The URL can be used to link to this page

11/04/1996 - 4866i OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ', COUNCIL MEETING � NOVEN�ER 4, 1996 ' � � anror Fa�a.�r FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET Mvnday, Navembe�c 4, 1996 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER �., �, . '`� � �,,T ( L�.�c�'�' L-`v� l�/a� %��`�n v L'N�' �'.A,,'� �-f� v�'�l �;'� � v ,� L � , --- . y -�� .� � � . . .. .., � t��.�1 ��sk� C�r2 3 �„��,�t ��_�.i-� �1`C��l-1�,�3 i , : ;, ,.- � � , � � r r ,'�;. s _ . /' � �� ,� , , i� TL- � " �� " ti �"� �t �;�1;��=� � � �" �i ;�' rlC� t�,�_ '� y � � � , �'�-- , � � �'�� f ��' C �4ti, �j�. �i � I � I P �► FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF a � oF NOVEMBER 4, 1996 FRIDLtY The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PROCLAMATION: Home Care Month: November, 1996 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of October 28, 9996 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.06 of the City Charter Declaring Certain Property to be Surplus and Authorizing the Sale Thereof (Southeast Corner of the Intersection of 7th Street and 61 st Avenue) (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.02 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1996 Page 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA• OLD BUSINESS (CONTtNUEDj� Second Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," by Amending Sections 205.17.01.0 and 205.18.01.0 and Adopting New Sections 205.17.01.C(13) and 205.18.01.C(14) (Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #96-01, by Northco Corporation) .................... NEW BUSINESS: ...........2.01 -2.04 First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting Fair Housing Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.04 First Reading of an Ordinance Considering an Amendment to the City Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," by Adding Sections 205.05.02 and 205.05.07,Amending Sections 205.05.03 and 205.05.04, and Renumbering Consecu#ive Sections Where Appropriate . . . .................4.01 - 4.10 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4,1996 Page 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA• NEW BUSINESS: First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 211, Entitled "Subdivision" by Amending Section 211.04.01, Deleting Section 211.03.01.0 and F, and Amending Section 211.04.02 and Renumbering Consecutive Sections .............................. Claims Licenses . 5.01 - 5.23 ....................................6.01 .. ..................................7.01-7.10 Estimates .....................................8.0'I ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM, VfSITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) FRIDLEY CITY COUNCiL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1996 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Assessment for the East River Road Improvement Project No. ST. 1994 - 03 � (Continued from October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 9.01 - 9.03 Assessment for the Main Street lmprovement Project No. ST. 1994 - 08 (Commercial) (Continued from October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.01 - 10.03 Assessment for the Main Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1994 - 08 (Residential) (Continued from October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 11.01 -11.03 Assessment for 1995 Street Improvement Project No. 1995 - 1& 2(Continued from October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.01 - 12.03 FRlDLEY ClTY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1996 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED� Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #96-02, by Noah's Ark, to Amend the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning," by Amending Sections 205.47.01.0 (8), 205.08.0'I.0 (8), 205.09.01.0 (17), and 205.14.01.A (14), to Provide Parking Standards for Nursing Homes, Convaiescent Homes and Homes for the Elderly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 - 13.09 Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #96-03, by Roland Stinski, to Allow Professional Jewelry Services as a Permitted Use in CR-1 Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0'! - 14. 9 3 OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 12 of the Fridley City Code in its Entirety and Adopting a New Chapter 12, Entitled "Tobacco Products" and Amending Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "General Provisions and Fees" .........................................15.01-15.46 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1996 Page 6 OLD BUSINESS �CONTINUED� Resolution Confirming Assessment for East River Road Improvement Project No. ST. 1994 - 03 (Tabled October 28, 1996) .........................................16.01-16.03 Resolution Confirming Assessment for Main Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1994 - 08 (Commercial) (Tabied October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.01 - 17.03 Resolution Confirming Assessment for Main Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1994 - 08 (Residential) (Tabled October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.01 - 18.03 Resoiution Confirming Assessment for 1995 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 - 1& 2(Tabled October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - • - • • - - . . . . . . . . . . 19.01 - 19.03 FRiDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1996 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS: Variance Request, VAR #96-22, by Kim J. Miiler of Miller Funeral Home, to Reduce the Rear Yard Setback from 40 Feet to 33 Feet to Allow Construction of a 22.7' x 60' Addition to a Storage Building; to Reduce the Front Yard Setback on a Corner Lot from 80 Feet to 37 Feet fo Allow the Construction of a 30.5' x 66' Addition to an Existing Funeral Home, Generally Located at 6210 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �►�i�.�K� Motion to Approve a Contract with Springsted Incorporated to Provide Continuing Disclosure Services for the City of Fridley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.01 - 21.07 Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of the City's $2,935,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996 A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.01 - 22.27 Informal Status Reports ADJOURN: .............................. 23.01 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL M�ETING OF NOVEIV�BER 4, 1996 � � :�.2r�.� � CITY OF FRlDLEY The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission ar access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disabitity, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to pubiic assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to a11ow individuals �vith disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one �veek in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGlANCE: PROCLAMATION: Home Care Month: November, 1996 � ; � `%l. � .� _ �-� ` APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Councii Meeting of October 28, 1996 r��,,2.i.�v-j'y � �i � z_» ., �-Z�`�� ,� APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.06 of the Ciry Charter Declaring Certain Property to be Surplus and Authorizing the Sale Thereof (Southeast Corner of the Intersection of 7th Street and 61st Avenue) (Ward 1) , . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.02 �-<� z1z.�� -�� <� ��__.. �.� �� ,� � , `� � Second Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," by Amending Sections 205.17.01.0 and 205.18.01.0 and Adopting New Seetions 205.17.01.C(13) and 205.18.01.C(14) (Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #96-01, by Northco Corporation) . . . . . . . , 2.01 - 2.04 �? �.� �� C.C��c_.t'�. . . _� ` - ��r�-/�i,-` y�,�l'`' > v2� ��-„�(,znE-y�_ d- � NEW BUSINESS: First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting : Fair Housing Practices . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.04 � �'�--_ �' `� �'` _ � First Reading of an Ordinance Considering an Amendment to the City Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," by Adding Sections 205.05.02 and 205.05.07,Amending Sections 205.05.03 and 205.05.04, and Renumbering Consecutive Sections Where Appropriate .... 4.01 - 4.10 ��'��_ � First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Frid(ey City Code, Chapter 211, Entitled "Subdivision" by Amending Section 211.04.01, Deleting Section 211.03.01.0 and F, and Amending Secfion 211.04.02 and Renumbering Consecutive Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.23 Efaims Licenses Estimates :�� :�: �:�.o, l�/�'e`?� � - 7.10 �- . . �./�.✓�c.��?'.`_°8-9� / ADOPTION OF AGENDA: PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUE,D�: � �-��-� OPEN FORUM, VISITORS; Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #96-03, ��-�- �'l�'' "� by ftoland Stinski, to Allow Professionai Jewelry Services as a Permitted Use in CR-1 Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.01 - 14.13 (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) iz-�.-> �_`�--,.-�-�_ PUBLIC HEARINGS: Assessment for the East River Road Improvement Project �lo. ST. 1994 - 03 (Continued from October 28, 1996) . . . . . . 9.01 - 9.03 Ct� � �.�s3 �� - � -� � . Cl� - � , �G c - j ; �'/ OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Repealina ' Chapter 12 of the Fridley City Code in its Entirety and Adopting a New Chapter 12, Entitled "Tobacco Products" and Amending Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled °Generaf Provisions and Fees" .............. /�-��` `�..��.,�`" / �y ��_. 15.01 - 15.46 S�'� Assessment for the Main Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1994 - 08 Resolution Confirming Assessment for (Commercial) (Continued from East River Road Improvement Project October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.01 - 10.03 �_ �,�� No. ST. 1994 - 03 (Tabled October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 - 16.03 � - �.� �C Assessment for the Main Street lmprovement Project No. ST. 1994 - 08 (Residential) (Continued from October 28, 19�6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.01 - 11.03 �� --�,�a Rssessment for 1995 Street improvement Project No. 1995 - 1& 2(Continued from October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.01 - 12.03 c/i-�` � d �� ' � o , Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #96-02, by Noah's Ark, to Amend the Fridiey City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning," by Amending Sections 205.07.01.0 (8), 205.08.01.0 (8), 205.09.01.0 (17), and 205.14.01.A (14), to Provide Parking Standards for Nursing Homes, Convalescent Homes and Home for e E derly 13.01 - 13.09 C� _�, �� .'s �,��t.� �`� ' _ �,,,-.��-� �-�-C ` �-y�- %i'2 . s<��"''�' 's �� y�i �,,,,� ��'� � �� c. Resolution Confirming Assessment for Main Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1994 - 08 (Commerciai) (Tabled October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.01 - 17.03 IL,.PC._�-`" � �'�'i. Resolution Confirming Assessment for Main Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1994 - 08 (Residential) (Tabled October 28, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.01 - 18.03 ��,,�-Yi�%�'"� � G%�� , Resolution Confirming Assessment for 1995 Street Improvement Projec# No. ST. 1995 - 1& 2(Tabled October 28, 1996) ... . 9.01 - 19.03 . .�� N2�i'� � jZ ��c� .�-��--� �- s�� - ,,z.� .�.��_� � w # NEW BUStNESS: Variance Request, VAR #96-22, by Kim J. Miller of Miller Funeral Home, to Reduce the Rear Yard Setback from 40 Feet to 33 Feet to Allow Construction of a 22.7' x 60' Addition to a Siorage Building; to Reduce the Front Yard Setback on a Corner Lot from 80 Feet to 37 Feet to Ailow the Construction of a 30.5' x 66' Addition to an Existing Funeral Home, Generally Located at 6210 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.01 - 20.13 �^, � �� % � s� � �. .�i.�,�,�/l��`°� �� ?'�'"`i / � ��-.�G��, Motion to Approve a Contract with Springsted Incorporated to Provide Continuing Disclosure Services for the City of Fridley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.01 - 21.07 �'!G �/�..�c Z'"?.^` �`" �... / � Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of the City's $2,935,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996 A 22.01 - 22.27 �� - ��-� ��. Informal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.01 ��,�1,,� ,�-«-� , �� .,� .,.L �i/ � . � � , � 1"� � � -�� ;�- .� <<��?J �=�-��`��-- � ,_ - �_. ,-„-,z�<..�(� i s �- � ..-�t.�- , � ADJOURN: �� r ' � � �%�l � ��`-�.�7� _�� „-,� y , THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEI�ER 4 , 1996 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CA.LL : MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Billings, Councilman Schneider, and Councilwoman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: None PRESENTATION: AWARD TO DAVE SALLMAN, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR: Ms. Pat Prinzevalle, Alexandra House, introduced Connie Moore and Colleen Schmitt from their staff. She spent most of the day at Target Center listening to President Clinton talk about community and leadership and how critical it is for everyone to work together on issues that affect this country. Ms. Prinzevalle stated that one of the issues was domestic violence. She appreciated Council's support and feels very privileged to offer an award to Dave Sallman, who has not only supported Alexandra House and their efforts, but went above and beyond to make sure domestic violence is held as a crime. This award to Dave Sallman is in honor of his exemplary services on behalf of battered women and their families. Mr. Sallman thanked Alexandra House for this award. He said he receives great cooperation from Alexandra House, and he appreciates their support. PROCLAMI�T I ON : HOME CARE MONTH - NOVEMBER, 1996: Mr. Burns, City Manager, read this proclamation, which was issued by Mayor Nee, proclaiming November, 1996 as Home Care Month. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1996: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 2 all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: l. ORDINANCE NO. 1076 APPROVING A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #96-02, BY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 14 (WARD 1): A. TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF 61ST AVENUE, EAST OF SEVENTH STREET, SOUTH OF 63RD AVENUE, AND WEST OF JACKSON STREET; � C TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF 59TH AVENUE, EAST OF SEVENTH STREET, SOUTH OF 61ST AVENUE, AND WEST OF WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE; AND TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF 59TH AVENUE, EAST OF SEVENTH STREET, SOUTH OF 61ST AVENUE, AND WEST OF WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this vacation is in three parts to vacate streets and alleys located on School District No. 14 and City-owned property in the areas of the high school, middle school, and Commons Park ball field. This is a housekeeping item, done in conjunction with clarification of property ownership. WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1076 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLIGATION. 2. ORDINANCE N0. 1077 RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED "PAWN SHOPS," BY AMENDING SECTION 31.01, "DEFINITIONS," SECTION 31.02, "LICENSE REQUIRED," AND SECTION 31.12, "RESTRICTED TRANSACTIONS:" Mr. Burns, City Manger, stated that these amendments have been requested by City Prosecutor Carl Newquist. The recommended changes are additions of the words "corporation, partnership, or business association" after the word "person" in the definition of licensee or pawnbroker. Currently, Fridley's two operating pawn shops are licensed to partnerships or corporations rather than to a person. Mr. Burns stated that another change is the addition of the words "nor any agent or employee of a licensee" after "no licensee" in the section covering restricted transactions. Both of these changes apply to Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, entitled "Pawn Shops," and staff recommends Council's approval of these changes. WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1077 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. NEW BUSINESS: FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 3 3. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING," BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.O1.0 AND 205.18.O1.0 AND ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS 205.17.O1.0 (13) AND 205.18.O1.0 (14): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this request is by Northco Corporation to allow daycare centers as a special use in M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. The daycare center must be located in a multi-tenant building that is located on an arterial street, and the area used by the center may not exceed thirty percent of the floor area of the building. WAIVED THE READING AND APPROVED THE ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING. 4. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 4,1996, FOR CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #96-02, BY NOAH'S ARK, TO AMEND THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING," BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.07.O1.0 {8), 205.08.O1.0 (8), 205.09,O1.0 (7), AND 205.14.O1.A (14), TO PROVIDE PARKING STANDARDS FOR HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, CONVALESCENT HOMES, AND HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY: 5. C� Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this text amendment was made by Noah' s Ark, � residences. They wish to construct a property located at the intersection of University Avenue service drive. request for a zoning developer of senior senior high ri.se on 83rd Avenue and West Mr. Burns stated that the petitioner is requesting the City make a distinction between senior apartment buildings and general purpose apartment buildings. Currently, our ordinances that apply to all multi-family buildings require �.5 parking spaces for one bedroom and .5 parking spaces for each additional bedroom. The petitioner is asking that the requirement be reduced to 1 parking space per unit, with 50 percent of those spaces being enclosed for multiple family residences that are dedicated to senior living. Staff also suggested that the parking ratio be reduced for convalescent homes to one space for every four beds and three spaces for every four employees on a shift. SET THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ZONING TEXT �MENDMENT, ZTA, #96-02, FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1996. � RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1996: RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1996. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1996, FOR FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 4 CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #96-03, BY ROLAND STINSKI, TO ALLOW PROFESSIONAL JEWELRY SERVICES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CR-1 ZONING DISTRTCT: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this amendznent is to allow the addition of professional jewelry services as a permitted use for the CR-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this amendment, subject to permitting the use as a special use permit. SET THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ZONING TEXT 11MENDMENT, ZTA #96-03, FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1996. 7. RESOLUTION N0. 97-1996 IN SUPPORT OF A PREMISES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO WORLD ASSOCIATION OF THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE INDUSTRY (WAABI) (MAIN EVENT, 7820 I7NIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.) (WARD 3): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the adoptio resolution would allow WAABI to conduct a pull-tab at the Main Event, 7810 University Avenue N.E. If this would be WAABI's second gambling permit in WAABI has contributed over $41,000 from their proceeds to local causes. The application has bee by the Police Department, and they found no reason to the permit. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 97-1996. n of this operation approved, Fridley. gambling n reviewed to object 8. RESOLUTION N0. 98-1996 CERTIFYING CERTAIN DELINQUENT UTILITY SERVICES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR FOR COLLECTION WITH THE 1997 Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that property owners have been notified that utility bills are being certified to the County, and residents have been given adequate opportunity to pay the bill. The penalty shown in this resolution is in addition to regular penalties that accrue on utility bills. Mr. Burns stated that the property owners have thirty days after adoption of the resolution to pay the amounts posted without penalty. There are 290 delinquent accounts with delinquencies amounting to $127,677.22. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-1996. 9. CLAIMS: AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 70639 THROUGH 70857. 10. LICENSES: FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 5 APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LICENSE CLERK'S OFFICE. 11. ESTIMATES: APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES: ASTECH Corporation P. 0. Box 1025 St. Cloud, MN 56302 1996 Street Improvement Project {Sealcoat) No. ST. 1996-10 FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $172, 208. 63 Struck & Irwin Paving Company 812 Williamson Street Madison, WI 53703 1996 Street Improvement Project (Slurry Seal) No. ST. 1996-11 FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34, 415.82 W.B. Miller, Inc. 6701 Norris Lake Road N.W. Elk River, MN 55330 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996-4 Estimate No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20, 828.40 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of August, 1996 ...$ 14,070.10 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the consent agenda items. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 6 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: MR. JIM GLASER, 16 RICE CREEK WAY N.E. RE: LIGHTING IN PARK: Mr. Glaser, 16 Rice Creek Way N.E., stated that there is a City park across the street from his residence that has one light that is not operating correctly and needs to be fixed. He would also like another light installed in the park closer to the railroad trestle. Since so many people use the walking path he felt another light would be beneficial. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that staff would check into this request and contact him. MR. DANIEL GUH�NICK, 55 66TH WAY N.E.: Mr. Guhanick, 55 66th Way N.E., stated that he would agreed with Mr. Glaser's comments. The existing light in the park is constantly switching off and on. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF A FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 7:54 p.m, Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the purpose of the hearing is to evaluate the proposed ordinance to adopt the fair housing standards for the City. The ordinance states that it is the pol�cy of the City to fully comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. In summary, it is unlawful to refuse to sell, rent, or lease housing to any person or groups of people based on their race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sex orientation, or familial status. Ms. Dacy stated that the Human Resources and Planning Commissions, as well as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, have reviewed this ordinance and recommend approval. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 7 No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed fair housing ordinance. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 7:56 p.m. 13. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, ENTITLED "ZONING," AND CHAPTER 211, ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION," TO COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA STATUTE 15.99, "60 DAY AGENCY ACTION LAW : ,� MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 7:56 p.m. Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, said the State of Minnesota adopted a law that would require municipalities to process their land use applications in a timely fashion. The City's process has been reviewed and refined for a number of land use applications. The proposed amendments are to bring the City into compliance with this law and ensure that these land use matters are processed within the sixty-day time period. Mr. Hickok reviewed the new land use application processes for variances, special use permits, vacations, lot splits, rezoning and zoning text amendments, plats, comprehensive plan amendments, and wetland replacement plans. Public hearings before the Council would only be for rezoning, zoning text amendments, plats, and comprehensive plan amendments. Hearings on all other items would be conducted at the Planning Commission level. In addition, there would be a Charter amendment which the Charter Commission will discuss at their next meeting. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of these changes to Chapters 205 and 211. Councilman Schneider asked what would happen if Council did not act within the sixty-day period. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that if the City did not act within the sixty days, the action being sought is automatically approved. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if residents would be able to make their concerns known rather than waiting until the next Council meeting since action would be taken the same night as the public hearing. Mr. Hickok stated that the public hearings before the Planning Commission would be televised. The plan is to broadcast Commission FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 8 meetings on the cable channel. This would give ample time for citizens to submit comments before an item is before Council. Councilman Schneider stated that it would then be more important for citizens to appear at the Planning Commission meetings since that will be the only public hearing held on some requests. Councilman Schneider stated that if an application is incomplete, he understands that a waiver can be signed to go beyond the sixty- day limit. Mr. Guhanick, 55 66th Way N.E., asked the means for notifying persons about a rezoning for those who do not have cable television. Mr. Hickok stated that the 5tate law is clear about notification, everyone within 350 feet of the property to be rezoned is notified by mail. A legal notice is also published in the City's official newspaper. Councilwoman Bolkcom suggested that the taped Planning Commission meetings be available.at the library. Councilwoman Jorgenson also suggested that these tapes be available at the Municipal Center. Mr. Hickok stated that these tapes would be on file at the Municipal Center. Councilman Schneider asked if a sign was posted on the property. Mr. Hickok stated that posting a sign on the property is not done. Ms. Dacy stated that in the past the posting of signs has been done only for rezonings. Staff is evaluating the costs for signs for some of the land use applications, such as variances, subdivisions, and rezonings. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed amendments to Chapters 205 and 211. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m. 14. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ASSESSMENT FOR THE EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1994-03: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the publ.ic hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:15 p.m. FRTDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 9 Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this assessment roll is for the East River Road Improvement Project No. ST. 1994-03 which involved the improvement on East River Road from Hartman Circle to Glen Creek Road. The total cost of the project is $189,617.02. Mr. Pribyl stated that $46,080.21 is being assessed aqainst the affected property owners for curb and gutter, with the remaining amount of $143,590.81 paid from the City's Capital Improvement Ftiind. The assessment may be spread over a ten-year period at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. Mr. Pribyl stated that the $9.00 per front foot assessment was established early in the improvement process based on curb and gutter. This $9.00 cost is maintained across the project area for that year. He was not sure whether the final cost was in on this project when the assessment process was developed for the bond issue. He understands that the contract the County let on this project was very favorable. The proposed assessment of $9.00 per front foot is the uniform adjustment. Mrs. Janice Hammerstrom, 6931 East River Road N.E., stated that the cost to the City for this project was $5.75 a front foot. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that for this particular project, the County received very good prices. In the next segment of this project, the costs will probably be higher, and the City tries to keep the prices the same for everyone. Mrs. Hammerstrom stated that she spoke with the County, and they told her that the cost of the concrete curb and gutter for which the City will be billed was $23,422 covering a total of 4,073.5 lineal feet. This amounts to $5.75 a foot or a difference of $3.25 from the actual cost being assessed. Mr. Flora stated that the County will not finalize the cost until the total project is completed. Mrs. Hammerstrom stated that in her correspondence regarding this assessment, it states that she is being assessed only for concrete curb and gutter. The balance is to be paid by other services. Councilman Schneider questioned if costs were being averaged for all the projects done in this year. Mr. Flora stated that that was true. The numbers are slanted, as the City has to pay for other items such as medians, storm water, and sanitary sewer improvements. There is a different distribution of costs the County passes along to the City. The City will be charging for all the concrete curb and gutter that was installed in this project. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1995 PAGE 10 Mrs. Hammerstrom asked if she is being assessed only for curb and gutter based totally on the front footage of her property. Mr. Flora stated that it is based on the front footage, and she is paying for all the concrete installed in this project. Mrs. Hammerstrom stated that there is a retaining wall that faces East River Road for properties that front on Hartman Circle. She questioned if she was paying for the curb and gutter in front of this retaining wall. Mr. Flora stated that the City is only assessing the front footage and not side yards. Only persons who face the street pay the front foot assessment for the improvements. Councilman Schneider stated that what is in question is the amount being assessed per front foot. The City has to recoup the total cost of the curb and gutter. The formula the City has used for years is that property owners do not pay a side yard assessment. This cost is split between the property owners down the block. Mrs. Hammerstrom stated that the $46,080 being assessed to the property owners is double what the County stated was the cost for the curb and gutter. If the total lineal feet of concrete curb and gutter was 4,073.5 and owners were charged $9.00 a front foot, the cost would be about $36,657 or still $10,000 higher than what is being assessed back to the property owners. Mrs. Hammerstrom stated that perhaps there is also a question of the moral issue on how the City could charge twice the actual cost of the curb and gutter. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that there seems to be two different amounts, and she would like to know the correct amount of footage. Mrs. Hammerstrom stated that if the property owners are assessed from the end of this year for the curb and gutter, it means the property owners are being assessed at 6-1I2 percent interest for two years before the final bill is even received from the County. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked when the City receives the final costs from the County. Mr. Flora stated that when the County has all their final numbers they notify the City. This is a 1994 project, and the City still does not have all the figures. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked how the charges can be assessed if the City has not received a billing for the costs. Mr. Pribyl stated that the Internal Revenue Service instituted new rules for the way reimbursement bonds are sold. The City has a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 11 short window of opportunity to sell debt on this improvement project. The assessment pays the costs over a long period of time. Until the City can recoup the assessment, there is a cash flow problem. Councilman 5chneider stated that the question is whether the City assesses the estimate or actual cost. Mr. Flora stated that on City streets, the actual cost is assessed. The City has estimates from the County and is trying to obtain the bonding. Councilman Schneider stated that he would like to know how many lineal feet of concrete was installed and how much the City is assessing. Mayor Nee stated that the issue Mrs. Hammerstrom raises is very valid. Councilwoman several years The City has proj ect . Bolkcam stated that it seems like it could take before the City knows the actual cost of the project. to come up with a figure in order to assess the Mr. Flora stated that last year the assessment was less than what was actual�y paid. Councilman Billings asked where the figure of $189,671 for the total cost of the project was obtained. Mr. Pribyl stated that it was from communications with the County. This was their best guess for the total cost of the project. He receives the total contract costs. Councilman Billings asked if the costs can be broken down. There are two things that are troubling to him. He was under the impression that Council established a$9.00 front foot rate as being the maximum to be assessed. However, that actual costs would be assessed, but would not exceed $9.00 a foot or whatever dollar amount was established for that particular year. He understood if the costs were less then the City would be assessing less. Councilman Billings stated that if, in fact, the figures quoted by Mrs. Hammerstrom are correct, it was his understanding that the City should be assessing $5.75 a front foot for the East River Road properties regardless of whether or not some other street improvements are more costly for the City. In terms of properties where there is no front footage, he thought this cost was coming out of the general city funds. In any case, he would like to see the actual figures for the cost of curb and gutter on East River Road. There is a question in his mind as to whether or not a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 12 particular property benefits from curb and gutter installed two blocks away. Councilman Schneider stated that his reference to assessing for side yards was, basically, for street improvements. He did not know what is done for curb and gutter. Mr. James Sandstrom, 6941 East River Road N.E., stated that he is being assessed for too much frontage. Councilman Billings stated that if Mr. Sandstrom's property is on a curve, this would extend his frontage. Mr. Sandstrom presented several maps, one indicating 127.68 feet and another indicating 113.61 feet. He is being assessed for 117.68 feet. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked how the front footage is established. Mr. Flora stated that this information is taken from the plat maps. Mr. Sandstrom's maps do not reflect property frontages, but are survey maps which do not reflect descriptions. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated she felt that Council does not have sufficient information to proceed. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked what would happen if Council did not act on the item this evening. Mr. Pribyl stated that the project will probably have to be assessed next year. Councilman Schneider stated that it is difficult to proceed without having the figures and breakdown. Mr. Guhanick, 55 66th Way N.E., stated that with this assessment, it is about $300 higher than what was expected. Property owners would be paying 6-1/2 percent for several years before the bill even arrives. When Council plans these projects, he would ask them to take into consideration the folks that have been laid off. There are a lot of people who cannot afford these improvements and do not qualify for deferment. He is particularly talking about this project and the $9.00 a front foot figure being used for all City properties. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue this public hearing to the next meeting on November 4 and direct staff to submit further data on this project. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28 1996 PAGE 13 voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 15. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST . 1994-08 (CONIl�4ERCIAL) : MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this assessment roll is for improvements on Main Street from I-694 to 44th Avenue. The total cost of this project is $177,702.30, with $173,111.02 being assessed against the affected commercial property owners at $8.00 a front foot for concrete curb and gutter. There is also a$3.03 per 100 square feet based on 75 percent lot coverage for storm sewer. The assessment will be certified for ten years at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. Councilman Schneider asked if this was the actual cost and if these figures were from the County. He questioned the cost for concrete curb and gutter and if the $8.00 a front foot is a true figure or an estimate. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that it was an estimate, but it came out at $8.00. The City does not have the final figures from the County, as the County has not completed the project. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue this public hearing to the November 4 Council meeting and direct staff to obtain further information from the County. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 16. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1994-08 (RESIDENTIAL): MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this assessment roll is for improvements on Main Street from I-694 to 44th Avenue. The total cost of the project is $177,702.30, with $21,728 being assessed against the affected residential property owners at $8.00 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 14 per front foot. The remaining amount will be assessed to the commercial properties. The assessment will be certified for ten years at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue this public hearing to the November 4 Council meeting and direct staff to obtain further information from the County. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 17. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1996-04: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:02 p.m. Councilman Jorgenson stated that this is another county project and asked if the costs have been finalized. Councilman Schneider stated that everyone has agreed to the costs for this improvement of the Mississippi and Third Streets intersection. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote,.all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:03 p.m. 18. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR 1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995-1 & 2: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:03 p.m. Mr. Pribyl stated that this project included street improvements on 68th Avenue from Monroe Street to Brookview Drive; Arthur Street from 64th Avenue to Mississippi Street; 69th Avenue from Central Avenue to Stinson Boulevard; the 69th Avenue slipoff on University Avenue to Third Street; and the Rice Creek Townhouse parking lot. The total cost of the project is $588,749.02, with $21,495 being FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 15 , assessed against the affected residential property owners at $9.00 a front foot. The remaining amount of $567,254.02 will be paid from the City's Capital Improvement Fiind. The assessment will be certified for ten years at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. Mr. Pribyl stated that a letter was received from Angela Percic objecting to the assessment on her property at 1020 68th Avenue. Councilman Schneider asked the cost for curb and gutter. Mr. Flora stated that they were told it was $9.00 a front foot. Councilman Schneider stated that he would like a breakdown on the numbers before taking any action on this item. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to continue this public hearing to the November 4 Council meeting when staff is prepared to discuss the figures. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 19. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST. 1989-05: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that at the City Council's July 22, 1996 meeting a request was approved from Steiner Development to spread the interest owed on two deferred special assessments over ten years. The remaining four years of principal and interest will be paid as scheduled and collected through this assessment. The interest owing on the 1990-1996 principal will be spread over the next ten years. This assessment roll amounts to actually $21,250.17. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:11 p.m. 20. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR LOCK LAKE DAM RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT N0. 211: MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Billings, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 16 Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider, and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Bolkcom abstained from voting. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried and the public hearing opened at 9:11 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this assessment roll is for the Locke Lake Dam Reconstruction Project No. 211 for a total cost of 5662,927.81. $190,536 will be assessed against the affected residential property owners. For lots abutting the lake the assessment will be $3,056, and for buildable lots in the drainage area the assessment will be $389. The remaining amount is to be paid from a State grant of $150,000 and the City's Storm Water Fund in the amount of $322,391.81. Al1 properties assessed will be certified for ten years at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. Mr. Don Russell, 6631 East River Road, stated that he would receive a$389 assessment. He asked how many property owners would be assessed at $3,056. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that there are 41 properties. Mr. Russell asked how many property owners will be assessed for the $389. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that it is a large number. Mr. Russell questioned who would pay this assessment on a neighboring property where the owner has sold and there is a new owner. Mr. Flora stated that this amount should have been in escrow and paid by the seller. Mr. Russell asked if there was public access to Locke Lake. Mr. Flora stated that there is access through Locke Lake park and Manomin Park. Mr. Guhanick, 55 66th Way N.E., asked if other residents were not paying to dredge someone else's property. Mr. Flora stated that this assessment is for the Locke Lake dam project, and there is an equal assessment for all properties abutting the lake. Mr. Guhanick questioned the assessment for those residing in the drainage area. He has not seen any concrete plans on the improvements to be made as far as canoe landings. There are rocks on the parcel next to the dam which makes access difficult. There FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 17 is no access by the railroad tracks and no way to launch a canoe or get to the lake. Mr. Guhanick stated that it seems the City is asking residents to pay for things for which there are vague references such as a wonderful canoe landing and parks, but he has not seen any plans. He asked how accessible the lake would be to those who do not live on the lake and how it would benefit other property owners. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the basis for the secondary assessment was drainage area rather than park benefit. Mr. Flora stated that this assessment project concerns the dam. Contributions from the sub-watershed is assisting to pay the cost for replacement of the Locke Lake Dam. Mr. Guhanick asked if there would be an additional assessment for future work done on Locke Lake. Mr. Burns stated there is no secondary assessment on the drainage project for the area, but there is for the abutting property owners. Mr. Flora stated there would be an ad valorem tax through the Rice Creek Watershed District for all those affected. This would amount to approximately $6.00 a year on a home valued at about $89,000. Mr. Guhanick asked how much more than the $389 will have to be paid. Mr. Flora stated that the $389 is strictly for the dam reconstruction, and that should be the only cost. Mr. Guhanick asked if there was a way to review the final plans for the entire Locke Lake area. Mr. Burns stated that Mr. Guhanick should come in to the Municipal Center to review the information on file; however, plans are still being formulated. Mr. Guhanick questioned the use of the drainage material being dredged from Locke Lake. He felt it would be good organic soil that could be used. Mr. Flora stated that the plan is for the contractor to do what he wishes with the soil, but permits are necessary from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency who has authority on lake dredging. The material being removed is mostly silty sand, not high quality soil. Mr. Glen Moren, 20 70th Way, stated that there is access off East River Road between the dam and the County lot. He asked if it FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 18 would be blacktopped so that vehicles may drive in this area or if he would have to portage a canoe across the street. Mr. Flora stated that the County has plans to install a fishing pier and a canoe landing in that area. Mr. Glaser, 16 Rice Creek Way N.E., stated that he is not necessarily opposed to the dam. The lake currently exists as it did many years ago before a dam was constructed. The residents on Locke Lake treated the lake like it was their own personal property and fought access. Mr. Glaser stated that about twenty years ago someone built a walkway down to the lake, but residents around the lake really do not want it. He felt that the property owners between the railroad tracks and University Avenue should also be assessed. Mr. Flora stated that those properties are in a different sub- watershed and are not included in this project. Mr. Glaser felt that the residents on the lake are getting by cheap. The accessibility is ridiculous, and he felt the assessment area should be expanded from the trestle to University Avenue, perhaps even farther back. Mr. Harry Bolkcom, 6821 Hickory Street, stated that he would agree with Mr. Glaser's comments regarding property owners to the east. However, it has already been decided that these properties would not be included in the assessment. The people who live in the area around Locke Lake will increase the value of their homes because of the lake. Also, because there is not a lake there now, his home is devalued from $7,000 to $10,000. He knows the property owner in back of him will increase his value at least $389. He is happy the project has gone this far, and he asked that the Council vote to approve the assessment. Mr. Guhanick, 55 66th Way N.E., stated that the area near the dam is not deep enough. He asked if it was going to be improved. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that there will be a sedimentation basin on the west side of the tracks which will be maintained by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers would not allow expansion to the east side because they want this to remain a marshland. Mr. Guhanick asked if the area on the east side of the railroad bridge would benefit from the higher water level once the dam was operating. Mr. Flora stated that the elevation of the lake will be at 820 feet. Over time it will silt in and become shallower. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 19 Mr. Guhanick asked if there was a way to have a waterfall under the railroad trestle. Councilman Billings stated that this public hearing is on the assessment for the dam reconstruction. However, since Mr. Guhanick has questions on the drainage he could meet with Mr. Flora or his assistant to discuss the actual drainage of Locke Lake. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Schneider, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Cauncilman Billings, and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Bolkcom abstained from voting. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried and the public h�aring closed at 9:46 p.m. 21. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR STONYBROOK CREEK BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT NO. 246: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:46 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this assessment roll is for the Stonybrook Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 246. The total cost of this project is $385,121.81, with $36,000 being assessed against the affected residential property owners at $2,000 per property. The remaining amount of $349,121.81 will be paid as follows: $89,000 from ad valorem taxes; $50,000 from other cities; and $210,121.81 from the City's Storm Water Fund. The assessment will be certified for fifteen years at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:49 p.m. 22. PUBLIC HEA.RING ON ASSESSMENT FOR 1996 TREES: MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:49 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that there is only one assessment for trees involving the property at 7892 Firwood Way in FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 20 the amount of $1,340.81. This assessment will be certified for five years at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:49 p.m. 23. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR 1996 NUISANCE: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing riotice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this assessment roll involves four properties for a total of $5,086.51. The assessment will be certified for one year at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:50 p.m. 24. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR 1996 SERVICE CONNECTTON: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this assessment roll involved the property at 5660 Main Street. The total cost of these connections is $23,996.00. The assessment will be certified for twenty years at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed assessment. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:51 p.m. FRIDLEY CITY COLJNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 21 25. PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR 64TH AVENUE STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 260: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the pubiic hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:51 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this assessment roll is for the 64th Avenue Storm Water Improvement Project No. 260 and involved 64th Avenue from Central Avenue to Arthur Street; Mississippi Street from Central Avenue to Arthur Street; Arthur Street from Mississippi Street to Rice Creek Road; and Central Avenue from Mississippi Street to Rice Creek Road. The total, cost of the project is $173,105.08, with $41,000 being assessed against the affected residential property owners at $1,000 per property. The remaining amount of $132,105.08 will be paid from the City's Storm Water Fund. Mr. Pribyl stated that this certification involves only one property that was in dispute during the past two years. The other affected properties were certified in 1994. The assessment will be certified for fifteen years at an interest rate of 6-1/2 percent. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that staff inet with the property owner in mediation last December, and the mediation was inconclusive. Mr. Burns said that Mr. Flora met with Mr. Schwartz to discuss the potential of enlarqing the retention basin. Staft felt that the pond was serving the purpose for which it was intended, but Mr. Flora agreed to monitor the storms that were occurring to determine if the flow of storm water through the ditch along Rice Creek Road was being impacted by the ditch as the Schwartzes were contending. There were field people out on numerous occasions. There was evidence the retention basin was working and did not overflow the banks but carried the water as it was intended. Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, stated that he is appealing this assessmen�. He believed that he has not benefited from this project, but that it was actually detrimental. This has been a dry year so it is difficult to compare. The recent commercial development adjacent to his property changed the drainage ditch to some effect. He does not know how this will affect his property because there has not been any storms this year. Mr. Schwartz stated that he has video tapes showing the water on his property since this project was completed. He met with Mr. Flora, away from the site, and discussed the same issues discussed in mediation. Their land is now a possible wetland worth thousands of dollars less. All the problems have not been FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 22 corrected. The water causing flooding on Old Central Avenue has now been transferred to his yard. He would like this rectified. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the letter from Mr. Schwartz. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Jean Schwartz, 1372 6�th Avenue, stated that their meeting with Mr. Flora was in October, 1994, and mediation was in December, 1995. She has a copy of the mediation dispute settlement in which it states Mr. Burns would talk to engineering about possible changes to the detention pond and would contact them. Mrs. Schwartz stated that Mr. Burns called on February 6, 1996 after mediation. He advised them to wait because it was a dry year and stated that he would call them back in May. At that time they decided to wait again because it was still a dry year. The next thing they heard from the City was when they received the assessment notice in the mail. People were barred from mediation, and the mediation people told them they could not bring a lawyer. Councilman Schneider stated that this is a disagreement of fact. If there are problems the City wi�l work to correct them. At this time, everyone else paid their share for this project and felt the City went the extra mile to resolve this issue. Even if Council approves the assessment, the City will work out the problem if there is one. Mr. Schwartz stated that this puts them in the position to go to court, as they have no other option. Councilman Schneider stated that the project has been completed. It appears to solve the problem for which it was intended. The City Engineer, as well as an independent engineer, reviewed the issue. Both concurred it should not create a problem. It is the Schwartz's opinion that it does, but this is not fact. Mr. Schwartz stated that he would be suing for damages because the City destroyed their land. Mrs. Schwartz stated that they would not object to the assessment if it improved their situation. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upan a voice vote, all vating aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 10:05 p.m. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 23 OLD BUSINESS: 26. ORDINANCE NO. 1078 UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE (VACATION REQUEST, SAV #96-03, BY CLAYTON AND JEAN HICKS, �ALLY LOCATED AT 106 HARTMAN CIRCLE N.E.' Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that Council held a public hearing on September 30 regarding this vacation request for property at 106 Hartman Circle. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this vacation, and statf recammended approval of the second reading of the ordinance. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading and. adopt Ordinance No. 1078 on the second readinq and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider, and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Billings voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried by a four to one vote. NEW BUSINESS: 27, FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 12 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 12, ENTITLED "TOBACCO PRODUCTS" AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES:" Mr. Gary Lenzmeier, Deputy Public Safety Director, stated that the Police Department is suggesting a new tobacco ordinance be adopted to replace the present ordinance. In 1994, because of complaints and concerns, the Police Department conducted tobacco compliance checks resulting in several arrests. When those cases went to court they became aware of some problems with the State Statute and the City ordinance. This is an effort to try to rectify those problems. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that the new ordinance expands on the old ordinance to help insure that juveniles are unable to obtain tobacco products from Fridley retailers. It controls access by vending machines; regulates self-service merchandising; and makes the licensee responsible for the conduct of its employees. The ordinance also increases fees for a tobacco license and establishes civil penalties. Mr. Lenzmeier outlined the amounts of civil penalties and stated that the fines were suggested by the retailers. Mayor Nee stated that he felt the Police Department did an excellent job of working with the retailers. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 24 Councilwoma� Jorgenson asked if revocation of a license was permanent. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that it was permanent, and the retailers did not express any concern on this issue. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to receive a letter dated October 14, 1996 from Warren Roberts, 1448 Windemere Drive, requesting a stronger enforcement and harsher penalties to more effectively discourage tobacco sales to minors. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that a letter was received from the Minnesota Non-Smokers Coalition regarding this proposed ordinance. They wanted the display of cigarettes completely off the counters; wanted to reduce the fine for clerks to $100 or less; and wanted specific amounts on the penalties. There was rationale for all three of these suqgestions, and the ordinance was re-worked to incorporate those changes. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that a copy of the proposed ordinance was sent to all retailers and discussed with them. With regard to raising the fines for the clerks, the retailers wanted the fine high enough to make sure it would have some impact when the clerks were told not to sell cigarettes to minors. They felt that the fine had to be higher than $100. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that with regard to specific fines, they do not want room to barter. As far as the tobacco displays, several contacts were made with the non-smokers group concerninq this issue. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to try to keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors. The non-smokers group felt there were two main reasons to keep cigarettes off the display counters. The first is to make sure shoplifting did not occur and, secondly, they felt it was more difficult for youth to obtain cigarettes if they had to ask for them. The Non-Smokers Coalition presented some information that these things were true. One study was from San Diego and another from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Lenzmeier stated that the retailers advised that they receive a lot of money from the tobacco companies for displays. In order to resolve this issue, it was decided to go back to the original language but to try to do a study to find out whether or not it would be easier for youth to buy cigarettes if there was a counter display. If the study proves this is true they would come back to Council for a change in the ordinance. Councilman Billings stated that he heard two things from Mr. Lenzmeier`s comments. One is that there were meetings held with retailers. He wanted to know if this was starting to become a common practice with the City since this was also done with the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 25 pawn shop ordinance. He asked if the Police Department has found �hey have had success when they actually go out and work with businesses. Mr. Lenzmeier stated he feit that meeting with the businesses shows the Police Departmen� where there are concerns. No one attended the first meeting, but when the language was changed regarding cigarette displays, nine people attended the meeting. Councilman Billings stated it was mentioned that retailers want stiff penalties and fines but they also want to continue to receive money from the tobacco companies for displaying their products. He hoped the decision not to eliminate the displays has to do with the cooperation with the retailers rather than profit being the bottom line. Ms. Connie Bernardy, 6840 Siverts Lane, stated that she is a 28 year resident of Fridley and is actively involved in a qroup that is very concerned about alcohol, tobacco, and other related issues. She thanked the Mayor and City Council for their commitment to this policy that affects the health of young people. However, some critical work needs to be done. She appreciated staff following through and advising her of this meeting. Ms. Bernardy stated that there are three very important issues that need to be addressed to make this ordinance effective. Larger penalties do not assure compliance. She felt that the fines for clerks should be reduced, as well as the proposed penalty to businesses. The goal should also be to conduct regular compliance checks. She was sorry the proposal to require tobacco products to be behind the counter was eliminated. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked that a copy of the University of Minnesota study be sent to Council. Councilwoman Bolkcom felt that this ordinance sends a message that the City wants to be very strict on tobacco sales by having the larger fines. If retailers want their penalties twice as high as the clerks, it seems they are showing they are very opposed to selling cigarettes to minors. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked Mr. Sallman to furnish a list of businesses that have vending machines in the City. She has found only two with displays. One of the issues is that cigarette smoking is legal for aduZts, and this comes down to a moral issue. The City has to be careful they are not taking access away from people that have the legal right to use tobacco. She is satisfied with the ordinance presented by the Police Department. Ms. Bernardy stated that the proposed ordinance no longer allows campliance checks for the purposes of research, regu�ation, or training. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 26 Councilman Billings stated that it is not the intent of the City to restrict, for example, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from coming in and conducting a compliance check. At the same time, if these types of monitoring are done in the City by many organizations, there should be some kind of control on how many research projects they may have going on in the City. Ms. Barbara Hughes, 598 Rice Creek Terrace, commended the City for this proposed ordinance. She has worked for 23 years for the American Lung Association dealing with people who have health problems related primarily to smoking. She would like a stronger ordinance. The best way to keep people from having to suffer from tobacco is to do one of two things; either to raise the price or eliminate access to cigarettes. The compliance checks would reduce the Levels of buying. Ms. Hughes stated that the fines should be reduced and a look taken at what would be reasonable. A$250 fine was too high for those who may be working at a minimum wage. The retailers wanted the fines this high because they felt they would not be enforced. They would use the other option and go to court and pay a$50 fine, as this is how they operate. The compliance issue should not be restricted only to the Police Department. These are a few of her concerns and she urged Council to consider some of the changes that she felt would be a stricter ordinance. She has access to a lot of research if Council would like this information. Councilwoman Bolkcom encouraged Ms. Hughes to furnish the Council with any information. The information was needed in order to be informed. Ms. Bernardy stated that Mr. Lenzmeier did a very good job in working with the industry. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that from the comments she felt there was an interest in restricting sales, not only for youth, but for adults as wel1. Ms. Hughes stated that it was not her intention to put cigarettes out of the reach of adults. However, if tobacco is behind the counter, merchants do not get slotting fees. It is not the City's business to help retailers promote cigarettes. Council should be concerned about youth having access. Having tobacco behind the counter is the best control. Mr. Sallman, Public Safety Director, stated that he does not disagree with Ms. Bernardy's or Ms. Hughes' comments. They are trying to determine the best way to alleviate access of tobacco for youth. He has some concern about the studies because they are incomplete. The approach is to hold the licensee responsible for the conduct of their employees. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 27 Mr. Sallman stated that they are not ignoring suggestions but will try doing their own study. If this ordinance does not work, they will recommend a stricter ordinance relative to the self-service issue. It comes down to the issue on whether or not the City would be better off having the support of the vendor because behind the counter sales would be taking away a source of their income. He knows they will not want to lose that and wiZl do everything to work with the City on this issue. Mr. Al Norris, Manager of the Super-America on East River Road, stated that he totally supports this proposed ordinance. He is not in the business of selling tobacco to minors. His employees go through an extensive training program for compliance. The reason for the fines being so high is that they want to make sure the clerks realize the seriousness of the problem. The retailer's fee has been increased because we accept responsibility for the clerks. Mr. Norris stated that as far as limiting the access to minors, the main focus is to stop the sales altogether. Teenagers are bold, and it does not bother them to ask for cigarettes. Even if they do not sell to minors, friends or parents come in and purchase the cigarettes for them. It is more than just easy access. The retailers do receive money for the displays, and it does affect their bottom line. He felt the ordinance should be passed. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked Mr. Norris why he did not have a lot of displays. Mr. Norris stated that he only has two small displays because he wishes to discourage shoplifting. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked Mr. Norris how he would feel if the fine for clerks was reduced, but left the fine as is for the retailers. Mr. Norris stated that he would agree with felt it would not make as much as an impact. retailer's fine as they are proposed. the fine although he He is in favor of the Mr. Mike Tarasar, Store Manager for Holiday Plus, stated that they have a smoke shop in their store, and no one under the age of eighteen can enter. He felt that the fine would be effective, and they would not have to go to court. A retailer does not want to sel� cigarettes to someone who is under eighteen-years-old. They receive a bottom line adjustment from the tobacco companies for the display. Ms. Joy McConville, 631 Helene Place, stated that she would like for tobacco to be behind the counter. She felt that this was not preventing aduZts from access. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 28 Mr. Sallman stated that the bottom line of putting cigarettes behind the counter will restrict access to a point. He also recognizes that this is an expense for the retailers. He would recommend that Council consider this ordinance for a year. If it is not working changes can be made. Reviewing the studies might not particularly change his mind on the issue. The Police Department is totally committed to trying to eliminate youth access to tobacco. He does not disagree with the presentations made this evening, but what they are proposing might be more reasonable. Mayor Nee stated that he was pleased with the work Mr. Lenzmeier has done on this ordinance. It may be prudent to ask Ms. Hughes for her input. He is making this suggestion, as it might be appropriate to talk to some of the experts in the field, and not only those in the tobacco trade. Mr. Sallman stated that they are not intentionally excluding anyone. He pointed out that Mr. Lenzmeier is a member of an Anaka County group concerned with smoking issues. The Police Department does have access to the issues and arguments raised. Councilman Billings stated that law enforcement is to prevent crime from happening, and the other is to punish those that violate the rules. The intent is to deter persons from actually selling tobacco to minors. The fine has to be high enough so that it has an impact. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that the administrative offenses provisions are quite innovative. It is a fairly recent development in Minnesota, and he is very intrigued to see this technique used. It affords cities greater control and enforcement. With the hearing process, there is authority to impose greater penalties. This is a remarkable imaginative use of this provision, and it speaks well of the Police Department. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 28. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.06 OF THE CITY CHARTER DECLARING CERTAIN PROPERTY TO BE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZiNG THE SALE THEREOF (50UTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF 7TH STREET AND 615T AVENUE) (WARD 1): MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 29 29. RESOLUTION CONFTRMING ASSESSMENT FOR EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1994-03: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to table this item. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 30. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR MAIN STREET IMPROVEMEN2 PROJECT NO. ST. 1994-08 (COMMERCIAL): MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to table this item. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 31. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1994-08 (RESIDENTIAL): MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to table this item. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 32. RESOLUTION NO. 99-1996 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR STREET TMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST. 1996-04: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 99-1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 33. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR 1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1995-1 & 2: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to table this item. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 34. RESOLUTION NO. 100-1996 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1989-Q5: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 100-1996. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, aIl voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously 35. RESOLUTION N0. 101-1996 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR LOCK LAKE DAM RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 211: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 101-1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Billings, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider, and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Bolkcom abstained from voting. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried by a four to one vote. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 30 36. RESOLUTION N0. 102-1996 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR STONYBROOK CREEK BANK ST�IBILIZATION PROJECT NO. 246: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 102-1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declare the motion carried unanimously. 37. RESOLUTION NO. 103-1996 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR 1996 TREES: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorqenson to adopt Resolution No. 103-1996. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 38. RESOLUTION NO. 104-1996 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR 1996 NUISANCE: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 104-1996. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 39. RESOLUTION NO. 105-1996 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR 1996 SERVICE CONNECTION: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 105-1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 40. RESOLUTION NO. 106-1996 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR 64TH STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 260: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 106-1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 41. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that �here were no informal status reports. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adjourn Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, declared the motion carried unanimously the Fridley City Council of October 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Secretary to the City Council the meeting. Seconded by all voting aye, Mayor Nee and the Regular Meeting of 28, 1996 adjourned at William J. Nee Mayor MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: Oetober 31, 1996 TO: William Bums, City Manager � �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance Declaring Certain Property as Excess, and Approving the Sale Thereof; Blocks 2- 6, Moore Lake Addition The City Council approved first reading of the attached ordinance at its October 28, 1996 meeting. The excess property is generally bou�ded by 61 � Avenue on the north, 7"' Street on the west, West Moore Lake Drive on the east, and unimproved 60"' Avenue on the south. Located on this property is the Community Education Center, the High School football field, and the no�th portion of the High School parking lot. !t is intended that this property be tra�sferred to School District #14 ownership from the City. Transferring ownership wilt complete agreements originaily established in 1957 which indicated a transfer of ownership between the City and the School District for these properties. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the second reading of the attached ordinance deciaring this property excess and approving its transfer. MM/dw M-96-508 �.� � oitni�c$ xo. AN ORDINANCL U�iDBR 88CTION 12.06 OF TSS CITY CHARTFR Dl3CLARINti CERTAIN PROPBRTY TO B$ BIIRPLIIS AND AUTHORIZING THE SAL$ TS$R}30F SECTION 1 The City of Fridley is the fee owner of the tract of land within the City of Fridley, Anoka County, State of Minnesota, described as follows: Blocks 2- 6, inclusive, including vacated streets and alleys within Moore Lake Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota. All lying in the North Half of Section 23, Township 30, Range 24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota. SECTION 2 It is hereby determined by the City Council that the City no longer has any reason to continue to own said property, and the City Council is hereby authorized to sell or enter into a contract to sell said property. SECTION 3 The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the necessary contracts and deeds to affect the sale of said property. PASSED AND ADOpTED BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF T8E CITY OF FRIDLEY T$IB DAY OF , 1996. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR First Reading: October 28, 1996 Second Reading: Publication: � .�2 MEMORANDUM PLA�NNING DIVISION DATE: October 31, 1996 �a TO: Wiiliam W. Bums, City Manager � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Second Reading of an ordinance approving a zoning text amendment ZTA #96-01, by Northco Corporation, to amend Code Section 205. 18.C.(5), to allow day care centers in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District The City Councii conducted a public hearing for ZTA #96-01, at its October 14, 9996 meeting. The request would allow day care centers as a special use in the M-1, Light lndustrial and M 2, Heavy lndustrial Districts. The City Council approved first reading of the ordinance on October 14, 1996. Recommendation Staff �ecommends approvaf of the attadied ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission. SH/ 2.01 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.O1.0 AND 205.18.O1.0 ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS 205.17.O1.C.(13) AND 205.18.O1.C.(14) The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: Section l. Section 205.17.O1.C. Special Use Permits: (13) Day Care Centers ta) The proximity of the outdoor play area to the building shall be designed so that children do not have to cross vehicle traffic. (b) Loading and drop-off locations shall not interfere with traffic flow. (c) Pedestrian crossing areas shall be clearly marked. {d) The maximum floor area to be occupied by day care cen�er shall be limited to 30� of the floor area of the principal industrial building. (e) Require parking at 1 space per 250 square feet of useable daycare space (per Section 205.07.O1.C.(4).(a) of the code). ((1))Reduction of parking spaces may be allowed when provision of space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the required number of parking spaces. {(2))When the provisions for required parking space is inadequate, the City may require additional off- street parking be provided. (f) 5ignage shall be limited to wail signage; no independent free-standing signs shall be permitted unless the sign replaces the free-s�anding sign of the industrial complex. (g) The facili�y shall be licensed in accordance with Minnesota and Anoka County requirements. 2.�2 (h) The facility shall comply with building code occupancy and separation requirements. Section 2. Section 205.18.O1.C. Special Use Permits (14) Day Care Centers (a) The proximity of the outdoor play area to the building shall be designed so that children do not have to cross vehicle traffic. {b) Loading and drop-off locations shall not interfere with traffic flow. (c� Pedestrian crossing areas shall be clearly marked. (d) The maximum floor area to be occupied by day care center shall be limited to 30$ of the floor area of the principal industrial building. (e) Require parking at 1 space per 250 square feet of useable daycare space (per Section 205.07.O1.C.(4).(a) of the codel. (tl))Reduction of parking spaces may be allowed when provision of space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the required number of parking spaces. ((2))When the provisions for required parking space is inadequate, the City may require additional off- street parking be provided. (f) Signage shall be limited to wall signage; no independent free-standing signs shall be permitted unless the sign replaces the free-standing sign of the industrial complex. (g) The facility shall be licensed in accordance with Minnesota and Anoka County requirements. (h) The facility shall comply with building code occupancy and separation requirements. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1996. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR 2.03 ATTEST; WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK Public Hearing: October 14, 1996 First Reading: Oc�ober 28, 1996 Second Reading: November 4, 1996 Publication: 1996 2.04 MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: October 31, 1996 TO: Wiiliam Bums, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting Fair Housing Practices The City must adopt a fair housing ordinance as a result of the settlement agreement with the Sytvan Oaks Tenant Association. An ordinance t�as been prepared by Fritz Knaak, City Attomey, and .fodee Kozlak, Greene Espel, who represented the City in the settlement agreement with the Sylvan Oaks Tenants Association. The proposed ordinance incorporates/adopts by reference the substantive standards of both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The ordinance aiso recommends that the enforcement of these provisions be referred to the administrative agency already in place (local office of the Minnesota Depa�tment of Human Rights). The ordinance refers to specific statute secfions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act as the fair housing standards for the City. !n summary, the statute states that it is unlawful for an owner, leasee, subleasee, assignee, or managing agent to refuse to sell, rent, or iease housing from any person or group of people because of their race, color, creed, religion, naiional origin, sex, marital status, status wifh regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familiai status. The ordinance has been reviewed by the Housing & Redeveiopment Authority and recommended for approva! by the Human Resources Commission and the Planning Commission. The City Council conducted a public hearing on October 28, 9996, and no one appeared to speak in favor or opposition to the ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance for first reading as presented. M-96-509 3.01 ORDINANCB NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, CHAPTER 221, ENTITLED "FAIR HOUSING PRACTICES", INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 363 AND 42 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3601-3631, TITLE VIII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, AL.SO IQdOWN AS THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROHIBITING OR RESTRICTING CERTAIN PRACTICES WITHIN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AS THEY RELATE TO THE SALE, LEASING, AND RENTAL OF REAL ESTATE The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: 221. FAIR HOUSING PRACTICES 221.01. STATEMENT OF POLICY: FAIR IiOUSING 1. It is the policy of the City of Fridley to promote and comply fully with the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act, also known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as well as the provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act as they relate to the sale, rental, or leasing of real estate within the boundaries of that City. 2. The City of Fridley has determined that it is in the best interests of its citizens to expressly provide in its own City Code those provisions of law which provide for protection of rights in obtaining, by purchase or rental, adequate housing without fear of unlawful discrimination. The provision for these rights in the City Code, and their enforcement and protection, is done with the intention of supplementing and amplifying, and not in any way reducing or restricting, the rights already provided under existing State and Federal law. 221.02. ADOPTION OF MINNESOTA FAIR HOUSING STANDARDS i. Except as may otherwise be qualified or expressly modified by these provisions, Minnesota Statutes Section 363.03, subdivisions 2 and 2a, one copy of 3.02 Page 2 - Ordinance No. which is on fiie in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, is hereby adopted as the Fair Housing Standards Ordinance of the City of Fridley, Minnesota. Any act defined as discrimination or discriminatory, within the meaning of those provisions, that occurs in the City of Fridley will be a violation of this ordinance. 221.03. PENALTIES 1. Any discriminatory act occurring in the City of Fridley in violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall be a misd�meanor, punishable by fine of up to 90 days and $700 for each occurrence. 2. Nothing in these provisions shall in any way limit or restrict any person agq�ieved by a discriminatory act governed by the provisions of this ordinance from seeking such additianal remedies as may be available and provided under eiiher applicable State or Federal law. 221.04. ENFORCEMENT 1. A11 criminal charges brought under these provisions shall be by a sworn, written complaint. 2. In all instances in which an allegation of a violation of this Title is brought to the attention of the City, the City may, in its discretion, investigate the matter utilizing its own staff and personnel, or defer the matter to the personnel of the State of Minnesota where an investigation is to occur under the relevant fair housing provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. In any case in which State personnel are utilized for purposes of investigation of any alleged violation of the relevant provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, those personnel shall have full authority to charge and prosecute violations of the City's Fair Housing Code on behalf of the City of Fridley in addition to any other remedies and penalties as may be available to them under State law. 3.03 Page 3 - Ordinance Na. PA88ED liND ADOPTLD BY TH8 CITY COIINCIL OF T8E CITY OF FRIDLBY T8I8 DAY OF , 1996. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK WiLLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR Public Hearing: October 28, 1996 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 3.04 MEMORA,NDUM � � DEVELOPMENT DIRECT4R DATE: October 31, 1996 � TO: William Bums, City Manager�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "ZoningA, and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 211 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled °Subdivision The City Council conducted a public hearing regarding these amendments to the City Code on October 28, 1996. These amendments will allow the City to comply with the 60 day requirement established by Minnesota State Statu#e 15.99. This statute requires ail land use applications to be processed within a 60 day timeframe. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct first reading of the attached ordinances amending Chapters 205 and 211 of the Fridley City Code. MM/dw M-96-54 2 4.0 i ORDINANCE NO. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED, "ZONING", BY ADDING SECTION 205.05.02, 'APPLICATION PROCESSES', 1�1MENDING SECTIONS 205.05.03, 205.05.04, ADDING SECTION 205.05.07, 'VACATIONS', AND REN[A�ERING CONSECUTIVE SECTIONS WHERE APPROPRIATE. The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: 205. ZONING 2. APPLICATION PROCE5S Any applications submitted for land use-related matters, including, but not limited to, variances, special use �ermits, requests for rezoning, plan and subdivision approval, shall only be submitted in the manner pravided in this Code. Any written request or submission for application not submitted in the manner prescribed under this Code shall not be deemed "complete". At the first mee�ing of each year, or"as soon after as practicable, the City Council shall establish dates for the following year on which completed application will be accepted. No applica�ion is complete or may be accepted on any date other than those established by the Council for submission. When a written request or initial application is received by the City, the City shall, within ten days of its receipt, notify the person making the written request or submission if it is not complete. If such a notification is sent, it shall contain a list of those items necessary to complete the request or submission. No period for agency action specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99 shall commence until a complete application is submitted to the City, including �ny items specified in the notice from the City as the bas�s for a determination of incom leteness The City expressly reserves the right to extend, with written notice, the period for action under Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99 for a period of up to 60 days beyond the deadline specified therein, if the City or its staff find that additional time is reasonably necessary to process and review the submission. An extension beyond 60 days may be provided with the consent of the person or persons 4.02 Ordinance No. Zoning Page 2 �.3 ANNEXATION �.4 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE The Council, by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote, may adopt amendments to this Chapter as required. The procedure shaZl be as follows: A. Initiation For Amendment. (1) Any person owning real estate may petition the City Council to amend the district boundaries so as to affect the real estate. (2) The City Council or the Planning Commission may, upon their own motion, initiate a request to amend the text or the districting map of this Chapter. B. Application For Amendment. Al1 petitions for amendments shall be filed with the City on forms provided by the City together with such filing fee as may be established by the City Council. C. Referral To The Planning Commission. All petitions for amendments shall be referred to the Planning Commission which shall hold an official public hearing within ��1�—{-6-�� forty (40) days of the date of filing such petition. D. Hearing. A notice of hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten (].Q) days, but not more than thirty (30) days, prior to the date of the hearing. 4.03 Ordinance No. Zoning Page 3 The hear Citv notice shall contain the dates of the public ng before Council. Planning Commission and the E. Action By The Planning Commission. (1) If the request is for district change, notices shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing to all owners of property within 350 feet of the parcel of land included in the request. The notice shall contain the dates of the ublic hearing before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Failure of a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this Chapter. (2) The Planning Commission shall make its recommendation to the City Council on the night of the public hearing. In the event that no action can be taken by the Planning Commissian because of the absence of available information or, in its judgment, and inadequate period of time has elapsed to fully examine or study the application or other submission, the period of time for the action by the City shall be, for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99, be immediately extended for an additional sixty (60) days, or such lesser time as the City may, in its discretion, deem reasonable under the circumstances, and the person or persons making the application or other submission shall be immediately notified of the extension in writing. e�-�$��-�cr"c�r6ii --ii-.r�- �"tn-��c-.�c-urr+- • � �- t-. +- • - - -- -- - - F. Action By TYie City Council. -- -- -- --- - - - - - - • -. - - - 4.04 Ordinance No. Zoning Page 4 _ _�_ . ..,:.��.t - - - - {�--(1) All petitions for amendments shall be forwarded to the City Council from the Planning Commission. The City Council shall hold an official public hearing at the next available meeting following the Planning Commission public hearing, with adequate time given to prepare the minutes of the hearing, and follow the process for approval of an ordinance as required under the Fridley City Charter. In no case sha1Z this exceed sixty (60) days either from the date of the receipt of the completed application or submission, unless extended by the Planning Commission, and in that case no later than the petitioner. �}- (2) If the request is for a district change, notices shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing to all owners of property within 350 feet of the parcel of land included in the request. The notice shall contain the dates of the public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Failure of a property owner receive notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this Chapter. �-.5. SPECIAL USE PERMIT A. Purpose. to The purpose of this Section is to provide the City of Fridley with a reasonable degree of discretion in deterrnining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. In making this determination the City may consider the nature of the land upon which the use is to be located, the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises or on any adjoining roads, and all such other factors as the City shall reasonably deem a requisite of consideration in determininq the effect of such use. For the purpose of recording, the terms Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit shall be said to mean one and the same pursuant to M.S.A. Section 462.3595, 4.05 Ordinance No. Zoning Page 5 Subdivision 4. B. Application. Whenever this Chapter requires a Special Use Permit, application in writing must be filed with the City together with such filing fee as may be established the City Council and shall be accompanied by a site plan or other documentation as required by the City. C. Referral To The Planning Commission. . an by The application and related file shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study concerning the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission shall hold an official public hearing within forty (40) s-��t-�--�8-� days of the date of filing such petition. D. Hearing. A notice of public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days but not more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing. E. Action By The Planning Commission. (1) Notices shall be mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the parcel included in the request not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Failure of a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this Chapter. (Ref. 1026) (2) The Commission shall make its recommendation to the City Council on the night of the public hearing, except as otherwise provided herein.�� i-�a...pii-f;�i--ir }v�ir-�cr� �Zru�-�-urr�'crr� } -c��c � 1T�T� %��R �Rfl��l��i�A l�l�ifw��l��i/�� %�'��l�� 4.06 Ordinance No. Zoning Page 6 • - - - -- -- - -- - F. Council Action. {1) The City Council shall consider applications for Special Use Permits at the next available meeting following the Planning Commission public hearing, with adequate time given to prepare the minutes of the hearing. In no case shall this exceed sixty (60) days from the receipt of the completed application unless otherwise extended, with written notice to the applicant for up to sixty additional days, or as otherwise consented to in writing by the Petitioner. }��'�� ' �� nl � � ��a �� l�z_�� r�. c. +- � � � i - �}(2) Approval: In considering applications for Special Use Permits under this Code, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. If it is determined that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazard, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, the City Council may grant such permit and may impose conditions and safeguards therein by a favorable vote of a majority of all members of the Council. {�}(3) Agreement: The City Council may require a written agreement, deposit of certified check or funds, a bond or other assurance of faithful observance of conditions, the violation of which shall invalidate the permit and shall be considered a violation of this Chapter. -(-�-(4) Denial: Special Use Permits may be denied �� Ordinance No. Zoning Page 7 G. by motion of the Council and such motion shall constitute that conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for a Special Use Permit which has been denied wholly or in part, shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on new ground or new evidence or proof of changes of conditions found to be valid by the Planning Commission. Lapse Of A Special Use Permit By Non-Use. Whenever within one (1) year after granting a Special Use Permit, the recipient of the Special Use Permit shall not have commenced the work as required by the permit, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for an extension of time in which to complete the work is granted. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the City at least twenty (20) days before the expiration of the original Special Use Permit. The reqtiest for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete the work. Such petition shall be presented to the City Council for final action. H. Revocation of Special Use Permit. Failure to comply with any and all conditions and stipulations issued with a special use permit shall result in revocation of the special use permit. Revocation shall occur after a public hearing by the City Council and in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462. All costs incurred by the City during the revocation process �� may be assessed to the property. �.6, VARIANCES 7. VACATIONS . . , � . Ordinance Zoning Page 8 No. �sis'-� L'la: Application. In order to vacate any right of way or easement, an �plication in writing must be filed with the City together with such filing fee as may be established b the City Council and shall be accompanied by a site �lan or other documentation as required by the City. Documentation shall include a written petition signed by all property owners directly abutting the right of way or easement to be vacated, their agreement of the vacation request. C. Referral To The Planning Commission. The application and related file shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study concerning the effect of the vacation on the Comprehensive Plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission shall hold an official public hearing within forty (40) days of the date of filing such petition. D. Hearing. A notice of public hearing shall be published in the official riewspaper at least ten (10) days but not more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing. E. Action By The Planning Commission. {1) Notices shall be mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the parcel containing the easement, or the right of way to be vacated, not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Failure of a pro�erty owner to receive notice sha11 not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this Chapter. (Ref. 1026) (2) The Commission shall make its recommendation to �he City Council on the night of the public hearinct, or table action -•='�'� �'�� until _the 4.09 Ordinance No. Zoning Page 9 next the City may provide for an extension of no more than 60 days of the period for consideration of the application by notifying the applicant of that decision in writing. In no event shall any extension beyond the additional sixty days be permitted absent the express written consent of the applicant. F. Council Action. (1) The City Council shall consider ap lications for Vacations at the next available meeting following the Planning Commission public hearing, with adequate time given to prepare the minutes of the hearing. In no case shall this exceed sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the competed application unless an additional period of time is established by the planning commission or the council as necessary for further deliberation and the applicant is so notified in writing. In no event shall any such extension exceed a period sixty days beyond the oriqinal sixtv dav period unless consented to by the petitioner in writing. The City Council shall follow such procedures as established by the City Charter for approval of vacation requests. �7 BUILDING PERMITS �.8 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 8.9 ENFORCEMENT 8.10 4.10 ORDINANCB NO. AN ORDINANCL RECODIFYING THS FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 211, ENTITLED "SIIBDIVISION" BY AMENDING SECTION 211.04.01, DELETING SLCTION 211.04.O1.0 AND F, AND AMENDiNG SECTION 211.04.02 AND RENUMBERING CONSBCtJTIVE SECTIONS The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: 211. SUBDIVISION (Ref. 75, 126, 168, 207, 229, 633, 667, 754, 1026) 211.01. PURPOSE The regulations and provisions established by this Chapter are for the following purposes: 1. To establish standard procedures, requirements, and conditions for the preparation, submission and approval of land subdivisions within the City of Fridley. 2. To secure satisfactory conformity of such subdivisions to the land use, the major thoroughfare plan, the official map, zoning and other plans and chapters of this Code. 3. To assist the orderly, efficient, and integrated development of the City of Fridley. 4. To promote the health, safety and general welfare of �he residents of the City of Fridley. 5. To guide the City in the performance of its functions and duties. 211.02, DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Chapter, words used in the present tense shall include the future; words in the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular; and the word shall is mandatory and not discretionary. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and application of this Chapter and the following words and terms wherever they occur in this Chapter are defined as foliows: l. Auditor's Subdivision. 5.01 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 2 1. Auditor's Subdivision. All lands formerly described by complicated metes and bounds descriptions where the Anoka County Auditor has simplified the description for tax purposes by assigning a lot number. 2. City. Any person duly appointed, authorized, delegated or otherwise given the official capacity to act as a representative or agent for the City of Fridley. 3. County Surveyor. The Anoka County Officers who examine or check plats or subdivisions prior to acceptance by the Registrar of Deeds for filing in Anoka County. 4. Lot. An existing division of land that can be conveyed without further subdivision. The term "lot" is generally interchangeable with the terms "parcel" or "tract". 5. Plat. A map, drawing or chart which graphically delineates the boundary of land parcels for the purpose of identification and record of title. The plat is a recorded legal document and must conform to all Minnesota State Laws. 6. Plat, Final. The final map, drawing or chart on which the subdivider's plan of subdivision is presented to the City Council for approval and which, if approved, will be submitted to the County Registrar of Deeds or Registrar of Titles. 7. Plat, Preliminary. A preliminary map, drawing or chart indicating the proposed layout of a subdivision to be submitted to the City Council for their consideration. 8. Registered Land Survey A District Court ordered survey of unplatted registered land 5.02 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 3 which serves thereof. as a prerequisite for conveyance of any part 9. Subdivider. Any person, firm, causes land to be for such person or 10. Subdivision. corporation, partnership or association who divided, platted or planned into a subdivision others. The separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land, under single ownership, into two (2) or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, or roads, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination thereof, except those separations: A. Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five (5) acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses; B. Creating cemetery lots; C. Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary. 211.03. CONVEYANCE RESTRICTIONS l. No conveyance of land to which the requlations of this Chapter are applicable shall be filed or recorded if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after April 21, 1961, or to an unapproved plat made after such regulations become effective. In addition, no land shall be conveyed if it is less than a whole parcel of land as charged in the tax lists unless it is approved or waived by the City. The foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described: A. Was a separate parcel of record April 16, 1952, (date of adoption of subdivision regulations by the City), is not part of a contiguous development and conveyance wiZl not result in a violation of Chapter 205 of the City Code, or B. Was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered 5.03 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 4 into prior to April 21, 19b1, or C. Was a separate parcel of not less than two and one-half (2 1/2) acres in area and 150 feet in width on January 1, 1966, or D. Was a separate parcel of not less than five (5) acres in area and 300 feet in width on July 1, 1980, or E. Is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of not less than five (5) acres and having a width of not less than 300 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two (2) or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than five (S) acres in area or 300 feet in width, or F. Is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land of not less than 20 acres and having a width of not less than 500 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two (2) or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than 20 acres in area or 500 feet in width. 2. In any case in which compliance with �he foregoing restrictions will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of this Chapter, the City Council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect and the conveyance may then be filed or recorded. Any owner or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot or parcel in violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall forfeit and pay to the City a penalty of not less than $100 for each lot or parcel so conveyed. The City may enjoin such conveyance or may recover such penalty by a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. 211.04. SUBDIVISIONS Hereafter all subdivisions of land as defined herein, made within the City of Fridley, shall be subject to and shall conform to these regulations and other applicable law and shall conform to the land use plan, the major thoroughfare plan, the official map, the Zoning Chapter and other City plans, ordinances, chapters and regulations. 5.04 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 5 1. Lot Split. Any existing lot, parcel or tract of land may be subdivided into two (2) or more parcels by means of a"lot split" when each parcel within the subdivision can be described as a simple fractional part of an existing City approved plat, Auditor's Subdivision, or Registered Land Survey. ��-��}e�--e�� eS"L�—e'�� `�"_° � N+- L, L.�i=vvl • i rxi'� � �. • if /1 1,., } T .�7.�7 ' } • l 1 L.,�L' rJTSC[ �Z'�D �C'e'� e / -�-i��-5��3�--��e— js�-a��.'�--�1�2�i � � la } .�, � a t--i� � c .i v r �-arncr�-�2�t3--E v }cs1'-re--��'-6$--��'6 } ti. � • +- . , .-. t, �y � +- t, � .�. �-.�....tl F........ t�T�i C'rLTtTE�e'�"—e� CLS A. Application Application for a lot split shall be made on forms furnished by the City and shall include a�� Certificate of Survey showing: {1) scale and north arrow; (2) dimensions of the property; (3) names and locations of adjacent streets; (4) location of any existing structure; and, (5) any other information as may be necessary to determine if the lot split meets the intent and requirements of this Chapter. B. Review (1) The proposed lot split shall be informally heard by the Planning Commission within forty t40) days of the filing of an application for lot split. Notices shall be mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the parcel included in the request, not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Failure of a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this chapter. {Ref. 1026) (2) After considering such things as adjacent land use, traffic patterns, zoning regulations, future 5.05 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 6 development, plans for parks, bikeway/walkways, street extensions, and other criteria deemed pertinent, the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council either approval, with or without stipulations, or disapproval. (3} After review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the application for lot split shall be informally heard by the City Council. The City Council shall approve or disapprove the request for the lot split within sixty (60) da�s of receipt of the application. Whenever any lot split is to be made, such subdivision can be made without further platting with approval of the Council if the Council shall find that such subdivision facilitates and does not hinder the transfer and conveyance of the land; daes not hinder the making of assessments and keeping of records connected therewith; that it does not result in the creation of any parcel (within or without the subdivision) of a size in area or frontage which is less buil buil subd than is rec ed for purposes of construction of a ing on such parcel under the zoning laws and ing regulations vision to be ma of the Cit that_the s not made for the purpose of avoiding such conditions and restrictions with res ect to the land as might be imposed upon a plat. (Ref. 207) . ..��._�. _ . �. : �..o,.� ��..��o.:. -- -- - • - - - - - -- C.� Certification and Recording (1) After final approval, a certified copy of the resolution approvinq the lot split ^��-�;��-�s�� C � -, �- , , .-. n � 1. l l h +- � L. .,7 �� y� i-�� e �.� Te'�' C'�Q'CL-L['GTIC'CI'T�'TII'��?� .` � � .. � ap��e�,-�—�Q shall be forwarded to the applicant. The lot split, together with a certified copy of the re s o 1 ut i on- �a '�� r�z-�-�en—e-�--� �-t�rs "€e �, s ha 11 thereafter be recorded among the records of the County 5.os Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 7 within one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of the resolution, unless a longer period of time is granted and provided for recording at the time of approval. (2) A lot split not recorded within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days or the approved extension time, is deemed to be one that is not approved and such lot split is not entitled to be recorded; and the same shall not thereafter be recorded except and unless it is presented to the Planning Commission and Council and re-approved. E. Division of Taxes Any lot, parcel, or tract of land parcel of land as charged in the Council approval before there is . .�..;�_ = - - . . that is less than a whole tax lists must receive City a division of taxes. 2. Plat and Registered Land Survey Process. A. Scope Al1 subdivisions as defined in Section 211.02.10 shall be platted, except as allowed in Section 211.04.01. �•~�'�� h � ��-�t-i t-�i a }��s i e.. �. � a ,.....�: �,� �--a� -- - - �, ,. m` €�a-e�e�-� � � .. � ,. a- �.��• _ • •�n �-'-s- ��i-�� i e�—eri��e��ra-�� . �e-�e-��-e�� , ,.�'�=o�--i a�e �e—t-33e-�rs� �_ n,� �,� u� y � � � � ,� 5.07 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 8 �e��s". All subdivisions lots or parcels which are 2 be platted. B. In General C. which create five (5) or more 1/2 acres or less in size shall (1) A subdivider shall prepare a preliminary plat of a subdivision before preparing a final plat. The subdivider shall submit the preliminary plat together with all required accompanying material to the Planning Commission and shall obtain the '��}�}�T-� approval of the Commission. (2) The subdivider shall then prepare a final plat together with all required accompanying materials and submit them to the Council for approval. The ; subdivider shall then obtain approval of the Council and by any other agencies and officials whose app�oval is required by law and shall be duly recorded. (3) No conveyance of any lot or parcel of land in a subdivision shall be lawful until final approval and recording have occurred. In addition, no permit to erect, alter or repair any building shall be issued until such approval and recording. (Ref. 75). Steps (1) Preliminary Plat Requirements A preliminary plat shall be clearly and legibly drawn on a high quality reproducible and all copies thereof shall be clear and legible. It shall be of such scale as to show clearly all details thereof. A preliminary plat together with such accompanying documents shall show the following; (a) The boundary lines and dimensions of the land to be subdivided and the locations of section corners and of existing subdivisions, streets (and street widths) and unsubdivided parcels (and ownerships) adjoining the proposed subdivision, between it and nearest existing street or for such distance beyond as may be required. (b) The proposed general layout, including all proposed streets, alleys, crosswalks through 5.08 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 9 blocks, street widths and proposed names, approximate dimensions of blocks and lots, tentative lot and block numbering and approximate radii of all curves. (cj The existing and proposed easements and right-of-ways for drainage, sewerage, utilities, railroad lines, streets. alleys, bikeways, walkways, and any other areas proposed to be dedicated foz public purposes and of any reservations and their purposes. (d) The correct location and designation of all wet lands and water channels, water areas, drainage courses and ditches, and indication of all areas which, before drainage improvement, are subject to inundation or storm water overflow, with proposed drainage improvement of such areas and of swamps, drainage courses and ditches. (e) A statement giving the intended excavating, grading and filling of land within the proposed subdivision and the intended removal or destruction of existing trees and other natural ground cover, sufficient to meet the requirements of the City in determining whether a land alteration permit could be issued in accordance with the City Code. (f) Any required data and materials not practically shown on the preliminary plat shall be submitted on separate sheets, to accompany the plat. (2) Application (a) The subdivider shall submit a tracing and three (3) dark line prints of the preliminary plat and three (3) copies of documents accompanying the plat to the City. The applicant shall submit the information indicated on the official submission checklist, �_ �ity �—��'_' ��n��e�e�s-a-� r..-�n.��_ (b) When land to be subdivided abuts a state trunk highway, one (1) additional copy shall be required and shall be submitted to the State Highway Commissioner with 5,09 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 10 the request that such Commissioner's recommendations, if any, should be received within fourteen (14) days after the date submitted, for consideration by the Planning Commission acting on the plat. (3) Action on Preiiminary Plat by Planning Commission (a) The Planning Commission will meet to consider the plat and proposed improvements by the subdivider and the time and method of installation of improvements. (Ref. 75) (b) Not less than ten (10) days before the date of a meeting of the Planning Commission, for consideration of a preliminary plat, the City shall do the following: ((1)) Notify by United States mail the subdivider and the property owners of the property within three hundred fifty (350) feet adjoining the land within the plat of the time and place of such hearing. (Ref. 1026) ((2)) Publish notice of such hearing in the official City newspaper. {c) At such meeting, all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to make presentations. (4) Preliminary Review (a) The Planning Commission shall take action on a subdivision application within 3�-8 40 days following delivery of an application completed in compliance with the requirements set forth in this Chapter.��es1-�r ��}�p3��: Action by the Planning Commission shall be tentative approval, disapproval or conditional approval of the preliminary plat, the last being tentative approval conditioned upon certain modifications as specified. After the Planning Commission's review of the preliminary plat, it shall be recommended to the Council for final action. . -- � - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - • - 5.10 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 11 �re--�3g}9��3�e... �.i..., i i i., a ,.,a ,. t � .,,.: .., .. �s. � � [.11✓j✓L V'-\.ta BTiQ�i�P� 4�IRLtl1�G.T1•• /� � i� . .. L. .. l 7 ��-� }�• �•••••• J– • i i v u a�. � .},. � –u �c i. a.. � L3TCr�C1T�CG��Cl1Z'.� �fCSrC]—CTYZT^.SC'�' ••L...l 1 ....1.�. �y �1.... r ease-�ral� ��-�r-e--ee�s3�-�e��-i t-� �'� � � � _ . , �'' � " " „� �� ;ri�r-a�--a�p��-i �a�� e � �� i� , i.. a , . a �. , } i., � : .. , i ,,. � -, � � i.. ,.. ,,...,, f � c� ,. � � �..�... . �' (b) Al1 preliminary plats shall be forwarded to the City Council for review and a proval or denial. The Council shall consider the preliminary plat application at its next available meeting following the Planning Commission meeting. (5) Final Plat Application Following preliminary review of the application by the Planning Commission, the applicant may request final approval by the City. Request for final plat approval shall occur in writing on the application form supplied b� the City. The applicant shali submit three (3) blue line hardcopies, the final mylars, a 200 scale reduction of the plat, the application form, and the fee as established in Chapter 11 to the City. (a) Requirements The final plat shall conform to the preliminary plat as tentatively approved or conditionally approved, including any required modifications and to the requirements herein and any additional requirements of law. When there is more than one sheet, an index sheet sha11 be attached showing the entire subdivision, including boundary and streets, at an appropriate scale and indicating the separate sheets of the final pla� and the sheet number of each. (b) Submitting Final Plat The subdivider shall within six (6) months after the date of the Council's ' review of the preliminary plat, submit the final plat together wi�h all required accompanying documents to the City. If not filed within the designated six-month period, unless this period is extended by Council, the action of Planning Commission and the Council on the preliminary plat shall 5.11 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 12 become null and void. If required improvements are not filing, a cash deposit, certifie insuring later installation or a City install same and assess cost shall accompany the final plat. � � - -� :�.��:..--�t �a installed prior to d check or surety bond petition to have the against the subdivider " = - - - -- - • - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- � -- . �}(c) Action on Final Plat �.. r..,,... • i i., i i ��Tdt--6�---�i�upp=6`v'c-�= �� i i�-a-� id' }T-c� izi-z:rzf�—�.((�-_.a.Q�%� --circ�c�r�� "-,-�-^rf�—iir � ' � =u� Before the Council approves the final plat, the plat shall comply with all conditions and requirements of this Chapter and all conditions and requirements upon which preliminary approval is expressly conditioned either through performance or the execution of appropriate agreements assuring performance. If a plat is disapproved by the City, no application for the denied subdivision of land may be submitted for a period of three (3) months following the denial. �e}(d) Failure to Finally Approve or Disapprove If the Council fails to certify final approval within sixty (60) days after the application for final plat has been submitted, and if the applicant has complied with all conditions and requirements of this Chapter, the application shall be deemed finally approved, and upon demand the City shall execute a certificate to that effect. -(�}- ( e ) Survey After approval of the final plat, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision to be surveyed, staked and monumented by a registered surveyor in accordance with 5.12 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 13 the requirements herein, with statutory requirements and with any requirements of the County Platting Authority. {�}- ( f ) Recording After approval, the final plat shall be recorded among the records of the County within one hundred eighty {18Q) days after the date of Council approval unless a longer period is granted at the time of approvai. A plat not recorded within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days or the approved extension time, is deemed to be one that is not approved and such plat is not entitled to be recorded; and the same shall not thereafter be recorded except and unless it shall have again been presented to the Planning Commission and Council and approved for recording, �-}- (g) Time Extension A time extension for recording a plat shall be granted upon application duly made to the Council unless the Council finds after a hearing that the delay and failure to record within the period of time allowed was without justifiable cause and that the conditions and circumstances attendant to the land within the plat and in the immediate surrounding area as is affected thereby are mat.erially and substantially different from those present at the time such plat was originally approved and that the plat as made is no longer deemed an appropriate plat with the conditions and circumstances present. In making such determination, the Council can consider among other things any changes in zoning, sizing of lots, location of streets and utilities in the lands within or adjacent to said plat and other factors deemed material, and is not limited thereto. (Ref. 229) {�}- (h) Appeal to Council No final plat of a subdivision shall be approved by the Council if the preliminary plat thereof was disapproved by the Planning Commission except that any subdivider may appeal the Commission's action on the preliminary plat to the Council to overrule said action. The Council, as a result of the appeal, may elect to consider the preliminary plat and give it approval, conditional approval or disapproval. The grounds for any refusal to 5.13 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 14 approve a final plat shall be set forth in the proceedings of the Council and reported to the person or persons applying for such approval. -{�-}- (h) Required Signatures No plat of a subdivision shall be filed with the Registrar of Deeds or accepted for filing unless signed by the Mayor and Manager or Clerk and unless approved as to survey and engineering accuracy by the County Platting authorities. 3. Zero Lot Lines. A. The City may approve subdivisions for the development of zero lot line, common wall residential structures within R-2 and R-3 zones. These lots shall be divided equally as is reasonably possible within the restrictions of the existing guidelines of the Zoning Chapter. B. All other zoning requirements in the respective districts except for the setbacks along the common wall, zero lot line(s) must be met. C. Separate meters must be provided to each dwellinq unit for water, electricity and natural gas. In addition, the common party wall(s) fire rating shall be one hour for existing structure and two (2) one hour walls for new construction. D. The owner of the property to be subdivided shall execute and record at their expense a"Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" as provided by the City. The said document shall be used to protect the rights of the individual owners sharing the single structure to maintenance, repair and construction in case of damage to the original structure. The declarations, covenants, conditions and restrictions shall provide protection to the property owners and the City on the following objects: (1) Building and Use Restrictions. {2) Party Walls. (3� Relationships among owners of adjoining living units and arbitration of disputes. E. The City shall be a beneficiary to these declarations, 5.14 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 15 covenants, conditions and restrictions. 211.05. VARIANCES Should the Planning Commission or Council find that any of the regulations or requirements herein are not applicable to a proposed land subdivision or to a preliminary or final plat thereof, or would cause undue hardship, it may permit such variations therefrom as are not contrary to the intent and purpose of these regulations or other applicable law or any applicable plan or portion thereof. The nature of the variances to be permitted in a particular case, with reasons why they are deemed necessary, shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting and shall be transmitted to the subdivider. 211.06. SPECIAL DISTRICTS The requirements of this Chapter may be modified or excepted in the case of special zaning districts established under Chapter 205 of the City Code. 211,07. DESIGN STANDARDS A preliminary plat and a final plat shall be made with such design standards as are applicable thereto, said standards being established for the purpose of guiding and accompanying a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of Fridley which will, in accordance with existing and future needs, best promote the public health, safety, order, convenience and the general welfare and efficiency and economy in the process of development. The following design standards are hereby established for land subdivisions: 1. Layout. General layout, street pattern, street and public areas, facilities and uses, regulations and other applicable law, Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public Dedication. widths, proposed private shall conform to these and to the City's A. As a general rule, each subdivision shall be required to dedicate land, or pay into the City fund a cash payment equivalent, for public uses including schools, parks, playgrounds and other public purposes other than public 5.15 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 16 right-of-way, in the following manner: Ten (10�) percent of all the gross area of residential zoned property to be subdivided; three (3$) percent of the gross area of commercial or industrial zoned property to be subdivided. B. Any land dedication in excess of the 10� or 3� requirement shall be reserved for a period of two (2) years during which time the City or other public body may buy such land. C. In addition to the above described general rule, the following conditions and requirements shall also be complied with: (1) The City may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval. (2) Any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the City and used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained. (3) The City must reasonably determine that it will need to acquire that portion of land, or the cash equivalent thereof, for the purposes stated in this Section as a result of approval of the subdivision. D. The provisions of this Section may be modified if the City Council determines that individual circumstances call for adjustment. 3. Street Patterns. Street patterns should follow substantially the patterns shown on the land use plan or shall be at least the equal of the planned patterns in these respects: they shall adequately serve platted lots when developed; they shall intersect existing or planned trunk highways and major thoroughfares at infrequent intervals only; they shall not obstruct the reasonable and desirable development of adjoining, unsubdivided lands in conformity with any applicable plans and with these design standards, they shall be such as to discourage through traffic from using minor streets in the subdivision; and they shall be suited to the topography of the land, but with their orientation influenced by walking direction and distance to and from existinq and planned parks, 5.16 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 17 playgrounds and schools. 4. Access. The street pattern shall be designed so as to minimize access points and crossings along all railroad and arterial thoroughfares. 5. Public Streets. Al1 proposed streets shall be offered for dedication as public streets, with no private streets shown. 6. Right Angle Intersection. Streets shall intersect or intercept each other at right angles with variations of not more than twenty (20°) degrees permitted when considered necessary. 7. Grades. Street grades of six (6$) percent shall be considered a desirable maximum to be exceeded only when required by topography or other controlling and physical condition. Grades of all streets, walks, curbs and gutters shall be approved by the City. 8. Jogs. Jogs in streets shall have center line offsets of 125 feet or more. 9. Major Streets. The location, width and alignment of trunk highways and major streets shall conform to the official map, to the major street plan and to any other applicable plans, including State and County highway plans. Width of secondary major thoroughfares, not trunk highways, shall be 60 feet. 10. Minor Streets. Widths of minor residential streets shall be a minimum of 50 �eet. 11. Business Streets. Widths of streets serving business, industrial, multiple 5.17 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 18 dwelling, institutional or public frontage shall be not less than shown on the land use plan or other applicable plan, and when not shown, shall be as specified by the Planning Commission, or by the City acting for the Planning Commission. 12. Cul-De-Sac 5treets. Dead-end or cul-de-sac streets shall be no longer than 600 feet with a turn around at the closed end having property line and curb-line diameters of not less than 100 feet and 80 feet respectively, except that such minimums may be altered when required by topography or other controlling conditions. 13. Corners. Property lines at residential street corners shall be rounded on a radius of not less than 10 feet and curb lines on a radius of not less than 20 feet, provided that greater radii may be required by the Planning Commission where deemed necessary. 14, Half-width Streets. Half-width streets are not acceptable except as found practically necessary by the Planning Commission and only with the assurance of dedication of the other half when adjoining property is subdivided. 15. Corporate Boundary Streets. For protecting the City in developing and maintaining streets bordering the corporate limits, where a half-width street dedication is proposed, the subdivider shall furnish one of the following with the preliminary plat: I A. Assurance that the remaining half outside the corporate limits has or will be dedicated, or B. A warranty deed for the remaining half outside the corporate limits, or C. An easement for street purpose, signed by the owners of the part outside the corporate limits. 16. Street Names. Names of streets which are extensions of existing streets shall be the same, provided that these and other street names shall be 5.18 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 19 subject to Ci�y approval. 17. Block Lenqths. Residential blocks shall normally be of sufficient width for two (2) tiers of lots. Block lengths shall be determined by circulation and other needs, with lengths up to 1,500 feet permissible when approved by the Planning Commission. A pedestrian way or crosswalk, not less than 10 feet in width, may be required approximately midway in a block that is 700 feet or more in length, or for access to schools, playgrounds, shopping centers and to other areas and facilities. Where residential blocks with lots deeper than 260 feet as proposed, a reservation for a future street through the middle of the block longitudinally, may be required by the Planning Commission. 18. Accessibility. Each lot shall be served general accessibility for delivery purposes. 19. Lot Size. from a public street satisfactorily for fire fighting, refuse collection and The size of lots shall be as set forth in Code. A corner lot shall have extra width setback of a building adequately from both shall be adequate to provide space for the necessary accessory buildinqs. 20. Side Lot Lines. Chapter 205 of the City of 5 feet or more for streets. Each lot dwelling and all Side lot lines shall be at right angles or radial to street lines, with slight variations under difficult conditions permissible, with P�anning Commission approval. 21. Easements. Easements offered for dedication should be shown along lot lines where needed for utiZity purposes, for drainage, for screen planting or other purposes. Utility easements along rear lot lines will usually be required unless alleys are provided with required width being 12 feet for a single easement or for the total of two (2) parailel, adjoining easements an two (2) lots. Minimum width of drainage easements, single or double, shall be 20 feet and screen planting and other easements, single or double shall be 10 feet or such gr�ater width in specific cases as the Planning Commission shail require. 5.19 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 20 211.08. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS As a condition precedent to the approval of a finai plat, the subdivider shall give satisfactory assurance of the installation of at least the following improvements at the subdivider's own expense, within a period of time specified by the Planning Commission: 1. Grade Streets. Grade all streets and walks to specified grades and surface all streets in accordance with adopted plans and specifications. 2. Install Underground Utilities. Install water mains, storm and sanitary sewers and additional drainage facilities, where any or all are required. 3. Off Street Improvements. Erect street name signs, sod boulevard areas and plant at least two (2) satisfactory street trees on each lot near the front lot line, or in the boulevard area, whichever is specified by the City. Grades shall be set by the City and improvements shall be according to previously or hereinafter established standards and specifications by the Council. An escrow may be provided in lieu of the installations. 4. Delay of Streets. Where water mains, storm and sanitary sewers and additional drainage facilities are to be installed, the required street improvements may be deferred until after such installation. 5. Cost of Improvement. To cover the cost of improvements that may not have been completed at the time of filing the final plat, the subdivider shall: A. Furnish cash, a certified check or a surety bond, to the City of Fridley to secure the performance of such installation by him or her within a period of time as stipulated by the Council or to cover installation by the City, or B. Petition the Council to install such improvements, the 5.20 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 21 entire cost of which is to be levied and certified as a special assessment, in which case the subdivider shall agree in writing that in the interim between the filing of the final plat and the certification of the special assessment to the County Auditor there will be no transfer of ownership of any part of the property platted without first depositing with the City an amount sufficient to cover the estimated proportionate amount of such assessment applicable to the lot or parcel of land transferred. 211.Q9. EFFECT OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL For one (1) year following preliminary approval and for two (2) years following final approvai, unless the subdivider and the City agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot Iayout or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the City may extend the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. In connection with a subdivision involving planned and staged development, the City may by resolution or agreement grant the rights referred to herein for such periods of time longer than two (2) years which it determines reasonable and appropriate. 211,10. VACATION OF PLAT 1, Any plat or any part of a plat may be vacated by the owner of the property before the sale of any lot therein, by a written instrument with a copy of the plat attached, declaring the same to be vacated. Such vacation shall require the approval of the City Council in the same manner as for plats of subdivisions. The City Council may reject any such instrument which abridges or destroys any public rights in any of its streets or utility right-of-ways. Such an instrument shall be approved and recorded in the same manner as plats or subdivisions. After being recorded, such instrument shall nullify the recording of the plat so vacated and divest all public rights in the streets, and public grounds and all dedications laid out or described in such plat. 5.21 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 22 2. When lots have been sold, the plat may be vacated as stated above, provided that all the owners of lots in such a plat join in the execution of such instrument. 3. Platted areas may be replatted, provided that they follow the provisions of this Chapter. 211.11. PENALTiES Any violation of this Chapter is a misdemeanor and is subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of this Code. 211.12. FEES The fee for subdivisions (lot split, plat, or Registered Land Survey) of land are provided for in Chapter 11 of this Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIB DAY OF � 1996. Page 23 - Ordinance No. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR Public Hearing: October 28, 1996 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 5.22 Ordinance No. Subdivision Page 23 5.2� r � CfiY OF FRiDLEY LICENSES GENERAL CONTRACTOR-CONIMERCIAL Adolfson & Peterson Inc PO Box 9377 Minneapolis MN 55440 Douglas Myhre GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL American Remodeling/Century 21 (2406) 3700 Annapolis Ln Plymouth MN 554�7 C. Mihaiko PLUMBING Hauck Plumbing 15413 Jasper St NW Ramsey Mn 55303 Schader Hole Pushing & Plbg 4426 Hodgson Rd Shoreview MN 55126 ` ROOFING R & N Roofmg 2555 Countryside Dr Long Lake MN 55356 Steve Hauck Louis Schader Steven Schnulz %.�2 RON JULKOWSKI Chief Bldg Ofcl STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN Same RON JULKOWSKI Chief Bldg Ofcl FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES Owner's First Name Owner's Last Name Property Address Unit # License Fees A1lan Fehn 1251-1253 Hillwind Road 1 $25.00 Allan Mattson 120 Mississippi Place N.E. 4 $100.00 Alphonse Klisch 6530 2nd Street N.E. 4 $100.00 Anderson Dennis 12b0-1262 Norton Avenue 2 $50.00 Arnold Elmquist i060 64th Avenue N.E. 5 $105.00 Arnold Eimquist 4901 3rd Street N.E. 7 $115.00 Arnold Elmquist 4939 3rd Street N.E. 7 $115_00 Arnold Elmquist 4949 3rd Street N.E. 7 $115.00 Arnold Elmquist 6370 Hwy. 65 N.E. 5 $105.00 Arnold Elmquist 6380 Hwy. 65 N.E. 6 $110.00 Arnold Elmquist 6393 Hwy. 65 N.E. 7 $ I 15.00 Arnord Elmquist 6417 Hwy. b5 N.E. 8 $120.00 Associates Schwieters & 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(275 1 $25.00 Auren Kerntop 321 79th Way N.E. 8 $120.00 Auren Kerntop 5835 Main Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Brian Tjosvold 6554 Central Avenue I�I.E. 1 �25.00 Bruce Herrick 4551 main Street N.E. 1 $25.00 GO Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7479-7481 Able SVeet N.E 2 $50.00 GO Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7495-7497 Able Street N.E 2 �50.00 C/O Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7501-7503 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 C/O Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7513-7515 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 CIO Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7527-7529 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 C/O Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7539-7541 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 C/O Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7553-7555 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 GO Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7565-7567 Able Street N.E Z $�0.00 Tiiursday, October 31, i996 7.03 Page 1 of 8 � - _ _ _ FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES Owner's First Name Owner's Last Name Property Address Unit # License Fees C!O Ed Chies Ed-Ray Buiiders 7579-7581 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 C/O Ed Chies Ed-Ray Builders 7595-7597 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 Carol Anne Gadke 6389-6391 Pierce Street N. 1 $25.40 Charles Westling 5420-5426 4th Street N.E. 3 $75.00 Charles Westling 5536-5538 7th Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Charles Gramith C. P.G. Enterprises 380-382 74th Avenue N.E. 2 $50.00 Chester Gromek 6511 2nd Street N.E. 4 $I00.00 Chris Zelevarov 160 Mississippi Place N.E. 3 $100.00 Clarence Fischer 7893-7897 Finvood Way N 1 $25.00 Court McFarlane Midwest Invst. 191 Island Park Drive N.E. 12 $140.00 Craig Schillinger 140 Mississippi Place N.E. 3 $100.00 Curt Bero 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(244 1 $25.00 Curtis Bostrom 190 Island Park Drive N.E. 12 $140.00 D&O,N&L Nelson 1295-129'7 Norton Avenue 2 $50.00 Daniel Fay 7361-7363 University Ave 2 $25.00 Daniel Neujahr 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(362 1 $25.00 Darlene Hafner 5618-5620 6th Street N.E. 2 $50.00 David Childs 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(248 1 $25.00 David Halek 7313-7315 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 David Heryla 5761 2nd Street N.E. 3 $75.00 David Menken 4042 Main Street N.E. 1 $25.00 David Olson 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(384 1 $25.00 Deanna Pesek 1641 N. Innsbruck Dr. (28 1 $25.00 Detores Jeane Berg 5820-5822 4th Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Dennis Kugler 1560-1564 73 1/2 Ave. N. 2 $50.00 Diane Schabert 7374-7381 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 Thursday, October 31, 1996 7.04 Page 2 of 8 � � FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES Owner's First Name Owner's Last Name Property Address Unit # License Fees Donald Betzold 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr. (20 1 $25.00 Donald Koss 7447-7449 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 Douglas Fiege 5461 4th Street N.E. 1 $25•UO Douglas Finch 6262�264 SW Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Duane Narog 6541 2nd Street N.E. 5 $105.00 Duane Schwartz 5347-5349 4th Street N.E. 3 $75.00 Duane Woodworth 1601 N. Innsbruck Dc (12 1 $25.00 E.C. Crohn 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(ll9 1 $25.00 Edward Derbzinski 1323 73rd Avenue N.E. 2 $50.00 Edward Fragale 6480 Rivetview Terrace N. 1 $25.00 Edward Otremba 5057 3rd Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Eugene Thomas 5816 2nd Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Evelyn Cornelius 4042-4022 Main Street N. 1 $25.00 F. Gordon Torgenid 6534 Central Avenue N.E. 4 $100.00 Floyd Bradtey 6830 Brookview Drive N.E 1 $25.00 Gary Lindberg 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(370 1 $Z5.00 Gary Wellner 6421-6423 Starlite Circle 2 550.00 Gary Wellner 8081 Broad Avenue N.E. 1 $25.00 George Lunde 7401-7403 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 George Sundem 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(314 1 $25.00 George Winiecki 6150-6156 Star Lane N.E. 2 $50.00 Gerald Engdahl 6035 Main Street N.E. 4 $100.00 Gloria Sandberg - JSG, Inc. 1050 52nd Avenue N_E. 16 $160.00 Gloria Sandberg - JSG, Inc. 1090 52nd Avenue N.E. 16 $160.00 Gloria Sandberg - JSG, Inc. 1120 52nd Avenue N_E. 16 $160.00 Gloria Sandberg - JSG, Inc. 1170 52nd Avenue N.E. 16 $160.00 Thursday, October 31, 1996 7.45 Page 3 of 8 FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES Owner's First Name Owner's Last Name Property Address Unit # License Fees Greg Peterson 1509 N. Timber Ridge N.E 1 $25.00 Gregg Hinz 6600-6604 Central Avenue 2 $50.00 Herbert Aaker 6060 2 1/2 Street N.E. 4 $100.00 Herbert Aaker 6061 2nd Street N.E. 4 $100.00 Hoa Thi Pham Minh Quang 7190 Central Ave.N.E. 3 $75.00 Jack Kozer 6501 Channel Road N.E. 4 $100.00 Jack Kozer 6531 Channel Road N.E. 4 $100.00 Jacquelyn Horner 6361 Pierce Street N.E. 2 $50.00 James Peng 5428 Sth Street N.E. 4 $100.00 Jean Gould 5940-5942 4th Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Jerome Thompson 411-413 Ironton Street N.E 2 $50.00 Jerry Iacobson 6401 Pierce Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Joan Heavirland 5479 E. Brenner Pass N.E. 1 $25.00 John Blahoski 105 58th Avenue N.E. 7 $115.00 John Conda 5800 2 1/2 Street N.E. 4 $100.00 John Crist 1261-1263 Norton Ave. N. 2 $50.00 3ohn Glenn 7325-7327 Able Street N.E 1 $25.00 John Hurst 5961 Main Street N.E. 2 $50.00 John Jensen 5419 4th Street N.E. 4 $125.00 John Mastley 6019 Main Street N.E. 4 $100.00 John Morrissey 1601 N.Innsbruck Dr.(203) 1 $25.00 Jotm Morrissey 1601 N.Innsbruck Dr.(250) 1 $25.00 John Morrissey 1601 N.Innsbruck Dr.(350) 1 $25.00 John Saccoman 451 54th Avenue N.E. 2 $50.00 John Schudi 7857-7861 Firwood Way N 2 $�0.00 John Ward 150 Island Park Drive N.E. 12 $140.00 Thursday, October 31, 1996 7.�6 Page 4 of 8 � _ FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES Owner's First Name Owner's Last Name Property Address Unit # License Fees Joseph Maedens 50-60 63 1/2 Way N.E. 2 $50.00 Joseph Maertens 6332�234 Sth Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Judith Osiecki 6001�003 2nd Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Jugal Agarwal 370-372 74th Avenue N.E. Z $50.00 Karen Besch 5840-5842 4th Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Karen Roehl 4100 Main Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Kenneth Franlco 5612 7th Strcet NB. 11 $135.00 Kenneth Franko 5640 7th Street N.E. 11 $135.00 Kenneth Hafner 5612-5614 6th Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Kenneth Johnson 7349-7351 University Ave 2 $50.00 Kirylo Czichray 7879-7881 Firwood Way N 2 $50.00 Kristin Chambers 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(302 1 $25.00 Kristin Tollefson 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(270 1 $25.00 Laurence Russell 6011 Main Street N.E. 4 $100.00 Lloyd Smith 7301-7303 University Ave. 2 $50.00 Lyle Christie 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(208 1 $25,00 Lynn Hansen 350 75th Avenue N.E. 11 $135.00 Mark Jedlenski 7463-7465 Able Street N.E 1 $25,00 Mark Jedlenski 7833-7835 Firwood Way, 2 �50.00 Marvey Mayer 7431-7433 Able Street N.E 1 $25.00 Mary Wright 5503 E, Bavarian Pass N.E 1 $25.00 Mary Wright 5684 W. Bavarian Pass N. 1 $25.00 Michael Betz 7865-7869 Firwood Way N 2 $50.00 Michael Crandell SI21-SI23 3rd Street N.E. i $25.00 Michael Gile 7325-7327 Evert Court N. 1 $25.00 Michael Harmson 7337-7339 University Ave. 1 $25.00 Thursday, October 31, 1996 7.�7 Page 5 of 8 FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES Owner's First Name Owner's Last Name Property Address Unit # License Fees Michael Harmson 7337-7339 University Ave 1 $25.00 Michelle McNeil 5839-5841 3rd Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Mike Ko(odhjski 6400 Able Street N_E. 1 $25.00 Mortimer Sturdevant 7301-7303 Able Strget N.E 1 $25.00 Mozafar Chehrazi 1580-1584 73 ll2 Avenue 1 $25.00 N. Suburb. Hosp. Dis� Unity Hospital 400 Osborne Road N.E. 1 $25.00 N. Suburb. Hosp. Dist. Unity Hospital 7601 Sth Street N.E. 1 N/A Able Property Mgmt. 360-362 74th Avenue N.E. 2 $50.00 N/A Black Forest Condo 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr. (12 1 $25.00 N/A Building Mangement 1619 ?3rd Avenue N.E. 24 $200.00 N/A Fit Bar Enterprises 151 Island Park Drive N.E. 12 $140.00 NlA Johnson&Lutgen, Inc. 5887 Central Avenue N.E. 1 $25.00 Nelia Bulatao 5974 3rd Street N.E. 4 $1.00 Nicholas Elmquist 4921 3rd Street N.E. 7 $115.00 Norma Willson 401 Ironton Street N.E. 3 $75.00 Owen Lavander 7345-7347 Evert Court N. 2 $50.00 Pankaj & Alka Jain 5430 Sth Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Paul Johnson 6525 2nd Street N_E. 7 $115.00 Paul Muesing 1237-1239 Norton Avenue 2 $50.00 Paul Muesing 421-23 Ironton Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Rafal Zajac 5924-5926 4th Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Reggie Truehl ?365-7367 Able Street N.E 1 $25.00 Richard Feist 6021 Main Street N.E. 4 $100.00 Richard Smith 6551 2nd Street N.E. 7 $0.00 Richard T'kaczik 5450 Sth Street N.E. 6 $110.00 Rinehart Kurtz 5420 Sth Street N.E_ 4 $100.00 Tliursday, October 31, 199( %.�� Page 6 of 8 � _ FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES Owner's First Name Owner's Last Name Property Address Unit # License Fees Robert Danielson 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(263 1 $25.00 Robert Hosman 5940-5942 2nd Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Robert Kafski 1601 N. Luisbruck Dr.(230 2 $50.00 RobeR Poston 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr. (26 1 $25.00 RobeR Shapiro Lynde Investment 910 Lynde Drive N.E. 11 $135.00 Robert Shapiro Lynde Investment 950 Lynde Drive N.E. 11 $135.00 Robert Shapiro Lynde Investment 990 Lynde Drive N.E. 11 $135.00 Rodney BilZman 401 63rd Avenue N.E. 1 $25.00 Rodney Billman 445 63rd Avenue N.E. 1 $25.00 Rodney Billman 6300 7th Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Rodney Billman 6310 7th Street N.E. i $25.Q0 Rodney Billman 6350 7th Street N.E. 1 $25_00 Rodney Billman 6360 7th Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Rodney Billman 6380 7th street N.E. 1 $25.00 Roger Challman 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(133 1 $25.00 Roland Krueger 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(153 1 $25.00 Roland Krueger 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(356 1 $25.00 Roland Whitcomb 5830-5$32 4th Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Ronaid Eimquist 4913 3rd Street N.E. 7 $115.00 Roy Erickson 5900-5902 4th Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Russell Beck 7150-7156 Central Avenue 4 $100.00 Sandra Rocca 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.-317 1 $25.00 Sandra Schmid 610 Hugo Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Sean Murphy 6276 East River Road 1 $25.00 Stanley Meinen 7349-7351 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 Stephen Lischalk 535� 4th Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Thursday, October 31, 1996 7.09 Page 7 of 8 � _ _ FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES Owner's First Name Owner's Last Name Property Address Unit # License Fees Stephen Mertens 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(274 1 $25.00 Steve Mackenthum 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr.(206 1 $25.00 Steven Mindlin 7335-7337 Central Avenue 2 $50.00 Tenance Dreyer 1230-i232 Norton Avenue 2 $50.00 Thomas Skinner 1601 N. Innsbruck Dr. (22 1 $25.00 Thomas Wolff 5770 2nd Street N.E. 8 $115.00 Timothy Parker 5916-5918 4th SVeet N.E. 2 $50.00 Todd Fuechtmann 7417-7419 Able Street N.E 2 $50.00 Tom Blomberg 4591-4593 Main Street N. 2 $50.00 �7ictor Daml 174-176 Pearson Way N.E. 2 $50.00 Viola Froneyberger 7883-7885 Firwood Way N 1 $25.00 Walter Kuckes 231 79th Way N.E. 7 $115.00 Wayne Johnson 1375 Skywood Lane N.E. 1 $25.00 Wayne Johnson 6051-6055 3rd Street N.E. 3 $75.00 Wayne Johnson 6447 Taylor Street N.E. 1 $25.00 Wayne Nelson 7330-7332 Evert Court N. 2 $50.00 Wayne Thompson 7339-7341 Able Street N.E 1 $25_00 Willard Guimont 5980 3rd Street N.E. 4 $75.00 William Guenther 5860-5862 4th Street N.E. 2 $50.00 Thursday, October 31, 1996 7.10 Page 8 of 8 TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER �� FROM.• RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOWAR.D D. KOOLIC% ASSISSTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR WALTER H. COLE, ACCOUNTING/DATA PROCESSING CLERK SUBJECT: PUBLICHEARING ONASSF.SS'MENT FOR EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROIECT NO. ST 1994-03 DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1996 Attached you will find the Public Hearing Notice for East River Road Improvement Project NO. St 1994-03. The Notice was sent to the property owners on October 4, 1996 and published in the Focus on September 26 and October 3, 1996. This Public Hearing was continued from the meeting on October 28�', 199b. 9.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY ANORA COIINTY� MINNE80TA NOTICE OF HEARING ON A88888MENT ROLL FOR EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994 - 03 Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will meet at the Fridley Municipal Center in said City on the 28th day of October, 1996, at 7:30 o�clock P.M., to hear and pass upon all objections, if any to the proposed assessments in respect to the following improvements, to wit: EA3T RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994 - 03 The proposed assessment roll for each of said improvements in the total amount of $ 189,617.02 is now on file and open to the public inspection, by all persons interested, in the office of the clerk of said city. The general nature of the improvements and each of them is the installation of concrete curb and gutter, grading, stabilized base, hot-mix bituminous mat, storm sewer, water and sanitary sewer, bikeway/walkway, landscaping, and other facilities located as follows: EAST RIVER ROAD - HARTMAN CIRCLE TO GLEN CREEK ROAD The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements and each of them is all that land benefited by said improvements or each of them and lying within the general area above. Said improvements will be assessed against the properties within the above noted areas in whole or in part proportionately to each of the lands therein contained according to the benefits received. At said hearing the Council will consider written or oral objections to the proposed assessments for each of said improvements. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any individual assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the public hearing. At property owner may appeal an assessment to the district court by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. 9.02 The City of Fridley adopted Resolution No. 14-1995 on February 13, 1995, relating to the deferral of special assess�ents for certain senior citizens where the payment of said special assessments constitutes a hardship. The following factors will govern the granting of the deferments: The property must be homestead property, and the owner must be at least sixty-five (65) years of age or older, and in the case of husband and wife, one member must meet this age requirement. The appZication for said deferral must be made within the first thirty (30) days after the adoption of the finaZ assessment roll by the City Council. The owner will make application for deferred payments on forms prescribed by the Anoka County Auditor, and will make application to the City of Fridley on forms provided by the City. The City Council will consider each application on an individual basis; however, the generaZ policy is to grant senior citizen hardship special assessment deferrals when the annual payment for the special assessment exceeds one (1) per cent of the adjusted gross income of the owner as determined by the most recent Federal Income Tax Return, or if the household income is below the Very Low Income threshold as defined by the Federal Income Limits for the Community Development Block Grant Programs. The Deferral will be terminated and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due when any of the following happen: the death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not otherwise eligible for the deferral; the sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; loss of homestead status for any reason; the City Council determines that further deferral is not in the public interest. DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF $EPTEMBER, 1996 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COQNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. AILLIAM J. NEE- MAYOR ATTEST: AILLIAM C. CHAMPA - CITY CLERR Publish: Fridley Focus on September 26 & October 3, 1996 9.03 TD: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER �� FROM.• RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOWARD D. KOOLICK, ASSISSTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR WALTER H. COLE, ACCOUNTING/DATA PROCESSING CLE.RK SUBJECT.• PUBLICHEARING ONAS,SESSMENT FOR MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ND. ST 1994 - D8 (Commercial) DATE: NOI�EMBER 1,1996 Attached you will find the Public Hearing Notice for Main Street Improvement Project NO. St 1994 - 08 (Commercial) The Notice was sent to the property owners on October 4, 1996 and published in the Focus on September 26 and October 3, 1996. This Public Hearing was continued from the meeting on October 28'�', I996. 10.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY ANORA COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. ST 1994-08(COMMERCIAL) Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will meet at the Fridley Municipal Center in said City on the 28th day of October, 1996, at 7:30 o�clock P.M., to hear and pass upon all objections, if any to the proposed assessments in respect to the following improvements, to wit: MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994 - 08(COMMERCIAL� The proposed assessment roll for each of said improvements in the total amount of $ 173,111.12 is now on file and open to the public inspection, by all persons interested, in the office of the clerk of said city. The general nature of the improvements and each of them is the installation concrete curb and gutter, grading, stabilized base, hot-mix bituminous mat, storm sewer, water and sanitary sewer, bikeway/walkway, landscaping, and other facilities located as follows: MAIN STREET - I-694 SOIIT$ TO 44TH AVENIIE The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements and each of them is all that land benefited by said improvements or each of them and lying within the general area above. Said improvements will be assessed against the properties within the above noted areas in whole or in part proportionately to each of the lands therein contained according to the benefits received. At said hearing the Council will consider written or oral objections to the proposed assessments for each of said improvements. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any individual assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the public hearing. At property owner may appeal an assessment to the district court by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. 10.02 The City of Fridley adopted Resolution No. 14-1995 on February 13, 1995, relating to the deferral of special assessments for certain senior citizens where the payment of said special assessments constitutes a hardship. The following factors will govern the granting of the deferments: The property must be homestead property, and the owner must be at least sixty-five (65) years of age or older, and in the case of husband and wife, one member must meet this age requirement. The application for said deferral must be made within the first thirty (30) days after the adoption of the final assessment roll by the City Council. The owner will make application for deferred payments on forms prescribed by the Anoka County Auditor, and will make application to the City of Fridley on forms provided by the City. The City Council will consider each application on an individual basis; however, the general policy is to qrant senior citizen hardship special assessment deferrals when the annual payment for the special assessment exceeds one (1) per cent of the adjusted gross income of the owner as determined by the most recent Federal Income Tax Return, or if the household income is below the Very Low Income threshold as defined by the Federal Income Limits for the Community Development Block Grant Programs. The Deferral will be terminated and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due when any of the following happen: the death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not otherwise eligible for the deferral; the sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; loss of homestead status for any reason; the City Council determines that further deferrai is not in the public interest. DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. WILLIAM J. NEE- MAYOR ATTEST: WILLTAM C. CHAMPA - CITY CLERR Publish: Fridley Focus on September 26 & October 3, 1996 10.03 � TO: i3'ILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER �� FROM.• RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOWARD D. KOOLICK, ASSISST,4NT FINANCE DIRECTOR WALTER H. COLE, ACCOUNTING/DATA PROCESSING CLERK SUBJECT.• PUBLICHEARING ONASSESSMENT FOR MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994 - 08 (RESIDENTIAL) DATE: NOVEMBER I,1996 � Attached you will find the Public Hearing Notice for Main Street Improvement Project NO. St 1994 - 08 (Residential) The Notice was sent to the property owners on October 4, 1996 and published in the Focus on September 26 and October 3, 199b. This Public Hearing was continued from the meeting on October 28"', 1996. 11.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY ANORA COUNTY, MINNEgOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR MAIN BTREET IMPROVEMENT NO. ST 1994-08(RESIDENTIAL) Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will meet at the Fridley Municipal Center in said City on the 28th day of October, 1996, at 7:30 o�clock P.M., to hear and pass upon all objections, if any to the proposed assessments in respect to the following improvements, to wit: MAIN BTREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994 - Og(gg3IDENTIAL) The propvsed assessment roll for each total amount of $ 21,728.00 is now on inspection, by all persons interested, of said city. of said improvements in the file and open to the public in the office of the clerk The general nature of the improvements and each of them is the installation concrete curb and gutter, grading hot-mix bituminous mat, storm sewer, water and s an tary dsewer, bikeway/walkway, landscaping, and other facilities located as follows: MAIN STREET - I-694 SOIITH TO 44TH AVENIIE The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements and each of them is all that land benefited by said improvements or each of them and lying within the general area above. Said improvements will be assessed against the properties within the above noted areas in whole or in part proportionately to each of the lands therein contained according to the benefits received. At said hearing the Council will consider written or oral objections to the proposed assessments for each of said improvements. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any individual assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the public hearing, At property owner may appeal an assessment to the district court by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. y �.02 The City of Fridley adopted Resolution No. 14-1995 on February 13, 1995, relating to the deferral of special assessments for certain senior citizens where the payment of said special assessments constitutes a hardship. The following factors will govern the granting of the deferments: The property must be homestead property, and the owner must be at least sixty-five (65) years of age or older, and in the case of husband and wife, one member must meet this age requirement. The application for said deferral must be made within the first thirty (30) days after the adoption of the final assessment roll by the City Council. The owner will make application for deferred payments on forms prescribed by the Anoka County Auditor, and will make application to the City of Fridley on forms provided by the City. The City Council will consider each application on an individual basis; however, the general policy is to grant senior citizen hardship special assessment deferrals when the annual payment for the special assessment exceeds one (1) per cent of the adjusted gross income of the owner as determined by the most recent Federal Income Tax Return, or if the household income is below the Very Low Income threshold as defined by the Federal Income Limits for the Community Development Block Grant Programs. The Deferral will be terminated and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due when any of the following happen: the death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not otherwise eligible for the deferral; the sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; loss of homestead status for any reason; the City Council determines that further deferral is not in the public interest. DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. WILLIAM J. NEE- MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM C. CHAMPA - CITY CLERR Publish: Fridley Focus an September 26 & October 3, 1996 y 1.03 TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER�� FROM.• RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOWARD D. KOOLICK, ASSISS7'ANT FINANCE DIRECTOR WALTER H. COLE, ACCOUNTING/DATA PROCESSING CLERK SUBJECT.• PL/BLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT FOR 1995 STREET IMPROYEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1995 -1 & 2 DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1996 Attached you will find the Public Hearing Notice for 1995 Street Improvement Project NO. St 1995 1& 2. The Notice was sent to the property owners on October 4, 1996 and published in the Focus on September 26 and October 3, 1996. This Public Hearing was continued from the meeting on October 28''', 1996. 12.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY ANORA COIINTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON A38ESSMENT ROLL FOR 1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1995 1& 2 Notice is hereby qiven that the Council of the City of Fridley will meet at the Fridley Municipal Center in said City on the 28th day of October, 1996, at 7:30 o�cloak P.M., to hear and pass upon all objections, if any to the proposed assessments in respect to the following improvements, to wit: 1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1995 1& 2 The proposed assessment roll for each of said improvements in the total amount of $ 588,749.02 is now on file and open to the public inspection, by all persons interested, in the office of the clerk of said city. The general nature of the improvements and each of them is the installation of bituminous street paving with appurtenances, grading, aggregate base, bituminous surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, landscaping sidewalk and driveway restoration, located as follows: 69TH AVENIIE - CENTRAL AVENIIE TO STINSON BOULEVARD 68TH AVENiJE - MONROE STREET TO BROORVIEW DRSVE ARTiiIIR STREET - 64TH AVENIIE TO MISSISSIPPI STREET RICE CREER TOWNHOIISE PRRG LOT - ANORA STREET TO END 69TH AVENUE SLIPOFF - UNIVERSITY AVENIIE TO 3RD STREET The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements and each of them is all that land benefited by said improvements or each of them and lying within the general area above. Said improvements will be assessed against the properties within the abave noted areas in whole or in part proportionately to each of the lands therein contained according to the benefits received. At said hearing the Council will consider written or oral objections to the proposed assessments for each of said improvements. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any individual assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the public hearing. At property owner may appeal an assessment to the district court by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. 12.02 The City of Fridley adopted Resolution No. 14-1995 on February 13, 1995, relating to the deferral of special assessments for certain senior citizens where the payment of said special assessments constitutes a hardship. The following factors will govern the granting of the deferments: The property must be homestead property, and the owner must be at least sixty-five (65) years of age or older, and in the case of husband and wife, one member must meet this age requirement. The application for said deferral must be made within the first thirty (30) days after the adoption of the final assessment roll by the City Council. The owner will make application for deferred payments on forms prescribed by the Anoka County Auditor, and will make application to the City of Fridley on forms provided by the City. The City Council will consider each application on an individual basis; however, the general policy is to grant senior citizen hardship special assessment deferrals when the annual payment for the special assessment exceeds one (Z) per cent of the adjusted gross income of the owner as determined by the most recent Federal Income Tax Return, or if the household income is below the Very Low Income threshold as defined by the Federal Income Limits for the Community Development Block Grant Programs. The Deferral will be terminated and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due when any of the following happen: the death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not otherwise eligible for the deferral; the sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; loss of homestead status for any reason; the City Council determines that further deferral is not in the public interest. DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COITNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. WILLIAM J. NEE- MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM C. CHAMPA - CITY CLERR Publish: Fridley Focus on September 26 & October 3, 1996 12.03 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner, Noah's Aric of Minnesota, a non-profit organization, requests that a zoning text amendment be approved to establish specific parking ratios for elde�ly/senior housing and care facilities. Noah's Ark is proposing to construct a 108 unit senior independent living building on the vacant parcel located in the northwest comer of the intersection of 83rd Avenue and the West University Avenue Service Drive. The zoning designation on the Noah's Ark site is C-2, Gene�al Business, and does not require a specific parking ratio for senior independent living facilities. Staff suggested the text amendment approach to update th City's Code to match the change in the senior housing industry. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The proposed ordinance amendment would establish three new definitions and parking ratios for senior housing uses in the R-1, Sing(e Family, R-2, Two Family, R-3, Generai Multiple Family, and C-2, Genera7 Business zoning dist�icts. Each of these districts permit via a special use permit or by right nursing homes, convalescent homes, and homes for the elderly. Staff is recommending the following parking ratios: Nursinq Homes One space for every four beds and three spaces for every four employees on the largest shift. Independent Livinq Facilities One space per unit, with 50% of the stalls encfosed. If the building is convertible to market rate, then the number of stalls shall be based on the number of bedrooms. Assisted Livinq Facilities One-half space per unit. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATtON: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. i 3.01 Staff Report ZTA #96-02, by Noah's Ark Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedes#rian Access: Engineering Issues: Site Planning Issues: A zoning text amendment to provide specific parking ratios for elderiy housing and care facilities. 83rd Avenue and West University Avenue Service Drive Lot 1, Block 1, Springbrook Apa�tments at Northtown 143,163 square feet; approximately 3.28 acres Mostly flat, evidence of fill, wetland along west edge of site Reed canary grass, aspen, willow trees, other wetland plants C-2, General Business; Springbrook Apartments at Northtown Available in 83rd Avenue 83rd Avenue, West University Avenue Service Drive N/A Stormwater, wetland replacement 13.02 Staff Report ZTA #96-02, by Noah's Ark Page 3 ADJACENT SITES WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: Zoning: R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling Land Use: Multi family residential Zoning: C-2, Generat Business Land Use: Office Zoning: Unknown Land Use: Spring Lake Park Zoning: C-2, General Business Land Use: Commercial retail The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this location. No public comment. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The petitioner, Noah's Ark of Minnesota, a non-profit organization, requests that a zoning text amendment be approved #o establish specific definitions and parking ratios for elderly/senior housing and care facilities. Noah's Ark is proposing to construct a 108 unit senior independent living building on the vacant parcel located in the northwest comer of the intersection of 83rd Avenue and the West University Avenue Service Drive. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The subject parcel is located in the no�thwest comer of the intersection of 83rd Avenue and the West University Avenue Service Drive. Located north of the prope�ty is Wal- Mart; located west of the property is Springbrook Apartments. The subject parcel is zoned C 2, General Business. Homes for the elderly are a permitted use in the C-2 zoning district. The property is currently vacant. A car dealership was proposed for the site in 1988, but did not proceed. 13.03 Staff Report ZTA #96-02, by Noah's Ark Page 4 A Type 5 wetland exists along #he west property line. A po�tion of this wetiand wiN need to be filled in order to construc# the proposed building. The Planning Commission will also be reviewing a wetland replacement plan at its November 6, 1996 meeting in comp{iance with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act and its 1995 amendments. The petitioner is also processing a variance request to reduce the �ear yard setback irom 25 feet to 15 feet ANAIYSIS The following zoning districts, either by right or by special use permit, permit nursing homes, convalescent homes, and homes for the efderly: R-1, Single Family; R-2, Two Family; R-3, General Multiple Family; and C-2, General Business. In none of these districts, nor anywhere in the Zoning Code, do any of these uses have specific parking ratios, with the exception of inedical uses which requires one space for every 150 square feet of area. Since the original preparation of the zoning code, the senior housing industry has diversified into different residentiat products to match the needs of seniors as they age. The proposed amendment identifies each type of housing and proposes a parking ratio. Staff is proposing the following parking ratios for each of the specific uses listed above: Senior Inde�endent Livinq Facilities Definition: A residential living facility for the elderly which provides limited services; i.e., beauty salon, limited dining, medical assistance, etc. One parking stall per u�it with 50°� of the proposed stalls being enclosed. This is similar to the hotel/motel parking ratio established in the Zoning Code. This has also been supported by the petitioner's experience. If the City determines the building is convertible to market rate, the� the number of stalls required sha11 be established at a rate of �.5 stalls per one bedroom with an additional .5 stall for every additional bedroom over one (this parking requirement is already established in the City's Zoning Code). Minnetonka afso requires this ratio with the p�ovision for conversion. Nursina Homes Definition: A state licensed facility used to provide care for the aged and infirm persons who require nursing care and related services. 13.04 Staff Report ZTA #96-02, by Noah's Ark Page 5 One parking stall per every four beds and three parking stalis for every four employees on the largest shift. In reviewing information submitted by Fridiey Convalescent Home for its recent expansion, this ratio is simitar to adjacent communities' requirements {see attached parking survey). Each community has a ratio which combines the number of beds with the number of employees. Assisted Livinq Facilities Definition: A residential living facility for elderly with more intensive assistance to residents. The petitioner submitted information regarding historicai parking use for assisted living facilities. The petitioner requests .5 stall per apartment unit based on the activities in a senior assisted living building. As seniors "age in place", their activities change and the need to drive and own their own vehicles is reduced. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning text amendment to add the following parking ratios for, convalescent homes, homes for the elderly: Nursinq Homes One space for every four beds and three spaces for every four employees on the largest shift. Homes for the Elderly: Independent Living Facilities One space per unit, with 50% of the stalls enclosed. !f the building is convertible to market rate, then the number of stalls shall be based on the number of bedrooms. Assisted Livinq Facilities One-half space per unit. 13.05 Staff Report ZTA #96-02, by Noah's Ark Page 6 PLANNING COMM1SSlON ACTlON: The Pianning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Counci{. CiTY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. 13.06 C� Brooklyn Center New Brighton Parking Survey Contact Requirements Ron Warren 1 space per every 4 beds, 1 space per every 2 employees, 1 space per staff doctor. Ernie Mattila Maple Grove Dick Edwards Spring Lake Park Clark Saint Anthony Kim Psych Minnetonka 4 spaces to start then add 1 per every 3 beds, 1 per �actor, 1 per each employee on the major shift. 4 spaces to start then add 1 space per every 3 beds. 1 space per every 4 beds & 1 per every 2 employees. 1 space per every 5 beds & 1 per every employee on the major shift � l. space per every 4 beds plus 3 spaces per every 4 employees on the major shift ��7 -- — �' �l:c-t►� � cc�i t r: ,� i�,�i:� ti� �..�. �� : OCT- 4-96 FRI $:39 AI� ARK DEVELOPMENT INC SEP-19-1996 20-03 CIT`r OF FRID�EY CZT7f OF FRrDLEY 6431 YINNERSI'TY AYENUE N.E. �'RIl)LEY, MN SSd32 FA� �D. 612 484 9254 P. � b12 571 128? P.@��83 �' ` (612) 571-3450 COMMY3N1?Y DEYELOrMENT DEPAR7'MENT Z0�1ING TE�T AMEN�MENT Requested Change Sectiott olFridley Code to be changed .(Attach additivnal do�ameass if ncceasary) Requast Languaga (Atcech addltioaal dacumcacs if neca9sary) u ' .1, !X•' ':r. :ii '� � s � c�t: ► �/+..1. � /.' � t i. `i � -' •' .: �i � C�f p�c.r.�/ s�' /��r r.e.d � r- Reasoti fat reqnesttd change. (Attach�additional documeats if ncccssary) .; � . , ► • =�i :'_ ` �J> ��.. l�l� '.�► .w� !► . i: �ee: 5300.00 p ZTA # �_�—�.� Reoeipt # ,-�� t APPlicatiati rcceived by: Scheduled Pianning Commisswa �ate: Scheduled Cty Gamcil date: 13,08 ► � iO�A� P.03 OTHER COMMUN/TlES' PARK/NG REQUlREMENTS FOR SEN/OR FAC/L/T/ES C�N ASSlSTED LIVING INDEPENDENT NURSiNG HOMES LIVING ANOKA BLAINE 1 stall per unit BROOKLYN 2 stall per unit; can 1 stall per 4 beds CENTER install less, but plus 1 per 2 must have proof of employees and 1 parking per doctor BURNSVlLLE 2.25 stalls per unit 1 stall per 6 beds plus one per each employee on the major shift COON RAPIDS 1.2 stall per unit, .2 No standards stalis must be enclosed EDINA .75 stall per unit 1 stall per 4 plus one per residents plus one management per employee on vehicle and one the major shift, and per non-resident one per employee management vehicle GOLDEN VALLEY 1 stall per every 2 1 stall per 4 beds units plus one per 3 employees MAPLEWOOD No specific requirements for senio�s NEW BRIGHTON 1 stall per unit plus 4 stalls per 1 stall for first 10 building, plus 1 for visitor, .25 stalls stall per 3 beds for over 10 for plus 1 stall per visitors doctor plus 1 stall per employee on the major shift ROSEVIILE No senior 1 stall per 4 beds requirements MINNETONKA 1 space per unit, 2 1 stall per 4 beds, if building is plus 3 stalls per 4 convertible employees on major shift 7 3.09 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Roland Stinski, the applicant �equests that the City amend the CR-1, Generai Business District to allow a"Professional Jewelry Store , specializing in laboratory certified loose diamonds, custom design and repair services, wholesaling, insurance replacement, and appraisal". If approved, a jewelry operation will be located in the petitioner's building located at 941 Hillwind Road. The intent of the CR-1 district is to permit office and health care uses. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The proposed use is a mixture of retail and wholesale activities. Retail uses are not specifically permitted in the current CR-1 district language. Allowing jewelry services as a special use permit, rather than a permitted use is the most appropriate solution for a text amendment to the CR-1 District. This conclusion was based on a need to limit the retail floo� area within a CR-1 complex, minimize the "commercial destination" appearance in an otherwise office or residenfial district, and to assure adequate parking exists for the other uses in the CR-1 district. The text amendment was recommended by the Commission as a special use, rather than a permitted use. If approved as a special use by the City Council, the petitioners wili be �equired to obtain a special use permit prior to commencement of their operation. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff recommends approval of ZTA #96-03, to altow a jewelry operation in the CR-1, General Office District as a specia( use permit. Staff recommends the following 3 stipulations: 1. Retail jewelry sales shall be incidental to other permitted uses and shall not comprise more than 25 percent of the floor area of the principal uses space. 2. All signage shall be consistent with that allowed in the district. 3_ Entrance to the retaii sales area shalf be through the space of the principal use, not through a separate entrance. 14.01 Staff Report ZTA #96-03, by Roland Stinski Page 2 PROJECT DETAiLS Petition For: A Zoning Text amendment to a"Pro#essional .lewelry Store, specializing in laboratory certified loose diamonds, custom design and repair services, wholesaling, insurance replacement and appraisal." Location of Property: 941 Hillwind Road Legat Description: lot 1, Block 1, Hillwind.Addition and Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25 (except a11 of that part thereof lying and being in the southwest'/4 of the northeast'/� of Section 24) and aiso (except the west 930.4 feet of the east 1580.4 feet of Lot 3, Auditors Subdivision No. 25, Section 24, Anoka County, Minnesota) together with an easement over the north 7 feet of the west 248.36 feet of #he east 1580.4 feet of said lot 3, the same being 1001 Hillwind Road N.E. Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Avaitabiiity of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Site Planning Issues: 1.07 acres Relatively flat Urban landscape CR-1, General Office District, Hillwind Addition and Auditor's Subdivision No. 25 Yes Hillwind Road N/A N/A 14.02 Staff Report ZTA #96-03, by Roland Stinski Page 3 Proposed use Roiand Stinski, John Mely, and Brian Sullivan, (the petitioners) request that the City amend the CR-1, Generai Business District to allow a"Professional Jewelry Store , specializing in laboratory certified loose diamonds, custom design and repair services, wholesaling, insurance replacement, and appraisal". If approved, a jewelry operation will occupy about 1,080 square feet in the petitione�'s building located at 949 Hillwind Road. A zoning text amendment to this district would allow this use in this building and on other properties zoned CR-1. In an effort to better understand the proposed use, staff asked the petifioners to provide inforrnation about similar facilities in the metro area. Mr. Mely and Mr. Sullivan indicated that Continental Gold and Diamonds, in the MEPC office complex (HWY 394 and 100, Golden Valley) is a good example. The petitioners indicated that Continental has a F�igher percentage of retail and floor area dedicated to retail than they would have in the Stinski Building. Staff visited the Continental Gold and Diamond facility. The facility is elegantly appointed with much glass, brass and cherry waodwork. The facility is structured to include a sales/showroom area and numerous, laboratory rooms, private consultation rooms, and general office area. S�aff estimates that the area comprised of retail is less than 50%. The petitioners indicate that as much as 80°� of their business in the Stinski bui(ding wili be service or whotesaie. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Mely each have over 25 years in jewelry design, jewelry insurance, and gemotogy. Sullivan and Mely also indicated a desire to locate near the Fridley Executive Center. Like the Golden Valley MEPC facility, the petitioners see proximity to Class A office space as an essentia! eiement of their business plan. Zonin4 Historv Code Section 205.16.01, CR-9, General Office District, is a district classification that dates back to the mid 60's. The City's purpose in creating the district was to "provide regulations, controls, and standards for the orderly 3 � 4.03 Staff Report ZTA #96-03, by Roland Stinski Page 4 deve{opment and maintenance of the permitted uses therein. A CR-1 & CR-2 District is to provide a transition between commercial and manufacturing uses. Uses permitted are those which do not attract a large number of the genera! public, such as retail shopping a�eas, and which do not generate heavy vehicular traffic." The distinetion between the CR-1 and CR-2 district, is intensity of use. CR-1 was speci�cally general office and limited business. The CR-2 District allowed a service industry mix. The CR-2 District permitted uses such as light assembly, upholstery shops, business machine repair shops, appliance repair shops, printing shops, data processing and computer shops, research laboratories, and sales incidenta{ to other permitted uses providing that no more than 25% of the floor space available to any user be devoted to sales. In later versions of the zoning text, the CR-2, Office, Service and Limited District was eliminated. The existing language in the CR-1 District provides for "storage of inerchandise, solely intended to be retailed by the principal use," as an accessory use. A retail use, however, is not clearly identified under the °Permitted Use" portion of the text. Parkinq Analvsis Based on the parking requirements of the CR-1 District, staff has evaluated the parking situation in this particular office complex. With an office ratio of 1:250, 88 parking spaces were required. 89 spaces were provided. 23 of these spaces are inside the first floor parking garage, leaving 66 spaces as outdoor surface parking. According to Mr. Stinski, he has a contractual arrangement for shared parking on the R-3, General Multipie Residential property to the north, if additional parking is required. Staff discussed traffic/ parking demands with the petitioners. They believe realistically that their traffic/parking impacts will be less than the insurance office which previously occupied tt�e space. There is adequate parking on site, plus the additional parking to the nor#h to accommodate this use. Special Use Permit 14.04 S#aff Report ZTA #96-03, by Roland Stinski Page 5 There are two primary CR-1 Districts in the City of Fridley. The Hillwind property is one of 3 clustered lots on Hitiwind Road that carry this designation. The second area of the City that carries the CR-1 designation is a pair of tots, north of Ziebart Tidycar, on Otd Central (north of East Moore Lake Drive). Allowing jewelry services as a special use permit, rather than a permitted use is the most appropriate solutio� for a text amendment to the CR-1 District. CR-1 Districts serve as a transitional use to nearby residential properties. Professional office or medical buildings are low-impact neighbors as compared to retail uses. With proper stipulations, jewelry services will fit the low impact image of the CR-1 district. If a jewelry use were to locate in this building or another CR-1 District, a restriction of no more than 25°� retail floor area would be appropriate to assure an appropriate balance of retail and other CR-1 uses. This restriction will also assure that the retail business is secondary to a larger principle use. The typical aesthetic impacts of retail signage would increase the commercial retail appearance of the building. Therefore, exterior signage for the retail jewelry operation should be prohibited. Finally, requiring the entrance to the retail portion of the business through the space of the principal use will foster, not detract from the professional office image of the CR-1 District. A special use permit would allow the City the latitude to stipulate minimum standards and additional stipulations as necessary to assure compatibi(ity with surrounding areas. Standard stipulations shall inctude: 1. Retaii jewelry sales shall be incidental to other permitted uses and shall not comprise more than 25 percent of the fioor area of the principal uses space. 2. Ali signage shail be consistent with that allowed in the district. 3. Entrance to the retail sales area shall be through the space of the principal use, not through a separate entrance. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff recommends approval of zoning text amendment, ZTA #96-03, to a!!ow 5 7 4.05 Staff Report ZTA #96-03, by Roland Stinski Page 6 Jewelry Services with the foltowing 3 stipulations: 1. Retail jewelry sales shall be incidental to other permitted uses and shall not comprise more than 25 percent of the floor area of the principal uses space. 2. All signage shall be consistent with that allowed in the district. 3. Ent�ance to the retail sales area shall be th�ough the space of the principal use, not through a separate entrance. � 14.06 A CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSTTY AVENI7E N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 � ' (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Z�NING TEXT AMENDMENT Requested Change Section of Fridley Code to be ch nge (Attach additionai documents if necessary) Z.(,`�. (�c� ,C� � �. �f� Request Language. (Attach additional documents if necessary) � r%��_ Reason for requested change. (Attach additional documents if necessary) F�l�— PETITIONER INFORMATION C . � ' N�ME �Cl �-, c7 ,,.� J � . �� / �(. , = /� � ADDRESS � t � ( 2 � l� � �n,� E- � � , ��- i 0 � �' �� ,' � S� `� � , DAYTIlVIE PHONE 7 EY/ � '� l � % SIGNATURE = ' �� — - ;�.c�,�-� DATE �% ' l > - � ,�- Fee: $300.00 ZTA # _ a[1- Receipt # Application.received by: Scheduled Planning Commission date: Scheduled City Council date: 1�7�7/ 14.07 � CITY OF FRIDLEY p 6431 UNNERSITY AVENUE N.E. � FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Requested Change Section of Fridley Code to be changed .(Attach additional documents if necessary) Request Language. (Attach additional documents if necessary) Reason for requested change. (Attach additional documents if necessary) PETITIONER INFORMATII NAME � �-. ;,, ,., �'��. fi��' S.S i ti�i' iJ � � SIGNATURE � Cy-:� � - Fee: $300.00 ZTA # Q Receipt # Application received by: Scheduled Pianning Commission date: Scheduled City Council date: P 14.08 � _ \ �� % '�%� � i � `) �� : . � �-� ✓1 i n ,'�: DAYTIlVIE PHONE 4==z�'�> - �� i �, �� DATE l -i 3 -��,� PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesdap, October 16, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #96-03, by Roland Stinski, per Section 205.16.O1.A.(1) of the Fridiey City Code: 1. USES PERMITTED A- Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in CR-1 Districts: (1) Professional office facilities including real estate, lawyer, architectural, engineering, financial, insurance, professional �ewelrv services, and other similar office uses. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Community Development Department at 572-3599 Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabiiities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than October 9, 1996. Publish: October 3, 1996 October 10, 1996 14.09 DIANE SAVAGE CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION � , �� 1� "WE D4 DL�►MONDS RIGHT!" OWNER- Mr. John Mel� - 26 years master goldsncuth and designer. OWNER - Mr. Brian Snllivan - 25 years industry experience, insurance appraiser, graduate gemologist. = REQUEST LANGUAGE Professional jewelry Store, specializing in laboratory cert'�f'ied loose diamonds, custom design and repair services, wholesaling, insurance replacement and appraisal center. REASON FOR REQUESTED CHANGE Modi�cation andlor addendum to present zoning ordiriance for com- pliance within. 14.10 ! , SEP.-13'961FR11 1a.04 SKYLlNE BUlLDERS 1NC , —,� tt �_ � ' ...� __ �� , j �� ! t`_ .__� ' � � _♦ �j � � �? �. k , ; t �- :�' ° ��° � �'��' .4 � � , � _y-- O i J � ��% m � � RECEP11oN f wa�r�HC, n---�, q Q � TEL�612 '81 a5-0 � M�t_t,.1�IlND OFFlG6a PL�.'Y,R r.,rl.�,a e.e•. C�saoUNa FlocR TEt,tJWT �RoPosaL `_Q�� 1�0 Pope Associates, inc� � 1360 Enwtqr p��k pM� e,,.�, ,,,� ,�. A�cMqCt� En0lnesr� Pla��en St Paal, Ml��swla 56109 (�j�R �. 14.1y P. 02 % , �. z 14.12 VAR �189-07 � Cheryl SCinski < � �S . a z O f < > W ..1 ti J .J < ! � • f I ; . � � i i � i . ! i ' S i ( � I I i � i ' i ;z; ' o� ' : r=' .Q� I `.�� I :�� '�,� { ;cv� ;ot '�� ,z; �a�. '��N i m . � ~ 1988 ELEVATION l � � . � � - - ---- k � � — t �. i VAR �189-07 Cheryl Stinski - � o : � °s_ ' � _' D ' _ i ""=,�. � (,� . , .�! �I mmmm8cm888 a _ �;,: - ' o ti«�.�e�__�� o 0 o b f-n `� ne � o c .: m �i�yo_°o �n n J ui �.[c ��' y � o •<Q_-�V�oO _ C �. c _ 2_ O` C e p 4 `n ° c° �: E a o o E zo��„ � o a��m�a¢mh� 4 °c° ` J e ��, = a«�na� _R�� <oUO�u��=O— � 0 � N W � � a a� a � U � � C tC J � 4. � 3 LqNDSCAPE PLAN � y. _, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY III ATIORNEY GENERAL STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL October 31, 1996 Ann Bolkcom Councilmember, City of Fridley b821 Hickory St NE Fridley, MN 55432 Re: Sale of Tobacco to Children Dear Councilmember Bolkcom: ; 02 s�rnTe cnr�TOt, ST. P,4UL, MN 55155-16tY2 'CEL�PHQNE: {612) 296-6l96 I understand that you are considering an ordinance to help end youth access to tobacco. I want to congratulate you for taking up this important subject and encourage you to act decisively on behalf of the children of your community. Tobacco products are the greatest preventable cause of death and disease in our society. Today, and every day, sixty more Minnesota children will begin smoking. Tragically, twenty of those youngsters will eventually aie as a result of their illegal habit. Minnesota laws already prohib�t th� saie af t�buccc pr:,cla�ts to min�rs. '�'hese statute�, however, are not enough. In cities without local ordinances, underage customers are still able to buy tobacco illegally thirty-five percent of the time. When a city adopts an effective ordinance and enforces it firmly, the violatic�n rate falls sharply. Before the city of Fergus Falls passed a strong local ordinance, children were successfully purchasing tobacco illegally fifty percent of the time. After the ordinance was passed, the rate dropped to three percent. When you take this up on Monday, I hope you will do everything you can to fashion a law that is strong and effective. For example, I hope you will think about the self-service tobacco displays in your local stores. Most of them are probably next to the cash register, or in the shelves along the checkout lanes. As I understand the proposal now before you, these displays would not be affected because they are within three feet of the salesclerk. Yet, evidence shows that placing tobacco out of children's reach is one of the most effeetive ways to curb illegal sales. Self-service tobacco is easy for children to purchase and to steal. Recent figures from Duluth show that children are approximately thirty percent less successful in buying cigarettes illegally if tobacco is placed behind the counter. A study at the University of Minnesota also found that more than twenty-five percent of children who smoke weekly have stalen cigarettes. This evidence suggests that one of the best ways to protect our children's health is to get tobacco behind the counter. Facsimile: (612) 297-4193 • TTY: (612) 297-7206 • Toll Free Lines (800) 657-3787 (Voice}, (800) 366-4812 (TTY) An Equal Opportu�ity Employer Who Values Diversity �� Printed on 50% recycled paper (15% post consumer content) s��s I congratulate you for tackling this critical issue. you have the opportunity to make Fridley a leader in the fight for children's health. By passing a strong ordinance, you can send the message that your community is serious about solving this problem. I encourage you to send that message. Best regards, �.�,.,,,��. �r.... -� HUBERT H. HUMPH Attorney General purchases or attempts to purchase tobacco or tobacco related devices while under the direct supervision of a responsible adult for training, education, research, or enforcement purposes. " During the meeting the Council requested two items concerning youth access to tobacco products. The first item was a study done at the University of Minnesota recently which Gary Lenzmeier referred to during his presentation. At that time he said he was only sent part of the study. That study was recently completed but has not yet gone to press. It is attached. The second item requested by the Council was a study mentioned by Connie Bennardi that links higher fines to less compliance checking on clerks. Connie Bennardi has not submitted the study ta the City at this point. Staff will continue to work with the anti-smoking groups in an effort to reduce youth access. The second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for the November 4th Council meeting. The staff recommends the ordinance passed with the change indicated above. 15.02 /// \O %��'.��\ c`i 3<�°��l•�� Y`,� �� .C�,: � ��,<�� r ..�� Fridiey Police Department Memorandum To: Bill Burns �1� From: Gary Lenzmeiec Daie: November 1, 19�9 Re: Second Reading of the Tobacco Ordinance On Monday evening October 25 the new tobacco ordinance went through the first reading. After Gary Lenzmeier presented the orc�inance, two residents of the .City of Fridley, Barb Hughes and Connie Bennazdi, urged the City Council to change the ordinance to remove tobacco dispiays from retailer's counters, lower the penalties for the clerks and allow other groups to do compliance checks. The staff position on these items is as follows: Tobacco Displays This was the biggest item of contention with the retailers. The retailers make a considerable amount of money from the tobacco companies to have the tobacco displays on their counters. Staff position is to a11ow them to have the displays and, if through compliance checks, the number of sales to minors is nat reduced significantly in a one year period, the ordinance will be brought back to the Council to remove the displays from the counters. Penalties The residents felt the penalties for the clerks selling the tobacco is too high. Their rational is if the penalty is too high, there is more chance for an appeal. In addition, the City would not in reality impose the high penalty if the clerk gave a hard luck story. T'here is also some concern that a clerk could not really afford such a relatively high fine. The staff indicated the retailers wanted a high fine for the clerks to help them insure that their clerks did not sell to minors. This too can be changed in the future if problems are encountered. Compliance Checks The present language in the ordinance indicates that only the police, retailers and groups approved by the police department can do compliance checks. The residents felt that would impede other groups doing research etc. from doing compliance checks in Fridley. State Statute 609.6Q5 subd. 3 covers this area making it legal for those under 18 years of age to assist with compliance checks. The staff feels this is not a major issue and suggests the State Statute language be adopted. Subdivision (d) "Exemption" of 12.08 of the ordinance would read, "This subdivision does not apply to a person under the age of 18 years who 15.01 Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 12 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND ADOPTI�G A NEW CHAPTER 12, ENTITLED "TOBACCO PRODUCTS" AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, ENTITILED "GENERAI� PROVISIONS AND FEES" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 12.01. DEFINITION OF T$RMS The following definitions shall apply in the application of this Chapter and the following wherever they occur in this Chapter, are define l. "Self service merchandising" interpretation and words and terms, d as follows: This is an open display of tobacco products where the public has access without the intervention of an employee. 2. "Tobacco product" This includes cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, stogies, perique, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flower, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine cut and other chewing tobaccos, shorts, refuse strips, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing or smoking in a pipe, rolling paper or other tobacco related devices. 12.02. LICENSE REQUIRED No person shall directly, by coin machine, or otherwise, keep for retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise dispose of, any cigarette, cigarette wrapper, tobacco, or tobacco products at any place in the City unless they have obtained a license therefor as provided herein. 12.03. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE: GRANTING OF LICENSE BY COUNCIL; ISSUANCE OF LTCENSE BY CLERR Application for such license shall be made to the City Clerk and shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the building to be occupied by the applicant in the conduct of his business, the kind of business to be conducted, and such other information as the City Clerk may require. The license shall be granted by the City Council and issued by the City Clerk upon payment of the required fee. 15.03 Page 2 Ordinance No. 12.04. LICENSE FEE; TERM; DATE The annual license fee and e�iration date shall be as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code. Licenses are not transferable. 12.05. DISPLAY OF LICENSE ON PREMISES Every such license shall be openly displayed in the place of business to which it has been issued. 12.06. PROHIBITED ACTS a. No person shall sell, give away, or otherwise furnish any cigarette, cigarette paper, tobacco, or tobacco products to any person under the age of eighteen years. b. No person shall keep for sale, sell, or dispose of any cigarette or other tobacco product containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug, except nicotine. c. No person shall sell or dispense any tobacco product through the use of a vending machine, unless the vending machine is electronically activated for each transaction by the liCensee or a person in their employ, or unless the vending machine is in a nonpublic area with no minor access as verified by a premises survey conducted by the Fridley Police Department. d. No person shall offer for sale any tobacco product by means of self service merchandising, unless the display is in direct view of and in no case more than 20 feet from the primary cashier and meets one of the following security requirements; within three feet of the cashier or, in an enclosed case which registers an audible alarm when opened or, in a totally controlled separate area, or an approved electronic security system is in place. The exception requirements must be verified by a premises survey conducted by the Department of Public Safety. - e. Every licensee shall be responsible for the conduct of its employees while on the licensed premises and any sale or other disposition of tobacco products by an employee to a person under 18 years of age shall be considered an act of the licensee for purposes of imposing an administrative penalty, license suspension, or revocation. 15.04 Page 3 Ordinance No. 12.07. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFffi�TSES a. Administrative Civii Penalties: Administrative offense procedures established pursuant to this chapter are intended to provide the public and the City with an informal, cost effective, and expeditious alternative to traditional criminal charges for violations of this ordinance. The procedures are intended to be voluntary on the part of thase who have been charged with administrative offenses. 1. Individual. At any time prior to the payment of the administrative penalty as is provided for hereafter, the individual may withdraw from participation in the procedures in which event the City may bring criminal charges in accordance with law. Likewise, the City, at it's discretion, may bring criminal charges in the first instance. In the. event a party participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not pay the monetary penalty which may be imposed, the City will seek to collect the costs of the administrative offense procedures as part of a subsequent criminal sentence in the event the party is charged and is adjudicated guilty of the criminal . violation. 2. Licensee. At any time prior to the payment of the administrative penalty as is provided for hereafter, the licensee may withdraw from participation in the procedures in which event the City may permanently revoke the licensee's tobacco license in accordance with law. Likewise, the City, in it's discretion, may revoke the licensee's tobacco license in the first instance. In the event a licensee participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not pay the monetary penalty which may be imposed, the City will suspend the licensee's tobacco license accordance with section 12.08 b of this ordinance . b. Notice. Any officer of the Fridley Police Department shall, upon determining there has been a violation, notify the violator of the violation. Said notice shall set forth the nature, date and time of violation, the name of the officer issuing the notice and the amount of the scheduled penalty. c. Payment. Once such notice is given, the alleged violator may, within seven.(7) days of the time of issuance of the notice pay the amount set forth on the notice, or may request a hearing in writing, as provided for hereafter. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail, and payment shall 15.05 Page 4 Ordinance No. be deemed to be an admission of the violation. d. Hearing. Any person contesting an administrative offense pursuant to this Chapter may, within (7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, request a hearing by a hearing officer who shall conduct an informal hearing to determine if a violation has occurred. The hearing officer shall have the authority to dismiss the violation or reduce or waive the penalty. If the violation is sustained by the hearing officer, the violator shall pay the penalty imposed. e. Hearing Officer. A City employee designated in writing by the City Manager shall be the hearing officer. The hearing officer is authorized to hear and determine any controversy relating to administrative offenses provided for in this Chapter. f. Failure to Pay. In the event a party charged with an administrative penalty fails to pay the penalty, if an individual, the party will be charged with the criminal offense. If a licensee, the Council will suspend the licensee's tobacco license. g. Disposition of Penalties. All penalties collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be paid to the City treasurer and will be deposited in the City's general fund. 12.08. VIOLATIONS a. Administrative Civil Penalties: Individuals. Any person who sells any tobacco product to a person under the age of 18 years is subject to an administrative penalty: and any person under the age of 18 who attempts to purchase a tobacco product is subject to an administrative penalty. The administrative penalties are as follows: First violation. The penalty for the first violation is $250. Second violation within 12 months. The penalty for the second violation is $500. Third violation within 12 months. The penalty for the third violation is $750. b. Administrative Civil Penalties; Licensee. If a licensee or an employee of a licensee is found to have sold tobacco to a person under the age of 18 years, the licensee shall be subject to an administrative penalty as follows: 15.06 Page 5 Ordinance No. First violation. The penalty for the first violation is $500. If the fine is not paid within 7 days the City may suspend the license to sell tobacco products for a period not to exceed 10 days. Second violation within 12 months. The penalty for the second violation is $I000. If the fine is not paid within 7 days the City may suspend the license to sell tobacco products for a period not to exceed 30 days. Third violation within 12 months The City may permanently revoke the tobacco license. c. Defense. It is a defense to the charge of selling tobacco to a person under the age of 18 years, that the licensee or individual, in making the sale, reasonably and in good faith relied upon representation of proof of age described in State Statute section 340A.503, subdivision 6, paragraph (a). d. Exemption. A person, no younger than 15 and no older than 17, may be enlisted to assist in the tests of compliance, provided that written consent from the person's parent or guardian has been obtained and that the person shall at all times act only under the direct supervision of a law enforcement officer or an employee of the licensing department, or in conjunction with an in-house program that has been pre-approved by the Fridley Police Department. A person who purchases or attempts to purchase tobacco-related products while in this capacity is exempt from the penalties imposed by subdivisions (a) above. e. Revocation. The City Council has the authority to revoke any license as noted in 11.08. i 5.07 Page 6 Ordinance No. CHAPTER 11, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES. Section 11.10, "Fees" is amended to include the following: Cigarette Sales (see Tobacco) 12 Tobacco Products $125.00 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF 1996. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK First Reading: October 28, 1996 Second Reading: Publication 15.08 Perceived and Measured Availability of Tobacco to Youth in Fourteen Minnesota Communities: The TPOP Study Jean L. Forster, Ph. D.1 Mark Wolfson, Ph.D.l David M. Murray, Ph.D.l Alexander C. Wagenaar, Ph.D.l Ami J_ Claxton, M.S.1 IDivision of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of Minnesota Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Forster at: Universify of Minnesota Division of Epidemiology 1300 South Second Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55454-1015 Telephone: (612) 626-8864. E-mail: ForsterQepivax.epi.umn.edu In Press, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 15.09 MS #96-0505-036 . Perceived and Measured Availability of Tobacco to Youth in Fourteen Minnesota Communities: The TPOP Study Response to reviewers' comments • Reviewer A: 2, 3, 5: Comments on pg. 15 and lb removed, and sentence objected to on pg 20 deleted 4. We view the suggestion to omit the analysis represented in Table 4 to be a major revision of the paper. The purpose of the paper included carrying out this kind of analysis. We have reviewed the description of the analysis in the Methods and Results sections, and have tried to make minor improvements: However given that the editor did not direct us to take out this section, and other reviewers did not comment on it, we feel we are justified in leaving it in, and substantially unmodified. • Reviewer B: No suggestions. Intervention details are presented in another paper. � Reviewer C: 1. Abstract was substantially rewritten. 2. Timeframe corrected 3. Detail added in Methods section 4. We feel the smoking index description was necessary to describe how we define weekly and ever smokers, which we do use on the tables. 5. We did omit some numbers from the Results section, but ieft most of them in, feeling that the section should be intelligible without reference to the tables. 6. We omitted some detail here. 7. We modified the language somewhat, but felt that the explanatory sentence which followed the statistical language presented the results in "plain English". 8. Corrected the reference. 9. Included information about why we did not compare locked and unlocked vending machines, and omitted the reference incorrectly�cited. 15.10 10. Included discussion of this ref�rence. 11. Those data were in the Results section, presented in Table 4 and generally discussed in the text surrounding that table. 12. Effects of tobacco industry signs were added to the Results section. These signs had no effect on purchase success. 15.11 American Journal of Preventive Medicine CopyrightAssignment Form I(We), Jean L. Forster, Mark Wolfson, David M. Murray, Alexander C. Wagenaar, and Ami J. Clagton, hereby agree to the publication of my (our) manuscript, #9fi-0505-036, Perceived and Measured Availability of Tobacco to Youth in Fourteen Minnesota Communities: The TPOP Study, in the American Journal of Preuentiue Medicine, published by O�'ord University Press, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513. I(we) assign to the American Journal ofPreventive Medicine copyright and all publishing rights in my (our) paper in all media throughout the world. I(we) warrant that I am (we are) the sole owner or co-owners of the material and have full power to make this agreement; that the materiai does not infringe any copyright, violate any property rights, or contain any scandalous, libelous, or unlawful matter; � and that I(we) will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Jaurnal and the Publisher against all cla.ims, suits, costs, damages, and expenses that the Journal and the Publisher may sustain by reason of any scandalous, libelous, or unlawful matter contained or alleged to be contauied in the material, or any infringement or violation by the work of any copyright or property right. I(we) understand that the Publisher will automatically grant permission without charge for this work to be included, in whole or in part, in another work of which I am (we are) the author. A s signature � t or' ignature Author's signature � �u or's sien e Corresponding author's address: xe�. siss 15.12 _�� Date �1f3�� Date � ate �- l�� Date 1"�3�� Date 2 Abstract Introduction Availability of tobacco to young peopie is believed to be an important factor in the onset of tobacco use. We srill do not have a complete picture of how tobacco is obtained by youth, and how access can be curtailed. Desi�n This paper describes tobacco availability to youth in a fourteen communities which are part of a randomized trial, known as TPOP (Tobacco Policy Options for Prevention). The data reported here were obtained from student surveys and tobacco purchase attempts by underage confederates. Results Siudents who have smoked at least once were likely to cite social sources for cigarettes. However more than half of weekly smokers and almost one-third of tenth grade ever-smokers reported purchasing cigarettes in the last 30 days. Tobacco purchase attempts by confederate buyers at all outlets resulted in an overall success rate of 40.8%a, lower than previously reported for urban communities. Fifty-five percent of the over-the-counter outlets had no self- service displays of tobacco at baseline. Store factors which predicted purchase success include tobacco location; purchase success was lower when all tobacco was locked or behind a service counter. The proportion of smokers who reported purchasing their own tobacco soon after starfing to smoke was 15.13 � highest in towns where purchase success by teenage study confederates was highest. Conclusions These results suggest that sources of cigarettes shift from social to commercial with age, and that sources of cigarettes for rural youth may be different than for urban youth. Key words: adolescents, tobacco, availability 15.14 e� Introduction Availability of tobacco to young people is believed to be an important facior in the onset of tobacco use, and has stimulated much attention in recent years. Evidence has accumulated suggesting that tobacco products are widely available to adolescents despite their illegal status for those under age 18 in every statel. Surveys uniformly find that teenagers report that they can easily obtain cigarettes2�. Research concerning tobacco availability has focused on commercial sources of tobacco to youth. An estimated 255 million packs of cigarettes were sold to minors in 19915. Between 20% and 70% of teenagers who smoke report purchasing their own tobacco, though the proportion varies by age, social class, amount smoked, and factors related to availability2,6,4,�,s,9 In addition, many studies have demonstrated that tobacco can be purchased by adolescents from a variety of retail outlets, with success rates averaging about 67%l0 Previous studies have identified factors associated with the ability of youth to purchase tobacco. Purchase success has been shown to vary by characteristics of the buyer (gender, age, and perceived age), characteristics of the seller (gender and age), type of business (grocery store, pharmacy, convenience store etc.), type of sale (over-the-counter, vending machine), y5.15 �� characteristics of the interaction (whether or not age identification was requested), and presence of signs regarding tobacco sales to minorsll-16. Despite all that has been learned in nearly a decade since attention was first focused on this problem, we still do not have a complete picture of how tobacco is obtained by youth, and how access can be curtailed. For example, the importance of shoplifting as a source of cigarettes to minors is largely unstudied, but the two published reports indicate that a significant proportion of tobacco users steal tobacco from businesses. About 5% of 1700 Georgia adolescents surveyed about shoplifting in general reported stealing tobacco in the previous yearl�, and 20 to 47% (depending on city and age) of adolescent current tobacco users in two Wisconsin communities admitted shoplifting tobacco at least once in the past year18. These results suggest that shoplifting as a source of tobacco for adolescents should be studied more systematically. We also know very little about the natural history of access to tobacco, and about how sources change as adolescents get older. For example, we might expect that social sources are especially important at younger ages, with commercial sources becoming more important among older adolescents. Finally, although policies such as those which prohibit self-service sales of tobacco or require locking devices on vending machines are becoming more popular especially at the local level, few data are available concerning the 15.16 � effectiveness of these policies in restricting minors' access to tobacco19 This paper describes tobacco availability to youth at baseline in a fourteen-community randomized trial, known as TPOP (Tobacco Policy Options for Prevention), currently underway in Minnesota. These data, based on a school-based survey of youth and tobacco purchase attempts in the same communities, provide detailed information about sources of tobacco to youth, adolescents' perceptions of tobacco availability, and their experiences in trying to obtain tobacco. We also examine the relationship bettiveen these variables, aggregated to the community level, and tobacco purchase success in those communities. Methods Desi n TPOP is a randomized community trial funded by the National Cancer Institute from 1992 to 1997. The goal of the trial is to assess the effects of an intervention designed to change local policies and practices related to youth access to tobacco. Outcomes of interest are perceived availability of tobacco by youth, ability of underage youth to purchase tobacco by direct test, and prevalence of tobacco use among youth. The research design for the stu�iy includes random assignment of 14 communities in Minnesota to experimental and control conditions. Communities in the experimental 15.17 � condition receive 32 months of intervention2�. Baseline data, which provide the basis for this report, are collected via surveys of all students in grades 8, 9, and 10 in the school district in each community, and direct tobacco purchase aftempts af all outlets in each of the fourteen cities. After the intervention, students in the same grades will be surveyed again and tobacco purchase attempts again carried out at all outlets. Communities Criteria for inclusion of cities in the siudy included >90 students enrolled in each of grades 8, 9 and 10 to meet statistical power requirements, no participation of the school or city in other university studies, and location outside the primary Minnesota ASSIST (American Stop Smoking Intervention Study)21 geographic targets. Eligible cities were listed in order of decreasing proportion of students who lived within the city boundaries. Starting at the top of the list, permission was requested from the school distrirts to survey students. Twenty-two schoo3 disiricis were contacfed in order to obtain permission from the 14 necessary for the study, for a participation rate of 64%. The 14 communities range in size from 3,200 to 13,100 popularion, all are at least 90 miles from the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and they had between 11 and 36 tobacco outlets. None of the cities had considered any local policies regarding youth access to tobacco in the previous �5.1s ,i E:3 five years, and all school districts within the cities had adopted tobacco free policies for studen#s, staff and visitors before the study began. Cities were stratified prior to randomization by baseline student smoking rate and by population. Student Survev The student survey was administered in spring 1993 to all students in grades 8 through 10 by University staff in the classroom. Students and parents were given the opportunity to choose not to participate, and the response rate was 91.2%. The survey included questions about demographics, tobacco use among friends and family, student's tobacco use, perceprions of availability, sources of tobacco, and perceived consequences of tobacco use. Expired air carbon monoxide was also measured to biochemi�ally validate smoking status��23. The final sample for the student survey consisted of 6,014 students nested in 14 school districts (cities). T'he average number of students per district is 150 in grade 8, 143 in grade 9 and 133 in grade 10, providing a sample more than adequate for meeting the design requirements. Tobacco Purchase Attempts A list of all commercial tobacco outlets (vending machine and over- 15.19 0 the-counter) was obtained from the city cierk in each city. Two tobacco purchase attempts were carried out at each outlet by different 15-year-old girls from out of town on two successive days in June, 1993. Because buyer effect is of concern in studies of this type13,16, efforts were made to standardize data collection and to minimize bias. T'he study employed only 15-year-old girls, and the girls, along with a parent or guardian, attended an extensive training session. AII purchasers performed several practice purchase attempts before data collection began. Finally, the fifteen purchasers employed in the study were randomly assigned to city. All purchasers were non-smokers at the time of the study, and all were from the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Purchasers were instructed in a standard protocol for the attempts. They were to enter the store alone without a purse or billfold, request or select from self-service displays a standard brand of cigarettes, purchase a snack at the same time if appropriate, and answer truthfully if asked their age. If asked for age identification, they were to say that they didn't have it with them. If permitted, the tobacco purchase was completed. The purchasers were accompanied to the cities by an adult driver who was a sfudy employee. The rivo attempts ai each outlet were carried out on successive days. After each attempt the purchaser recorded details of the attempt, including outcome, age and gender of clerk, and number of customers in line behind the purchaser. Immediately following the second y 5.20 10 attempt, the adult driver, entered the store and recorded information about signs, placement of tobacco, and other in-store characteristics. In all, 585 purchases were attempted at 48 vending machines and 259 over-the-counter locations. In 22 locations the second purchase attempt could not be completed because the business was not open when the attempt was. made. Anal�sis Two sets of analyses were conducted. The first used descripdve statistics to characterize the sources of tobacco and perceived tobacco availability. The second set of analyses identified correlates of purchase success. For the descriptions of sources and perceived availability of tobacco from the student survey, respondents were categorized by smoking status via the construction of a smoking index24. Each student was assigned a smoking index value based on their answers to three sepazate questions on the student survey relating to smoking behavior. The questions asked abou# lifetime smoking and about smoking in the past 7 days and in the past 24 hours. The student's answers to these three questions were combined and averaged to give a single number�that indicated how many times a week the student smoked. Those students who consistently denied ever smoking were assigned a smoking index value of zero. Those who answered affirmatively 15.21 I1 about smoking to at least one question were assigned an index value above zero. An index value of 1 or higher was indicative of a weekly smoker, while values between 0 and 1 indicated some lifetime use, but not weekly tobacco use. Descriptive statistics are presented for ever smokers (index value grea#er than 0) and weekly smokers. The outcome of primary interest for the multivariate analyses was purchase success (yes/no) by the confederate buyer at the surveyed retail tobacco outlets. We examined the relationships between purchase success and various predictor variables. The surveyed tobacco outlets included both vending machines and over-the-counter sales. Parallel analyses were run for these fwo types of purchase attempts because certain variables were specific to over-the-counter or to vending machines, but did not apply to the other type of outlet. Predictor variables were grouped into three sets: outlet level variables, community level variables, and perceived availability variables. Outlet-level variables included location of tobacco (all locked/behind the counter, or some available for self-service), number of people in line behind the purchaser (none, 1 or more), whether the seller was in view of another employee at the time the attempt was made (yes/no), age of clerk (less than 21, 21-30, 31 and older} and gender of clerk. Other outlet-level variables included type of business (gas station or convenience store; bar, restaurant or private club; grocery, drug or discount store; hotel or motel; 15.22 12 other), presence of tobacco indus#ry sponsored youth tobacco access signs (yes/no), and presence of other non-industry sponsored youth tobacco access signs (yes/no). Community level variables included population of the community and number of retail tobacco outlets in the community. Each purchase attempt was assigned a value for these variables based on the community in which the outlet was located. For example, all outlets in the community of population size 3235 were assigned a population value of 3235. Reported availability variables included source of most recent cigarette and ever source of cigarettes (commercial, non-commercial), number of buy attempts and purchase refusals in the past 30 days, perceived difficulty of obtaining tobacco products from a salesperson/vending machine (1 to 7 scale where 1= not at all difficult, 7= very difficult), personal purchase of tobacco within a month of first using tobacco (yes/no), and ever being refused when trying to purchase tobacco (yes/no). Each purchase'attempt was assigned a single value for each of these 7 variables based on community averages of responses given by weekly smokers to the student survey. For example, if 45% of weekly smokers within a specific community answered that they obtained their first cigarette from a commercial source, all purchase attempts made within that community were assigned a value of 45% for this particular variable. 15.23 13 Responses from weekly smokers only were used for the multivariate analysis so as to more accurately quantify perceived availability of tobacco by minors. Non-smokers and those who smoked less often than weekly would be less likely to have tried to purchase tobacco and therefore would be less likely to be able to quantify the extent of tobacco availability in their community. To examine relationships between the covariates and purchase success, we used mixed-model regression techniques to reflect the three sources of random variation in the data: the communities, the buyers, and residual error. All covariates were treated as fixed effects. Starting with a base model of purchase success predicted by the outlet-level variables, we singly eliminated fixed effects until a parsimonious model was obtained. To this model, the community level covariates were first added as a group and then similarly singly removed in a backwards regression until a parsimonious model was found. Finally, the perceived availability terms were added as a group and singly removed to arrive at the final model. This final model includes all variables that significantly predicted purchase success. Results Student Sample Characteristics The final student sample of 6,014 for the student survey was almost 15.24 14 evenly split between males and females, among grades 8, 9 and 10, and almost entirely white, as shown in Table 1. About 70% of the students lived in the town where the school is located, with the remaining students residing in the surrounding rural area or in a nearby town. just over 50% of the students report ever smoking a cigarette, with 20% indicating smoking in the past 30 days, almost 17% reporting weekly smoking, and 11% reporting daily smoking. Smoking prevalence increased from grades 8 to 10, with the biggest jump between grades 8 and 9(Table 1). Almost 2&% of students said that they had tried smokeless tobacco at least once, representing over 50% of males in this sample. The combined prevalence of any use of tobacco was 55%, indicating considerable overlap in cigarette and smokeless tobacco use among boys. Insert Table 1 About Here Sources of Ci arg ettes Almost all students who reported smoking at least once indicated that they had obtained their first cigarette from family members or friends (Table 2). However, smokers were likely to buy cigarettes very soon after starting. Over 28% of all smokers, including 43% of weekly smokers, said they bought cigarettes within a month of starting to use tobacco. All smokers, especially 15.25 15 younger smokers, were very likely to say that even their most recent cigarette came from social sources. Still, over 30% of all tenth graders who smoke and almost 40% of the weekly smokers of all ages reported having obtained their last cigarette from a commercial source (Table 2). More than half of weekly smokers and almost one-third of tenth-grade ever-smokers said they had purchased cigarettes in the last 30 days, with a modal frequency of 1-5 times. Over 26% of all weekly smokers reported having stolen cigarettes from a business at least once. Eighth grade smokers were almost as likely as tenth grade smokers to report stealing cigarettes (15% vs. 18%) (Table 2), but the proportion of smokers who reported ever purchasing cigarettes over the counter increased dramatically from grade 8 to grade 10 (17% vs. 49%). Over 58% of the weekly smokers of all three grades had purchased cigarettes over the counter at least once. Vending machines as a source of cigarettes increased with grade, especially from grade 8 to 9, and were a more likely source for weekly smokers compared to all smokers in these grades. Gas stations and convenience stores were the businesses of choice for obtaining cigarettes, followed by grocery stores and restaurants. A significant proportion of respondents reported bars and liquor stores to be a source of cigarettes (over 9% of all smokers and 16.5% of weekly smokers), despite the fact that they have been labeled "adult locarions" by the tobacco industry. 15.26 16 Insert Table 2 About Here Since 1989 Minnesota state law has required that all vending machines be fitted with locking devices, except those located in businesses licensed to sell alcohol25. Students were asked to report the outcome of their last attempt to purchase tobacco from a locked vending machine. Among all 1927 students who have ever smoked in this sample, 327 (93.3%) had obtained cigarettes from a vending machine at least once. However, only 129 reported encountering a vending machine that was locked, and in 85% of those cases the employee unlocked the machine for them (Table 2). Tobacco Purchase Attempts The characteristics of the outlets where tobacco purchase was attempted by study confederates are described in Table 3. Over-the-counter outlets were predominately either gas stations/convenience stores or grocery/pharmacy/discount stores. Only a small fraction of these outlets displayed either tobacco industry signs or other signs concerning tobacco sales to minors (13% and 15% respecrively). A large proportion (55%) of the oudets displayed tobacco products only in locked cabinets or behind the sales counter. The sales staff encountered by the teenage buyers were predominately female (67%), and more than half were judged to be more than 30 years of age. 15.27 17 Insert Table 3 About Here Altogether 585 purchase attempts (for which we have complete data) were carried out at 307 outlets in the 14 communities in this study. Forty-eight outlets (96 purchase attempts} were vending machines and 259 oudets (489 purchase attempts) were over-the-counter businesses. Two communities had no vending machines. The overall purchase success, adjusted for buyer and community, was 40.8%, including 38.8% at over-the-counter businesses and 54.3% at vending machines. Of the 283 outlets visited twice, 56.5% sold tobacco at least once to the minors in this study. Purchase success varied from 12% to 74% among the fourteen cities, and from 8% to 82% among the 15-year-old buyers. One goal of this study was to examine correlates of purchase success among variables related to the tobacco outlet, the purchase transaction, the community, and the perception and experience of tobacco availability among teenagers who use tobacco in these towns. Our analysis strategy consisted of the sequential addition of grouped variables in a series of mixed-model linear regressions. Table 4 shows the final models� derived from the three sequential � modeling steps, and the mean purchase success for each of the variables in the final model, adjusted for other variables in the model. Tobacco outlet and 15.28 ,. � purchase transaction variables were associated with purchase success in over- the-counter busiriesses. Businesses with no self-service of tobacco (ie. all tobacco stored in locked cabinets or behind a service counter) were less likely to sell tobacco to our buyers. Younger clerks were more likely to sell to the 15- year old girls in this study, as were male clerks. Customers in line behind the buyer positively predicted purchase success also. However presence of tobacco-industry or other signs regarding tobacco sales to minors, and whether the clerk was in view of another employee were not associated with purchase success. Insert Table 4 About Here Of particular interest was the relationship between availability as perceived by the students and availability directly measured by purchase success. Mean purchase attempts in the past 30 days reported by weekly smokers was negatively associated with purchase success, and proportion of tobacco users buying their own tobacco within a month of starting to use was positively associated with purchase success. That is, higher purchase success was associated with a lower number of reported purchase aitempts in the last 30 days, and with smokers purchasing their own tobacco soon after first starting to smoke. None of the community-level variables (population, . 15,29 i�'� number of outlets) were associated with purchase success. To examine rnrrelates of vending machine success, the same modeling procedure was followed, except fewer business or transaction characteristics were included because they were not relevant to vending machines. Of the variables examined in the three sequential modeling steps, type of business where the machine was located and proportion of tobacco users buying their own tobacco within a month of starting to use were associated with purchase success. As Table 4 illustrates, purchase attempts at vending machines located in gas stations or convenience stores were always successful, though only four purchase attempts fell into that category. Tobacco was less available in machines Iocated in hotels, motels and other locations, compared to bars, restaurants, or private clubs. Many of the latter category of businesses are exempt from the locking device requirement of Minnesota state law because they have liquor licenses. Operational locking devices were found at only nine vending machine purchase attempts, and so locking device presence was not included in the modeling procedure for vending machines. Discussion These results indicate that commercial sources may not be as important for young adolescents in small towns as they are for the adolescent population as a whole. Just over 39% of these eighth, ninth and tenth graders who are regular smokers reported obtaining their last cigarette from 15.30 20 commercial sources, while over 52%'0 of 12-15 year olds reported "usuall�' buying their own cigarettes in the 1993 Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey, which includes a national sample9. However, the questions asked were somewha# different, making the results from the two studies difficult to compare. As a result it is not known if this small #own sample has different tobacco acquisition patterns compared to the national sample, or if the lower reported reliance on commercial sources is due to the way the quesiion was asked. We believe that asking about first and last cigarette (as we did in this study) rather than usual practices (as in TAPS) makes the results easier to interpret because the question is more specific, and does not require respondents to average over a number of occasions. Despite the high reliance on social sources, businesses still figure significantiy as sources of tobacco for regular tobacco users in this study. Over 50% of weekly smokers tried to purchase tobacco at least once in the month prior to the survey, and most of them had obtained cigarettes from commercial sources at some point. Our results illustrate the transition in tobacco sources as adolescents get older. Relatively few eighth grade ever-smokers relied on over-the-counter purchase, while 28% of tenth graders reported their last cigarette was obtained in that manner, and almost half of the tenth grade ever-smokers have purchased cigarettes over the counter. Shoplifting and vending machines, 15.3 i 21 neither of which require interaction with a clerk, were more important for eighth graders than tenth graders. The types of businesses where teenagers tried to purchase did not differ substantially between eighth graders and tenth graders, with gas stations/convenience stores the main category for both. The apparently high reliance on social sources among this group masks the contribution of businesses to social avenues of acquisition. In a separate analysis of these data we found that sharing tobacco products among underage youth is very common, with 69% of monthly smokers indicating that they have provided cigarettes to underage peers at least once26. Adolescents whose most recent source of cigarettes was commercial were 73% more likely to provide tobacco to another adolescent compared to those reporting a noncommercial source26. Thus tobacco obtained from commercial sources by underage youth has an effect on teenage smoking greater than just the buyer, because it serves as a source for non-buyers as well. Minnesota state statutes have required, since 1990, a locking device on all tobacco vending machines, except those located in businesses with liquor licenses25. Only 11% of the weekly smokers in this survey reported encountering a locked machine, despite the fact that over 28% of them had purchased cigarettes from a vending machine at some point. Also, our buyers were successful at more than 50% of vending machine purchase attempts 15.32 � despite the state law, and encountered locking devices in place at only 9 of 96 vending machine purchase attempts. These findings confirm our previous report that locking device requirements frequently are not implemented, and when not implemented are ineffective in preventing youth tobacco purchase19 Stealing cigarettes from businesses is another commercial source of tobacco for youth. More than 26% of weekly smokers in this study reported having ever shoplifted cigarettes, and 2.5% obtained their most recent cigarette that way. The proportion of regular smokers in this sample who report stealing cigarettes is similar to that reported by DiFranza et a1.27 but is considerably less than reported by Cismoski et a1.18. Our results confirm previous findings that shoplifting is most important for younger teenagers18� 27. Among eighth grade ever smokers, 3.5% said their most recent cigarette was stolen from a business, compared to 1.2% of tenth graders. Prevention of shoplifting is one reason tobacco control advocates have proposed a ban on self-service displays of tobacco. Such regulations would require all tobacco to be sold from behind a counter or a locked display, accessible only by an employee. We found a surprisingly large proportion (55%) of over-the-counter tobacco vendors did not have any self-service displays even before any tobacco control efforts had occurred in their 15.33 � communities. This argues that policies prohibiting self-service displays are in fact not onerous and are possible for merchants to accommodate. Our data also show that self-service tobacco displays make tobacco sales to adolescents more likely; 45% of purchase attempts from self-service displays were successful compared to 33% of over-the-counter attempts where tobacco was not directly accessible to the buyer. Thus, not only may requiring tobacco sales to be employee-assisted discourage youth from stealing or attempting to buy, it also appears to reduce the likelihood that an employee will sell to minors. The requirement that the buyer ask for the tobacco product from an employee provides more oppor#unity for the employee to observe the customer, and increases the likelihood that the seiler will ask for age identification. Having only employee-assisted tobacco sales also might indicate a larger concern on the part of the owner or manager about the issue of youth access to tobacco, and thus may be associated with more stringent employer policies on this issue. Our tobacco purchase success by confederate buyers, at 38.8% for over- the-counter locations and 54.3% for vending machine locations, was lower than for many previously reported studies. This lower level of availability may be characteristic of smaller cities in rural areas, where few studies have been conducted #o date. In our towns, over two-thirds of the clerks were female, and the majority appeared to be over the age of 30, both characteristics 15.34 24 which predict lower purchase success. Our study provided the opportunity to examine mmmunity level effects on tobacco purchaseability, and to combine predictor variables in a multivariate analysis of cigarette purchase success by underage buyers. We were especially interested in the relationship befween adolescents' perceived availability, their experiences in attempting to purchase tobacco, and actual tobacco purchase success by confederate buyers. Our results show that in towns where purchase success was higher, adolescent smokers reported on average fewer purchase attempts in the last month (successful or not), and that they bought their first cigarette sooner after first starting to smoke, compared with towns where purchase success was lower. One interpretation is that in towns where it is more difficult to buy tobacco adolescents must make more attempts in order to be successful in obtaining cigarettes, and are likely to delay trying to purchase tobacco or rely on social sources of tobacco longer after starting to smoke. The lack of stronger association between purchase success and perceived availability may be because availability is ubiquitous. Alternatively the number of businesses that sell tobacco to minors may not measure true availability, since one business that sells tobacco to youth is enough to supply an entire town of this size. Our study is limited by the fact that tobacco use and acquisition behaviors relied on self-report. Associations rely on cross-sectional data and 15.35 2.� therefore cannot establish cause-effect relationships. Similarly conclusions about differences in behaviors across ages aze limited because these are based on cross-sectional and not cohort samples. �5.3s Acknowledgements This study was supported by grant number CA54893 from the National Institutes of Health to jL Forster. 15.37 26 z� References 1. Centers for Disease Control. State Laws on Tobacco Control: United States, 1995. MMWR 1995;44:1-30. 2. Forster jL, Kiepp KI, jeffery RW. Sources of Cigarettes to Tenth Graders in Two Minnesota Cities. Health Educ Res 1989;4(1):45-50. 3. johnston LD, O'Malley RM, Bachman JG. Smoking, Drinking, and Illict Drug Use Among American Secondary Schoal Students, College Students, and Youth Adults, 1975-1991. Bethesda, MD, 1992; Vol 1. USDHHS, Public Health Service, NIH, NIDA. 4. Cummings K, Sciandra MA, Pechacek TF, Orlandi M, Lynn WR For the COMMTIT Research Group. Where Teenagers Get Their Cigarettes: A Survey of the Purchasing Habits of 13-16 Year Olds in 12 US Communities. Tobacco Control 1992;1:264-26. 5. Cummings KM, Pechacek T, Shopland D. The Illegal Sale of Cigareites to Minors: Estimates by State. Am j Public Health 1994;84:300-302. 6. Response Research, Inc. Findings for the Study of Teenage Cigarette Smoking and Purchase Behavior. Chicago, IL, 1989. 7. Centers for Disease Control. Accessibility of Cigarettes to Youths Aged 12- 17. MMWR 1992;41:485-458. 8. Wolfson M, Forster jL. Socioeconomic Status and Adolescent Tobacco Use: The Role of Differential Availability. Los Angeles, CA, August, 1994; 15.38 28 Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. 9. Centers for Disease Control. Accessibility of Tobacco Producis to Youths Aged 12-17 Years: United States, 1989 and 1993. r�IlViWR 1996;45:125-130. 10. Centers for Disease Control. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: USDHHS, 1994. 11. Altman DG, Foster V, Rawnick-Douss L, Tye JB. Reducing the Illegal Sale of Cigarettes to Minors. J Am Med Assoc 1989;261:80-83. 12. DiFranza JR, Brown LJ. The Tobacco Institute's "It's the Law" Campaign: Has it Halted Illegal Sales of Tobacco to Children? Am J Public Health 1992;82:1271-1273. 13. Forster JL, Hourigan ME, McGovern P. Availability of Cigarettes to Underage Youth in Three Communities. Prev. Medicine 1992; 21:320-328. 14. Erickson AD, Woodruff SI, Wildey MB, Kenney E. Baseline Assessment of Cigarette Sales fo Minors in San Diego, California. J Community Heal th 1993;18:213-224. 15. Centers for Disease Control. Minors' Access to Tobacco: Missouri, 1992, and Texas, 1993. 1��vIWR 1993;42:125-128. 16. DiFranza jR, Savageau JA, Aisquifh. Youth Access #o Tobacco: The Effects of Age, Gender, Vending Machine Locks, and "I�s the Law" Programs. 15.39 29 Am J Public Health, 199b;86:221-230. 17. Cox D, Cox AD, Moschis GP. When Consumer Behavior Goes Bad: An Investigation of Adolesent Shoplifting. J Consumer Res 1990;17:149-159. 18. Cismoski J, Sheridan M. Tobacco Acquisition Practices of Adolescents in Two Wisconsin Communities. Wisconsin Med J 1994:585-591. 19. Forster JL, Hourigan ME, Kelder S. Locking Devices on Cigarette Vending Machines: Evaluation of a City Ordinance. Am j Public Health 1992;82:1217-1219. 20. Bla.ine TM, Hennrikus D, Forster jL, O'Neil S, Wolfson M, Pham H. Creating Tobacco Control Policy at the Local Level: Implementation of a Direct Action Organizing Approach. (unpublished observations). 21. Shopland DR. Smoking Control in the 1990s: A National Cancer Institute Model for Change. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1208-1210. 22. Murray DM, O'Connell CM, Scmid LA, Perry CL. The Validity of Smoking Self-Reports by Adolescents: A Reexamination of the Bogus Pipeline Procedure. Addict Behav 1987;12:7-15. 23. Murray DM, Perry CL. The Measurement of Substance Use Among Adolescents: When is the Bogus Pipeline Method Needed? Addict Behav 1987;12:225-233. 24. Pechacek TF, Murray DM, Luepker RV, Mittlemark MB, Johnson CA, Schultz JM. Measurement of Adolescent Smoking Behavior: Rationale 15.40 ;� 30 and Methods. J Behav Med 1984;7:123-140. 25. MN Statutes, 1992; Section 325E.075. 26. Wolfson M, Forster JL, Claxton AJ, Murray DM. Adolescent Smokers' Provision of Tobacco to Other Adolescents. Amer J Pub Health, in press. 27. DiFranza JR, Eddy jJ, Brown LF, Ryan JL, Bogojavlensky A. Tobacco Acquisition and Cigarette Brand Selection Among Youth. Tobacco Control 1994;3:334-338. 15.41 Table 1. Characteristics of Respondents to the TPOP School Survey Demo�ra�hics Female Racial/ethnic minority Reside in town where school is located Tobacco Use Cigarettes - ever Cigarettes - past 30 days Cigarettes - weekly Cigarettes - daily Grade 8 9 10 N=2108 N=2014 N=1892 50.2% 5.1 % 71.6% 42.5% 13.2G7o I0.5% 6.3 % Smokeless tobacco - ever 2Q.8% Smokeless tobacco - weekly 3.5% Smokeless tobacco - daily 1.7% 15.42 48.5% 4.9% 69.1 % 52.6% 21.1% 17.6% 11.4% 29.6% 6.T % 3.2% 49.0% 5.3% 70.7% 57.6% 27.b% 22.9% 16.1% 34.1 % 7.4 % 4.7% Total N=6014 49.3% 5.1% 70.4% 50.b% 20.4% 16.8% 11.1% 27.9% 5.6% 3.2% � �, � � o � � � � t�. � � � � � ��1 GJ � � F� 'L� � � � � W v 'CS � � � � � � � O � � �r ar > W oA � 0 � � � � .1..� .i.r � � oA ., V w O m � V � 0 � cV a� � � H .�. � � � s., �.�4� r-'O�l�c�0 � O� � c-� N ct' i-�+ � �; z � N � 01 C'� 'd! � � C'� �` i � t—+ N c'� e—+ oz H 0 � �° �:�o�:� � � � r--� c� c� r-+ V � � N ,� � `O N L� [� GO �� NC�O � � d N d� N� Q� �O � � � �--� r--� (�j �-+ � v � ��.+ �/ � V � � � p� � �. �, .� U �� cn .� � � � 0 � � � � w��,o � ��w � '� � � � � � `w��Oci�O O O � o NdM'�� [� � CY'� � � N �-N+ � ��o� � c� � � � � � � � N �--� �O � � � '� O L� M O � � � � � � L''-� a� � � � � � .�.i � � � � � � � � �. � � �, '-� > .•� � � 3Z�� n 15.43 OO�lI�O � c'� m N �--� � � � � � � e-a o0 N c'� �O CG N N O � r--� N r-i M M r-� � � c--+ � �-+ �O N N M c'*) C'� tn �D �d'�('��D �.�; W � � � � � •'-7 � U � �. � �a �� '� � � � cn �i c� O -l-, � � Q1 � 0 s.. �,.., � � � w O ,_, ., , � t., � � n�i .� .� � � � > O .�. �OcnO �-;01d:�D 'd N�� +--i('7C�� e-C�,+ d� OO Of�01OO � N � � t'� l� r-� O� � � d � N C� t'� � CO �C�NO � � .�/ o �,�� +� � � � � o�oo � Z r+ .o n � 0 ��d�N O o0 OO �p oON�N OONc-� � n � n 00 �-+ M �--� �OC'�N ('� O a1 Op CO N d+ r--� 00 O o0 0p t.[') OO C'� L� � � M � � ct' O L� � e-+ L� d� 00 t—� r-i �--� � � c� V � � � a ' � °.,�' 'v� � � O � �+ � '� O � � � � � � a � � > o w�0 n �[� c'� r-+ � GO c'� �D c'� OO N L� d'' �O N a1 t� ('� � � N r-+ t-� � r--� ��OMd'�O�C�d! ��N�N�I�d+�o0 O[� tn N[� �D t1� O M t+') N i-+ c� O 00 � c'� � �-+ d' N i-+ c--� e-� U') c-� r-i O C� e--� N Cr'� NMc'�NO�l1�� T--� C� �--+ r-� [� M r-+ � [� C�i Lf� [� � �[� ��--+�lc�N�GO c--i v � � Fvr O � � O � � V c� 4��J F� W � O � v, v � � .4' � �O O a� � ctS .� � O� V� O i O � �'' a..' � c� :� � �. :i � � � � � � � � � � Q �� u � O � O %-1 � cn cn p c� s., cn v.� �� C� C� a aa � f� � O • • •• • M t� O � � � � � � � � r-i N r--i c0 � � � O .� U � � � d: N d+ � � � � � � Q U � n 4-+ � 0 v � .� ~ C.J � � � N � V V y'� a� � p � �+-' _, ... ,-� . .. � � O � � � v., � O C � � � � � � � �,00 N � � � �' � � n z W W 15.44 0 � �OL�oO r' ('�i C� f� C� O � C� r-' (� M C� �01d!Cfl e--+ N ('� ('� �-f� r-i d1 � �--i (Y'� C� ('7 CO N t� 00 r' C� d� C� � � � ~ �" a�i � � � � � .� � >'•� � � W � O � � � � � � cC� 'L� � �i O x��a�� o� a, > a, w�Ov� � � U � ....� � � 4J � �� '� � (LS � � � V 't� �--1 � d-� � .1..� O � I! � a� � � 3 � � V � n � r--� O � cC � a� � 0 � � �, � . �; . Table 3. Characteristics o# Tobacco Purchase A#tempts T�e of Business Gas station/convenience store Bar, restaurant, private club Grocery, pharmacy, discount Hotel, motel, other Over-the-Counter N=489 34.6°l0 18.4% 30.0% 17.4% Presence of Signs Concernin� Sales to Minors Tobacco industry signs 13.5% Other signs 15.3% Location of Tobacco All locked or behind counter Clerk Gender Female Estimated Clerk A e < 21 years 21-30 years >30 years 15.45 � 55.0% 67.1% 14.9% 27.8% 57.3% Vending Machine N=96 4.2% 62.5% 33.3% 2.0% 37.5 % Table 4. Purchase Success: Final Models and Least Square Means A. Over the Counter (N=489) Tobacco Location (F=7.41; P=0.0070) all locked behind the counter not all locked behind the counter No. of Customers in line (F=4.86; P=0.0086) none >1 Clerk Gender (F=10.22; P=0.0016) male female Clerk A�e (F=6.86; P=0.0013) < 21 years 21-30 years > 31 years Purchase Success . .. ,. . 32.5% 45.6%a 37.5% 46.0% 47.8% 33.8% 56.0% 39.2% 33.4% Mean Re�orted Purchase Attem�ts in Past 30 Da�s (F=7.12; P=0.008; �=-.0979) (continuous] % Smokers Who Bou�ht Own Tobacco within a Month of Starting (F=3.87; P=0.05; �=0.6048) jcontinuous] B. Vending Machine (N=96) T,y�e of Business (F=4.29; P=0.0192) Gas station/convenience store Bar, restaurant, private club Hotel, motel, other 54.3% 100% 62.9% 32.3 % % Smokers Who Bought Own Tobacco within a Month of Startin� (F=3.69; P=0.06; t�=1.2723) (continuousj 15.46 TO: AILLIAM W. BQRNS, CITY MANAGER�{�� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOWARD D. ROOLICR, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR AALTER H. COLE, ACCOIINTING/DATA PROCESSING CLERR SIIBJECT: RESOLIITION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-03 DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1996 On the attached pages you will find the Resolution Confirming Assessment for the East River Road Improvement Project No. St 1994- 03. The total cost of this project is $ 189,617.02. Listed below is the breakdown of the project and a summary of the assessable costs. The East River Road Improvement Project No. St 1994-03 involved: East River Road - Hartman Circle to Glen Creek Road The cost of this portion is $ 189,671.02 with $ 46,080.21 being assessed against the effected property owners @$ 9.00 per front foot. The remaining amount of $ 143,590.81 will be paid for from the City of Fridley's Capital Improvement Fund. All properties assessed under East River Road Improvement Project No. St 1994-03 will be certified for Ten years at an interest rate of six and one half percent. �s.o � RESOLUTION NO. - 1996 RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSE83MENT FOR EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-03 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Clerk has with the assistance of the engineers heretofore selected by this Council for such purpose, calculated the proper amounts to be specially assessed for the EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-03 in said City against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land in accordance with the provisions of law, and has prepared and filed with the City Clerk tabulated statements in duplicate showing the proper description of each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land to be specially assessed ant the amount calculated against the same. 2. Notice has been duly published as required by law that this Council would meet in regular session at this time and place to pass on the proposed assessment. 3. Said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open to inspection and copying by all persons interested, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment, or to any item thereof, and no objections have been filed, exce�t: 4. The amounts specified in the proposed assessment are changed and altered as follows: 5. This Council finds that each of the lots, pieces, or parcels of land enumerated in said proposed assessment as altered and modified was and is specially benefited by the EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-03 in the amount in said proposed assessment as altered and modified by the corrective roll in the amount set opposite the description of each lot, piece, or parcel of land, and that said amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein described. � 6.�2 Page 2- Resolution No. - 1996 6. Such proposed assessment as altered, modified, and corrected is affirmed, adopted and confirmed, and the sums fixed and named in said proposed assessment as altered, modified, and corrected, with the changes and alterations herein above made, are affirmed, adopted, and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land respectively. 7. Said assessment so affirmed, adopted, and confirmed, shall�be certified by the City Clerk and filed in his office and shall thereupon be and constitute the special assessment for EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-03 8. The amounts assessed against each lot, piece, or parcel of land shall bear interest from the date hereto until the same has been paid at the rate of six and one half ( 6 1/2 %) per cent per annum. 9. Such assessment shall be payable in Ten (10) annual installments payable on the first day of January in each year, beginning in the year 1997, and continuing until all of said installments shall have been paid, each installment to be collected with taxes and collectable during said year by the County Auditor. 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make up and file in the Office of the County Auditor of Anoka County a certified statement of the amount of all such unpaid assessments and the amount which will be due thereon on the first day of January in each year. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1996 ATTEST: WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR WILLIAM C. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 16.03 TO: AILLIAM A. BIIRNS, CITY MANAGER�,�y� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOAARD D. ROOLICR, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR AALTER H. COLE, ACCOUNTING/DATA PROCESSING CLERR SIIBJECT: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR �IAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT pROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(COMMERCIAL) DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1996 On the attached pages you will find the Resolution Confirming Assessment for the Main Street Improvement Project No. St 1994.08. The total cost of this project is $ 177,702.30. Listed below is the breakdown of the project and a summary of the assessable costs. The Main Street Improvement Project No. St 1994-08 involved: Main Street - I-194 to 44th Avenue The cost of this portion is $ 177,702.30 with $ 173,111.02 being assessed against the effected commercial property owners @$8.00 per front foot for concrete curb and gutter and $ 3.03 per 100 square foot based on 75 % coverage for storm sewer. The remaining amount will be assessed to the residential properties. All properties assessed under Main Street Improvement Project No. St 1994-08(Residential) will be certified for Ten years at an interest rate of six and one half percent. 17.01 RESOLUTION NO. - 1996 RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(COMMERCIAL) BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Clerk has with the assistance of the engine�rs heretofore selected by this Council for such purpose, calculated the proper amounts to be specially assessed for the MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(COMMERCIAL) in said City against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land in accordance with the provisions of law, and has prepared and filed with the City Clerk tabulated statements in duplicate showing the proper description of each and every lot, piece, or parcel of 2and to be specially assessed ant the amount calculated against the same. 2. Notice has been duly published as required by law that this Council would meet in regular session at this time and place to pass on the proposed assessment. 3. Said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open to inspection and copying by all persons interested, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment, or to any item thereof, and no objections have been filed, except: 4. The amounts specified in the proposed assessment are changed and altered as follows: 5. This Council finds that each of the lots, pieces, or parcels of land enumerated in said proposed assessment as altered and modified was and is specially benefited by the MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(COMMERCIAL) in the amount in said proposed assessment as altered and modified by the corrective roll in the amount set opposite the description of each lot, piece, or parcel of land, and that said amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein described. 17.02 Page 2- Resolution No. - 1996 6. Such proposed assessment as altered, modified, and corrected is affirmed, adopted and confirmed, and the sums fixed and named in said proposed assessment as altered, modified, and corrected; with the changes and alterations herein above made, are affirmed, adopted, anc� confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land respectively. 7. Said assessment so affirmed, adopted, and confirmed, shall.,be certified by the City Clerk and filed in his office and shall thereupon be and constitute the special assessment for ' MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(COMMERCIAL) 8. The amounts assessed against each lot, piece, or parcel of land shall bear interest from the date hereto until the same has been paid at the rate of six and one half ( 6 1/2 %) per cent per annum. 9. Such assessment shall be payable in Ten (10) annual installments payable on the first day of January in each year, beginning in the year 1997, and.continuing until all of said installments shall have been paid, each installment to be collected with taxes and collectable during said year by the County Auditor. 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make up and file in the Office of the County Auditor of Anoka County a certified statement of the amount of all such unpaid assessments and the amount which will be due thereon on the first day of January in each year. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1996 ATTEST: WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR WILLIAM C. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 17.03 TO: AILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER;��t' FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOAARD D. ROOLICK, ASSISTANT FINANCS DIRECTOR WALTER H. COLE, ACCOIINTING/DATA PROCES3ING CLERR SUBJECT: RESOLIITION CONFIRMiNG ASSESSMENT FOR MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT pROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(RESIDENTIAL) DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1996 On the attached pages you will find the Resolution Confirming Assessment for the Main Street Improvement Project No. 5t 1994.08. The total cost of this project is $ 177,702.30. Listed below is the breakdown of the project and a summary of the assessable costs. The Main Street Improvement Project No. St 1994-08 involved: Main Street - I-194 to 44th Avenue The cost of this portion is $ 177,702.30 with $ 21,728.00 being assessed against the effected residential property owners @$8.00 per front foot for concrete curb and gutter. Al1 properties assessed under Main Street Improvement Project No. St 1994-08(Residential) will be certified for Ten years at an interest rate of six and one half percent. 18.01 RESOLUTION NO. - 1996 RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(RESIDENTIAL) BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, as follows: l. The City Clerk has with the assistance of the engineers heretofore selected by this Council for such purpose, calculated the proper amounts to be specially assessed for the MAiN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(RESIDENTiAL) in said City against ev�ry assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land in accordance with the provisions of law, and has prepared and filed with the City Clerk tabulated statements in duplicate showing the proper description of each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land to be specially assessed ant the amount calculated against the same. 2. Notice has been duly published as required by law that this Council would meet in regular session at this time and place to pass on the proposed assessment. 3. Said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open to inspection and copying by all persons interested, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment, or to any item thereof, and no objections have been filed, except: 4. The amounts specified in the proposed assessment are changed and altered as follows: 5. This Council finds that each of the lots, pieces, or parcels of land enumerated in said proposed assessment as altered and modified was and is specially benefited by the MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(RESIDENTIAL) in the amount in said proposed assessment as altered and modified by the corrective roll in the amount set opposite the description of each lot, piece, or parcel of land, and that said amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein described. � 8.�2 Page 2- Resolution No. - 1996 6. Such proposed assessment as altered, modified, and corrected is affirmed, adopted and confirmed, and the sums fixed and named in said proposed assessment as altered, modified, and corrected, with the changes and alterations herein above made, are affirmed, adopted, and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land respectively. 7. Said assessment so affirmed, adopted, and confirmed, shall,be certified by the City Clerk and filed in his office and shall thereupon be and constitute the special assessment for ' MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1994-08(RESIDENTIAL) 8. The amounts assessed against each lot, piece, or parcel of land shall bear interest from the date hereto until the same has been paid at the rate of six and one half ( 6 1/2 $) per cent per annum. 9. Such assessment shall be payable in Ten (10) annual installments payable on the first day of January in each year, beginning in the year 1997, and continuing until all of said installments shall have been paid, each installment to be collected with taxes and collectable during said year by the County Auditor. 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make up and file in the Office of the County Auditor of Anoka County a certified statement of the amount of all such unpaid assessments and the amount which will be due thereon on the first day of January in each year. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1996 ATTEST: WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR WILLIAM C. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 18.03 TO: WILLIAM A. BORNS, CITY M�INAGER ✓,�`�r FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR HOAARD D. ROOLICR, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR WALTER H. COLE, ACCOIINTING/DATA PROCESSING CLERR SIIBJECT: RESOLIITION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR 1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1995 -1 & 2 DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1996 On the attached pages you will find the Resolution Confirming Assessment for the 1995 Street Improvement Project No. St 195-02. The total cost of this project is $ 588,749.02. Listed below is the breakdown of the project and a summary of the assessable costs. The 1995 Street Improvement Project No. St 1995 - 1& 2 involved: 68th Ave - Monroe to Brookview Arthur St - Camelot to Mississippi The costs of this portion is $ 588,749.02 with $ 21,495.00 being assessed against the effected residential property owners @$ 9.00 per front foot. The remaining amount of $ 567,254.02 will be paid for from the City of Fridley's Capital Improvement Fund. Al1 properties assessed under 1995 Street Improvement Project No. St 1995-02 will be certified for Ten Years at an interest rate of six and one half percent. 19.01 RESOLIITION NO. - 1996 RE30LIITION CONFIRMING A38ESSMENT FOR 1995 STREET I1'4PROVEMEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1995-02 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Clerk has with the assistance of the engi.neers heretofore selected by this Council for such purpose, calculated the proper amounts to be specially assessed for the 1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT pRpJECT NO. ST 1995-02 in said City against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land in accordance with the provisions of law, and has prepared and fiied with the City Clerk tabulated statements in duplicate showing the proper description of each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land to be specially assessed ant the amount calculated against the same. 2. Notice has been duly published as required by law that this Council would meet in regular session at this time and place to pass on the proposed assessment. 3. Said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open to inspection and copying by all persons interested, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment, or to any item thereof, and no objections have been filed, except: 4• The amounts specified in the proposed assessment are changed and altered as follows: 5• This Council finds that each of the lots, pieces, or parcels of land enumerated in said proposed assessment as altered and modified was and is specially benefited by the 1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST NO. 1995-02 in the amount in said proposed assessment as altered and modified by the corrective roll in the amount set opposite the description of each lot, piece, or parcel of land, and that said amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein described. 19.02 Page 2- Resolution No. - 1996 6. Such proposed assessment as altered, modified, and corrected is affirmed, adopted and confirmed, and the sums fixed and named in said proposed assessment as altered, modified, and corrected, with the changes and alterations herein above made, are affirmed, adopted, and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land respectively. 7. Said assessment so affirmed, adopted, and confirmed, shall be certified by the City Clerk and filed in his office and shall thereupon be and constitute the special assessment for 1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1995-02 8. The amounts assessed against each lot, piece, or parcel of land shall bear interest from the date hereto until the same has been paid at the rate of six and one half ( 6 1/2 %) per cent per annum. 9. Such assessment shall be payable in Ten (10) annual installments payable on the first day of January in each year, beginning in the year 1997, and continuing until all of said installments shall have been paid, each installment to be collected with taxes and collectable during said year by the County Auditor. 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make up and file in the Office of the County Auditor of Anoka County a certified statement of the amount of all such unpaid assessments and the amount which will be due thereon on the first day of January in each year. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1996 ATTEST: WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR WILLIAM C. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 7 9.03 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Kim Miller requests that two variances be granted to allow an expansion and garage space addition at Miller Funeral Home at 6210 Highway 65. The variances requested are: 1. Principal Building - To reduce the front yard setback from 80 feet to 37 feet; 2. Garage Structure - To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 33 feet. If the variance requests are approved, the petitioner will complete the following improvements to the property: 1. Construct a 30.5 foot by 66 foot addition to the west side of the principal building. 2. Construct a 22.7 foot by 60 foot addition onto the garage located at the rear of the property. HARDSHIP STATEMENT: "Need arrangement and business offices, casket showroom and storage." SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Section 205.15.03.C.(2).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code requires a side yard setback of 80 feet where a side yard abuts a street of a corner lot. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into the neighboring front yard. Section 205.15.03.C.(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide adequate open space around commercial structures for aesthetic and fire-fighting purposes. The petitioner's building proposal will provide additional storage and assembly areas for mourners and family members. The proposed building addition is 2,013 square feet and does not impact sight lines of adjacent properties. The garage addition will be used for vehicle and casket storage. The proposed garage expansion will eliminate > parking spaces on site. Two new spaces could be constructed adjacent to the garage addition for a net loss oti 3 spaces. The site meets the parking requirements of the code; however, there may be 2 or 3 reviewals conclucted at one time; therefore all on-site parking spaces are used on a regular basis. The petitioner does have an agreement with St. Philips Lutheran Church to the south for additional overflow parking. 20.01 Staff Report VAR #96-22, 6210 Highway 65 N.E. P_ age 2 The Engineering Department has two requests of the petitioner: 1. Granting of a 10 foot easement adjacent to the existing drainage easement to provide access to a sewa�e pumping station. 2. A grading and drainage plan with calculations documenting the change in stormwater runoff. STAFF RECOMNIENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMNIISSION: - Staff recommended that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of the variance requests to the City Council. with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall dedicate a 10 foot drainage and atility easement parallel with a.nd adjacent to the west line of the existing drainage and utility easement which is located adjacent to the east property line. 2. The petitioner sha11 submit a grading and drainage plan and calculations for stormwater runoff. 3. The petitioner shall plant seven (7) - 6 foot tall evergreens to the reaz of the proposed garage addition. 4. Adequate informational signage regarding off-site overflow parking and pedestrian crossing be installed prior to commencement of construction, APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The Commission amended stipulation #3 as follows: 3. The petitioner shall work with staffto determine an appropriate screening solution for the garage addition. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission Action. PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: A variance to: 1. Reduce the front yard setback from 80 feet to 37 feet; and 2. Reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 33 feet Location of Property: 6210 Highway 65 N.E. 20.�2 Staff Report VAR #96-22, 6210 H'ighway 65 N.E. �e 3 Legal Descriptioa of Property: Lots 3& 4, Block 1, Herwal's Second Addition Size: 83,760 square feet; 1.92 acres Topography: Eaisting Vegetation: Eaisting Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Site Pianning Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Pu61ic Hearing Comments: Fiat Typical suburban; sod, shrubs, trees C-3, General Shopping Center; Herwal's Second Addition 1963 Connected West Moore Lake Drive Sidewalk along West Moore Lake Drive N/A The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this location. WEST: SOtTTH: EAST: NORTH: ADJACENT SITES Zoning: R-1, Single Family Zoning: R-3, General Multiple Family Zoning: R-1, General Shopping Center Zoning: R-1, General Shopping Center 20.03 Land Use: Residential Land Use: Church I.and Use: Retail; multi-tenant Land Use: Office; multi-tenant StaffReport VAR #96-22, 6210 I�'ighway 65 N.E. �e 4 DEVELOPMENT STTE REQUEST The petitioner requests that two variances be granted: 1. To reduce the front yard setback from 80 feet to 37 feet; 2. To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 33 feet. If the variance request is approved, the petitioner will complete the following improvements to the property: 1. Construct a 30.5 foot by 66 foot addition to the west side of the building. 2. Construct a 22. 7 foot by 60 foot addition onto the garage located at the rear of the property. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The subject parcel is loca.ted in the northwest corner of the intersection of H'ighway 65 and t�Vest Moore Lake Drive. Located on the property is a 6,000 square foot (90 feet by 66 feet) mortuary and a 1,800 square foot garage. The following activities have occurred on the property: 1963- Variances were granted for building setbacks, parking stalls, and driveway locations for a funerat home. 1967- Issuance of a building permit for a funeral home I987- Variances were granted to reduce the side corner setback to altow construction of a building addition on the west end of the funeral home. 1993- A variance was granted to reduce the side ya.rd setback to 3 feet to allow a hearse enclosure. 1994- Construction of a canopy (as opposed to a hearse enclosure) in the side yard, sign variance, and construction of a 30 foot by 60 foot garage. 1996- Variance request for garage expansion ANALYSIS Section 205.15.03.C.(2).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code requires a side yard setback of 80 feet where a side yard abuts a street of a corner lot. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into the neighboring front yard. Section 205.15.03.C.(3) requires a minimum reaz yard setback of 40 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide adequate open space azound commercial structures for aesthetic and fire-fighting purposes. 20.04 StaffReport VAR #96-22, 6210 H'ighway 65 N.E. Pa�e 5 Front Yard Variance The variance request to reduce the front yard setback from 80 feet to 37 feet would allow the construction of an addition to the west side of the building. This request does not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties as the proposed addition is in line with the existing building. The addition will eliminate the existing drive-through canopy located on the west side of the building. This request is consistent with similar requests previously ganted for the property, as well as adjacent properties in the vicinity. Staff recommends approval of the request to reduce the front yard setback. Rear Yard Setback The variance to reduce the rear yard setback would allow construction of a 22.7 foot by 60 foot addition to the existing brick garage. The previous garage expansion request was 30 feet by 80 feet and would have reduced the setback to 24 feet. There is a 40 to 55 foot wide planting boulevazd which separates the. subject parcel from the adjacent residential parcels to the west. The planting boulevard is not owned by either the petitioner nor the residential properties to the west. The properties do not directly abut each other; they are separated by the planting boulevard. There are a number of trees which are located in the planting boulevard, as well as a ditch which drains to the west basin of Moore Lake. The trees in the planting boulevard will not be impacted by the proposed addition. The proposed garage may pose a visual impact to the adjacent residential properties. Landscaping to the rear of the addition could reduce the impact. The proposed gazage addition reduces the required number of parking spaces on the property from 83 spaces to 78 spaces (80 spaces are required based on 1 space per 100 square feet of building area of 8,000 square feet). Two spaces can be created south of the proposed addition for a total net loss of 3 spaces (3 stalls provided). The site meets the code requirements for parking; however, due to the consolidated nature of the use, it is staffs observafion that the demand for parking exceeds the supply. It is essential that parking is maintained on site. The petitioner does has a cross parking agreement with the Lutheran Church to the south. The Engineering Department has two concerns regarding the subject parcel. located in a drainage easement located along the east property line. An additional the e�sting easement is needed for access purposes. A grading and drainage pl stormwater impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS CONIMISSION: A sewage pumping station is 10 foot easement adjacent to an is also required to review Staff recommended that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of the variance requests to the City Council. with the following stipulations: The petitioner shall dedicate a 10 foot drainage and utility easement parallel with and adjacent to the west line of the existing drainage and utility easement which is located adjacent to the east property line. 20.05 StaffReport VAR #96-22, 6210 H'ighway 65 N.E. �e 6 2. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan and calculations for stormwater runoff. 3. The petitioner shall plant seven (7) - 6 foot tall evergreens to the rear of the proposed gazage addition. 4. Adequate informational signage regarding off-site overflow parking and pedestrian crossing be installed prior to commencement of construction. APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voteci unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The Commission amended stipulation #3 as follows: 3. The petitioner shall work with staff to determine an appropriate screening solution for the garage addition. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission Action with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall dedicate a 10 foot drainage and utility easement parallel with and adjacent to the west line of the existing drainage and utility easement which is located adjacent to the east property line. 2. The petitioner shall submit a gading and drainage plan and calculations for stormwater runoff. 3. The petitioner shall work with staffto determine an appropriate screening solution for the garage addition. 4. Adequate informational signage regazding off-site overflow parking and pedestrian crossing be installed prior to commencement of construction. 2�.�6 i� �� I ��. i► �l' �� • �l�i�+�� :��+��1: ■�'►�� •�,,,•�,�, ■ LL, � w _ — - , __ -__— � -rv � Qu, :� S. a o � u :� :� , '''A' _ _^�._ �?-� � v 7— � -� � - ? � : l \ Y �_� -� .o `-I-- `; o� - � x . - �� _ o y ° - ' �� ` � - � ` ni_ rW h '..� - P � = w ` .� 4' �' _ �'�.�� `zQ' � 04 _ " ' G�� .oUOW o �o 'l 0 2 �`� � ��JJ ��If� � -- y; o ;��xKi t ; -L--, o ' . t� .�-� � �-1 �� _ �� . I",--J � �= �, `ti, :-� '-� L� \ `-, � �-` 1 `a a��_ w <a� h�w'n'` R VAR ��96-22 Miller Funeral Home s y olv ,� ��ii��iil ►�lvn�f.i .�//, i!1,.�' !j _ d_ 0l. Bt. SO S`�/ �1 '~�-----`_. -- b�39 ONOH.7 ;, / --_--��___-- _ j% �l/� I UO -91.90.I0=p 8S'6195 b ,g�yt, , �,�1i1 �IJS'� ' •�7 •' s �tYSr3>Y3 hJ liS Ipn�.��f _�, x � ,ti,�� - l� �1 0 + ��, . sr-,t.. h Y ` °� 4 � 4b `I I V oa Yl ` ' H ~ � � 'Z .\ � Q�� a ��i1_ 00'SCI NIROS - - ` IIT-A7aJti�3 a�3�i ..�a sv B�J Ju wrd-,�. `� � !� . . � �'� e ,. , . I �,�> F �� y _ __'__—u �C s _ 4 J v � �i 1 m E (rl . �� ' ��t.��. h � t0 � e � \ y . Y )/ o. � \ ` J� � d_�� v� � � -y: t��-�:�-=3_ � �t I�1 - - - . �` - ; '/ NL��NV ONt 1vnaYl :u Jrre ni�' � N � _ I fNgl/:v7 J✓+w�vtl0 �� t!l 1/!R .u[ ',. � f-' . _l �_ _ � ' ' __ � �� }-.-.- � i i� , ��,c av �oo nae, s:3r�� i sr3nav� ,o ��ia �i � I 1 NIIA S3SOdtl/Id AYA3AItlU d'0! 1N3W35Y3 7M13CD3� �OL —� "'� �101& �� t07 �p 1331 OJI wtlW 3H! Jp hdt�ll �VS ` ' � �.. � -� � � �� - _- -- � -_ �� r _ -i i �ol- ? '-Y ,o�� I I -- - ---- , — --1=ia � _ �`"� � � (��i ___ -.___.l�_-._-- _____I.W�.� V __9_r�--�. I` � i ___._ _.____.�... .__ y.-_- 20C� 2_-p `'.:)�� o � ----' ' � � z �o i ' � 1 -_.__ l _..__ _ _j` W "i �� ___. I .__ � __ Z x .. � - __ - '__ � � - ��'� � �. l-' _ ._ _ ._'-1____ � --W °i� � � '�' I---_ -1 — ---�--. --- � W ;� ;� -: _- -_� I_ _ -_ _�-___ _�_-;� >>i - z � � ., ,____ -____ . .., ►` �; — l-_ � � � -- - �i - - i -- '==�' � �, �� , L __. i � t, � , - _ a„ � � � - - -' 'L.` � ---� . _ u .. " 4._..__. ._:._._) i, �' 4 -- - _ .. �,\ � � __ _ _ _ _ __ �-------_ _ �I ( � -- — �� y 0 . S , � I ,�'�� r: 39VNV9 NOI� lO�V �09� � ��t � i�-OL — _� '� . � �� i be u ' o soqobd 1'�� , ;� _, i1 b. � i�� .��.<\�\i �--- yf ___'I. ' :�' V J,� I . � r�I �`t,� _ _ - ;-� - � .�= � ! f `f ' --1 -�,�„� - ------�. _ — — — — _ — — — �- 98'lfI Hl?/ON �� , \\ �\ �� . Cl�11�;1J7�lOfl ��tJl.l.Nl�7�l �� _,-� _. _ _ _ I. _ _ _ 2�.�8 i P 0 0 � bJ 2I ` I I. � 1 � �I ;i� � � � I _ v � � I `' i \ . J "_ C _ ,J � ' a` :: � : � I� O .� v �� Cr, I � I I i v i f 1 � 1 � i i I� � I � CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 23, 1996 ROLL CALL: Chairperson Kuechle called the October 23, 1996, Appeais Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Carol Beaulieu, Diane Savage, Ken Vos (8:01 p.m.) Members Absent: None Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Scott Lexvold, Miller Funeral Home Betty Addison, Rice Creek Gardens Connie Masica, 1070 Lynde Drive N.E. Arvid Bidne, Noah's Ark of Minnesota Brendan & Cheryl Klein, 1419 West Danube Road APPROVAL OF AUGUST 28. 1996, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve the August 28, 1996; Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARlANCE REQUEST VAR #96-22 BY KIM J. MtLLER: Per Section 205.15.03.C.(2).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front yard setback on a comer lot from 80 feet to 37 feet to allow a 30.5 foot by 66 foot addition to an existing funeral home; and Per Sedion 205.15.03.C.{3) of the Frid{ey Zoning Code, to reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 33 feet to allow the construction of a 22.7 foot by 60 foot addition to a storage structure on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Herwal 2nd Addition, generally located at 6210 Highway 65 N.E. (Miller Funeral Home). MOT{ON by Ms. Beautieu, seconded by Savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the variance request is by Kim J. Miller of Miller Funeral Home for property located at the intersection of West Moore Lake Drive and Highway 65. The first 20.09 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 23 1996 PAGE 2 part of the request is to reduce the front yard setback from 80 feet to 37 feet and to reduce the rear yard setbadc from 40 feet to 33 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission reviewed a similar request earlier this year to reduce the front yard setbadc from 80 feet to 37 feet and to reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 25 feet. The petitioner's original request was denied by the City Council. The petitioner has resubmitted a request with a different proposal. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's original proposal was to fill in small alcove spaces on the funeral home and to construct a fairly substantial addition to the existing accessory structure in the rear yard. The City Council approved the setback variance to enclose the alcove spaces but denied the variance request to reduce the rear yard setback for the accessory structure addition. ln this request, the petitioner is proposing a 30 foot by 66 foot addition to the building which reduces the setback from 80 feet to 37 feet and is proposing an addition to the exisfing garage of 22 feet by 60 feet maintaining the setback line of 33 feet at its closest point for the new addition. Ms. McPherson stated that in reviewing the request, staff looked at parking. There are enough parlcing spaces on site to meet the code requirements; however, there is a lot of use at this facility and there are additional parking spaces at St. Phi{lips Lutheran Church across the street on West Moore Lake Drive to the south. The petitioner has a cross- parking agreement with the church to provide these additional spaces. Ms. McPherson stated the Engineering Department has requested an additional 10-foot easement along the west line of the existing easement in the no�theast comer of the property to provide more access to a sanitary sewer lift station. The Engineering Department has also requested a grading and drainage plan to ensure that there is no change in the stormwater runoff. It appears from a cursory view of those issues that the swap in hard surFace and green space should be about equal so there is little impact. Ms. McPherson stated staff has suggested minimizing the impact to adjacent residential property to the west by planting additional trees a(ong the rear of the proposed garage addition. The main objection to the petitioner's original request was the possible impact to the trees along the west property line. There is a 40-foot planting boulevard between the west property line of the subject parcel and the east property lines of the adjacent residential properties to the west. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the variance request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall dedicate a 10-foot drainage and utility easement parallel with and adjacent to the west line of the existing drainage and utility easement. 2. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan and calculations for stormwater runoff. 3. The petitioner shall plant seven (7) - 6-foot tall evergreens to the rear of the proposed garage addition. 20.10 APPEALS COMMISStON MEETING OCTOBER 23 1996 PAGE 3 4. Adequate ir�formational signage regarding ofF site overflow pa�{cing and pedestrian crossing be installed prior to commencement of construction. Ms. Savage asked if the objections that the City Council previously had would be an issue now. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council did not raise the objections. The objections came from the neighbors. With this request, staff has not heard any comments from the neighbors. She believed the petitioner has spoken to one of the specifically concemed property owners to the vvest. She believed that property owner's c�nc�ms may have been alleviated by this revised proposal. Mr. Lexvold stated he wrote a letter to each of the 25 people who signed the petition from the last request and offered to build a 10-foot wood privacy fence because it seemed their concem was the visua{ impact. Twelve people responded to that letter. Nine said they woutd still be opposed with the fence, and three said they would let the building go. He offered those respanses for the record. Ms. McPherson stated these responses related to the previous proposal and not the request now being considered. Mr. Lexvold stated the other issue is the stipulation regarding the planting of trees. Their only concem is that any trees put planted badc there would not do well. He had invited Ms. Betty Addison of Rice Creek Gardens to the meeting to go over some of these issues. Ms. Addison stated the neighbors would like to have evergreens in their backyards. They looked at the site. The ground drops away precipitousiy behind the building and this area is filled with a grove of cottonwood trees. The area is too shady. There is no way that trees wiil grow there. She had heard that the City wanted seven 6-foot trees. They talked to the neighbors to see if they would rather have two blue spn�ce or three arborvitae which are a smaller tree. She thought the blue spruce would go on either side or perhaps three smaller arborvitae. Ms. McPherson stated the stipulation indicates seven evergreens. Mr. Lexvold �tated one neighbor would prefer to have the trees in his yard because #hat would be better for him. He can discuss that option with the other neighbors as well. That may be a good avenue to follow. If these were put on the west border, it is likely that in two years the trees would be dead. Ms. Addison stated the cottonwood trees are close together. They take up the water and nutrients in the area. No other trees will grow there. Mr. Lexvo[d stated he had no ob}ection with the recommendation but was oifering a sofution that may be rnore practical. Mr. Kuechle asked what material would be used for the west side of the acxessory structure. 20.11 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 23. 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. �exvold stated the building wauld be cement block. Ms. Addison stated the trees are ctose and big so it is almost impossible to see the badc of the building. Mr. Kuechle asked if the petitioner had an issue with the cost of the trees. Mr. Lexvold stated that is not an issue. Ms. Savage asked if staff had received any comments from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated she had not received calls from any of the neighbors directly abutting the common property line. She did receive a call from a neighbor down the street within the not�cation radius who expressed many objections but nothing spec�c to this request. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. Ms. Savage stated she had no objection but she did not know about the stipulation. Ms. Addison of Rice Creek Gardens is very knowledgeable. If trees cannot be p)anted there, she did not know how they could make the requirement. � Mr. Kuechle suggested the petitioner work with staff to investigate what can be done to alleviate that condition. He reatized that is opened ended but he thought the petitioner would be cooperative. Ms. Beaulieu stated she believed that with the previous variance request, the neighbots were concemed about the cutting of trees. That would not happen with this proposal. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend approval of Variance Request, #96-22, by Kim J. Miller, to reduce the front yard setbadc on a comer lot from 80 feet to 37 feet to allow a 30.5 foot by 66 foot addition to an existing funeral home; and to reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 33 feet to a!!ow the construction of a 22.7 foot by 60 foot addition to a storage stru�ture on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Herwal 2nd Addition, generally located at 6210 Highway 65 N.E. (Miller Funeral Home), with the foNowing stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall dedicate a 10-foot drainage and utility easement parallel with and adjacent to the west line of the existing drainage and utitity easement. 2. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan and calculations for stormwater runoff. 3. The petitioner shall work with staff to find an appropriate screening solution. 2�.�2 APPEALS COMMISSlON MEETING. OCTOBER 23. 1996 PAGE 5 4. Adequate iriformational signage regarding off-site overflow parking and pedestrian crossing be installed prior to commencement of construction. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTiON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request on November 4. 2. PUBUC HEAR{NG: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE UEST VAR #96-23 BY SCOTT AND CONNIE MASICA: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the front ard setback from 35 fieet to 31 feet to allow a bay window addition to a dwelling o Lot 1, Block 3, Lyndale Builders 6th Addition, the same being 1070 Lynde Drive .. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the readin of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECH DECLARED THE MOTION CARRfED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:53 P. Ms. McPherson stated the request is for 1070 Lynde Driv which is located at the intersection of Lynde and Fillmore Streets. The request is to educe the front yard setback from 35 feet to 31 feet. The purpose of the request is to a1 construction of a 4foot deep floor-to-ceiling bay window. The public purpose serv y this section of the code is to reduce the building line-of-site encroachment into the ighbors front yard. Ms. McPherson stated located on the subject rcel is a single family dwelling and a detached garage. The petitioners are proposi to build the proposed bay window within the existing eave line of the dwelling unit. e floor-to-ceiling bay window does require footings. Because it is within the existing r f ovefiang, it does not impact the line-0f-site nor affect the visibility for traffic. This equest is within previously granted variances; therefore, staff has no recommendatio regarding this request. Mr. Kuechle asked about the rules egarding bay windows. Ms. McPherson stated that if ere are no footings, a bay window can be cantilevered into the easement. If the bay ndow requires footings, it then needs a variance. Typically, when a window is install above the brick line, they can be installed without a variance. When footings are nee and structural work done, a variance is required. Ms. Masica showe copies of the drawings of the proposed project. Mr. Kuechl sked if the bay window would be installed where the three windows are now located. Ms. asica stated, yes. They have three sections of a window that is 10 feet long. They w ed to replace the windows and then wanted to add and widen the room. It is on a rth wall so they wanted the foundation in order to insulate and keep the floor warmer. 20.13 � I TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER ,� � � FROM.• RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR StIBJECT.• APPROVAL OFA CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE SERi�ICES FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DATE: November 1,1996 Attached you will find an agreement with Springsted to provide the City of Fridley with Continuing Disclosure Services. This is a service that is based on a change in reporting requirements required by the Securities and Exchange Commission that impacts municipal debt offerings. In the past the Securities Act of 1933 and 1934 exempted most municipal securities from registration with and regulation by the Securities Exchange Commission (the SEC). Antifraud provisions of those Acts are not exempted however, and the SEC is using those provisions to ensure there is full and accurate information available to the holders of municipal bonds. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the MSRB) was established in the 1970's and has set standards for "Official Statements" and other disclosure documents to assist issuers and underwriters in the preparation of adequate disclosure documents. Effective January 1, 1990, the SEC promulgated Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) which requires undeiwriters of municipal securities to make a professional review of the Oi�icial Statement prepazed for the offering before making a recommendation to an investor to purchase. The Rule thus requires issuers of debt to prepare Official Statements and make them available to underwriters prior to soliciting bids and to provide a reasonable number of final Official Statements to investors. In 1995, the Rule was amended to require issuers of municipal securities to continue to update the information in the final Official Statement throughout the life of the issue. The amended Rule makes it unlawful for an underwriter to participate in the primary offering of the municipal securities unless, prior to submitting a bid or entering in to a contract to purchase the securities, it has reasonably determined that the issuer or an obligated person has undertaken in writing, for the benefit of the holder, to provide continuing disclosure information to specific repositories. The Rule is issue specific, meaning that each offering is viewed as a separate obligation of the issuer. Since it is issue specific we would now have two issues that would fall under this amended ruling: $2,935,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996A $4,090,000 General Obligation Temporary Tax Increment Bonds , Series 1995A 21.01 Approval of a contract to provide continuing disclosure services for the City of Fridley November 1, 1996 Page 2 Staff is recommending that Council make a motion to approve the Contract with Springsted to provide the Continuing Disclosure Services with Springsted to keep the Official Statements updated and placed in the appropriate information repositories. This service will cost the City $200 annually for each issue in a year in which an Oii'icial Statement has been created for a new debt issue. An additional $1,300 will be charged in a year in which no debt has been issued since an annual report will need to be created to comply with the reporting requirements. RDP/me Attachment 2 i.02 85 E. SEVENTH PLACG, SUITE 100 SAINTPAUL,MN SS101-2143 612-223-3000 FAX:612-223-3002 AGREEMENT FOR CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AND/OR ARBITRAGE AND REBATE MONITORiNG THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of 199 , by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, ("Client") and Springsted Incorporated ("Advisor"). WHEREAS, the Client wishes to retain the services of the Advisor on the terms and conditions set forth herein, and the Advisor wishes to provide such services: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as foilows: Services. Advisor shall provide financial advisory services to the Client with respect to continuing disclosure and/or arbitrage rebate monitoring services as identified in the Addendum(s) attached hereta 2. Compensation. The Client shaA compensate the Advisor in the amount of $250, payable upon execution of this Agreement, and at the rates set forth in Addendum(s) attached hereto for services to be provided by Advisor. The rates set out within the Addendum(s) shaH be effective for twelve months from the effective date of each Addendum. Thereafter, the Advisor's compensation can be adjusted to then current rates charged other similar clients upon sixty days written notice from Advisor to Client of the rate adjustment. 3. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof, and shall continue until terminated by either party by written notice given at least thirty days before the effective date of such termination, provided that no such termination shall affect or terminate the rights and obligations of each of the parties hereto with respect to any project, whether or not comp�ete, for which the Advisor has provided services p�ior to the date that such notice was given. 4. Indemnification- Sole Remedv. The Client and the Advisor each hereby agree to indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, liabilities, demands and cause of action (collectively referred to herein as "Damages") which the other may suffer or be subjected to as a consequence of any act, error or omission of the indemnifying party in connection with the performance or nonperformance of its obligations hereunder, less any payment for damages made to the indemnified party by a third party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no party hereto shall be liable to the other for Damages suffered by the otfier to the extent that those Damages are the consequence of: (a) events or conditions beyond the contro{ of the indemnifying party, inctuding without limitation changes in economic conditions; (b) actions of the indemnifying pa�ty which were reasonable based on facts and circumstances existing at the time and known to the indemnifying party at tfie time the 21.03 service was provided; or (c) errors made by the indemnifying party due to its reliance on facts and materials provided to the indemnifying party by the indemnified party. Whenever the Client or the Advisor becomes aware of a claim with respect to which it may be entitled to indemnification hereunder, it shall promptly advise the other in writing of the nature of the claim. If the claim arises from a claim made against the indemnified party by a thi�d pa�ty, the indemnifying party shall have the right, at its expense, to contest any such claim, to assume the defense thereof, to employ legal counsel in connection therewith, and to compromise or settle the same, provided that any compromise or settlement by the indemnifying party of such claim shall be deemed an admission of liability hereunder. The remedies set forth in this paragraph shall be the sole remedies available to either party against the othe� in connection with any Damages suffered by it. 5. Confidentiality: Disclosure of Information. 5.1 Client information_ All information, files, records, memoranda and other data of the Client which the Client provides to the Advisor or which the Advisor becomes aware of in the performance of its duties hereunder ("Client lnformation") shall be deemed by fhe parties fo be the property of the Client. The Advisor may disclose the Client Information to third parties in connection with the performance by it of its duties hereunder. 5.2 Advisor lnformation. The Client acknowledges that in connection with the perFormance by the Advisor of its duties hereunder, the Client may become aware of internal files, records, memoranda and other data, including without limitation computer programs of the Advisor ("Advisor Information"). The Client acknowledges that all Advisor Infom�ation, except reports prepared by the Advisor for the Client, is confidential and proprietary to the Advisor, and agrees that the Client wiN not, directly or indirectly, disclose the same or any part thereof to any person or entity except under the express written consent of the Advisor. 6. Miscellaneous. 6.1 De(egation of Duties. The Advisor sha(f not delegate its duties hereunder to any third pa�ty without the express written consent of the Ciient. 6.2 No Third Party Beneficiay. No third party shall have any rights or remedies under this Agreement. 6.3 Entire Contract: Amendment. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the pa�ties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written or oral negotiations, understandings or agreements with respect hereto_ This Agreement may be amended in whole or in part by mutual consent of the pa�ties, and this Agreement shall not preclude the Client and the Advisor from entering info separate agreements for other projects. 6.4 Governin4 Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and cons#rued in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 6.5 Severabilitv. To the extent any provision of this Agreement shall be determined invalid or unenforceable, the invalid or unenforceable portion shall be deleted from this Agreement, and the vafidity and enforceability of the remainder shall be una�fected. 6.6 Notice. All notices required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered, transmitted by first class, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid a�d addressed as follows: 21.04 if to the Client: If to the Advisor, to: Springsted Incorporated 85 East Seventh Place Suite 100 St. Paui, MN 55101-2143 Attention: Managing Principal The foregoing Agreement is hereby entered into on behalf of the respective parties by signature of the following persons each of whom is duly authorized to bind the parties indicated. FOR CLIENT � SPRINGSTED Incorporated Title Robert D. Thistle Senior Vice Presiden# 21.05 ADDENDUM A OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN The City of Fridiey, Minnesota AND Springsted Incorporated Effective as of , 199 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE SERVICES $2,935,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996A $4,090,000 General Obligation Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1995A Client has or will execute a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking in accordance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5), or any successor Rules, in connection with the issuance of each Client debt obligation iisted above in which Client has agreed to provide continuing disclosure of certain financial information and operating data and timely notices of the occurrence of certain events. Capitalized terms not defined in this Addendum or the Agreement shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). Client wishes to retain the services of the Advisor to assist with the obligations set forth in the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking and Advisor wishes to provide such services as set forth below. A• Compile an Annual Report according to the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") executed by Client pursuant to SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) for the Debt Obligation(s) listed above for submission by Client to all Nationally Recognized Municipa! Securities Information Repositories (NRMSIR), the State Information Depository (SID), if one is designated, and to the Municipal Securities Rufemaking Board (MSRB), if requi�ed, prior to the Annual Report " Date as defined in the respec#ive Undertaking for each Debt Obligation listed above. The Annual Report shall include: 1. An annual audited Financiai Statement to be prepared by Client's accountants. 2. Updates of the operating and financia( data included in the Official Statement, as outlined for continuing disclosure in the Undertaking inco�porated in the Official Statement. B. Monitor through periodic requests for information relating to incidents of and assist in the disclosure of Significant Events listed in the Undertaking. These include: 1. Principal and inte�est payment delinquencies; 2. Non-payment related defaults; 3. Unscheduled draws on clebt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; �. Unscheduled draws on credit e�hancements reflecting financial difficulties; 21.06 Page 5 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. �0. 11. II. I11 C �� Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the security; Modifications to rights of security holders; Bond caps; Defeasances; Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities; Rating changes. Assist Client in the dissemination of the Annual Report and any Significant Events that must be repo�ted to the various repositories. Advisor will furnish a notification of compiiance with the Continuing Disclosure requirements within 30 days afte� submission of the Annual Report. Client agrees to p�ovide the Advisor with accurate information with respect to compifing the Annual Report in a timely manner and to fully disclose to Advisor any Significant Events as they occur. For its services, as specified in I. above, Advisor shall be compensated in the amount of $200 annually for each Debt Obligation covered by the Addendum. An Annual Report must be filed for each covered Debt Obligation outstanding. In a reporting period in which Client does not issue debt which produces an Official Statement that can be used as the Annual Report for a particular type of covered Debt Obligation outstanding (i.e., generaf obtigation, revenue, utility, housing, etc.), an additional fee of $1,300 per type of debt will be charged for preparation of the Annual Report required to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking for that type of covered Debt Obligatio�. Client shall be responsible for county auditor ce�tification fees, if required, and any legal fees incurred regarding compliance or interpretation of Significant Eve�ts or filing of the Annual Report. This Addendum shall continue for the term of each Debt Obligation or until such time as either Client or Advisor terminates it by not less than 30 days written noiice to the other party. Advisor shall be relieved of all liability with respect to its obligations hereunder if any information required to be submitted to Advisor hereunder is not timely submitted to Advisor. !n the event at Client's request Advisor performs services described in this Addendum reasonably understood by Advisor to be performed pursuant to the Addendum after signing by Advisor, but before signing by Client, such services shall be subject to the provisions of the Addendum as if the Addendum had been signed by both parties. Signed as of FOR CLIENT Title 19 , the effective date of the Addendum. ? 1.07 SPRINGSTED lncorporated Robert D. Thist{e Senior Vice President TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER r�� FROM.• RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SIIBJECT: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND THE CITY'S $2,935,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1996A DATE: October 31, 1996 Attached you will find the resolution provided to us by Jim O'Meara from the firm of Briggs & Morgan. The resolution is for the sale of $2,935,000 in General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996A As you recall, these bonds are to fund the assessable portion of the 1994 and 1995 Street Projects along with water, and storm water projects. As part of the process of issuing these bonds, the City of Fridley is required to undergo a fairly rigorous financial review process conducted by Moody's Investor Service who acts as aur bond rating agency. We were again given a Aal rating, which is the highest rating a City of our size is capable of attaining. It seemed very evident during this review that the overriding reason for the reaffirmation of the Aa 1 rating are the financial resources of the City, as compared to the outstanding debt. Since the bids are not due until Monday, November 4, the information from the bidders will not be available until the evening of the Council Meeting. A representative from Springstead will be present to review the results of the bidding process and make a recommendation for the lowest underwriter or syndica.te. RDPJme Attachment 22.01 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE TSSUANCE AND SALE OF THE CITY'S $2,935,OOQ GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1996A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. Recitals. It is hereby determined: (a) That the assessable and other public improvement projects (the "Improvements") described in the attached Exhibit B have been duly ordered by the City and have been constructed by the City or will be constructed under contracts which the City has or will let therefor, all pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the City's Home Rule Charter and/or Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 or Chapter 429, as the case may be. {b) That is it necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City that the City issue its bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, to provide financing for the Improvements. (c) Those Improvements being undertaken by the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (the "Chapter 429 Improvements"), and all their components have been ordered on or prior to the date hereof, after a hearing thereon (except where not required by law) for which mailed and published notice was duly given as required by law describing said Improvements and all their components by general nature, estimated cost, and area to be assessed. 2. Acceptance of Offer; Book Entry Bonds. (a) Acceptance of Offer. The offer of (�he "Purchaser") to purchase the City's $2,935,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996A (the 335034.1 2?�.02 . , � r �� AWARD: .,� 85 E. SEVENTH PLACE, SUITE 100 SAINT PAUL, MN 55101-2143 612-223-3000 FAX:612-223-3002 SPRINGSTED Pubuc Frnrmce Aavirors $2,935,000 / CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1996A (BOOK ENTRY ON�If� PIPER JAFFRAY INC. ROBERT W. BAIRD � COMPANY, INCORPORATED SALE: November 4,1996 Moody's Rating: Aa1 Ir�terest Net Interest True Interest Bidder Rates Price Cost Rate PIPER JAFFRAY INC. ROBERT W. BAIRD & COMPANY, INCORPORATED GRIFFIN, KUBIK, STEPHENS 8 8� THOMPSON, ING DAIN BOSWORTH INCORPORATED 4.05% 1998 4.25% 1999 4.35% 2000 4.45% 2001 4.55% 2002 4.60% 2003 4.70°!0 2004 4.80% 2005 4.85% 2006 4.95% 2007 5.00% 2008 5.10% 2009 5.20% 2010 5.25% 2011 5.30% 2012 4.70% 1998-1999 4.75% 2000-2006 4.80% 2007-2012 4.20% 1998 4.50% 1999 4.625% 2000-2005 4.80% 2006 4.90% 2007 5.00% 2008 5.10% 2009 5.25% 2010-2012 $2,922,726.57 $1,147,256.56 $2,899,977.70 $1,138,569.80 4.9509% 4.9630% $2,913,009.00 $1,155,614.44 5.0020% SAINT PAUL, MN • MWNEAPOLIS, MN • BROOKFIELD, WI - OVERLAND PARK, KS • WASHINGTON, DC • IOWA CITY, !A (Continued) � . y � Interest Netinterest True Interest; �idder Rates Price Cost Rate NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. FBS INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. John G. Kinnard 8� Company Incorporated Juran 8� Moody inc. CRONIN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED SMITH BARNEY NIKE SECURITIES WILLIAM R. HOUGH 8� CO. J.C. BRADFORD & CO. BETZOLD, BERG 8� NUSSBAUM 8� CO. 3.90% 4.15% 4.30% 4.40% 4.50% 4.60% 4.70% 4.80% 4.85% 4.95% 5.05% 5.15% 5.25% 5.35% 5.40% 4.05% 4.25% 4.35% 4.45% 4.55% 4.60% 4.70% 4.80% 4.90% 5.00% 5.10% 5.25% 5.30% 5.40% 4.00% 4.20% 4.30% 4.40% 4.50% 4.60% 4.70% 4.80% 4.875% 4.90% 5.00% 5.10% 5.20% 5.25% 5.30% 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007-2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1998 1999 20Q� 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20� 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $2,914,455.00 $1,160,668.13 5.0144% $2,916,961.90 $1,160,842.48 5.0'154°� $2,899,780.00 $1,167,771.56 5.0662°k (Continued) {nter�st Net tnterest True Interest Bid er Rates Price Cost Rate PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES, INC. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INCORPORATED PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED Oppenheimer 8� Co., Inc. 4.50% 4.60% 4.70% 4.80% 4.90% 5.00% 5.10% 5.20% 5.30°!0 5.375% 1998-2001 2002 2003 2004-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011-2012 $2,899,780.00 $1,189,562.50 5.1626% REOFFERING SCHEDULE OF THE PURCHASER �� 4.05% 4.25% 4.35% 4.45% 4.55% 4.60% 4.70% 4.80% 4.85% 4.95% 5.00% 5.10% 5.20% 5.25% 5.30% Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 �� Par Par Par Par Par Par Par Par Par Par 5.05% 5.15% 5.25% 5.30% 5.35% BBI: 5.70% Average Maturity: 7.87 Years 335034.1 "Bonds"), at the rates of interest and upon the other terms set forth in this Resolution, and to pay therefor the sum of $ plus interest accrued to settlement, is hereby accepted. (b) Book Entry Only System. The Depository Trust Company, a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York, or any of its successors to its functions hereunder (the "Depository"), will act as securities depository for the Bonds, and to this end: (i) The Bonds shall be initially issued and, so long as they remain in book entry form only {the "Book Entry Only Period"), shall at all times be in the form of a separate single fully registered Bond for each maturity of the Bonds; and for purposes of complyin� with this applicable terms of this Resolution, authorized denominations for each maturity of Bonds shall be deemed to be limited during the Book Entry Only Period to the outstanding principal amount of that maturity. While in such book entry form, the Bonds are sometimes hereinafter referred to as being in "Book Entry Only Form." (ii) Upon initial issuance, ownership of the Bonds shall be registered in a bond register maintained by the Bond Registrar (hereinafter defined) in the name of CEDE & CO., as the nominee (it or any nominee of the existing or a successor Depository, the "Nominee"). (iii) With respect to the Bonds, neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to any broker, dealer, bank, or any other financial institution for which the Depository holds Bonds as securities depository (the "Participant") or to the person for which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds shown on the books and records of the Participant (the "Beneficial Owner"). Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, neither the City, nor the Bond Registrar, shall have any such responsibility or obligation with respect to (A) the accuracy of the records of the Depository, the Nominee or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, or (B) the delivery to any Participant, any Beneficial Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (C) the payment to any Participant, any Beneficial Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any amount with respect to the principal of or premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds, or (D) the 2?.03 consent given or other action taken by the Depository as the registered owner of any Bonds (the "Holder"). For purposes of securing the vote or consent of any Holder under this Resolution, the City may, however, rely upon an omnibus proxy under which the Depository assigns its consenting or voting rights to certain Participants to whose accounts the Bonds are credited on the record date identified in a listing attached to the omnibus proxy. (iv) The City and the Bond Registrar may treat as and deem the Depository to be the absolute owner of the Bonds for the purpose of payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, for the purpose of giving notices of redemption and other matters with respect to the Bonds, for the purpose of obtaining any consent or other action to be taken by Holders for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all purpose whatsoever. The Bond Reqistrar, as paying agent hereunder, shall pay all principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or upon the Holder or the Holders of the Bonds, as shown on the Bond Registrar's bond register, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (v) Upon delivery by the Depository to the Bond Registrar of written notice to the effect that the Depository has determined to substitute a new Nominee in place of the existing Nominee, references to the Nominee hereunder shall refer to such new Nominee. (vi) So long as any Bond is registered in the name of a Nominee, all payments with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such Bond shall be made and qiven, respectively, by the Bond Registrar or the City, as the case may be, to the Depository as provided in the Blanket Letter of Representations required by the Depository as a condition to its acting as book-entry Depository for the Bonds (said Blanket Letter of Representations, together with any replacement thereof or amendment or substitute thereto, includinq any standard procedures or policies referenced therein or applicable thereto respecting the procedures and other matters relating to the Depository's role as book-entry Depository for the Bonds, are collectively hereinafter referred to as the 335034.1 22.04 "Blanket Letter of Representations"). (vii) All transfers of beneficial ownership interests in each Bond issued in book-entry form shall be limited in principal amount to authorized denominations and shall be effected by the Depository with the Participants for recording and transferring the ownership of beneficial interests in such Bonds. (viii) In connection with any notice or other communication to be provided to the Holders pursuant to this Resolution by the City or the Bond Registrar with respect to any consent or other action to be taken by Holders, the Depository shall consider the date of receipt of notice requesting such consent or other action as the record date for such consent or other action; provided, that the City or the Bond Registrar may establish a special record date for such consent or other action. The City or the Bond Registrar shall, to the extent possible, give the Depository notice of such special record date not less than 15 calendar days in advance thereof to the extent possible. (ix) Any successor Bond Registrar, in its written acceptance of its duties under this Resolution and any paying agency registrar agreement, shall agree to take any actions necessary from time to time to comply with the requirements of the Blanket Letter of Representations. (c) Termination of Book-Entry Only System. Discontinuance of a particular Depository's services and termination of the book-entry only system may be effected as follows: (i) The Depository may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving written notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. The City may terminate the services of the Depository with respect to the Bonds if the City determines that the Depository is no longer able to carry out its functions as securities depository or the continuation of the system of book- entry transfers through the Depository is not in the best interests of the City. jii) Upon termination of the services of the Depository as provided in the preceding paragraph, and if no substitute securities depository is willing to undertake the functions of the Depository hereunder can 335039.1 22.05 be found which, in the opinion of the City, is willing and able to assume such functions upon reasonable or customary terms, or if the City determines that it is in the best interests of the City that the Beneficial Owners be issued certificates for the Bonds, the Bonds shall no longer be registered in the name of the Nominee, but may be registered in whatever name or names the Holder of the Bonds shall designate at that time. To the extent that the Beneficial Owners are designated as the transferee by the Holders, in accordance with paragraph 11 hereof, the Bonds will be delivered to the Beneficial Owners. (d) Blanket Letter of Representations. The execution by and in the name of the City of the Blanket Letter of Representations in substantially the form on file in the offices of the City is hereby authorized. The provisions in the Blanket Letter of Representations are incorporated herein by reference and made fully a part of this Resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein, and if and to the extent that any provisions of this Resolution are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of the Blanket Letter of Representations, the provisions in the Blanket Letter of Representations shall con�rol. 3. Title; Original Issue Date; Denominations; Maturities. The Bonds shall be titled "General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996A," shall be dated December l, 1996, as the date of original issue and shall be issued forthwith on or after such date as fully registered bonds. The Bonds shall be numbered from R-1 upward in the denomination of $5,000 each or in any integral multiple thereof of a single maturity. The Bonds shall mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Years 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Amounts $170, 000 205, 000 205, 000 215, 000 215, 000 220, 000 230, 000 240, 000 Years 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Amounts $245, 000 255, 000 130, 000 140,000 145, 000 155, 000 165, 000 As described in the attached Exhibit B, of the total $2,935,000 of the principal amount of the Bonds, $320,000 (the "Improvement Bonds") are for financing the assessable Chapter 429 Improve- ments, $865,000 (the "Storm Sewer Bonds") are for financing the storm sewer improvements, and $1,750,000 (the "Water Bonds") are for iinancing the water system improvements; and the separate, 335034.1 22.06 � allocated maturity schedules of each of the aforesaid components of the Bonds are set forth in the Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. Purpose. The Bonds shall provide funds to finance the Improvements. The total cost of the Improvements, which shall include all costs enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65, is estimated to be at least equal to the amount of the Bonds. Work on the Improvements shall proceed with due diligence to completion. 5. Interest. The Bonds shall bear interest payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing August 1, 1997, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months, at the respective rates per annum set forth opposite the maturity years, as follows: Maturity Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Interest Rate $ Maturity Interest Year Rate 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 6. Redemption. All Bonds maturing after February l, 2005, shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City on said date and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the City shall determine the amount of Bonds of each maturity to be prepaid; and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Published notice of redemption shall in each case be given if and to the extent required by applicable law, and at least 30 days' mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered owner of the Bonds. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a maturity date, the Bond Registrar, prior to giving notice redemption, shall assign to each Bond of that maturity a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount 335039.1 22.�7 common of of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers so assigned to such Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of each such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the City or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the City or Bond Registrar duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by the registered owner's attorney, duly authorized in writing) and the City sha11 execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the registered owner of such Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds of the same series having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any authorized denomination or denominations, as requested by such registered owner, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the princkpal of the Bond so surrendered. 7. Bond Registrar. , in , , is appointed to act as bond registrar and transfer agent with respect to the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"), and shall do so unless and until a successor Bond Registrar is duly appointed, all pursuant to any contract the City and Bond Registrar shall execute which is consistent herewith. The Bond Registrar shall also serve as paying agent unless and until a successor paying agent is du�y appointed. The principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be paid to the registered owners (or record owners) of the Bonds in the manner set forth in the form of Bond and paragraph 13 of this Resolution. 8. Form of Bond. The Bonds, together with the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication, the form of Assignment and the registration information thereon, shall be in substantially the following form: 335039.1 n�.o� L 9 � UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5TATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY $ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, SERIES 1996A INTEREST MATURITY DATE OF RATE DATE ORIGINAL ISSUE CUSIP REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: DOLLARS The City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota (the "City"), hereby acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received, promises to pay to the registered owner specified above, or registered assigns, in the manner hereinafter set forth, the principal amount specified above on the maturity date specified above, unless duly called for earlier redemption, and to pay interest thereon semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing August l, 1997, at the rate per annum specified above (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months) until the principal sum is paid or has been provided for. This Bond will bear interest from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or, if no interest has been paid, from the date of original issue hereof. The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of , in � (the "Bond Registrar"), acting as paying agent, or at the principal office of any successor paying agent duly appointed by the City. Interest on this Bond will be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name this Bond is registered (the "Registered Owner"j on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Registered Owner hereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Registered Owner hereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice 335034.1 �A.Ow � y lo of the Special Record Date shall be given to Registered Owners not less than ten days prior to the Special Record Date. The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO THE FURTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS BOND SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE HEREOF, WHICH PROVISIONS SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS IF SET FORTH HERE. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and the Home Rule Charter of the City to be done, to have happened and to be performed, precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond, have been done, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law, and that this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date of original issue hereof and the date of its actual issuance and delivery to the originai purchaser, does not exceed any constitutional, statutory, or Charter limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Czty of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its Mayor and its City Manager; has caused the�corporate seal of the City to be intentionally omitted herefrom, as permitted by law; and has caused this Bond to be executed manually by the Bond Registrar, acting as the City's duly appointed authenticating agent for the Bonds. 335039.1 2?r110 Date of Registration: BOND REGISTRAR'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the Resolution mentioned within. Bond Registrar � By /s/ Manual Authorized Signature Registrable by: Payable at: CITY OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA /s/ Facsimile Mayor /sl Facsimile City Manager ON REVERSE OF BOND I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of the legai opinion executed by the above-named attorneys, except as to the dating thereof, which opinion has been handed to me for filing in my office prior to the time of delivery of the Bonds. (facsimile signature) City Clerk City of Fridley, Minnesota 335034.1 22.11 IZ Redemption. All Bonds of this issue maturing after February 1, 2005, are subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City on said date and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the City shall determine the amount of Bonds of each maturity to be prepaid; and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the Bonds of that maturity to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Published no�ice of redemption shall in each case be given if and to the extent required by applicable law, and at least 30 days' mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered owner of the Bonds. Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar shall assign to each Bond of that maturity a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers assigned to the Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the City or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the City or Bond Registrar duly executed by the registered owner thereof or the registered owner's attorney duly authorized in writing), and the City shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the registered owner of such Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds of the same series having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any authorized denomination or denominations, as requested by such registered owner, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. Issuance; Purpose; General Obligation. This Bond is one of an lssue in the total principal amount of $2,935,000, all of like date of original issue and tenor, except as to registration number, maturity, interest rate, denomination and redemption privilege, which Bond has been issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of 335034.1 22312 Minnesota and the Home Rule Charter of the City and pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on November 4, 1996 (the "Resolution"), for the purpose of providing money to finance certain costs of certain assessable and other public improvements within the City. This Bond constitutes a general obligation of the City, and to provide moneys for the prompt and full payment of its principal, premium, if any, and interest when the same become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. [For Bonds in Book Entry Only Form, the following paragraph shall be added, and this Bond form (1) may be rearranged so that the signature blocks hereof appear at the end of the main text of this form or (2) may otherwise be amended to conform to book entry requirements and the Blanket Letter of Representations.J Book Entry Only Form; Blanket Letter of Representations. Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds may be issued in Book Entry Only Form, and during any period in which Bonds are in such form, the provisions applicable to the Bonds pursuant to the Blanket Letter of Representations shall apply, notwithstanding any contrary or inconsistent provision herein or in the Resolution. Denominations; Exchange; Resolution. The Bonds are issuable solely as fully registered bonds in the denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof of a single maturity and are exchangeable for fully registered bonds of other authorized denominations in equal aggregate principal amounts at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, but only in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in the Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution for a description of the rights and duties of the Bond Registrar. Copies of the Resolution are on file in the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Transfer. This Bond is transferable by the Registered Owner in person or by the Registered Owner's attorney duly authorized in writing at the principal office of the Bond Registrar upon presentation and surrender hereof to the Bond Registrar, all subject to the terms and conditions provided in the Resolution and to reasonable regulations of the City contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar. Thereupon the City shall execute and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in exchange for this Bond, one or more new fully registered Bonds in the name of the transferee {but not registered in blank or to "bearer" or similar designation), of an authorized denomination or denominations, in agqregate principal amount equal to the principal amount of this Bond, of the same maturity and bearing interest at the same rate. 335034.1 2?�413 Fees upon Transfer or Loss. The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection wzth the transfer or exchange of this Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Treatment of Registered Owners. The City and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment as herein provided (except as otherwise provided on the reverse side hereof with respect to the Record Date) and for all other purposes, whether or not this Bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. Authentication. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security unless the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. The Bonds have been designated by the Clty as "qualified tax-exempt obliqations" for purposes of Section 265{b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UTMA - as custodian for (Cust) (Minor) under the Uniform (State) Transfers to Minors Act Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 335039.1 22.14 15 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint as attorney to transfer the Bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the tace of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company, by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges or by any other "Eligible Guarantor Institution" as defined in 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-15(a)(2). The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the transferee requested below is provided. Name and Address: (Include information for all joint owners if the Bond is held by joint account.) 335039.1 2� 15 9. Execution; Temporary Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of its Mayor and City Manager and be sealed with the seal of the City; provided, however, that the seal of the City may be a printed facsimile; and provided further that both of such signatures may be printed facsimiles and the corporate seal may be omitted on the Bonds as permitted by law. In the event of disability or resignation or other absence of either such officer, the Bonds may be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of that officer who may act on behalf of such absent or disabled officer. In case either such officer whose signature or facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before �he delivery of the Bonds, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if he or she had remained in office until delivery. The City may ezect to deliver, in lieu of printed definitive bonds, one or more typewritten temporary bonds in substantially the form set forth above, with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Such temporary bonds shall, upon the printing of the definitive bonds and the execution thereof, be exchanged therefor and cancelled. 10. Authentication. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless a Certificate of Authentication on such Bond, substantially in the form hereinabove set forth, shall have been duly executed by an authorized representative of the Bond Registrar. Certificates of Authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same person. The Bond Registrar shall authenticate the signatures of officers of the City on each Bond by execution of the Certificate of Authentication on the Bond and by inserting as the date of registration in the space provided the date on which the Bond is authenticated, except that for purposes of delivering the original Bonds to the Purchaser, the Bond Registrar shall insert as a date of registration the date of original issue, which date is December 1, 1996. The Certiticate of Authentication so executed on each Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. 11. Registration; Transfer; Exchange. The City will cause to be kept at the principal office of the Bond Registrar a bond register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Bond Registrar may prescribe, the Bond Registrar shall provide for the registration of Bonds and the registration of transfers of Bonds entitled to be registered or transferred as herein provided. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert 335039.1 2�.16 the date of registration (as provided in paragraph 10) of, and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of any authorized denomination or denominations of a like aggregate principal amount, having the same stated maturity and interest rate, as requested by the transferor; provided, however, that no Bond may be registered in blank or in the name of "bearer" or similar designation. At the option of the registered owner thereof, Bonds may be exchanged for Bonds of any authorized denomination or denominations of a like aggregate principal amount and stated maturity, upon surrender of the Bonds to be exchanged at the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Whenever any Bonds are so surrendered for exchange, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration of, and deliver the Bonds which the registered owner making the exchange is entitled to receive. All Bonds surrendered upon any exchange or transfer provided for in this Resolution shall be promptly cancelled by the Bond Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. Al1 Bonds delivered in exchange for or upon transfer of Bonds shall be valid obligations of the City evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this Resolution, as the Bonds surrendered for such exchange or transfer. Every Bond presented or surrendered for transfer or exchange shall be duly endorsed or be accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or the registered owner's attorney duly authorized in writing. The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of any Bond and any legal or unusual costs reqarding transfers and lost Bonds. Transfers shall also be subject to reasonable regula- tions of the City contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar, including regulations which permit the Bond Registrar to close its transfer books between record dates and payment dates. 12. Rights Upon Transfer or Exchange. Each Band delivered upon transfer of or in exchange for or in lieu of any other Bond shall carry all the rights to interest accrued and unpaid, and to accrue, which were carried by such other Bond. 13. Interest Payment; Record Date. 335034.1 2?r817 Interest on any Bond shall be paid on each Interest Payznent Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name the Bond is registered on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth (I5th� day of the calendar month preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"}. Any such interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the registered owner thereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the registered owner thereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Speciai Record Date shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owners not less than ten (10) days prior to the Special Record Date. 14. Treatment of Registered Owner. The City and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is registered as the owner of such Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest (subject to the payment provisions in paragraph 13 above) on, such Bond and for all other purposes whatsoever whether or not such Bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Bond Reqistrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. 15. Delivery; Application of Proceeds. The Bonds when so prepared and executed shall be delivered by the Czty Finance Director to the Purchaser upon receipt of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obliged to see to the praper application thereof. 16. Fund and Accounts. There is hereby created a special fund of the City designated the "$2,935,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996A Fund" (the "Fund") to be held and administered by the City as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Fund shall continue to be maintained in the manner herein specified until all of the Bonds herein authorized and all other bonds payable from said Fund and the interest thereon have been fully paid. There shall be maintained in the Fund two (2) separate accounts, to be designated the "Capital Account" and "Debt Service Account", respectively. (i) Capital Account. To the Capital Account there sha11 credited the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds, net of the amounts thereof allocated to the Debt Service Account pursuant paragraph 16(ii) below. Said monies shall be segregated into separate subaccounts of the Capital Account for the specific improvements to which they relate, being the Chapter 429 Tmprovements and the water and storm sewer improvements, respectively, referenced in Exhibit B of this Resolution. From 335039.1 22.18 be to � each such subaccount (including any earnings thereon) there shall be paid all costs and expenses of making the Improvemen�s to which each such subaccount relates, including the cost of any construction contracts heretofore let or hereafter to be let and all other costs, incurred and to be incurred for the particular Improvement, of the kind authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65, and such monies in the respective subaccounts of the Capital Account shall be used for no other purposes except as otherwise provided by law or this Resolution. (ii) Debt Service Account. To the Debt Service Account there are hereby pledged and irrevocably appropriated and there shall be credited, subject to the conditions hereinafter stated: (1) The accrued interest on the Bonds paid by the Purchaser on the actual date of settlement of the Bonds, $ of additional proceeds of the Bonds, and all funds paid for the Bonds in excess of $2,899,780, all to be used for the payment of the interest first coming due on the Bonds. (2) The assessments described in paragraph 17 of this Resolution. (3) Net Revenues (hereinafter defined) of the City's municipal water system and storm sewer system, respectively. (4} All collections of any ad valorem taxes hereinafter or hereafter levied for the payment of the Bonds. (5) Al1 investment earnings on funds held in the Debt Service Account. (6) Any and all other monies which are properly available and which are appropriated by the Council to the Debt Service Account. The foregoing funds are hereby pledged to the Debt Service Account, but only in such amounts and at such times as may be necessary, together with the other available funds therein and available for such purposes, (and the same shall be used solely) to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or allocable portions thereof, when due, subject to the following conditions: (1) Under applicable Minnesota law or City procedures, certain of the sources of funds described above may be used or pledged only for specified purposes, and it is the intent of the Council to abide by such restrictions and further to allocate the appropriate revenues to pay for the improvements to which the generation of those revenues 335034.1 22.19 20 relates. Accordingly, the general dedication of revenues hereinabove to the Debt Service Account sha�l be subject such restrictions, and such pledges are hereby limited by such applicable provisions of law and City procedures, without, however, affecting in any way the City's pledge its full faith and credit and general ad vaiorem taxing powers to the payment of all of the Bonds, when due. to of (2) The Net Revenues of the City's municipal water system and utility shall be used only for the payment of the debt service on the Water Bonds. (3) The Net Revenues of the City's municipal storm sewer system and utility and the ad valorem taxes levied pursuant to paragraph 18 of this Resolution shall only be used for the payment of the debt service on the Storm Sewer Bonds. (4) The assessments described in paragraph 17 of this Resolution shall only be used for the payment of the debt service on the Improvement Bonds. As used in this paragraph, Net Revenues shall mean the gross revenues derived by the City from the operation of its municipal water system or its municipal storm sewer system, as the case may be, including all charges for service, use, availability, and connection to the applicable system, and all monies received from the sale of any facilities or equipment of said system or any by-products thereof, less all normal, reasonable, or current costs of owning, operating, and maintaining said system. If any payment of principal or interest on those Bonds payable from such respective sources of Net Revenues shall become due when there are not sufficient funds pledged for such purposes in the Debt Service Account to pay the same, the City Finance Director shall pay such principal or interest from the general fund or other available fund of the City, and such fund shall be reimbursed for such advances from the proceeds of the applicable Net Revenues, when collected. The City hereby covenants that it will impose and collect charges for the service, use, and availability of and connection to the City's municipal water system and its municipal storm sewer system, respectively, at the times and in the amounts required to produce such Net Revenues adequate, together with other sources of funding available for such purposes, to pay in a full and timely manner all principal of and interest on those Bonds payable hereunder from such revenues, respectively, and on any and all other obligations which are or may become payable in whole or in par� from such Net Revenues. Provided such debt service coverage is found to exist (and the Council hereby makes said finding with respect to the portions of the Bonds payable therefrom}, the City may issue additional obligations secured in whole or in part from such Net Revenues, whose pledge to any such 335034.Z 2�}20 � new obligations may be made superior or subordinate to, or on a parity with, the pledges of such Net Revenues made herein to the applicable portions of the Bonds, respectively. The City has heretofore issued and currently has outstanding certain general obligations of the City which are payable from certain of the Net Revenues, and the Council hereby determines that the estimated Net Revenues will be sufficient, in addition to all other sources available for such purposes, for the payment of the portion of the Bonds payable therefrom, and all such additional obligations, and accordingly the pledges and appropriations of Net Revenues to the payment of the respective portions of the Bonds pursuant to this Resolution are hereby made on a parity with any and all such prior pledges of Net Revenues. 17. Assessments. It is hereby determined that no less than twenty percent (200) of the cost to the City of the Chapter 429 Improvements financed hereunder within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, Subdivision 1(3), shall be paid by special assessments heretofore levied or to be levied hereafter against every assessable lot, piece and parcel of land benefitted by any of those Improvements. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will let all construction contracts not heretofore let within one (1) year after ordering each of said Improvements financed hereunder unless the resolution ordering said Improvement specifies a different time limit for the letting of construction contracts. The City hereby further covenants and agrees that it will do and perform as soon as they may be done, all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of such special assessments, and in the event that any such assessment be at any time held invalid with respect to any lot, piece or parcel of land due to any error, defect, or irregularity in any action or proceedings taken or to be taken by the City or the Council or any of the City officers or employees, either in the making of the assessments or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City and the Council will forthwith do all further acts and take all further proceedings as may be required by law to make the assessments a valid and binding lien upon such property. 335034.1 22.21 At the time all of the assessments are in fact levied the Council shall, based on the then-current estimated col- lections of the assessments, make any adjustments in any ad valorem taxes required to be levied in order to assure that the City continues to be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475,61, Subdivision l. 18. Tax Levies. To provide moneys for payment of the principal of and interest on the Storm Sewer Bonds, there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the Stoney Brook Creek Sub-Watershed District a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: Year of Tax Levy 1996-05 Year of Tax Collection 1997-06 Amount $8,900 per year The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as the Bonds described in this paragraph are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. 19. 105o Debt Service Coverage. It is hereby determined and reasonably anticipated that the estimated collections of the revenues available to the Debt Service Account will produce at least 5o in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the office of Anoka County Property Records & Taxation and to obtain the certificate of said o�ficial required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475,63. 20. General Obligation Pledge. The full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City are hereby p].edged to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds, and in the event of any current or anticipated deficiency of funds in the Debt Service Account of amounts needed to make any such payment, when due, the Council shall levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the amount of such deficiency. If the balance in the Debt Service Account is ever insufficient to pay all principal and interest then due on the Bonds and any other bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency shall be promptly paid out of any other funds of the City which are available for such purpose, and such other funds may be reimburs�d with or without interest from the Debt Service Account when a sufficient balance is available therein. 335039.1 22322 21. Records and Certificates. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser, and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance of the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the Ci�y, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts recited therein. 22. Negative Covenant as to Use of Improvements. The City hereby covenants not to use the Improvements or to cause or permit the Improvements to be used, or to enter into any deferred payment arrangements for the cost of the Improvements, in such a manner as (or to take any action or permit any other circumstance to exist or any action to be taken, the effect to which would be) to cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. In particular, but without limitation, the City covenants to forebear the implementation, effectuation or enforcement of any and all contracts or other agreements respecting the Improvements or any property benefitted thereby or assessed with respect thereto, which it may now or in the future have with developers, contractors, owners or any other person or parties to the extent that such implementation, effectuation or enforcement would (individually or in the aggregate) cause the Bonds to become such "private activity bonds," and to said limited extent the City would and hereby does (solely for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds) disavow any and all such provisions, entitlements and enforcements which would or could become so offending. 23. Tax-Exempt Status of the Bonds; Rebate. The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Bonds, including without limitation (1) requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, (2) limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and (3) the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States if the Bonds (together with other obligations reasonably expected to be issued and outstanding at one time in this calendar year) exceed the small-issuer exception amount of $5,000,000. For purposes of qualifying for the small issuer exception to the federal arbitrage rebate requirements, the City hereby finds, determines and declares that (1) the Bonds are issued by a qovernmental unit with general taxing powers, (2) no Bond is a private activity 335034.1 2?��23 bond, (3) ninety-five percent (95�) or more of the net proceeds of the Bonds are to be used for local governmental activities of the City (or of a governmental unit the jurisdiction of which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City), and (4) the aggregate face amount of all tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds) issued by the City (and all entities subordinate to, or treated as one issuer with, the City) during the 1996 calendar year is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000, all within the meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code. 24. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exem t Obliqations. The City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265{b)(3) of the Code and hereby determines that: (a) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds, treating qualified 501(c){3) bonds as not being private activity bonds) which will be issued by the City (and all entities subordinate to, or treated as one issuer with, the City) during calendar year 1996 will not exceed $10,000,000; and (b) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued or to be issued by the City during calendar year 1996 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b){3) oi the Code. The City shall use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designation made by this paragraph. 25. Defeasance. When any obligation of a Bond has been discharged as provided in this paragraph, aIl pledges, covenants and other rights gran�ed by this Resolution to the registered owner of that Bond (with respect to the obligation thereof so defeased) shall, to the extent permitted by law, cease. The Ci�y may at any time discharge any or aII of such obligation(s) with respect to any Bond, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing or regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a suitable institution qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing on such dates and in such amounts as shall be required and sufficient, subject to sale and/or reinvestment in like securities, to pay said obligation(s), which may include any interest payrnent on such Bond and/or principal amount due thereon at a stated maturity (or if irrevocable 335034.1 25 22.24 provision shall have been made for permitted prior redemption of such principal amount, at such earlier redemption date). 26. Compliance With Reimbursement Bond Regulations. With respect to the Improvements, the City has complied and will continue to comply with the "Reimbursement Regulations" provided in United States Treasury Regulations Section 1.103-18, and any successor regulations as may be applicable, including Section 1.150-2. In particular, except where the following may not be required by said Regulations (e.g., with respect to certain "preliminary expenditures"), to the extent that any of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to reimburse the City for a cost of the Improvements theretofore paid and temporarily financed by the City out of other City funds, prior to the initial payment thereof (or within applicable time limits thereafter� the City has made or will have made a duly qualifying statement of its official intent to bond for such costs (and the City will also make the written "reimbursement allocation" required by the Reimbursement Regulations); otherwise, the proceeds of the Bonds are to be used for initial payment, and not for such reimbursement, of costs of the Improvements. 27. Continuing Disclosure Undertaking. The Council hereby acknowledges that the Bonds are subject to continuing disclosure requirements under Rule 15c2-12(b?(5? (the "Rule") of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Consequently, on the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant to provide, or cause to be provided, annual financial information, including audited financial statements of the City, and notices of certain material events, as specified in the Undertaking. The proposed form of the Undertaking which has been submitted to the City for the Council's consideration is hereby approved, and the officers of the City are hereby authorized to execute and deliver that Undertaking in the proposed form or in such final form thereof reflecting such modifications thereof as are consistent with the Rule, requested by the original purchaser of the Bonds and acceptable to the City officials who shall execute the Undertaking (which consent shall be conclusively evidenced by their execution and delivery thereof). The Undertaking, as so executed and delivered by the City, shall be as much a part of this Resolution as if set forth in full herein and shall be for the benefit of the owners from time to time of the Bonds. 28. provision of unenforceable 335039.1 Severability. If any section, this Resolution shall be held to for any reason, the invalidity � 22.25 paragraph or be invalid or or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Resolution. 29. Headings. Headings in this Resolution are included for convenience of reference only and shall not limit or define the meaninq of any provision hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1996. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 335034.1 27 22.26 EXHIBIT A Internal Maturity Schedule of $2,935,0�0 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996A Dated December 1, 1996, of the City of Fridley, Minnesota (in 000's) Maturity Improvement Storm Sewer Water Total Date Bonds Bonds Bonds 02/O1/98 35 70 65 170 02/O1/99 35 80 90 205 02/O1/00 35 80 90 205 02/Ol/O1 35 85 95 215 02/Ol/02 30 85 100 215 02/Ol/03 30 85 105 220 02/O1/04 30 90 110 230 02/Ol/05 30 95 115 240 02/O1/06 30 95 120 245 02/O1/07 30 100 125 255 02/O1/08 130 130 02/O1/09 140 140 02/01/10 145 145 02/01/11 155 155 02/O1/12 165 165 Totals $320 $865 $1,750 $2,935 335034.1 : 22.27