLANNINC� COMMI88ION MESTINa. FEBRIIARY 7. 1996 PAa 20 Mr. Newman stated, is summary, staff is going to broaden the definition, speed the process, provide administrative safegnards so we do not infringe on anyone's riqhts, and then look•at it again in one year to see if it is workinq. �.:�>. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Mr. Stahlberg stated he has been working on this for some ti�ae. Regarding the-junk vehicle ordinance, Section�114.01, the � newspaper refers to, in the last sentence, the City Council having significant concerns, amending this section, and talks about violations that occur through March, 1997. He did not understand that. - Mr. Newman stated that is what requires the City to come back in one year and revisit this issue. Mr. Stahlberg stated Mr. Newman had mentioned something about l.imiting the number of vehicles in a househo3d. He did not see that in this proposal. , Mr. Newman stated it is not in this proposal. That is a part of the recommendation concerning hardsurface driveways and the suggestion that parking areas be defined. Mr. Stahlberg asked what would be done in the case where someone who does not have garage. Mr. Newraan stated he did nat want to discuss what he has not seen. If the City Counci2 wants to pursue, staff must work with the city attorney on how to proceed. Mr. Newman asked if there-were any additionai comments reqarding_ the ordinance amendment. There were no further comments. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICB VOTE� ALL yOTINa AYF, - CBAIRpER80N N8N1�IAli DBCLARBD T8$ MOTION CARRIED AND 'rgg PIIBLIC HEARING CLOS$D AT 9s35 P.![. The Commission expressed their support of the ordinance amendment. MO ION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of the proposed changes to Section 114, Abandoned, Junk or Unsafe Motor Vehicles. IIPON !l VOIC$ VOTE, ALL pOTI�ia AYS� CSAIRP$R80lT .HBfIldA�T D$CI.ARBD TH8 MOTION CARRISD UNANIMOIIBLY. ,` _ '� • 13.11 r� , .... . .. . .,,...... ... . ... ...._.. :�,u,b..ow, u.i,a...., ,._......,.,.., ... ...,.<,...:ii:;i;:�<i ..................... ,.... ..�..._.. ......... ....,...<[i��<5.....i...>> .>:....;i.;i2;23i PLANNIN(� COMMISSION M$ETING, FBBRIIARY 7, 1996 PAGS 21 Mr. Newraan stated the City Council would consider this ite�u on March 18. •� � ��'-_� ' �i•� �:'!�, • •' ;:i •, �• �yi • �. � � �_ �t�±r!��Y • i+�l� _ � � �� 1� � �" MoTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOT$, ALL YOTI�TG AYB, CHAIRPSR802Q �tEWMAN DECLARED THE 1�OTION CARRI$D AND TH$ PIIBLIC HBARINt3 OP�i AT 9:37 P.I�t. Mr. Hickok stated the proposed amendment process allows the City to re-enter property within a"reasonable period of time once a nuisance has been abated. The City had a situation where they went through an abatement process. It is an elaborate process in which, after the City has provided notification, allows the owner to appeal the City's view of what is happening on their property. The City has the authority to remove a problem deemed a public nuisance. This amendment provides assurances that the condition does not re-occur. Mr. Newman stated, for example, he dumped 50 tires in his backyard. The City comes in and removes them. He does not reclaim them, but gets another 50 tires and puts them in the backyard. He does not sign a release of property form. Does the City have to restart the process from the beginning? Mr. Hickok stated it basically piqgy-backs on the initial notification if it,is deemed the same or similar and that person's right to �ppeal. As an enfarcement'body, the City would be able to'back on that property and clean it up. �• Mr. Newman stated the release of property is not the operative. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. The release of property is a safeguard they would use. .. Mr. Newman asked if anyone had any further questions or comments. There were no additional com�nents or questions. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING A1[S, CHAIRPERSON �TEWMAN DECLARED THB MOTION GARRIED AND THS PQBI.ZC HEARING CLOSED AT 9Z40 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded liy Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of the proposed changes to Section 128, Abatement of � Exterior Public Nuisances. 13.12 �LANNIN(i COMMI88ION ME$TINQ. F$BRQARY 7, 1996 PAQ$ 22 IIPON A VOICE VOT$, ]1LL VOTI�iIi AYS, CHAIRPER80�T NSIIli�l�i D$CLARBD THE �[OTION GA&�IED IINA�iIltOIIBLY. 4. ,�1' py • � �;,�y!: ?!� M ON by Mr. Oquist, seconded by 1�s..Savage, to receiv the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of December 14, 1995. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTINti AYE� CHAIRPERSON D�CLARLD THE ][OTION CARRI$D DNANIl[OIISLY. 5. MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1996 OTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority� 1996. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYB, THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISI,Y. 6. OTHER BUSINESS a. r � receive the minutes ng of January 11, NSWMAN DECLARED Ms. Dacy stated 1996'will be ifferent.`" Progress has been made on the Southwest Quadrant a d it looks as though the project is , headed for approval perhap by the end:of this month. Lake Pointe development has n progressing as well. The City Council is now focusing n the former Frank's.Used.Cars�site and redevelopment in areas roughout ttie City. There are a number of commission appoin ents.pending. The City Council sees::this_ as an opportunity t bring a diverse group onto the commissions. If Planning Commis on members have anyone in mind, please.bring . those names to th City Council. � Ms. Dacy state in 1996 the Commission will hear about the Livable Comm ties Act, a recent initia�ive taken on by.the _ Metropolitan ouncil to assist communities with redevelopment sites, such as Frank's Used Cars.- The Metropolitan Council wili have an in ormational meeting about this act and the funding programs ey have available. She invited Mr. Oquist as chair of the Hum Resources Commission to.attend.� Ms. D y stated the Human Resources Commission would be asked to ' revi the preliminary Housing Action.Plan before:it comes.to theq.,:.. Pla ing Commission.-. Staff will also be looking at a fair °` ho sing ordinance. - 13.13 �_..___ MEMORANDUM PLA1`�TNING DIVIS�ION TO: William Burns, City Manager �,,� � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott H'ickok, Planning Coordinator Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Council Action - Apri122, 1996 Nuisance Abaternent Public Hearing. Review of a minor modification to the Nuisance Abatement code section began in November of 1995. Since that time, staff has worked to prepare an ordinance amendment to Chapter 128 to detail the release of abated property. Preliminary modifications and a revision to the City Code had been drafted and reviewed by the Councii at a November 20, conference meeting. The proposal was also reviewed at a February 7, 1996 Planning Commission public hearing. Analvsis The suggested modification wili allow staff to more efficiently abate "same or similaz" violations from the same location at which an abatement has already occurred. In summary, the proposed ordinance modification includes the following: A release of property agreement to be signed before reclaiming any abated material. A provision which allows the City to abate same or similar violations from a location in which an abatement has already occuned. An abbreviated but reasonable notice period will still be required. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council review and approve the proposed ordinance revision. The proposed changes will a11ow the City to treat recurring violations as a continuation of 1� Council Action - April 22, 1996 Junk or Unsafe Vehicle Public Hearing. April 18, 1996 Page 2 the first violation. Separate abatement proceedings and 20 day notifications per�ods will be avoided. A more efficient response to recurring citizen complaints will be achieved. Commission Recommendation At the February 7, 1996 Planning Commission public hearing the commission voiced their support for the ordinance revision. No public comment was received. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Council conduct the Nuisance Abatement modification public hearing, take public comment and provide staff direction on the proposed modification. KJS:kjs M-96-192 14.02 . 128. ABATEMENT OF EXTERIOR PUBLIC NUISANCES 128.07 RELEASE OF PROPERTY To reclaim those materials that have been removed in accordance with 128.06, the owner or lien holder must �av any costs and administrative fees incurred by the City The owner or lien holder reclaiminq the materials shall sign a"Release of Pro�erty" and shall agree not to return the items to their original location in violation of City ordinances If additional removal of the same or similar items is deemed necessarv by the City an abbreviated but reasonable notice period will be provided before removal takes place. All other provisions of City ordinance 128, including the right to a hearinq, will still ap�l,y. 14.03 DESCRIPTION OF REG�UEST: The petitioner requests that a portion of a drainage and utility easement located on Lot 7, Block 1, Totino Grace Addition be vacated. If approved, the vacation would allow encroachment of 25 square feet of a garage 5.5 feet into the easement. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The purpose of the drainage and utility easement was to provide a buffer around the protected wetland located on the site. The petitioner designed a dwelling for a client which does not fit within the buildabie portion of the lot as defined by the setbacks and easements. The drainage and utility easement aids the City in enforcing stipulations placed on the subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: For the April 22, 1996 meeting, staff recommends that the City Council conduct the required public hearing. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the vacation request, as the drainage and utility easement provides additional buffering and protection for the protected wetland located on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted 5:1 to approve the vacation request as presented. 15.01 Staff Report SAV #96-01, by Royal Oaks Realty Page 2 Petition For. Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: . Existing � Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilitie�: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Site Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS Vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility easement. 1435 Royal Oak Court N.E. Lot 7, Block 1, Totino-Grace Addition Somewhat rolling; wetland in northeast comer of the ProP�Y• Oak #rees R-1, Single Family Dwelljng; Totino-Grace Addition; 1994 In Royal Oak Court Roya1 Oak Court N/A Provide adequate buffering for wetland 0 15.02 Staff Report SAV #96-01, by Royal Oaks Realty Page 3 REG?UEST The petitioner requests that a portion of a drainage and utility eas�nent located on Lot 7, Block 1, Totino Grace Addition be vacated in order to allow constn,�ction of a single family dwelling uni� PARCEL DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The subject parcel is located in a subdivision recer�y platted in 1994. The subdivision is located adjacent to Totino Grace High School and near an established residerrtial district. During the subdivision process, the neighborhood testified that the existing trees and wetlands were significant environmental features, and that the proposed subdivision would adversely impact this remnant of what is known as "Peck's Woods". As a result of the neighbofiood testimony, the City Council, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, established 22 stipulations irrtending to protect the natural features to the greatest extent possible. These included conditions regarding tree cutting, tree preservation, grading limits, constnaction limits, and the placemerrt of dwellings. � An easement was recorded over the pond as part of the plat, but the pond is privately maintained. ANALYSlS The petitione�'s proposal would vacate a portion of a drainage and utiliiy easemerrt - which, on the plat, surrounds a protected Type 3 wetland located in the northeast comer of the subject property. The drainage and utility �serne,nt does not corrt�ain any City utilities. The vacation of this portion of the e�asement w�ould essentia0y move the protected area of the wetland closer to the wetland edge. This �sement was dedicated on the plat at the recommendation of the registered k�nd surveyor and based on a weUand delineation by Ms. Pat Ariig. The deline�ation of wetlands is not an exact science; therefore, providing an ample buffer is appropriate. The vacation of the easemerrt would reduce the buffer to the wetland from 7 feet to approximately 1.5 feet. To insure adequate protecction of the wetland, the wider buffer provided by the drainage and utility easement should be mair�tained. The vacation request is a result of the petitioner designing a dwelling for a client which is larger than the buildable are�a on the lot when setbacks and easemerrts are considered. It would have been more appropriate had the designers started with a buildable area and designed the house to fit within the site constrair�ts. The 15.03 Staff Report SAV #96-01, by Royal Oaks Realty Page 4 petitioner chose to begin oonstruction at his own risk, but the affected foundation waA of the garage wiil not be constructed urrtil the conclusion of the vacation process. Another option is to carrtilev� the garage over the easement, but the petitioner does not want to angle the foundation. RECOMMENDATION As the drainage and utility easemerrt provides additional buffering and protecction of the natural environmerrt, i.e. the wetland, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to vacate a portion of a drainage and utility easement. ADJACENT SITES WEST: � SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelfing • - _ �•1• Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Lar� Use: School There was one neighbor, Mr. Reyes, who spoke in opposition to the request . CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing. 15.04 � � - SAV ��96-01 � SAV ##96-01 �� Royal Oaks Realty CATION MAP SAV �196-(11 _ Royal Oaks Realty �� I�� FOR: Marcel Eibensteiner 1 1, 1 1 95298 Ea$emen t tO be V�cated 'A�eO °f �°t! Deti �` 9y�o� N y8� „ \ � .,.� � S '�031' 44 w \ g6.55 � � .., � :�:< � � w\ � �.o� ! �rn �b� \ � � \ Finish Grade --�� 1 � \ \ ��4� 0� V Z Rear WO Elev --. � �` � \ -H 955.23 95� � �U'Q . � 5\ 955� + sa.s G � � J O � �o l � ` � J �M � O� •Ll' � � N� �� ' 1 � � Z � .\ . __ �' �� ' P '-�3_ �� rn. :1%��g63 � _ -� ;2� f � 49 � 6 „ � .�S �1°495$ ' � � ` � � � � \ �----_ ,�O � as�3 L � s�.9� \ R = 7�0 9'24,�6. C. ERG-S S8 0 o O ry E ,� '�� , � ��tja:a .' • ��s ; tj � �. �� E � v �� ooQ �O``Ve � � � � 0 s + �.es° ( \ � co s .27 I ao � �--- �.� M 0 �or,�� o,�,� � � = 42.g8 -- � _ ? 2°00'27•, R = 205. p0 �o h-j NOi�tH V. = 950.9 � � � � �� 1 o� O O �Ay�� 9c F � � 9s�'t/ �A . � ent Line V� �nd Delineation potnt ��t9 — VYetland Deiine� per Pat Arlig sss.oi Aprii 29, 1994 3 Contour Diag.:94.1 x 48.7 = 105�95 j ' PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: 02 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION. GARAGE FLOOR =963.5 TOP OF 6�OCK =963.8 x1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. � LOWEST FLOOR =953.7 �DENOTES DIRECTION OF ORAINAGE. & 955.0 DENOTES WOOD HUB AT 11 FOOT OFFSET. � c.Oc 13 crs wo J V Lot 7, Block 1, TOTINO GRAG� .. it?ITION, Anoka County, Minnesota. Scale 1"= 30' O Denotes Iron Mon. Bearing Datum: Assumed Job No. 95585BT Drwg By BAO Disk-- We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of ��. �(,�� Q�($, ('�(C a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of the LAND SURVEYORS loccrtion of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroochments, gt8m LEXINCsTON �4VE. NO. if any, from or on said land. E. ��NS,�:'1 CIRCLE PINES, MINN830t�4 By. Z. x� s�r�-m14-3625 TEL. 186=�✓�b6 Oated this 15th day of February 1996 Minnesota License No. saos 5�c�tc� ��scr i t i o� of Easement Vacation across Lot 7, Block 1, °� q Z �G� � R° � r � � � �� Z th Li�e °f �"�t � �c� Royal Oaks Realty TOTINO GRA E ADDITION, Anoka County, Minnesota �or „ w N 87°08'25" W • j�(Q�i'4-� / ��°3�� 4� s S � — 1 g6_55 �I ��i� , � � — — -7 . `f �` I (5tii '� -� ::.a � � �' }�_ .�� ` ti 1 � �, a�, � � ' �� s � ��,°'� 5 go �'� Ys�, ---- I � °� 5��-'" " t � ��,\ � \ �: �;:�> \ � �' ',F \ �i��\ I Z '� �:�� \ s ` �� o � \ �� ' � Ip '�p Oo° ��: 1 \ O � \ N= � '�� I � � � � ` s � � � \ ��So 00 � .`\ \ oo� � .�` F �' -- 5� — -- �% \ I \ .,� \ I� p� ' 6�.95 �-- -- — J� R � 7�'S9'24., o 50, p0 � �� OESCRiPTION FOR EASEMENi YACATiQN: o,� cr Q ��0'�/p R = 205.00 That part of the draimage and utlity easement as dedicated or► Lot 7. Block 1. TOTINO GRACE AOOITION, Anoka County, Min�esota desc�ibed as foliows . ,, , , �_- �; ; ._- � .�Ft s� 2 � O p� T- � 9Z � � 9cF � o F9s� N ��Z � �-i �- Wetla�d Oelineation , � per Pat Ariig April 29, 1994 . Seginning at o point on the �orth line of said Lot 7 distant 65.10 feet east from the northwest comer of said Lot 7; thence on on assumed bearing of South 28 degrees 00 mi�utes 00 seconds East adong the west i'me of said drainage and utility easement G4.13 feet; thence South 38 degrees 00 minutes East 3200 feet; thence North 24 Degrees 16 Minutes 58 Seconds West 9263 feet to a point on soid north line dist�t 12 feet east of said point of beginning; thence South 77 degrees 3i minutes 44 seconds West 12.00 feet to the pa�t of begi��i�g. Except the �orth 5 feet thereof. � 1 hereby certify that this su�vey, plan. or �eport was prepared by me or unde� my direct supervision and that ( am a duly Registered �a�d Surveyor under the laws of the ta of i es Date 2-�5-ss Registration No 9�8 ' 15.07 �:. �. � � �./1�1�� :�i LANO St�iiZlrEY0i�8 9i8m LEXtNGTON �4vE. NO. CIRCLE PINEB, MJN�IE80T,4 Sr✓- �9i�i-3625 TEI.. 'T86-5£�bb �� I�O'��IL 01�KS. �� REALTY, INC. February 16, 1996 Mr. Scott Hickok Planning Coordinator City of Fridley 6431 Universiry Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432-4383 Dear Mr. Hickok: Imperial Homes, Inc. will be constructing a new home on Lot 7, Block 1, Totino Grace Addition for Bob and Cheryl Horeck. The house will be constructed within all front, side and rear set back lines. We are, however, requesting the City to vacate a portion of the e�sting drainage easement on the northeasterly portion of the lot. Attached are two drawings explaining our intentions. The first drawing shows the existing conditions of the property and the proposed house location. The second drawing shows the easement area to be vacated and legal description. The construction of this home and the vacation of the easement will not be a negative impact on the subject property or surrounding properties for the following reasons: • The new easement line will still be above the 100 year flood elevation of the adjacent pond (951.0') • The new easement line will be above the wetland delineation line • There will be no grading below the 953' contour • The rear yard lowest walk out elevation will be at the 955.0' elevation (four feet above the 140 year pQnd elevation) 15.0$ 4196 Lexington Avenue • Shoreview, Minnesota 55126 •(612) 483-5518 • Fax (612) 483-5642 In retrospect, the drainage easement provided on this lot was wider or larger in area that what was actually needed to protect the natural . conditions of the property. Vacating only a small portion of this easement will allow Mr. and Mrs. Horeck to construct their "dream home" custom designed to fit this lot. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, I�.�.I�..� ��.,.�� Michael J. Black, Project Manager Land Development Division 15.09 March 20, 1996 To: Fridley Planning Commission From: Bob and Cheryl Horeck Subj: Vacation of Easement at T435 Roya1 Oak Court We are the homeowners building the house on the subject lot. Our plans have been approved and construction is underway. We seek a restatement of the easement line to permit a full third sta11 on our garage. Statement of our problem: As the easement line sits, we are r�uired to cut a diagonal corner (roughly 35 square feet) off the garage to avoid crossing the easement line. Since the garage is built with a pre-stressed concrete floor over a hobby workshop, we have elected to cantilever the garage over a portion of the diagonal and to cut the lower corner to comply with the easement. This causes two problems: 1. The angle of the outer garage wall restricts access to a staircase leading to the lower level from the garage. We anticipate the need to s�pport our parents in the house and they have physical handicaps that will most likely require building a stairway lift system to access to the lower living quarters. The angled corner may prove to be a major problem in getting sufficient clearance at the top of the stairs should wheel chair access be necessary. 2. The angled wall severely d�tracts from the beauty of the overall house and restricts the size of the exit door that can be placed on the remaining portion of the lower level north wa11. � Concerns expressed: � Site does not meet setback and easement restrictions. Our plan has been approved and meets all setback and elevation restrictions placed on the lot. We believe that the placement of the drainage easement was enoneous at the onset and should have followed the 953' contour line. • Neighbors have objected to developers plans. The attached sheet with all but one of the neighbor (those sent the meeting notification) signatures shows that the neighbors have no problem with our request. Quite to the contrary, we were repeatedly welcamed to the neighborhood during the signature acquisition process. 15.10 • Construction will destroy the natural beauty of the wetlands and create unfavorable visual impression. We have lived just two blocks from the site for the past 22 years. During this time, most recently the summer of 1995, we ha.ve patticipated in many planning and council meetings to object to destruction of wetlands. We are avid supporters of the beauty of the neig�borhood. Our plan is to clean up the dumping done by Totino and others in the pond and to maintain as much of a wild setting as possible. We are not removing any of the trees adjacent to the pond. We anticipate adding wild flowers alongthe pond to help enhance it's beauty. Since the house is being built and will require removal of a significant amount of foliage, we feel that the two level angled wa11s on the garage create a major, and totally unnecessary, eyesore. We feel that our request for vacation is reasonable, causes no impact on any neighbor, and clearly dces not violate the intent of any of the restrictions placed on the property. We look forward to your favorable recommenda.tion to the city council. Sincerely, �s� �� Robert and Cheryl Horeck 5505 West Danube Rd. � �� 1,5.11 �SAV #95-01 Mailing List Mailed: March 1, �996 Imperial Homes Inc. � for Royal Oaks Realty � Smperial Homes Inc. for Royal Oaks Realty �4196 Lexington Avenue 'Shoreview, MN 55126 'Duane/IZaron Narog 'or Current Resident 1465 North Danube Rd NE Fridl 5 432 `i'haddeus/Gail Jude or Current Resident 5688 Arthur Street NE 'Fridley, �32 �� J,��._ �.,yle/Patricia Elmberg �r Current Resident 5801 Arthur Street NE Fri ey, l��t 5 43 d (� t �it Council Membe s �i(/.�, `�"�" Joseph Andert or Current Resident 1445 North Danube Rd NE F ' ley, MN 55432 �� i91 � Terry/Connie Reyes � or Current ltesident 1479 North Danube Rd NE Fr ' e, I�IIJ 554 3 . . Gordon/Linda Backlund� or Current Resident 5805 Arthur Street N� Fridley, MN 55432 Donald/Shirlie Moore or Current Resident 5821 Arthur Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 �� David Newman . P�anning Comm. Chair 7635 Alden Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 John/Phyllis O'Brien or Current Resident 14 3 North Danube Rd NE Y. MN �5�43 � , (y ��GG�� ilton/Paulett� Bullock or Current Resident 5674 Arthur Street NE Fridl 4 2 or Current Resident 5809 Arthur Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 ;�'�Gi3 ��3zy,�.� / �_ The Dio e�'" se of St . Paul 328�Kei�-ogg Boulevard W St. Paul, MN 55102 �,,�,.,.�, • ..��.c�'2 � - �� - �� Gt't;! r 15.12 - . 2. If the petitioner fails to obtai a building permit for a single family residence within months of the approval of the Lot Split ahd fails to ob in a Certificate of Occupancy for said structure within 1 months of the approv,al of the Lot Split, then the garaqe ocated�on-Parcel B shall be�� - removed. 3. The petitioner acknowl,,�dges that Lot B has a lonq, narrow buildable area and s�all design a house to fit that area. OPON A VOIC$ VOT$� ALL OTI� AYB, C8llIRpERBpN NLWMAI� DBCLAR$D T$S MOTION CARRI$D irI0II8LY. � Ms. McPherson stat the City Council wouid consider this request on April 8th. . 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST SAV #96-01 BY IMPERIAL HOMES, INC.• - To vacate that part of the drainaqe and utility easeaet�t as dedicated on Lot 7, Block 1, Totino Grace Addition, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 7 distant 65.10 feet east from the northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence on �n assumed:bearing of South 28 degrees 00 minntes 00 seconds East along the west �line of said .drainage: and utility; easement 64..�3. feet;. thence South 38 deqrees OO�minutes East 32.00 feet; thence North 24 degrees 16 minutes,58..seconds West_92.63 feet to a point on said north li.ne distant 12 feet east of said`point� of beginninq; thence South 77 degrees 31 minutes 44 seconds West 12.00.feet to the point of beginning. Except the nor.th 5 feet thereof, generally located at 1435 Royal.0ak Court N.E. • - Ms. McPherson�stated the request is for a recently subdivided lot in the Totino-Grace.addition located.near Arthur Street, southeast of the school and�located adjacent to a wetland neut to Arthur Street. The petitioner.is requesting that a portion of a drainage and utility easement-.lacated on the property be�vacated. The petitioner is requesting the vacation in order to construct a single family dwelling with an attached garage. The northeast corner of the garage encroaches�into the easement area. The petitioner�is currently constYVCti�q a house and at this point is avoiding the area of.the garaqe to avoid-encroachment into the easement area. Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the drainage and utility easement is to provide additional buffer space for the wetland area beyond the line delineated by..the wetland specialist. The petitioners have � designed=.:a�-ho�se�•for.�their,�client.. Unfortunately, the design of the_-house daes not fit within the buildable area when taking into account the easement and setback 15.13 PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING. MARCH 20. 1996 PAGS 11 requirements. Wetland delineations are not an exact science. The additional buffer provided by the drainage and utility easement is an advantage. The vacation of the easement would reduce the buffer from 7 feet to approximately 1.5 feet-at its closest point. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the request be denied. The petitioner has designed the garage so that it could be cantilevered over the easement area which would not require footings or foundations in the easement; however, the garage would still hang over and into the air rights of the easement. There are no utilities that the City would require access to in this area. The purpose of the drainage and utiiity easement is only to protect the wetland located north and east of the site. Mr. Oquist asked if the petitioner could still cantilever the garage over the easement even if the request.was denied. Ms. McPherson stated yes. The original design of the garage had space below the garage which was intended to allow the petitioner workshop space. That would need to be omitted if the vacation request is denied. 'Mr. Kondrick asked how much the setback would be reduced. " Ms. McPherson stated the setback would be from 7 feet to 1.5 feet at the closest point based on the new line of the easement. Mr. Newman asked if the City had an ordinance that requires a specific setback from a wetland. Ms. McPherson stated no, the City does not have such an ordinance. Mr. Kondrick asked if it was correct that this is meant to keep buildings as far away as possible from the pond. Mr. Oquist stated this is meant to keep the footings away from the pond. Mr. Newman stated the drainage and utility easement is meant to protect the wetland soils and veqetation. Whether there is a pond or not is immaterial. The area is designated a wetland and the easement is to keep that from beinq disturbed. Mr. Black stated Bob and Cheryl Horeck currently live at 4555 Danview, have lived tKere for 20 years and are building their dream home. Mr. Riemersma, Imperial Homes, spent much time with the applicants iooking at-their�home;-looking at what they would like to build, and designing a home for the lot. There have been many adjustments made to the plan and they thought they had it 15.14 0 PLANNIN(3 COMMISSION MEETING. MARCS 20, 1996 PAG$ 12 until it was staked out on the property, and they were told they were not allowed to go onto this drainage easement on the northeast portion of the lot. � Mr. Black stated they are asking consideration-to vacate only�a=- portion of the easement. They are not talking about any setback variances. The house meets all the setback requirements. It is the encroachment over the drainage easement that is the problem. The drainaqe easement line was not somethinq required by the City. It is not a requirement that they have this in a certain spot. It is really the surveyor who drew the easement line up and above the 100-year flood plane of that pond. If we had known this, they would have moved the easement over because it is not going to make a difference. Stringent-requirements were pZaced on them as they came through the process to get this plat approved. On this particular lot, there were a number of stipulations they had to abide by in order to build a home on this Zot. Mr. Black stated the pond has a 100-year flood plane�elevation of 951 feet. The easement line as they wish to amend it will still be above 951 feet. The easement line as currently shown was delineated by Mr. H`arley, a respected person when it comes to wetland delineation.� However, the wetland soils meander up and down the hill. The easement iine.would..still be.,above.the. wetland line. The chanqe as proposed would not allow any encroachment into the wetland. It is not their intention to encroach into the wetland. - Mr. Black stated another� stipulation was that there shall be no construction below the 953 contour. That is a stipulation we are abiding by. Regarding flood protection, there is a requirement that the lowest opening on the lower level cannot be below the 955 elevation. The lower level elev�tion is at 959. Mr. Black stated the request is to.vacate a portion of this easement. It will not encroach upon any of the stipulations placed upon us when the plat was approved. Mr. Black reviewed the building plan. Mr. Oquist asked what portion of the easement the petitioner was requesting to.vacate. Mr. Black stated the area is shown on the Certificate of Survey as a somewhat triangular shaped shaded area. It could be made somewhat smaller. Only a small corner of the garaqe would encroach totalling approximately 35 square feet. The buffer area is an area that staff would like to have, but there is nothing in the code that requires�� a� setbac�c� from� a--wetland. In many lots, it is common to have drainage easements along property lines and the homeowner maintains the easement.� In this area, there will 15.15 PLANNINa COMMISSION MEBTINQ, MARCH 20. 1996 PAGE 13 be some maintenance within the easement area. The easement line is the setback line. The house is a walkout rambler with a three-car garage. It is the back corner of the garage where the problem occurs. The area below the garage would be a storage area with an outside access. Mr. Newman asked if the area of issue is under the third stall of the garage. Mr. Black stated yes. To avoid encroachment, they have designed the wall at an angle with the upper level cantilevered two feet over the footings in order to provide room for another vehicle. This creates some other structural problems including an unusual roof line and an odd exterior elevation. Mr. Black stated the Horecks are excited about building the house. They have the permits and are under construction. The house sits weli on the lot and there have been adjustments made to fit the lot. It is now the issue of the easement. There is no reason to have the easement this wide because they can sti11 meet all the environmental protection requirements with a shallower easement area. Mr. Newman asked how the easement was set as it is. ' Mr. Black stated the easements are drawn on the final plat which does not reflect the final contours of the property. The easement line was drawn on the plat close to the wetland at a point the surveyor thought was above the 100-year flood plain elevation. It was accepted, and they thought they had enough room to build. It was not a mistake on the part of the surveyor. Knowing that these lots had restrictions and that the homes would be custom homes, in retrospect they perhaps should have paid more attention. Mr. Newman asked, when the City approved the plat, did we require the easement be a certain distance away from the delineation. Ms. McPherson stated no. Mr. Newman asked if they had assumed the surveyor was drawing the line to be consistent with the delineation of a wetland. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Newman asked if the original delineation had changed. Ms. McPherson stated no. Mr. Newman stated there was then no reason for additional area to be dedicated. The surve�or dz�w �,� and we accepted that. 15.16 PLANNINa COMMI88ION MESTING MARCB 20 1996 P GE 14 Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. IInless it is for a specific engineerinq request, we do not stipulate the width of easements. Mr. Newman stated, since.there is no such thing as a wetland easement, you use a drainage easement. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Newman stated, whether or not a hardship is caused, the problem,is that from a structural standpoint cantilevering the garage is going to be difficult. Mr. Riemersma stated, from a standpoint�of doing custom design homes and fitting them onto the lots, we run into problems quite often with setbacks and certain requirements. On this particular lot, the reason we are where we are iri the construction is that when we designed the home we did take into consideration all the setbacks. When he wrote a summary of the requirements for this- lot, the requirement was to not build below�953 feet.� So, he designed the home urider that assumption not realizing there was a drainage and utility easement at that corner of the garage. 8is impression was that they could build within the 953 line which is what.they are proposing. Tiie reason we are constructing at this paint in the way we are is that-we-could-get,-a building permit without having a foundation shown on that easement. The City would allow them to build the garage with an angle and � cantilevered.`�IIpon putting together the purchase agreement 'requirements, etc.,_,�they then:found this was �ithin the easement. Mr. Horeck is t�e future owner of.the hrnne.. He distributed copies of his�memo to the Fridley Planning Commission dated March 20, 1996, regardinq the vacation af�the easement. Mr. Iioreck stated they have a stairway from the garage going to the lower level. They have elderly parents who are not in good health and they expect their.parents to come and live with them. He expects to install a lift-_system which requires,adequate clearance by the corner of the stairway. Tlie cantilever leaves marginal room and could cause problems. Beyond that, they feel the angled wall detracts from the house and the beauty of tiie- - neighborhood. They have had a nnmber of concerns eupressed_by staff. The first was that.they did not meet the setbacks. Mr. Black has discussed this in detail. The second was that the neiqhbors have serious objections.. They have lived in the �neighborhood,for 22 years. He went.to each person-listed on the notice. With the exception of one person, they have all signed. The one person objecting is at the meeting. They have spoken about the obj ections = and -it~comes = down��to - destroying -the-� •beauty of the wetlands and not wanting>the�development in their backyard in the first place. The development is here. The house will be 15.17 PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TINa. MARCH 20. 1996 PAQ$ 15 built. They want to preserve and enjoy the wetland. They have been avid about preserving the wetland. Their plan is to leave the wetland and easement as it is but they want to get the footings in for the garage. They have an eievation of 955 feet at the back of the house at the door on the lower level. The corner of the garage is an area of 35 square feet that would encroach. If the wall is angled, the egress is tight if they have a wheelchair situation. Mr. Horeck stated he has no objection to the buffer area. They plan to leave the area wild, clean up as much as they can and keep it as natural as they can. They have two places that are a problem. The first is the 35 square feet at the angled wall and the other is one footing for a deck in the very back corner. He does not see how they are going to upset anyone's view by making the garage the right shape. They have no neighbors that will be affected. This is a reasonable request and he hopes to get approval. Mr. Reyes stated he is speaking in support of staff's recommendation that the wetland and drainage easement be retained. He was aware of the restrictions and covenants. These were done for many good reasons, including the preservation of the wetlands arid retaining the natur�l beauty. He is concerned� about this request. In his experience, the developer has already encroached on property. His next door neighbor had his land encroached upon by a bulldozer which leveled everything there. That neighbor.has resolved the matter but the developer did not have permission to do that. He is concerned that this request, though for a minimum amoun� of space, can end up beinq different than what is expected. He is concerned that what is being asked for may not be the final product. This area has had a lot of water runoff in the last few years. He is concerned that the home was started before this request was made. It is close to the wetland as it is. He is surprised that a home of that size is going in that close to a body of water. He would support that the land and easement be retained as they are. Mr. Saba asked if there was any other way to do this without givinq up the entire easement, such as by a variance. Ms. McPherson stated the issue is not a setback requirement. Mr. Newman stated he does not like the fact that, if the Planning Commission approves the vacation, it allows a home to be within 1.5 feed of a dedicated wetland but the City has no ordinance requiring a setback. The surveyor may have made an error. If so, we have to correct that mistake. This request is to correct the delineation. � Mr. Oquist stated the rec�uest is not to build into the wetland. 15.18 PLANNIN(� COMMISSION 1��SSTINa, MARCH 20. 1996 `PAG$ 16 It is still 1.5 feet away. He thought they could assure Mr. Reyes in makinq sure this is constructed properly. . Mr. Newman stated he would assume, if they added a stipulation,�-: that we want the edqe of that wetland clearly marked and staked�. during the construction period, that would be acceptable so it is clear to the builders, neighbors and City inspectors where the line is. Mr. Sielaff stated he is concerned about a broader issue. One can argue that the easement is accurate or nat accurate. He is concerned about other drainage easements that�are done and what this does when they review other requests that come up. The lines are put on paper for a reason and now we are starting to move those lines a little more and then someone requests a little more. Where to you then draw the line? He is concerned from a broader perspective. He has no qualms that the owner will_take care of his property and take care of the wetlands, but he sees a broader issue. Mr. Oquist stated this easement was arbitrarily placed there where in other situations they are well defined easements along lot lines. ' Mr. Newman recommended, when they are done, that staff look at an - ordinance specifyinq setbacks from a wetland. Since we do nat now have such an ordinance in place, he did not think they.could�_.. impose it in this case.' , : Mr. Saba_stated he could go along with that recommendation.- He would.also like to see a-setback ordinance for wetlands. MoTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by lrir. Kondrick, to recommend approval of Vacation Request, SAV �96-01, by Imperial Horaes, Inc., to vacate that part of the drainaqe and utility easement as dedicated on Lot 7, B1ock 1,.Totino Grace Addition, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 7 - distant 65.10 feet east from_.the northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence.on an assumed bearing of South 28 degrees o0 minutes 00 seconds East along the west line of said drainage and utility . easement 64.13 feet; thence South 38 degrees 00 minutes East 32.00 feet; thence North:24 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds West 92.63 feet to a point on said north li.ne distant 12 feet east of said point of beginninq; thence South 77 degrees 31 minutes 44 seconds West 12.00 feet.,to.:the.point of beginning. Except the north 5 feet thereof, generally located at 1435 Roya1 Oak Court N.E., with the followinq stipulation: � 1.. The edge of the wetland be°�clearly°marked at not greater than 10-foot intervals so ail concerned persons can monitor. �5.19 PLANNINa COMMISSION ME$TING, MARCH 20. 1996 PAG$ 17 Mr. Saba stated he was concerned about the lack of consideration by the construction co�pany going into the neighbor's property and being careless. Ms. McPherson updated the commission on this issue. An error was made by the subcontractor on one of the lots. Staff inunediately worked with the petitioner and the neighboring property owner to br,inq resolution and correct the error. They have re-vegetated and re-planted what was destroyed. As a result, in order to enforce the 15-foot no cut zone, staff has required the petitioner to install orange snow fencing to prevent sub- contractors from misunderstanding where the construction area is. Staff is holding a performance bond of the petitioner as well. Staff have put mechanics in place to prevent further inadvertent encroachment. This will apply to this lot as well. IIPON A VOICB VOT$, WITH l[8. MODIQ, MR. �TEWMA�T, l[R. HONDRICR, MR. OQIIIST, AND MR. BABA VOTING AYE, AND MR. SI$LAFF VOTIN(i NAY, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DBCI�ARED TH$ �OTION BY A 1dA.TORITY VOTE. Ms. McPherson stated vacation requests require a public hearing. The City Council on April 8th will establish the public hearing for April .22. The Citt� ��?�ncil will consider this re�uest, �an April' 22. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Rondrick, to recommend that staff review and evaluate the possibility of adopting a wetland setback ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated this may be included in the shoreline ordinance. Mr. Newman thought this would qet buried there. He felt this should be part of the zoning requirements. IIPON A VOICE VOT$, ALL VOTI�ia AYB, CBAIRP$RSON NSWMl�N DECLARED THE MOTIO�T CARRISD ONANIlytOIIBLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES �F TiIE HAtTRTNt� & RFf1FVFTnpMF*rr+ nrrmunuTR OF FEBRUARY 8, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to ceive the minutes of the Iiousing & Redevelopment Author meeting of February 8, 1996. IIPON A VOICB VOTB, AI�L VOTIN6 AYE, T8E 1rtOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIISLY. � 5. FEBRUARY 14, 1996 15.20 NEWMAN DECLARED MEMORANI)UM DEVELOPMENT DIR�CTOR DATE: Aprii 19, :1996 TO: William Bums, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Second and Final Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-01, Christenson Crossing, by Rottlund Homes, Inc.; Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellite Lane The City Council approved first reading of the ordinance rezoning the Southwest Quadrant project area on March 4, 1996 subject to 16 stipulations. The City Council also requested the City Attomey review the development agreement. The City Attomey has reviewed the development agreement and concurs with its content. The HRA, at its April 11, 1996 meeting, approved the development plans for the project. The development agreement has been signed by the developer ar� the HRA Chair and Executive Director. STIPULATIONS At the March 4, 1996 meeting, the developer agreed to all of the stipulations as approved by the City Council, but requested modification of Stipulation #15 regarding marketing the �Ilage Homes on the west side of 3rd Street: 15. At least one-third of the units on the west side of 3rd Street shall be specifically marketed to seniors at a value between $90,000 to $#�A;BAA 115 000 and shall be one-story in height. The remaining two-thirds shall be divided between . $#�A�A9 115 000 and $�8;88A 125 000, and $�8;88A 125 000 and above. after buildinc�permits for the units are available, or one year after the � Redeveloper has marketed the aroject describinq the availability of the units. but no earlier than July 1. 1997. � 16.01. Second Reading of Rezoning Ordinance April 19, 1996 Page 2 Note that Stipulation #15 states "marketing" the proposed units versus "selling" the units. Rottlund's sales staff receives a predetermined commission rate which is not dependent on the sales price. Rottlund has agreed to submit its weekly sales reports to City staff for review as well as their marketing materials including the "Feature and Specification" sheets which outline the base price of the units plus the additiona) features. Staff will monitor the sales every week and report to the City Council regularly about the progress of the �Ilage Home sales. Also at the March City Council meeting, a question was raised about the enforceability of Stipulation #16 regarding the exterior appearance of the �Ilage Homes. The developer wants to provide visual variety for each unit. The exterior elevations for each of the five types of units will have one or two different features such as entrance canopies, color of siding, gables, window locations, amount of brick work, location of garage, or building height. These are just some of the features which will be used to differentiate the units. Planning staff wil! review each unit prior to permit issuance. Rottlund is already complying with some of the other stipulations. The plaza area and bikeway/walkway easements have been submitted, permits to MnDOT for the utility work and the omamenta� fence have been submitted, and the final grading plans have been submitted. It is anticipated that the Mississippi Street improvement plans will also be submitted for City Council approval at one of the two regular City Council meetings in May. In order to close on the property, the rezoning must be approved. All of the substantive issues have been resolved, the development agreement has been signed, and the project is ready to proceed. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance for second and final reading subject to the following stipulations: 1. Rottlund Homes, Inc. shall develop the property in conformance to the site plan dated 2/26/96. The petitioner shall also comply with the stipulations of P. S. #95-01 and SAV #95-02. 16.02 . Second Reading of Rezoning Ordinance April 19, 1996 Page 3 2. The Mississippi Street/3rd Street intersection shall be reconstructed in accordance with the design as generally depicted on the proposed site plan dated 2/26/96 which may be further detailed in a Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County and the City, or amended by County or City staff. It is understood that the construction of the improved intersection will be divided equally between the petitioner, Anoka County, Fridley HRA, and the property owner of the Holly Center. The petitioner shall obtain the appropriate permits for work within the Anoka County right-of-way. 3. Rottlund Homes, Inc. shall execute a landscape easement and maintenance agreement with RAO Manufacturing prior to grading the property. A copy of the agreement shall be submitted for staff approval prior to execution. The agreement shall require Rottlund to install an eight foot fence and coordinate grade elevations with RAO for proper drainage. 4. A$60,000 performance bond shall be submitted prior to the initiation of grading to insure installation and maintenance of the proposed landscaping as approved by the City Council. The performance bond shall remain in force through one growing season of vegetation proposed in the plan. 5. The developer shall install the landscaping and fencing treatments as proposed on the plan dated 2/27/96. 6. Omamentai metal fencing with altemating brick/stone columns shall be installed along University Avenue subject to the requirements of MnDOT, Minnegasco, and City staff. 7. Rottlund Homes, Inc. shall obtain any necessary permits from MnDOT regarding fencing, utilities, grading, or other issues. 8. The entry features shall be installed according to the plan prepared by Arteka dated April 20, 1995. 9. Rottlund Homes, Inc. shall install the improvements in the public/private plaza as specified in the Public/Private Plaza/Park Area Revised Concept Plan dated 2/27/96. Three additional benches shall be included in the plan. 10. All utility boxes or other minor accessory structures shall be properly screened with vegetation or decorative fencing, per the rules of the utility companies and the City of Fridley. 16.03 Second Reading of Rezoning Ordinance Aprii 19, 1996 Page 4 11. The petitioner shall install all light standards as shown on the site plan dated 2/26/96 including the 25 foot NSP light standards. Additional single globe light standards shall be installed in the southeast part of the site for the attached units, depending on the photometric needs of the driveway areas. Pedestrian- height light standards (six feet) shall be installed through the plaza area. 12. The units shall be constructed in accordance with the architectural plans dated 2/29/96, or as amended by the HRA. 13. �sion 2000 windows or an equivalent approved by the City shall be installed in all units. 14. Rottlund Homes, Inc. shall enter into a development contract with the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority and shall comply with all of its provisions. 15. At least one-third of the units on the west side of 3rd Street shal! be specifically marketed to seniors at a value between $90,000 to $115,000 and shall be one- story in height. The remaining two-thirds shall be divided between $115,000 and $125,000, and $125,000 and above. The price limitations for the Ullage Homes shall expire the later of one year after building permits for the units are available, or one year after the Redeveloper has marketed the project describing the availability of the units, but no earlier than July 1, 1997. 16. The units on the west side of 3rd Street (village homes) shall be constructed so as to avoid the same building elevation being constructed immediately adjacent to one another. BD/dw M-96-189 16.04 NO. ORDINANCB TO AMEND TH8 CITY CODB OF TH$ CITY OF FRIDLEY� MINNESOTA BY MARING A CSANG$ IN ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Appendix D of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. Be and is hereby rezoned, subject to stipulations adopted at the City Council meeting of , 1996. SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: Lot 4, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Piat 5. ' Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6. Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 8. Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6, subject to Document No. 714188. Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hi11s Plat 7, subject to Document No. 930569. The East 75.1 feet of Lot 3, Block l, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, together with that part of vacated 64 1/2 _ Avenue, which lies southerly and westerly of a line described in Book 905, Page 427, subject to Document No. 969625. That part of Lot 1, Block l, Sylvan Hills Plat 5 and vacated 64 1/2 Avenue which lies southerly and westerly of a line described in Book 905, Page 427, together with that part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, T-30, R-24, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, distant 1043.58 feet East from the Northeast corner thereof; thence Southerly parallel with the Westerly line of University Avenue, as the same is laid out and constructed, a distance of l58 feet; thence easterly parallel with the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, a distance of 155.00 feet, more or less, to the 16.05 Ordinance No. - Page 2 said Westerly line of University Avenue; thence northerly along said Westerly line of University Avenue, a distance of 158 feet, to the north line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4; thence westerly along said North line, a distance of 155 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for road purposes over the North 73 feet thereof also subject to an easement for road purpose over the East 30 feet thereof. That part of existing public streets in Sylvan Hills Plat 5 described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, except the North 40 feet thereof, together with that part of 64 1/2 Avenue and of Lot 1, Block l, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, lying northerly and easterly of a line as described in Book 905, Page 427, together with that portion of the service drive as shown on Sylvan Hills Plat 5, which lies northerly of the easterly extension of the straightline portion of the south line of said Lot 1, Block 1, except that part of the foregoing which lies easterly of a line drawn 30 feet west from and parallel with the east line of said service drive, and north of a line drawn 135 feet southerly of and parallel with the easterly extension of the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5. All that part of the right-of-way of 3rd Street, as dedicated by Sylvan Hills Plat 5, which lies northerly of a line drawn northeasterly from the most easterly corner on the south line of Lot 3, Block l, said Sylvan Hills Plat 5, to the most westerly corner on the south line of Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5. Together with abutting streets vacated or to be vacated. All in Anoka County, Minnesota. Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District S-2 (Redevelopment Districtj. SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling and C-3, General Shopping Center to S-2, Redevelopment District. 16.06 Ordinance No. - Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1996. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR January 22, 1996 March 4, 1996 16.�7 MEMOI�.ANDUM DE'�ELOPMENT DIRECTOR P� � � TO: wlliam Bums, City Manager �'�' FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Second and Final Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Vacation Request, SAV #95-02, Christenson Crossing, by Rottlund Homes, lnc.; Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellite Lane The proposed ordinance vacates the University Avenue irontage road right-of-way north of Satellite Lane, the 3rd Street right-of-way north of Satellite Lane, and various easements from existing plats in the Southwest Gluadrant project area. The City Council approved the ordinance for first reading on March 4, 1996, subject to approval of the plat request and rezoning request. The plat request was approved on March 4th, and the rezoning is scheduled for final approval at Monday's meeting. All utility companies have been notified and the appropriate new easements have been placed on the final plat. The legal description has been modified slightly since first reading to improve - accuracy of .what is being vacated. The ordinance must be approved so that the property can be conveyed to Rottlund for developmerrt. Once the vaca�on ordinance is recorded at Anoka Courrty, the developer will record the final plat. � RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City :Council adopt the ordinance for second and final reading, with the following stipula#ions 1. Rottlund Homes, Inc. shall record any utility easements as requested by the utility companies, either on the plat or by separate document. 17.01 Second Reading of Rottlund Vacation Ordinance Aprii 18, 1996 Page 2 2. Compliance with the stipulations of rezoning request, ZOA #95-01; and plat req uest, P. S. #95-01. BD/dw M-96-188 0 t- .- �;17.0� � _ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE IINDER 8ECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATB STRFETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPLNDI% C OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION l. To vacate public streets and utility/drainage easements described as follows: The public street over, under, and across Lot 2, Block l, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. That part of 64 1/2 Avenue N.E. as dedicated on said Sylvan Hills Plat 5, and that part of Lot 1, Block l, said Sylvan Hills Plat 5, lying Northerly and Easterly of a line described in a Road Easement Document recorded in Book 905, Page 427, in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota. Together with all that part of the Service Drive dedicated on the recorded plat of Sylvan Hills PZat 5, which lies North of the Easterly extension of the straight line portion of the south line of said Lot 1. All of 3rd Street as dedicated on the recorded p].at of Sylvan Hi11s Plat 5, lying Easterly of the east line of Lot 4, Block 1, said Sylvan Hills Plat 5, and lying Westerly of the west line of Lof 1, said Block 1, and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the most southerly, southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence South 77 degrees 52 minutes 52 seconds West (assuming the most southerly line of said Lot 1 has a bearing of North 89 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West), a distance of 81.89 feet; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 20.00 feet to the most southerly, southeasterly corner of said Lot 4, and said line there terminating. Vacate all easements dedicated for utility and drainage purposes on the recorded plats of Sylvan Hills Plat 5, Sylvan Hills Plat 6, Sylvan Hills Plat 7, and Sylvan Hills Plat 8, said easements are specifically listed as follows: � 7.03 Ordinance No. - Page 2 The West 10 feet of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, said Sylvan Hills Plat 5, and The South 10 feet and the West 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, said Sylvan Hills Plat 6, and The East 10 feet and the North 10 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, said Sylvan Hills Plat 6, and The South 10 feet of the West 10 feet of Lot l, Block 1, said Sylvan Hills Plat 7, and The North 6 feet and the West 6 feet of Lot 1, Block l, said Sylvan Hills Plat 8. The East 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 8. The West 10 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6. Be and is hereby vacated subject to stipulations adopted at the City Council meeting of , 1996. SECTION 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1996. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK � Public Hearing: First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR January 22, 1996 March 4, 1996 17.04 City of Fridley TO: William W. Bums, City Manager��% PW96-076 Z FROM: John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director DATE: Apri18, 1996 SUBJECT: Consideration of Change Order No. 4 to Locke Lake Dam Reconstruction Project No. 211 In preparing to finalize the Locke Lake dam project, we identified that there was an increase in concrete reinforcing steel placed in the dain structure. Accordingly, a change order is required to cover the increase in steel based upon the unit price of the bid. This change order identifies an increase of 7,493 pounds of steeL The original contract bid °�was $25,300, this is an increase of $4,121.15 for a total quantity of $29,421:15:< Recommend the City Council approve Change Order No. 4 to Lunda Corporation for the Locke Lake Dam Reconstruction Project No. 211 for a total amount of $29,421.1 S. JGF:cz Attachment 7 �; �. ' 18:01 . 5 �assoc�A��s March 29, 1996 Jon Thompson City of Fridiey Public Works Depa�tment 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Re: Locke Lake Dam Change Orde� for Reinforcement Dear Mr. Thompson: I am writing this letter with respect to the change in the quantity of concrete reinforcement during the reconstruction of the �ocke Lake Dam. The estimated quantity in the bid documents was 46,000 Ibs. The actual weight of the concrete reinforcement based on the shop drawings was 53,493 Ibs: In .iune of 1994, our staff reviewed the shop drawings and:agreed with the 53,493 Ib. figure. Because the construction contract was based on a unit price of 55 cents per pound for concrete reinforeement, the dollar amount paid for this item was increased accordingly. The scheduled value of $29,421.15 :is the coRect number to be paid for concrete. reinforcement under the work act�ally completed. 1 understand that you will initiate a change'arder for th'is item to clarify this issue. If you have further:questions regarding this, please call me. Sincerely, Owen Ayres & Associates, Inc. �� mes R. Bakken, P.E. Manager, Water Resource Engineering -:.. cc: John Flora, DPW � '• 'rb1960329! d Owen Ayres 8 ASSOCiates. I�c. ' , 1•y . oc Enginee�s/Architects/Scientists/Photogrammetrists ��' ` �' � `# .`- 00-0001.11 3433 Oak:vccd Hills Parkway. PA. Sox 1590. cau G R �02-1590. (7t5) 83a-3i61. FAX (71�i 83t-7500 t�•In•<r� On fnr�rli?r: DAO?f . . .� �/�O�' � . CITY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UNNERSITY AVENUE N.E. FR,IDLEY, MN 55432 Apri18, 1996 Lunda Construction Company P O Box 228 Little Chute, WI 54140-0228 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 4, Locke Lake Dam Restoration, Project No. 211 Gentlemen: You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the Locke Lake Dam Restoration Project No. 211 by adding the following work as directed by the engineer: Additions: Item Quantitv Price Amount 1. Structural steel (as indicated on the initial 7.493 Ib $0.55 $4,121:15 summary sheet of Ayres and Associates) _ ::_:�.:.� ,: TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.121.15 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS: Original Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $537,375.75 Contract Change Order No. 1 (Deletion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,306.50 No. 2 (Addition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,823.39 No. 3 (Addition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . - - - - - - . . . . . . . 2,265.57 No. 3 (Addition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.121.15 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5509.279.36 . ' 4«''k{0?.5�'�SL ��R: � 1'8:0�= : s; Lunda Construction Company Change Order No. 4 Aprii 8, 1996 Page 2 Submitted and approved by John G. Flora, Public Works Director, on the 8th day of April, 1996. Prepared by Checked by � � ! � ��C/t��- J n .�Flora, P.E. ' ctor of Public Works Approved and accepted this day of , 1996 by LUNDA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Dennis Behnke, Project Coordinator Approved and accepted this day of , 1996 by CITY OF FRIDLEY William J. Nee, Mayor William W. Bums, City Manager 18:04 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner requests that a special use permit be approved to allow expansion of an automobile agency selling or displaying nEwv and/or used vehicles. If approved, the request would allow construction of a 3,904 square foot, two-story addition to the existing showroom. The addition will allow the petitioner to remove a temporary trailer currently being used as ofFce space. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Section 205.15.01.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code requires a special use permit i�or agencies selling or displaying new and/or used automobiles. The subject property has had a long history of the property owners failing to comply with stipulations incl�xfing landscaping, installation of curb and gutter, setbacks, etc. The special use permit is an opportunity for the City to w�ork with the current property owner to rectify outstanding compliance/mitigation issues and to allow the owner to make the improvements necessary for his business operation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit, with the following stipulations: 1. The boulevard area along the front of the properry (i�cing Highway 65) shall be expanded to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback area, unless the applicant obtains a variance for the same. 2. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the west and north perimeter of the parking- area except where they may obtain a variance therefrom. 3. The petitioner shaA install additional street trees along the cerrter part of the boulevard area. Staff Report SP #96-04, Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet Page 2 , 4. No cars shall be displayed on the boulevard. 5. The petitioner shail provide curb and gutter along the east and south perimeter of the parking area within three years of the issuance of the special use P�� 6. The petitioner shall expand the boulevard area along Freside Drive to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback and provide the required landscaping, a three foot berm or hedge, to provide screening for the adjacent residential property; which work shall be completed in three ycars unless the petitioner obtains a variance therefrom. 7. All items, except for those that have a three year grace period, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8. Prior to going to the City Council, the petitioner shall work with staff to come up with reasonable assurance that those items not completed at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy will be completed within the time period as provided. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission's action. Staff is meeting with the petitioner on April 19, 1996 to follow up on Ptanning Commission stipulation #8; a report will be presented at the C'iiy Council meeting. Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: PROJECT DETAILS A special use permit to allow the expansion of a car dealership. 7501 Highway 65 N.E. West 600 feet of the North 300 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12. 287,496 square feet; 6.6 acres Flat 19.02 Staff Report SP #96-04, Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrole�t Page 3 Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Typical suburban C-3, General Shopping Center Distric� unplatted Connected Highway 65 Service Road N/A N/A Site Planning ' Issues� ADJACENT SITES - � WEST: Zoning: R-4, Mobile Home Park Land Use: Mobile homes SOUTH: Zoning: R-4, Mobile Home Park Land Use: Mobile homes EAST: Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial Land Use: Vacant NORTH: Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial Land Use: Mfg. faaliiy � Comprehensive Current zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Planning Issues: Use designations. Public Hearing No one from the audience spoke regarding the request. Comments: `19.03 Staff Report SP #96-04, Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet Page 4 REQUEST The petitioner requests that a special use permit be approved to allow expansion of an automobile agency selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles. If approved, the request w�ould allow oonstn�ction of a 3,904 square foot tvu�o-story addition to the existing showroom. PARCEL DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The subject parcel is located in the northeast comer of the irrte�section of Highway 65 and Fireside Drive. The property was first used in 1960 as a mobile home sales and display lot. In 1960, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a 49' x 72' workshop and office space. Subsequent building permit activity are as follows: 1963 - 1964 - 1965 - 1971 - 1978 - 1982 - Constnaction of a 24' x 24' detached garage Construction of a 120' x 140' mobile home sales and service building Constnaction of a 100' x 150' storage and sales addition Construction of a 920' x 232' addition, and issuance of special use peRni� SP #71-10, fior new and used car sales _ Construction of a 48' x 150' addi�on Approval of speaal use perrnit to park new vehicles on the Kurt Manufacturin9 p�''oP�Y located to the north In 1971, when the building permit was issued for the car dealership, there were several stipulations on the building permi� Those include: 1. 2. Curbing to be installed around blacktop parking and driveway areas located in frorrt of the building. Parking spaces or parking areas to be marked for cars. 3. Curbing to be provided along blacktop area along Fireside Drive sometime in the future. (A date was ►�ever established for installation of curbing along Freside Drive based on the 1971. permit.) 19.04 Staff Report SP #96-04, Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet Page 5 ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the peti�oner's proposal for the proposed expansion. The analysis foliows: Setbacks The proposed addition mee�s all of the building setback requiremerrts set forth in �e C-3, General Shopping Center district oode. In terms of the parking setbacks, the parking area does not meet the following setback requirements: 1. The hardsurface setback along the Highway 65 fror�tage road and Fireside Drive does not meet the 20 fioot requirement (13 and 7 feet). The cerrter portion of the boulevard directly in irorrt of the building along Highway 65 does meet the 20 foot setback requir�nent. 2. The five foot hardsurtace setback requirement from the rear property line is not met (0 feet). The petitioner indicated in a letter to the City dated March 29, 1994 tt�at they irrtend to repave the errtire parking iot. ._.-,:; ,_ The petitioner:,has:indicated in his:proposed plans that,he will �nstall new:curb abng ;,... ..,, _ the Highway 65 frorrtage rnad. : The ,_ > , . ,,._: , . - . p�itioner at this 'time should inst�ll the curb "so � -; •,- : that it meets the 20 feet hardsurface sE,�tback requirement or pr�ocess a variance .to ; maintain the historically established setback line. The petitioner shall also meet the setback requiremerrts along Freside Drive and along the rear property line. , Parking , Located on the properly are 586 parldng spaces, For the use, the oode requires 76 spaces. If the use were to change, the spec�lative parking ratio of one space per 200 square feet of building vuould require i96 spaces. With the pr�posed changes indicated by staff to meet the setback requiremerrts for har�d surface, the property will - be able to provide 578 spaces, a net bss of eight spac�s. The property would stiA meet the code requirements. ' - Building Code Requirements A new handicapped code tSas been adopted by the State of Minnesota which requires that access to the second story of the addition be provided. ;This may require an elevator or some tYAe of lift fio �:be installed for handicapped -access to the � °,, ' second story addition. ,;,-:'. ; .�9.05 Staff Report SP #96-04, Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet Page 6 The zoning oode aiso requires that ali structures in e�ccess of 10,000 square feet be sprinklered. The new addition will increase the existing showroom and office space over the 10,000 square fioot requiremerrt. The p�titioner wili be required to install sprinklers in the new addi�on as well as in the former showroom and office areas. Grading and Drainage The petitioner will be replacing exissting green area around the building with a concrete display area for cars. If the green space is expanded along the Highvvay 65 and Fireside Drive frontage, the Engine�ing Departmerrt will not require a grading and drainage plan. Landscaping The petitioner has submitted a landscape plan. The plan provides new hedging/screening in the boulevard area directly in frorrt of the building along Highway 65. Additional screening should be included in the boulevard areas on either side of the ceriter. There is no screening along Freside Drive. Th�e are five street trees rar�domly scattered along Fireside Drive. The pedtioner should provide additional landscaping in conjunction with the expansion of the boulevard area along Fireside Drive. Wth the concrete display area, no cars should be parked : in the boulevard. . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit, with the following stipulations: - ` 1. The boulevard area along the front of the property (facing Highway 6� shall be expanded to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback area. 2. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the errtire perimeter of the parking area. 3. The peetitioner shall install additional street trees along the center part of the boulevard area. - 4. The petitioner shall eicpand the boulevard area along Fireside Drive to meet the � 20 foot hardsurFace setback and provide the required landscaping, a three foot berrn or hedge, to provide screening for the adjacent cesidential property. ' 19.os Staff Report SP #96-04, Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet Page 7 5. No cars shall be displayed in the boulevard. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the stipulations as amended: 1. The boulevard area along the frorrt of the property (f�cing Highway 65) shall be expanded to meet the 20 ioot hardsurface setback area, unless the applicant obtains a variance for the same. 2. The petiitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the west and north perimeter of the parking area except where they may obtain a variance therefrom. 3. The petitioner shall install additional street trees along the cerrter part of the boulevard area. 4. No cars shall be displayed on the boulevard. � 5. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the east and south perimeter of the parking area within three years of the issuanoe of the - speaal . use . permit. , � _ 6. The petitioner shall expand the boulevard area along Freside Drive to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback and provide the required landscaping, a three foot bee�rmm or hedge, to provide screening for the adjacent residerrtial pr�perty; which work shall be completed in three ye�ars unless the petitioner obtains a variance therefrom. 7. AII items, except for those that have a three ye�ar grace period, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of oocupancy. 8. Prior to going to the City Council, the petitioner shall vu�ork with staff to come up with reasonable assurance that those items not oompleted at the fime of the issuance of the certificate of oocupancy will be comple�ted within the time period as provided. RECOMMENDATION " Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Commission's action: �' � �.�7 CHL�VROLET GL'�O, I1VC. 7501 N.E. Hwy. 65 � Fridley, MN 55432 •(612) 786-6100 March 29, 1994 Ms. Barbara Dacy, AICP Community Developement Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Trailer Permit Application Dear Ms. Dacy: We are requesting Council approval for the renewal of our trailer license that we use for a training center. We are a recent new company in Fridley beimg established in September of 1991, and since our opening, have made the following improvements to the property: ** Installed a sprinkler system to bring the building into compliance with the Fire Marshals recommendations. ** Spent $90,000.00 in interior improvements in remodeling the showfloor and offices. ** Spent $71,000.00 for a new paint booth to meet the new requirements for air quality standar�s. ** Spent $120,000.00 for a.new computer system. ** Spent $b,000.00 for painting the exterior of building. ** Spent $9,000.00 for seal coating the parking lot. During the next five years we have the following planned improvements with an estimated cash outlay noted for each: ** Reroof the entire building - $125,000.00 ** Install new exterior lighting - $90,000.00 ** Repave entire lot - $150,000.00 ** Enlarge the showfloor -$200,000.00 19.08 Friendly Chevrolet Geo has continued its growth since September of 1991 and listed below are some of our accomplishments: ** We were in the top 3 for sales volume for all Chevrolet Geo dealers in the metro area. ** We now employ 77 full time employees and 10 part time employees with an annual payroll of $2,592,543.00. ** Real Estate Taxes paid in 1993 were $59,661.32 ** We have made $8,000.00 in contributions in computer eqiupment to local schools as a part of the Driving for Education program. ** We have made a$2,000.00 contribution to the Anoka Animal Humane Society. We feel that we have been a good corporate citizen and would appreciate your recommendation to the Council for approval of our trailer license. Sincerely, �>C �/ _ Roger J. Mood President ' 19:09 Caity of Fridlep, inn 6431 University Ave. N. E., Mmneapolis, Minn. 55432 � � � �� . Date: November 11, 1971 PERMIT _____ _. _ _ _ �� . 12 � �� I_i= , � �_� �� {�: Owner: `_.. Vikin�Chevrolet - g�� Biagini Bros. Inc. Address ..._....�.5.p.1_Hi,gh�a�,_( 5 Ad� 1064 Payne Avenue St . Paul LOCATION OF BUILDING � - 7501 Highway �65 No �}�.�..uf.-pai�.i� -�35$�c . . �i��'O1 � ec ion �t — Block Addition or Sub-Division ._ Corner Lot ._._ .� Inside Lot Setback Sideyard Sewer Elevation _.._._ ___ Fotmdation IIevation _ DESCRIPTION OF BUILbING To be Used as: Gar Dealership �ht 120' �p� g��t gq, �_27.800 �, �, .�.�— . Front —. Depth Height Sq. Ft Cu. Fk Type of Construction Concrete Block �� $18, 000.00 To be Com leted - 3/1/72 & Frame P Stipulations: '��csl. Curbin$ to be installed around.blacktop parking & driveway areas located in front of building. � - 2. Parking's aces on a ki - " S �� ;r. � p p r ng area,to be maicted for cars. �`°� 3. Curbing to be provided along'blacktop area along Fireside Drive sometime in �• the`future. 8. Provide 30' planting stri � � P � 4. Landscape & planting to be approved by the City. directly in front of bldg. -i�,: 5. Slats in existin bull en area. � �t~ o g P 8. Provide I.5 planti.�tg strip ;>':�: 6. Provide � security lightiag. along west side of 2 parking lots 7. 10' radii on allblacktop corners. located to the N. b� S. of Bldg.�. ;� In c�onsideration of the issuance to me of a permit to construct the bu�7ding �'bed abave, I agree 'bQ �30 . 'the P�P�d wor� in accordance with the deseriptia�t abave: set forth an�}U. All ce� 1 an �� j ft' Ordinances of the city of Fridiey. - , i rem e to e su ct to f :r • Fire C es 1,,� . ;:�:_ 9:OtT'S��fe 5u�c�i'dr—�— � _ _ _ 1n consideration of the payment of a#ee of � t. is hereby, granted t,� _ Vikitlg Chevrolet o �� to construct the buil � tio� as described above ZLis permit is granted uppn the express condition that the person to whom it is granted and his agents, einployees and wori�, it� a1� �g . done in, around and upon said buiiding. or any part thereo� shall oon#orm in aII respects-to the ord�in�noe� � FridleY, Minnesota regarding locatioq construction, alteraticx� maintenance, repair and moving of�s�d �anves at3' ]imits and this permit may be revoked at any Lme upon violation of any oi the�►IsIo� a� � i� .'��!��t� ' H�ak Muhich �� NOTICE: � - This p�rmit doas not cover the construction, installatioa foe:wiring, Plwaben9. gas hssting, sswp oe wahr, d� wh to sN I th� BuiWiag Inspsclor for separate psrmits for t6ss� iMms, I��. �� . :; ,; S�� 96-04 ' NW 'Jl3l� �c� � R y 99 J1MF� 3N 109L 5'� �� y 'a�nl� 60�� IG��7�la 1��1Qa�70F�� ! ��i�� Q a NOLLIa�F/ 3JIi�0 NIOOHMOHS a.�a ��$ ��ag � ! EEII '"W Q _ �. � �A �� fi� � 1+ 1; I� t) �; il i, �� 3� �i; � �� i f, _____ � ____ _______ � � _ e c — � •r.��Y��• iiiiiiii• „�.. � �ft1W11� -��M .�� . ��.. �� 19.12 49��,�,��d�g ' ��, ,� � � i, � � � _� � � � N _�: � ��ii� �� : �� g�� NW 'A3� �� °9b� aO�J� �O�1G�b9 �l�10b�70�J� �l _ � rawaav �o woo�u►oNs :n-� '_ ;, r � f , ;,, _ � �:. SP' � 96 04' . y�� iR M � Y ,' � �� i ; 4 � � �A ��i8 ! � - � � �� a � � �e�� EE� _ a � � �� :�r $ �� t�� :: LL �� : � � �. � _ _-� - - � � C�l Q \I NW,'�3'141li� �� °a�10 �0�� 10�1G��Iba ��1ab�i0�1�1 NOW�(Td 3��0 WOOHMOH3 �; i� �. � •i �.'�`� . d ::�;: � � � it �JI II 1 I I I I 11 11 I I " � '� Q II � H 11 � �1 I � 1 �� 19.14 � � � - SP ��96-04 � �e �oo �� 1� �� ' ��__�� a i � 6� e � EE�q �W a�4 i !�� 63�� a �� E utw � � i r ::f � � ��i ��' �1� � 1� : m ni � ! i � City of Fridley .�I I�;.�I��I'� �� \ I1�� I TO: William W. Bums, City Manager �� 9i FROM: John G. Flora,� Public Works Director DATE: Apri122, 1996 SUBJECT: Locke Lake Petition PW96-083 I received a petition from the residents east of the railroad tracks on Locke Lake. Their petition proposes to join with the City and the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) in funding the removal of sediment from the back waters of Locke Lake during the RCWD Locke Lake sediment removal project. The petitioners propose to contribute $3,000 each, amounting to a total of $18,000. They request that the City match that amount in accordance with our storm water policy and ;..;: ` also seek the RCWD's participation in their str.eam bed and erosion program of 30%. � This� ":. would encourage thc RCWD to contribute $15,428 for a net amount of $51,428 worth of sediment removal. I believe that this is a considerable amount of money and would more than adequately cover the amount of sediment that has accumulated in the back waters of Locke Lake. Recommend the City Council receive the attached petition and direct the City staff to communicate with the Rice Creek Watershed District to participate in an addendum to the Locke Lake sediment removal project. JGF:cz Attachment `2�.07 � RIC� CR��C, 1�.LAZ.�,. 1�TO�T,� .s:)lnITIO�' CiN •� FRIDLEY—COUI.ITY •� ANOKA � �. i �d..%/ir�'Ak�af�Yyr.�tq!'Sd�n6 ! - n.n- ..w.+. � ue.n r - a - - � a � r � � - � +� rn , A �� ..:-.. \S. � � ��w . F I�t� ; �� i0UTl0T 011E F k � r i b �� f: - � `i; � � 4y '1. � 1 ��1 i � � �. 1 t O .,`�`` ey � �YQ: I �'�� , '� � tl f, �� , ,�. '. s� ,:-t �; � � � � �1`� .•., � �i , , 1� s \ '� � � s : � , • ` � t_,�.; ,� � . � j � . JR `.. � •i� � ;`., � � Y�,,,. �� _ ��.i� .�` , � � � �°• I • �• ~p' , •� ,''.M�; ;y: ; 1 . •'..,� . � ._ ,� - . :_; , a • �.� :: �i i � • . � v. _. •�.a `/ • �,a • ,.. •�[.;• r .�-.f. }�`�'..��t P � � . a : .�..-.� / 1�Q�F� ;� �� r .� • � -:� P�O � � � ... � +� � � O M� w .� ✓ I `9 l .�"`.�.� �w , j!C; ♦•s 1 ��.s'� �� i �• � • �' � = S--� ._.�;:'"aai1'i:. l ►� "�`v� � � � �.�� ---- — .M�'. ��Y..nr,c iNe.vNJ fSe%ws iF, Ti�aylv0,b,.Q.{�r u i - ... _ _ 2�■02 . � � A,� , � " I `'� � a � .� ^I � '_M"":� � �1� :..:-_-; � ,. , � , q k s Q y�� g� �i' �� ;_: �. 3 �. ,<� " �i�Q t5 � M `� u( i` � �a. S�� : � W � I t g� W i � � �I �'�'✓i�, • � # � I ti ��, . N• i ;^. � � ! - � " i . i , �. � j � � � �� .r.w+erh o a�, a,p�+w,N,a,t : �. Q � � � J 4 � � � � L �? 2 � _Q . � W U,1 �� 0 March 15, 1996 To: John Fiora - Director of Public Works, City of Fridley We, the undersigned, residents and property owners on the east side of Locke Lake (to the east of the Burlington Northern Right of Way), understand that the proposed Locke Lake sedimentation removal project has been approved and will proceed on the main body of Locke Lake to the west of the Burlington Northern Right of Way sometime in 1996. In addition, we understand that the location of the sediment collection basin will also be placed to the west rather than the east of the railroad right of way as originally proposed. This being the case, and in order to facilitate the removal of a portion of the sediment from Lock Lake to the east of the railroad right of way, we submit the following proposal: We hereby petition the City of Fridley to consider the following request: In return for our agreement to participate through individual special assessments not to exceed $3,000.00 each, the City of Fridley would provide matc.hing funds and also seek additional moneys that may be available from the Rice Creek Watershed Streambed and Erosion Program to fund sediment removal :from the east side of the Burlington Northern Right of Way and, further, to re-open the former creek channel on the east side to permit water flow and depths approximating conditionS which existed circa 1970. This sediment removal should be accomplished in conjunction with the project approved for Locke Lake to the vvest of the Burlington Northern Right of Way. This petition replaces our original petition dated November 21, 1992, approved by the Fridley City Council on Decemb.er 7, 1992. ---`'f" � 2_l� -� - - --��2�X --- ------ -_ � - - - � --- ---- _ --`, Z. � � L�� '�%�_ - ----------�--�------��-- - _ � "`t (,1�u-d--- 2 � v `j� � c � ��-,� �c � 1 V� --- ---- ---- --------- ------------------- --��-------- � ��Z � ��;.�--�` �`�- - �- - -------�- ----------------- -�---------- � � - ---- --� _��Q J�e-��e�%�J�l��------------- - - --- - -,� - ----- - --- - - �y�- ---- %--G�'�'�------ -- _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _� 20.03 April 10, 1996 Rice Creek Watershed District Attn: Eugene Peterson, Chairman Suite 330 Arden Plaza Office Bldg 3585 N Lexington Ave Arden Hills MN 55126-8056 Subject: Locke Lake Excavation Dear Chairman Peterson: PW96-046 The City of Fridley has received a petition from six residents on the back waters of Locke Lake east of the Burlington Northern railroad (BNR,R) tracks. Their request is to the City and the Rice Creek Watershed District to assist in fundi.ng the removal of sediment from the Locke Lake area east of the BNRR. The residents have agreed to contribute $18,000 and the City is agreeable to match that amount. To adequately oover the cost of the sediment removal, we are requesting that the Rice Creek Watershed District, in accordance with their Stream Bed and Bank Stabilization Program, participate in the excavation `of sedi.ment from the Locke Lake back` `water. This Rice Creek Watershed District request would amount to $15,428 or a total project cost of $51,428. It is also requested that the Rice Creek Watershed District incorporate an addendum to th.e Locke Lake exca.vation project for this additional excavation. It is understood that the necessary permits would have to be modified. Therefore, request that the Rice Creek Watershed District process those actions to schedule this work in conjunction with the Locke Lake project. Request the Rice Creek Watershed District favorably consider this addendum to the Locke Lake excavation project. Sincerely yours, John G. Flora ` Director of Public Works JGF:cz 2�.�4 Cxty of Fridley TO: William W. Bums, City Manager ��,f� PW96-088 FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director Jon Wilczek, Asst Public Works Director � DATE: Apn122, 1996 SUBJECT: Change Oxder No. 1 to Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 246 Included. within the Stonybrook Creek Improvement Project is excavation of sediment from Locke Lake. When the project was originally bid, it was intended to remove the sediment during the winter while there was still deep frost in the ground and out on the lake bed Due to unforeseen delays with the pernuts, the contractor was not able to proceed with the lake excavation until March 27, 1996. Investigation of the site On March showed fhat the lake bed could not support heavy truck °�� traffic and it would be necessary to consttuct a temporary roadway to eacavate the lake. The contractor was directed to provide us a price to construct a temporary roadwaq.° He submitted a price of $8.75 per lineal foot for 8001ineal feet of roadway for a total cost of $7,000. The original contract amount was $320,596.15. With the additional $7,000, the total contract cost will be $327,596.15. Recommend the City Council approve Change Order No. 1 Schield Construction Company for the Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 246 for a tota.l amount of $7,000. Jw/JGF:cz Attachment ' 21.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEER.ING DEPAR,TMENT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FR,IDLEY, MN 5�432 Apri122, 1996 Schield Construction Company 13604 Ferris Avenue Apple Valley MN 5�124 SUBJ�CT: Change Order No. 1, Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 246 Gentlemen: You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 246 by adding the following work: Construction of a 20 ft wide road consisting of 6 in. Of Class 5 base and geotextile fabric on the lake bed of Locke Lake for excavation of sediment for use at Stonybrook Creek. This work is required due to the unforeseen lack of frost and instability in. the e�cisting lake bed. A dit'o 1. tem Construction of haul road on the Locke Lake bed �� . : ► • : � : uantit SOO LF � . $8.75 �.� • _ � $7,000.00 � TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7,OOU.00 Original ContractAmount . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $320,596.i5 Contract Additions - Change Order No.l ................................. 7,000.00 REVISED CONTR.ACT AMOUNT �327.596.15 2 i.�2 Schield Construction Company Change Order No. 1 Apri122, 1996 Page 2 Submitted and approved by John G. Flora, Public Works Director, on the 22nd day of April, 1996. ��'1 e y � j/' � ` � ,3 G ecked by ' .> ; i9 � % �i! : � G. Flora, P.E. Director of Public Works ' o Approved and accepted thiss�� day of �� , 1996 by SCHIELD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY . %�� .�C1� f: . - . �� ' 1%�� G�'''`''� Thomas Schield, President Approved and accepted this 22nd day of April, 1996 by CITY OF FRIDLEY William J. Nee, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager 21:03 City af Fridley TO: William W. Bums, City Manager jZ FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director DATE: SUBJECT: Apri122, 1996 Mississippi River Flood Elevation Study PW96-090 We have received an agreement from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to share in a study of the Mississippi River flood elevation through its flow in Fridley as well as conducting a feasibility study to determine the cost effective method of upgrading the emergency levee along the Mississippi R�;ver. The agreement calls for the City sharing 50% in the cost of these studies. We have received bids from firms #or the two studies. >. ...{ SEH has submitted a bid for the Mississippi River flood study of $12,000 which would be : completed in approximately six months. Barr Engineering has submitted a proposal for - t the levee study of $18,000. Since there is some concem about the actual flood elevation, recommend the City join in the DNR agreement to conduct a Mississippi River flood study and awazd the contract to - SEH for an amount of $12,000 ($6,000 by the City and $6,000 by the DNR). Once the flood elevations have been established, it would then be appropriate to determine if an altemate type of levee is practicable and request a DNR grant for the second study at a later date. Recommend the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the DNR agreement for the Mississippi River flood elevation study and approve the contract with SEH to complete that work for a total cost of $12,000. JGF:cz Attachment ' ��.0 � ; r� , 612 296 D445 ,�. � DidR I�ATERS � Fax -b12-2�-0445 Aug 22 ' 95 12 � 36 P. 02109 STATE OF MINNESOTA bEPARTMENT OF NATURAI, RESOURCES FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the State af Minne�ata, c'xC'�lI1CJ by artci t��c��xgh the Cammisslbi7er of Natural Resources, hereinafter ref�rred to as the "State", and the City vf Fridley, hereinafter referxed ta as tbe "City". WZTNE5SETH: WHEREAS, th� City has an emergency levee along Rivearview Terrace to protec-t 67 homes Prom fiaoding on th.e Mississzppi River; and W�IEREAS, the City desires to upgrade the levee to pravid� 100- year fload protection in accorda�nce with Sta�e and Fed�ral Emergency Manag�ment Agency (FEMA) Regulations; and WFIEREAS, the ciiy is hiring a consulting engineering firm to � assist them in identifying and resolving their fl.00ding problems; and E .� . ,,. W�R.EAS, the`-State is autharized`by;'M.S. 103F�`�i'61, to-�make` cost-�-�. ;, ° . shar� grar�t funds available ta resolv�e t].00dinq problems; and WHEREAS, �th,e State has- determined that the floodi.ng probiem should receive priori.ty cansidexation far flood da�uaqe r�duatian grant assistance; N�W TH�REFaRE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereta: I. W'ORK A. The City shall conduct a study to determine tiie praper �.00 year flood elevati.an for the Mississxppi River throuqh the City. If the 10o-y�ar flood elevatian is deteri�tin�d ta be higix�r ar lower than th� c�rrent elevatian specxfied by t.he FE�A, the City shall apply for a revision to its:Flood rnsurance'Study and Rate Maps: B. The City shal], canduct a feasibilitg study to determine the most cast effective means;to:;;upgrade the emergency levee under ;22.�2 ■ `■ <� V1L L7V V44J �hJR �JHTERS Fax � 612-296-0445 f�g 22 ' 95 12 � 37 P. 03�09 Riverview Terr�ce incl.uding the possible use of a bentanite care ar other means td xeduce the permeability of the lev�e. Twa copies of all reports r�sulting from these studi�s shall be �ravided -�o the State upon completion. ZI. GRANT The State sha�l pay to the City 50� af the total project c.osts or $15,00U_o0, whichever is less, for the Work. Payments ta the city by the State will be made as invoices are submitted by the City evidencing pa�rment made for expenses incurred. Invoices wi11 be subm�tted far double the requested payment amount ta demonstrate bo�th thE local and state share. Ten percent of the grant amaunt shall be r�served far the finai payment which will be mad� after the work has been campleted aryd if costs and Wdrk far which invoices are submitted are sa�.isfactor�r to the Conmiissianer aP Natural Resources. All bxllings shall first be sent to Area Hydrologist Tom HQV�y, DNR - bi^vYSi.an af Waters, 1200 warner Road, St. Patil, MN 55106 for approva� and pracessxng. III. SPEGIAL PROVISIpNS A. PRdCUR�MENT • Th� City shall fallow all app�icable laws in the _ pracuremer�t of goods anc� services for the Work ger�armed under this Agreement. B. NQbTDISCRIMINATiON 1. Th� City and its agents and contraatars in the performa�ce under this Agre�naerct shall not engage ir� any discriminatory employment practices and shall in all respects comply with M�nn�sota Statute, Chapter 36�, Section 181.5g (1988) and all app�.icab].� rul�s and subsequent ame�dments thereto_ Minnesota St�.tute Section 181.59 pravi.des: E�trery con�ract for or on behalf of the State of 22.03 b1L Lyb V44� ' DNR �IATEF.S Fax�612-29b-0445 Aug 22 '95 12�37 P.04�09 Minriesota, or any City, for mat�rials, sugp�ies or canstructiion shall cantain provisions by which t�� City or contractor agrees: (a} That, in the hiring of common or skilled lab�r for the perfarmance af �ny work und�r any contract, ar any suY�contract, no contractor, mat�rial supplier or v�ndor shall, by reason of race, creed or color discriminate ag�ins� the person or persons who are ci�izens of ��e United States ar resid�nt aliens who are qualif ied and availabl� to perform the work ta which the emp1ayment relat�s; (b) That na contractor, materiai supplier or vend�r shall, in any manner, discriminate agai�st, intimidate or prevent the employment of any person ox persons iden�ified by clause (1} of this section fram the performance o� work under any con�ract �n account of race, cr�ed or color; � That a violatian of M. S. 18�.59 is a misdemea�nor; and; (dj Th�t thi�•Aqreement may be car,cel�d ar terminated by the State or City or any other pexson authari2ed to gxant the contracts for emplayment�, and all money due, or to become due hereunder may be forfeited tor violation af the terms or conditior�s of �his Agreement or contract made pursuant th�reto. 2. Use of Praject Facilities The city and its ag�nts and contractors in th� operativn af the projc�Gt shali �rtvt deny any person th� full and equal erajoyment of its services, facilities and accommodations becaus� of race, colox�, creed, re�igion, dxsabil.ity, national origin or sex, �nd shail 22.04 0 !9 612 Lyb U445 L�NR I�ATERS Fax = 612-2�-0445 Aug 22 ' 95 12 = 38 P. OS/09 compllr in all. other respects wYth M�.nnesota Statue Section 363. 03 (1988j and all applicable rules and subsequent amendm�nts thexeto. C. PREVAYLING WAGES 1. To tha extent that the Work assisted in this Agreement canstitutes a"project" within the meaning o� Minn�so�a Statute 177.42, Subd. 2(1988j, the prevailing wage provisions of Minrtesota Statutes 177.41-17y.43 {1988) shall apply. Thex�fox�e, th� City agrees to include in any contract it may eriter into for work qualif�ing as a project, which is funded in whole or part by this grant, the following terms required by Minnesota Statute 177.43, 5ubd _ I. _ . (a) Na laborer or mechanic employed directly an the project work site by the cantractar or any subcontractoz-, agent or other person doing or contracting to do a�.]. Qr a part of the work of the proj�ct, is permitted or required to work mare hours than the� prevai�,ing haurs of labor: unless r•- paid far all haurs in excess ot the prevailing hours at a rate of at least 1-iJ2 tim�s the haurly basic rate of pay; and (b} A laboxex or mechanic may not be paid a lesser rate af wrages than the prevailing wage rate in the same or most si.milar trade or accupation in the area. 2. Minnesata Statutes 177.41-177.43 do not apply ta wage rates arxd hour� of emplayment of laborers or mechani.cs who process or manufacture mater�als ar products or ta the delive�r 0� materials or products by or for commerc�,al establishmenis which have a fixed place of business fram which t,hey regularly supply proCessed ar manufactured 3nateria�s ax' produ�s. � 22.05 . _ bl1 Lyb U445 ` L�tdF I�I�TEP,S Fax � 612-296-0445 Aug 22 ' 95 i2 = 38 P. 06/09 3. Minnesota Statutes I77.41-177.43 do apply ta laborers or mechanics who deliver mineral aggregate such as sand, gravel ar stonE which is incorporated into the work under the contract hy depositing the material substantxally a.n place, dxrectly or through spreaders, from the transparting vehicle. . 4. The City agrees to conform with the provisions of i�tinnesota Statute 177.43, Subd. 3, which requires that any contr�Ct tor a praject which is funded in whole or part by this grant must sp�ci�ically st2�te the prevailing hou�s af labar and hourly basic rates of pay. 5. The Gity sha11. abtain the proper rate from the D�partment af Labor and Indus�ry. If necessary, the City or its con�x-actvr shal�. assist in vbtaining decisions on missing or incorrect rates. If the Department af Labor and Industry has not promulgated a wage rate for a particula►r trad�, th� contractor is n�v�rthel�ss respansibl.e for paying the prevailing wage rate at the trade in question. 6. Minnesota statute 177_43, Subd. 5, provides that if a contractor, subcontractor or agent pays any labor�r, warker ar mechanic employed directly on the praject sx�e a l�ser wage far work done under the contract than tlze prevailing wage rate is guilty of a misdemeanor. Ea�ch day that the violation continues is a separa�te of:Eens�. Each agent ar subcontractor sha�ll fuxnish to the cantractor and City evidence af camplia�nce with Minnesota Statute 177.43. 7. Nothing in this Agreement shail b� construed as pr�hibiting the contractor or subcontractor irom paying the negotiated wage rate pro�crided it is higher than the prevailing wage r-a te . $. 1�Iinnesota Statutes 177.41-177.43 da not apply tn this Agreem�nt or work performed pursuant thereto under which: ZZ.fls b12 296 U4U5 ` Iit•JR l� IATERS Fax : 612-296-0445 Aug 22 ' 95 12 � 39 P. 07i09 (aj the estimated total GOSt af completinq the project is less than $z,5Q0 and only one trade or occupatian �s required to complete it, or (b) the estimated total cost of completing the project is less than $25,Ob0 and more than one trade or occupation is required to complete it. 9. The City understands that the Departmerit of Lab�r and Inciustry �nforces Minnesota Statute 177.43. The Departm�nt may d�mand and the City and its contractors and subcontractars must furzt�sh t� the bepartment copies af any and a11 payrolls and alI recards r�lating to wages paid labarexs ar mechan�cs on work to which 1Kinnes�ta Statutes 177.41-177.44 apply. D. ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT Th� City shall maintaxn b�oks, recards, documents and other evidence pertaininq to the costs and expense of implementing the Agr�em�nt to the extent, and in such detail., and wiii acaurately ref2ect alZ net costs, direct and indirect, of labor, materials, equipment, supplies, services and other casts and expenses of what�ver natur�. �'2xe City shall use ger�ea�aZ].y accept�d accounting principles. Al1 racards shall iQe retained fvr six years after submission of the planning work provided for in this Agreemen� to the �tate. The Commissioner, his represen�a�ive or th� legislative auditar shall have the right ta exaiaine boaks, recards, documents and other evidence, and accounting pracedures and practices, sufficient to refl�ct properly ali direct and indirect costs. The City shall make available at the office at all reasonable times and before �nd during the pexiod of records retention proper facilities far such �xaminati�n and audi.t. E_ INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HA,RI"�LE$S The City agrees to indemnify- and save and hold the 22.�%. 612 296 0445 � �NR ��1TERS Fax�612-296-0�45 Aug 22 '95 12�39 P.08i09 - State, its agents and employees harmless from axiy and all c].aims or caus�s of action arising �ram perfarmance of the Agreement by the City, its agents, contractors or employees. This clause shall not b� construed to bar any legal remedies the City �oaay have for the State�s failure to fulfill xts ab].igations pursuant to this Agreement. F. ANTI-TRUST PROVISION The City hereby assigns to the State of Minnesota any z�nd all alaims for avercharges as to goods and/ar services protrided �.n cvnnection with tliis Agreement resul�ing.from anti�rust va.alations ��hich arise wn.der the anti�rust laws af the United States and the �ntitrust laws of the State of Minnesota. IV. TERM This Agre�ment shall become effective when all signatures xequired ha'tre be�n abtained and when the funds have be�rt encumbered, dnd shall ContlAtl� in ePfect until the autharized work is completed ar until June 30, 1996, whichever is earli.er. This Agreeanent may be amended in writing from time tc time by �he mutual agreement of the State and �he City. V. TERMINATIQN The Stat� may terminate this Agre�m�nt "with cause�'. "With c�use" sha�.l mean that the City is net performing the Work in accordance with the terms of the �greeznent or the Wark is not b�ing performed ta the satisfaction of the State. If this Agresxnent is so tex�nxnat�d, th� State shall �n1y be liable to pay far 50� of the Work faund acceptable. In �he event of termznation af this Agreement as heretofore provided, the City shall have seven (7) days prior wx�itt�n notiCe and if the Agreement is being tex�minated "with cause" the City shall, have until the date of termination ta show cause why the Agreement sh,ould 22.08 � � 612 296 Q445 " �u`�R I�iATERS Fax : 612-296-OA45 Aug 22 ' 95 12 = 40 P. 09/09 not be termihated. If it is detarmined by the State that the Gity's - default w�s b�yand its cantrol or it was not otherwise in default, s:' r. the Agree�u�nt sha11 nat be tarminated. ZN WITNESS WHERECjF, the parti�s hereto have executed this Agreemeri� as aE the day first above written. � CITY aF FRID�EY As to fprm and execution by the ATTORNEY GENE�2AL �3Y : l�tayar BY : ` DATE' TITLE• �Y' DATE• City Cl�rlt DATE• STATE AGENCY OR IaEPARTMENT BY• ,-., ' �� TITLE• L'�ATE • • ,; `' 22.09 � ,�.- . � ... . 0 'i �_� - - 3535 VADNAlSCENTER ORNE. 2Y)0 SEH CENTER. ST. PAUL. MN 55110 612 490-2000 800325-2055 ARCHlTECTt/RE - ENGINEERING • ENVrRONMENTAL - TRANSPORTATION May 4,1995 Re: MDNR Grant Request Flood Plain and Betonite Core Studies Friclley, Minnesota SEH File No. P-FRIDL9503.00 Mr. john Flora Director of Public Works City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Mr. Flora, � SEH is pleased to respond to your request for fee information with respeet to the referenced projects. The following is a summary of the general work scope and associated cost: Flood P1ain Study Project Scope: 1. Initial meeting with the City. . y. , 2. Meet with and : obtain hydrologic/hydraulic information; from _the MDNR, Corps of Engineers and �:TSGS. ;�'�� ` ., ' : � 3. . Obtain FIS information/document. 4. Obtain mapping of the project area from the City or agency listed item L 5. Contact Hennepin County regarding operation of the Coon Rapids Dam. 6. Review information in-house and with City. 7. Write summary report. Estimated cost to conduct of this study is $12,000. This cost is based on work being completed in 1995. Betonite Roadway Core Study Project Scope: � 1. Site Visit 2. Obtain reproducible as-built drawings of the entire length of roadway from the City. We anticipate these drawings will provide information on and location of the City and private utilities within the roadway right-of-way. SHORT ELLIOTT � HENORlCKSON /NC. M/NNE.4POLIS MN 1>' � MN CNIPPEVYA FALLS, W/ MADlSON. WI �2�i� City of Fridley May 4, 2995 Page 2 3. Compare elevation of 100 yeaz water surface on the Mississippi River _ to that of the roadway section. 4. Review need for roadway modifications based on water surface elevations. 5. Obtain previous boring information along the roadway from the City. 6. Obtain original roadway cross sections from the City. 7. Review roadway cross section and insitu materials for levee suitability. 8. Review applicability #or using betonite sheets or slurry wall for seepage cutoff. - 9. Review seepage concerns and need for a landward toe drain during high water in the river. 10. Review utility penetration concerns through the betonite (or pvc liner). 11. Review dewatering considerations for installation of cutoff based on boring information� and general soils maps. 12. Review existing groundwater levels based on USGS maps and soil boring information. 13. Review meeting with the City. Estimated cost to conduct this study is $18,000. This cost is based on SEH being able to obtain adequate existing information and work being rnmpleted in 1995. • ,, . .. • The following tasks are not included in the studies. 1. Soil borings. 2. Installation and monitoring of piezometers. 3. Site surveys. 4. Hydrologic/hydraulic modeIing. We are available to review this letter with you at your convenience. Sincerely, ""�'�,v� • !.� � �� Mark L. Lobermeier, P.E. Manager, Water Resources � a �22.11 . � Earr Engineering CamP�Y May 31, 1995 Mr. John G. Flora Director of Public Works City of Fridley Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Flora: 8300 N� C��'Oriwe 555 w�t2�th S� M�apoCq MN55437-f028 F1�6�g, MN5574o" Phone: �1� 832-2600 Phone: {218J 262-3465 F� �� so� F� ai8) 262�460 In response to your April 20, 1995 letter, John Dickson asked me to look in#o the background of the problem and assist you in applying for the MDNR flood damage reduction grant. You said that by the end of May you needed the cost of two studies. The following sections describe a preliminary scope of work for the two studies and a preliminary cost estimate for the work. . Flood Level Studv � ,. �....��:, ,_ �. <T :, - , ,�; .. The flood level studp would be intended to -review and, if possible, lower the official 100- year flood discharge and 100-year flood level of the Mississippi River at Fridley. Due #o FEMA's coordination requirements it may be necessary to study and revise flood levels in the entire reach from Coon Rapids to Minneapolis. Similaz vvork was done by the Corps of Engineers in their Section 205 Reconnaissance Study in 1987. That study estimated #he 100- year flood as 89,700 cfs, compazed with the 97,000 cfs calculated in the 1971 Flood Plain : Information Study. This would correspond to a reduction of about 0.47 feet in flood level. Subsequent dry years may have further Iowered the estimated flood dischazges. The first task would be to review the flood frequency curves in the affected area. The period of record spans several similar gage locations so part of the work would involve determining whether any adjustments are required for area or other gage characteristics. I assume that both our 1971 work #or the Corps of Engineers and the Corps 1987 study will already have completed a majority of this work. In the next step, peak discharge� for the entire period of record would be entered into the HEC-FFA flood frequency analysis program and u.sed to predict new flood discharges for the affected reach of river. You should be aware that FEMA regulations require that if the old flood discharges are not outside the 50% confidence li.mits of the new distribution, no change will be made by FEMA. ��r22.12 Mr. John G. Flora May 31, 1995 Page 2. Once the flood dischazges have been determined, the HEC-2 model of the river will be obtained from the MDNR and new discharges entered into the model. The model will be run and new flood levels calculated. It is our assumption that only the discharges would have to be changed in the model. . Once the discharges and flood levels have been calculated the hydrology would have to be submitted to the Interagency Hydrology Review Committee for review and approval. This review might take three to nine months to complete. Once approved, the revisions would be submitted to FEMA for review by their rnntract reviewer. This would take at least one month and more likely several months to complete. We estimate that this work would mst approximately $10,000 and would take approximately one year to complete from authorization to proceed. Levee Studv We have obtained and briefly reviewed the October, 1987 Reconnaissance Report by the Corps of Engineers. As we understand it, you would like a review of the proposed 3,600 foot earthen levee to see whether the cost of removal of rubble could be avoided. The method you proposed is a bentonite cutoff wall in lieu of rubble removal and fill replacement. This review would be a preliminary analysis comparable to the work previousiy done by the Corps in #he Reconnaissance Study. The goal will be to evaluate the feasibiiity of the approach (i.e., cutoff wall with existing inplace nzbble shell) from a structural and economic standpoint based on a modest amount of data collection. To make a preliminary evaluation of the suitability of such an impermeable core and the cost savings that might be obtained from it, the first steps would be to obtain the cost estimating quantities and preliminary designs used by the Corps of Engineers in their study. A critical variable is the amount of rubble and fill that was found in the borings and the Corp's methods for estimating the total extent of fill in the existing levee. City information relative to the placement of. the rubble in the levee will be valuable at this poin� In addition, we will need copies of maps and aerial photography of the levee project site that nught be available. The second step would be to review the geotechnical design of the proposed levee and understand the design assumptions in the Corps study. Again, we assume that geotechnical data will be readily available from the Corps. � The third step will be to rnllect additional field information on the existing fill, including - representative cross sections of the existing emergency levee and roadway. We will also take three additional soil borings in the vicinity of boring 85-2MA taken July 25, 1985. The borings should be advanced through the fill to the native soils with sampling of fill material and native soils at five-foot intervals. The samples will be analyzed for grain size and Atterberg limits. _ Once soils information has been obtained a revised design incorporating a seepage cutoff trench will be analyzed. A bentonite cutoff and other less expensive cutoffs will be 22.13 Mr. John G. Flora May 31, 1995 Page 3. evaluated. Potential for slope stability failure and seepage/piping will be analyzed and a depth, width and configuration of the cutoff wall needed to meet FEMA requirements will be determined. The final step will be to revise the Corps of Engineers cost estimate based on new quantities and the revised design. Unit costs for the estimate will be updated and a new overall project cost will be determined. The anticipated output from this study will be a short report containing the cross-section and soil boring information, the proposed revised design of the levee, results of the seepage and stability analyses and a preliminary construction cost estimate. We do not anticipate studying the problems of internal drainage or easement acquisition at this time. We estimate that this work would cost approximately $18,000 and would take approximately three months to complete from authorization to proceed. I hope this will help you in your budgeting and grant application. Again, I would like to emphasize that these estimates are preliminary and that we should continue our discussions of scope and schedule at such time as the City receives authorization for the grant. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact me or John Dickson. Sincerel , , � / Nels P. Nels�n c: john Dickson 22.14