The URL can be used to link to this page

08/23/1999 - 4659OFFICIAL CITY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 23, 1999 � 0 : ; � � -� � ,..,, � cmror fRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET Movticlay, Augc.u�� 23, 1999 . 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE-INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS - �t >. ITEM NUMBER � � �' ��' � S��r �P� �e - � � � :S � � �L ` �� ' —� � � 1� �� U �S �� -1�� ri� ` � � �� ' �- � C'�--� �� .c� r � cnDL� C � /�i �}vc . �; � ��,t�� t�� vl �1 �d`�� 'tt%�� f`�'''� � �� i � ( c ( � � i �� ,-�.�� . r� v�� U-� �,Si..,d�n�-1� ��-�"� ,�!2.�', ' �./✓U�^J,,^✓t� �.P;�(,�L% .L�', r � CITY COU'N�G�L MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1999 CfTY OF FRIDLEY 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 regazd to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation wili 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 wiih disabilities who :equir� auxiliary aids should coniact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one ;�eek in advance. (TTD/572-353�; PLEDGE OF A�LLEGIANCE. Pr^c�i�.LAMATiOI�i: Constituti�n W�ek: September 1%-23, 1999 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of August 9, 1999 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONS�NT AGENDA: OLD BUSINE�S: Second Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.06 of the City Charter Declaring Certain Real Estate to be Surplus and Authorizing the Sale Thereof (Lots 9 an� � 0, Block N, Riverview Heights) (Ward 3) ............................................ 1- 2 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23,1999 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 2. Receive the Planning Commission Minutes ofAugust 4, 1999 ............................................. ................ 3- 17 3. Receive the Planning Commission Minutes of August 11, 1999 ................................................. .. 18 - 32 4. Speciai Use Permit Request, SP #99-05, by Jim Bartow, to Allow Continued IVlaintenanc� af a Se�ond Detached :�ccessory S+.ructure, _ Generally Located at 6291 Centr�i Avenue N.E. (Ward 2; ....................................................................................... 33 � 37 5. S�ecial Use Pei-mit Request, SP #�99-06; by Roger Frank, for a Second Accessory Building Over 240 Square Feet to be Used as a Garage, Generally Located at 5512 Fillmore Street N.E. (Ward 2) ....................................................................................... 38 - 45 6. Variance Request, VAR #99-15, by Alltemp Distribution Company, to Allow Unscreened Loading Docks Adjacent to the Public Right-of-Way, Generally Located at 5400 Main StreetN.E. (Ward 3) ..................................................................... 46 - 50 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23,1999 PAGE 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 7. Resolution Consenting to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Adopting a 1999 Tax Levy Collectible in 2000 51 - 52 ................................................................. 8. First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code by Amending Appendix F#o Provide for the Adjustment of Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers in Accordance with Section 2.07 of the Charter of the City af Fridley ........................... 53 - 54 9. Resaiution Adopting a"Proposed" Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000 ......................... 55 - 60 ............................................ 10. Resolution Certifying "Proposed" Tax Levy Requirements for 2000 to the County of Anoka ............ 61 - 64 ........................................................................... 11. Appointment — City Employee : ..................................................... 65 12. Claims ....................................... 66 .............................................. � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINWED�• 1999 13. Licenses ....:............... ...... 67 - 68 ............................................................. 14. Estimates ..:.:............:......... ................... 69 - 75 ........................................ ADOPTION OF e4GENDA. UPER� �ORUM, VtSiTORS; (Considerat�on of items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) PUBLIC HEARING: 15. Rezoning Request, ZOA #99-03, by Tom and Dave Go�y�a and �ndersor Truck�ng, I�c., to Rezone the Property from M-4,�Manufacturing Only, to M-1, Light Industrial, to Allow the Construction of a Multi-tenant Industrial Office Complex, Generally Located at 1290 Osborne Road N E d . . (War 2) .......................................................... 76 - 78 NEW BUSINESS: 16. First Reading of an Ordinan�e to amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #99-03, by Tom and Dave Gonyea and Anderson Trucking, Inc., Generally Located at 1290 Osborne Road N.E.) (Ward 2) .............. 79 - 80 PAGE 4 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23,1999 PAGE 5 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 17. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, LS #99-02, to Create Two Industrial Parcels, Gene�ally Located at 76g0 Central Avenue (By Anderson Trucking, Inc.) (Ward 2) ............................................ 81 - 83 18. Variance Request, VaR #99-1�8, byt Tom and Dave` ' Gonyea and Anderson Tnueking; Inc., to Decrease the F�equired Setbaek 6efinre�n a.:Buitding and the - Right-of-Way Line Abutting an Adjoining Residential District from 100 Feet to 75 Fe�t to.Allow the C�nstruction of an Industrial Multi-tenant Office Building, Generally Located at 1290 Osborne Road (Ward 2) .....:........_...._ ....................... 84 19. i/ar�ance Request, VAR #Q9-17, by David Nelson, to Allow a Private Garage to Excee� the Square Footage of the Dwelling Unit by 12.6 Feet to Allow the Construction of a Garage, Generally Located at 7395 Van Buren Street (Ward 1) $5 -$7 ................................................. 20. Receive Bids and Award Contract for the Construction of the Fridley Liquor Warehouse (Ward 3) $g - �� ....................................................................................... 21. Informal Status Reports .................................................. 90 ................. ADJOURN. � � � ' . � � r L GTIf OF FRIDlEY CITY COUNCIL MEETItVG OF AUGUST 23, 1999 The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or hazass 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 ta 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) p� �`�� w�� PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATION: �cr,stifution U'eek: Septemuer 17-23, 1999 APPR011'AL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSCNT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS {CONTINI�ED): ^ �, R�ceivE the Planning Commission h�in�tes � of August 11, 1999 ..:......................... 18 - 32 ;� �� :� �� rb-i� 4. Special Use Permit Request, SP #99=05, by Jim Bartow, to Allow Continued Maintenance Cify Council Meeting of August 9, 1999 �f a Second Detached Accessory Structure, ��,,,,� .�t Generally Located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. �1 s-t�.-� -�#� �1�.� `,.�..�-:;w1 (Ward 2) . 33 - 37 .. . ......... .................... . . ��,ov � ra�c,..t-� .Lt,.�.--�-� �,ov� a,�. �P-� � i �;" � S�; Q,,.��t-; �s �,.� u o• a. � � � t�...� S�-'�� c ��IQ roU� �;t.S �t.��k�,1�-� �.i t �r `�`.� . APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: �%! �j � �2_ l,� `�� "�t �6�„�� 5 1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Under S2ction 12.Ou of the City Charter Declaring C��tain Real Estate to be Sur�lus and Authorizing the Sale Thereof (Lots 9 and 10, Block N, Riverview Heights) (Ward 3) 1- 2 ��bv'`� NEW BUSINESS: 2. Receive the Planning Commission Minutes of August 4, 1999 ......... 3- 17 .......��.,� Special Use Permit Request, SP #99-06, by Roger Frank, for a Second Accessory Building Over 240 Square Feet to be Used as a Garage, Generally Located at 5512 Fillmore Street lV:�. (Ward 2 .................. 38 - 45�� ) ................. � � s+� p,titA-t��n � �j , `3 4 0 �/ �- 6. Variance Request, VAR #99-15, by Alltemp Distribution Company, to Allow Unscreened Load�ng Docks Adjacent to the Public Right-of-Way, Generally Located at 5400 l�A�i� Street N.E. (Ward 3) .......................... 46 - 50 w �� s �, � � �.�- p , y � � ��-� , FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)� 7. Resolution Consenting to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City `° of Fridley, Minnesota, Adopting a 1999 Tax - Levy Collectible in 2000 ...................... 51 - 52 ��pP�a�. 8. First Reading of an:Qrdinance Recodifying the -- Fridley City Code by Amending Appendix F to Provide for the Adjustment of Salaries.for the Mayor and Councilmembers in Accordance with - Section 2.07 of the Charter of the City of Fridley...................... .......................... 53 - 54 (%Q�ov�� 9. Resolution Adopting a"Proposed" Budget for. the Fiscal Year 2000 .......................... 55 - 60 ��; u v-�- 10. Resolution �ertifying "ProFosed" Tax Levy Requirements for 2000 to the County of Anoka................................... 61 - 64 0.�Of�v� 11. Appointment — City Employee : ............ 65 �c�� 1,�u�rr�,v� �Qprnv2/ 12. Claims 13. Licenses 14. Estimates .................................. 66 �,-�,�� ................................... 67 - 68 ��,.�' .............................. 69 - 75 �� ti. 1999 � � . � . .� PAGE 2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA. � � r ,�� ,,�d1, r �o o�c c.�. p-�' o� �C �� -�-s OPEN fORUM, VISITORS: 7;Sb- 7: S,2 (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) PUBLIC HEARING: �` S a �B1 j�,1,J �•�.� '� (��.1 S� 6 g-e�l 15. Rezoning Request, ZOA #99-0 , by Tom and Dave Gonyea and Anderson Trucking, I�c., to Rezone the Property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to M-1, Light industrial, to Aflow the Construction of a Multi-tenant Industrial Office Complex, Generally Located at 1290 Osborne Road.N.E. (Ward 2} ............. . 76 _.78; �� C,�d`-�� g'' l � paw�, � li�i,t_ 3c.U-� Q��. �� NEW BUSINE�S: � f,� %� 1� q�p ro+,'�.. �� 16. First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend th C� " Code of ti�e City of Fridley, Minnesota;`by Maki g a - Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #99-03, by Tom and Dave Gonyea and Anderson Trucking, Inc., Generally Located at 1290 Osborne Road N.E.) (Ward 2) ............................. 79 — 80 17. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, LS #99-02, to Create Two Industrial Parcels, Generally Located afi 7690 Central Avenue (By Anderson Tru�king, lnc.) (Wacd 2) , 81 - 83 1� � � l� �-e.c�-� G�� (�-�� Si-��.�.1�'�� a.�l ,� a,�. 18. Variance Request, VAR #99-18, by Tom and Dave Gonyea and Anderson Trucking, Inc., to Decrease the Required Setback Between a Building and the Right-of-Way Line Abutting an Adjoining Residential District from 100 Feet to 75 Feet to Allow the Construction of an Industrial Multi-tenant Office Euilding, Generally Located at 1290 Osborne Road (Ward 2) .................................. 84 I� �,� � � �-�,�� .,/ s �}�� s , � � � . �'� i ,' - FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23,1999 PAGE 3 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 19. Variance Request, VAR #99-17, by David Nelson, to Allow a Private Garage to Exceed the Square Footage of the Dwelling Unit by 12.6 Feet to Allow the Construction of a Garage, Generally Located at 7395 Van Buren Street (Ward 1}... :. 85 - 87 `J�� .� p,¢p� a�e, w��,� j P�U;o �..s S�';pui�.i=,��.� , � 1 � �' �� e.. w�� t n � �� c.�.��t ��t� s�, !�-� (� l� S�'� °`�-�'� . �=� t (V` �-u;, (`e--�o��` � 20. Receive Bids and Award Contract for the � � Construction of the Fridley Liquor Warehouse �5 ,� r�� (Ward 3) ................................... 88 - 89 `I't^_`'`.� �`v �( J� co o� �i`—� �j J � � �-�0'�`� �-o J'�L � � tJ2_.. :}'b�- �'`- Y�- L � �LF 1� Gi �i ��- ��-' 21. tnformal Status Reports ........................ 90 � n r,/l cx' � � G,, t l ;� �� s � �U�-- -� ��.-� �.� ��,��-, �,,._. �.�� S�� ADJOURN. ,(> � � � � �-�-�'`n.A� o�L � S�'i,.� �3�C.� � � � � �� Q� r � ��i�J��i`��l ��/� � �� •E�t��E��f•Er � � - � �� :,� wHERF.AS, our Founding Futhers, in order to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity, did ordain and establish a Constitutian far the United States; and, �FIE�S, it is important that all citizenr�u�ly understand the provisions and principles contained in the Constitution in order to effectively support, preserve and defend it against all enemies; and, T�HEREAS, September 17, 1999, marks the two :h�tndred twe�h dnniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States ofAmerica by the Constitutional �onvention; and, wHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to accord of�'icial recognition to this mr�gnificent document and its rnemorable annivers�try, ard to the patriotic celebrution:s ulhich will commemorate the occdsion; and, �HEREAS, the independence gu�zranteed to American citizens, whether by birth or nuturalization, should be celebrated by appropriate ceremonies and activities during Constitution LY�eek, September 17 through 23, 1999, as designated by proclamdtion of the President of the United States ofAmerica in accordance with Public Law 915; NOw T'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Nancy J. .Jorgenson, Mayor of the City of Fridley, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17 through 23, 1999, as: CONSTITUTION WEEK in Fridley,lVlinnesota, and urge all residcnts to study the Constituticn dnd reflect on theprivilege of being an American with all the rights and responsibilities which that privilege involves. IN wITNESS wHEREOF, I have set my hdnd dnd caused the sedl of the Gity of Fridley to be affixed this 23rd ddy ofAugust, 1999. NANCYJ. JORGENSON, MAYOR � . ___ . : OF THE FRIDI.EY CITY COUNCIL M�'�'3� "�P . THE MI]�N'I'ES AUGUST 9,1999 V �'�`�" � � _ � __:L., �.,r�,. 4. � i OF AUGUST 9 1999 The regular meeting of the Fridley City Council was called order by .Mayor Jorgenson at 7:35 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Jargenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: Members Pre�ent: Mayor Jorge�nson, Councilmember Barnette, CounciYmember Billings, Councilmember Wolfe, and Councilmember Bolkcom Members Absent: None Mr. John Dunphy, 155 Stonybroak Way, spoke regardin.g-�,tree in his backyard. He said it was the sole survivor of the efforts of the Public; Works Departrrient to put a storm sewer through. During �he process, ail of th� trees were ciut down except- o�e. The action of all t�e he�,vy equipment running around on the roots of th�e tree has damaged the tree. Mr. Dunphy said the City was now harassing him to cui the tree down. He felt the City should have the responsibility of taking the tree down. Mayor Jorgenson tfianked Mr. Dunphy and said that staff will be addressing �he matter and would contact him. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the Council and members of the public should be reminded of the code of conduct at the meetings. Mayor Jorgenson said she will be reading the following statement at the beginning of each City Counril meeting from now on: Please be reminded that those present at the meetings rriay hold a varic;ty of views and opirians regard�ng the business to be conducted. The exercise of democracy thn�ugh representative local government requires that all points of view be accommodated at these p�roceedings. It is further expected that a standard of mutual courtesy and respectfulness be exercised by all in attendance through our individual expression, manner of speaking and conduct. Therefore, please receive the views of others with the same degree of courtesy and respect th;at you desire to be given with your views and opinions. Any departure frorn this standard vvill be addressed;by the presiding officer through whatever means are deemed appropriate. Mayor Jorgenson thanked all for their attenda�ice at the meeting, She said she hoped everyone would agree to comply with the standards of personal conduct. PRESENTATION: Mr. Fernando Fuentes, Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association, stated that the purpose of the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Associatic�n is to improve the quality of life by promotirig the park and recreation services, to provic�e its members with continuing education opportunities, to provide services such as information and res�omuents �s orts oaches �tra ining� and asports provide recreational services such as tourn , p management �services. The Awards Comrnitteutstandi �-olr un que ac hievem ntsnin the fi ld of individuals and agencies for their excellent, o � parks and recreation. The cities determined to havNt�hm�ations arer s bm'itt dto the .eomrnittee ` award each year. It is a very prest�gious award and then rated on the areas of funding, pianning, inter-agency cooperation, support and evaluation of the praject. Mr. Fuentes stated that it was his:pleasure ta present two awards ou exce�lenter and for Project facility programming to the City of Fridley for the Fndley Comm ty Safety Net. Mayor Jorgenson thanked Mr. Fuentes for the prestigious awards. Mayor Jorgenson fhanked Jeff Schueberl, Youth Research Specialist, and David Sallman, Public - Safety Director, for providing t� u�outh:-and adults of the City of Fridley with programs that encourage positive values. Mayorr=3orgenson thanlced them for all of their efforts. hoeberl thanked Mayor Jorgenson and stated that it was very g�'atifying to be recognized Mr. Sc •�,� ry roud of by his peers. These projects have a posieivCeo�u�lty Center and Projec aSafetySNet w th their what Fndley has accomplished: wrth th yQUth activities: Mr. Scho�berl th�nlced Council for their�upport. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES: Citv Co�. '1 Meetine Minutes of Julv 26. 1999: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the regular City Council meeting minutes of July 26, 1999. Seca:��ed by Coancilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, NIAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. Av iaav��_-_ . RIVERVIEW HEIGHTSI (WARD 31: is immediately to the west Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the subject property � of 571 79`� Way The owner of that property was requesting that he be allowed to purchase tax forfeit property that was acquired by� 9e � i� pT p�So�er �� To aea to selling the eastemmost 25 feet of this�pr°Pan d ance declaring the property excess and do this; however, Council must app � authorizing staff to sell it. Depending upon a ruling�fre2m th�o � he Housing and County, the City may need to convey the p p. Redevelopment Authority (HRA)• Staff recommended approval of the first reading of this ordinance. --- - -- 2, RESOLUTION NO _ 51^1999 APPR� i�NG . ANE V OUINGY S'I'RE�T ��D ` 3. JACKSON STREET (�'A� 11� - - r. Burns City Manager explained that this resolution� corrects a missin�g �d a esimilar M, legal description that was inadvertently.. omitted ,when .Co oval.aPp resolution on May 24, 1999. Staff recommended Council's app ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 51-1999. "1�Hi: r.A�i iv�vv�.,. ..�._�.. --- -•. Puins Cit iVlanager, explain�d the City budget�d $3a,000-in th:. E�ast2Moo zeLake ' iL1i , Y Capital Improvements budget fC uncilCS agreemen that the Cityhwould abide by the Basin. This resolution asserts terms of grant stipulations established by nhe ant, the D yw�la recel vae� $15000 f°r a Under the terms of the fifty%fifty matchi_ g gr roval. replacement aeratar. Staff recommended Council's app ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 52-1999. 4. AYYKV v � �.nti�..zL ..,�WY-- - - IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER ST.1999 -1: Burns Ci Manager, explained that the change order is in the ��anutil $84and soi Mr. , t5' and is payable to P�'k CeT Sfound duringl c nstructionf �Sta fr e ommended approval of correction problems that w the change order. APPROVED CHA1�iGE ORDER° 1�10. 2, RIYERVIEW �EIGHTS �'��ET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER ST.1999-1. 5. PR� T—� Mr. Bums, City Manager, explained that the resolution would �e rev ousl l assessed the for Gary and Marlene Knight, 513 Rice Creek Tenace. The City p y p�ks. property at $426.30. The assessment olution to reflect no asse sment for the pr perty at The resolution amends the onginal res 513 Rice Creek Terrace. Staff recommended Council's approval. 6. ADOPTED RESOLUTION l�l'p:�S3=1999. , -� 1998-1 ASSESSMENT: � ' ': Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that.the City previously assessed 1104 Hackmann Circle at $1,633 based nn 142 linear feet of street frontage. Since then the City has determined that the property sho�zld have had an assessment based on 131 linear feet of street frontage. Accordingiy, staff recommended that the assessment against this property be reduced from $1,633 to: $1,506.50. _ ADOPTED RES"pI:UTION NO. 54-1999. 7• RESOLUTION NO. 55-1999 DECLARING THE COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORI)ERING PREPAR��'I'ON UF THE PROPOSEID ASSESSMENT FOR-THE ' OSBORNE ROAD :_ I�pROVEMENT OLD CENTRAL TO STINSON BOULEVARD) PROJLGT NO ST 1994 5 Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that this was an Anoka County project that covers properties fronting Osborne Road between Old Central Avenue and Stinson Boulevard. By this action the City would be assessing back $14,622.56 of its cost to benefiting property owners. The cost was for curb and gutter at the rate of $8.10 per front -foot. There are 25 property owners affected. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 55-1999. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 56-1999 FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OSBORNE ROAD IMPROVEMENT OLD CENTRAL TO STINSON BOULEVARD) p�tOJEC'I' 1lTO ST 199d 5 Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the resolution establishes September 13 as the hearing date for the proposed assessment. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 56-1999. 9• RESOLUTION NO. 57-1999 DECLARIIoTG COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 57Tx AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that staff was proposing that $208,019.07 be assessed against benefiting property owners. Altogether, six properties were involved and would have assessments abased on $98.89 per front foot. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 57-1999. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 5 10. RESOLUTION NO. 58-1999 ESTABLISHING A�< IZEARING - FOR THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 57TH AVENUE STRE�'T IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1997 - 4: Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that this resolution would-establish Septemtrer 13 as the proposed hearing date for the 57`� Avenue Irnprovement Project assessments. .;Staff recommended Council's approval; ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 58-19�9: `: ll. RESOLUTION NO. 59-1999� AUTHORT�IN� A� INCR�ASE �N EMPLOYER �� ;;• HEALTH INSURANCE� PREIV�IU'M G�NTRI�UTIONS FOR TH[E 1999 - 2000 PLA.N YEAR: Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the resolution proves an increase to employees who select the cash option to the Employees Flexible Benefit Plan. The increase would be from $181 per month to $234 per monfih. Staff recommended CounciYs approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 59-�999. 12. APPOINTMENTS: CITY EMPLOYEES Mr. -Burns, City Manager, explained that staff recommended tiie appointrnent• oi Robert Rewitzer to fill the vacancy of Corporal created by the resignation of Todd: Mitchell. Robert has been a Fridley Patrolman since 19$9 and h�s served the City with dis�inction. Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that staff recommended the appointment of David Jensen to the position of Building Inspector recently vacated by Barry Riesch. Dave has been a valued employee for fourteen years with the Streets Division. He obtained his Building Inspections Degree from North Hennepin Community College and is currently working toward completion of a four-yea.* �iegree at Bethel College: Staff recommended Council's concurrence in both appointments. APPROVED THE APPPOINTMENTS OF ROBERT REWITZER AS CORPORAL AND DAVID JENSEN AS BUILDING �INSPECTOR FOR THE CI'�'Y OF FKIDLEY. - 13. CLAIMS: APPROVED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NUMBERS 88444 THROUGH 88705. 14. LICENSES: APPROVED LICENSES AS SUBMITTED. 15. ESTIMATES: APPROVED ESTIMATES AS FOLLOWS: THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 6 Frederic W. Knaak, Esq. Holstad and Knaak, P.L.C. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of July, 1999 $5,000.00 Carl J. Newquist, Esq. _ Newquist & Ekstrum; .Chartered . 301 Fridley Plaza Office BuiLding 6401 UniversityAvenue N;E. , Fridley, MN 55432 _ . Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attomey for the Month of May, 1999 Park Construction Ca T_ . _ _:_. _ ....... 7900 Beech Street N.E. _-_ Fridley, MN 55432 - 1795 - Riverview Heights Area Improvement . Project No. ST. 1999 - 1 . Estimate No. 3 - $16,284.00 $468,911.48 Mayor Jorgenson asked if there were any questions or concerns from the public on any of the proposed consent agenda items. No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Council- member Bolkcom. ' UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � ADOPTION OF AGEN�A: :: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the adoption of the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED T�-IE MOTION CARRIED UANIlVI�USLY. OPEN FORUM VISITORS: Mayor Jorgenson invited members of the public to come forward to address any items not on the agenda. � THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 7 Mr. Tom Schroer, 7619 East River Road, thanked Councilmember Barnette and Councilmemtrer Bolkcom for their efforts in helping him with his concerns. He stated that his concerns were . regarding the County project on East River Road. He asked about the process for the legal _ easement thaf the County can take. Mr. Schroer stated that last year he found out he was supposed to have his driveway paved: He., stated that he had it paved all :the way to the concrete apron that was there in . his driveway . thinkin� that the County had already taken their easement as,. far as : any newer features of construction along that road. In June 1999 the County tore up 23 feet of his driveway. He:stated that he talked to Mr. Hickok about the City's ordinance of having the driveways paved by:;�he year 2001. He figured the City must have known the project:was going to start. His big concern was why he was not notified about the possibility of this project to pre�ent having 23, fset of his _ driveway torr! up. Mr. Schroer stated that he hoped the City would let know how he could go about finding out if the County or the City has taken more than their fair share of land. He stated that he hoped the City could help with conveying the message 'of his concerns of damage done- to his driveway. There are deep bulldozer mazks approximately 10 feet up on his driveway. ..He..s,tat,�d_that on July 24 the County moved the water main, which he did not have a problem with. His problem was t�iat they left a fairly large �ole in his front yard. V�I!le:: ?�e spoke with M�rk Daly and t�he general contractor of the project, they both assured him they would fill it in right away. Mr. Schroer stated that he was concerned that h� would be involv�d in a lawsuit ovsr the ho e: _ _. _ He stated that three times he attempted to have the hole filled or fenced off, a�nd it has r�ot been touched yet. He stated that he wanted the people loc2ted on the northern end of thts project to be aware of the trucks hauling sand and gravel. He was almost hit twice last week by those trucks. Mr. Schroer said he was told by Mark Daly, by the contractor, and by John Dolentz, site engineer, that those trucks have the right of way. He stated that he would like Council to convey his message of the trucks being dangerous because every time he calls the County he gets voice mail and no return telephone calls. He thanked Council for list�ning tahixn.- .He stated that he- would leave his name and telephone number if anyone had questions. Councilmember Bolkcom asked him where he was driving where the County said the trucks have the right-of-way. Mr. Schroer responded that he was in the southbound lane to:.get on East River Road. He:stated that the truck was coming from about 150 yards back from the south. T'he truck came in between two cones and then was allowing traffic to go around him. He felt the truck driver could have just sat for a minute and let him pass. He said he was frustrated because he asked the driver of the truck for his driver's license number. By the time he got a pen, the driver was gone. The name on the side of the truck was Willis which is a private subcontractor. He stated that he relayed this information to Mr. Daly. He stated that Mr. Daly asked him what he wanted him to do about it. He said Mr. Daly stated that he would not attend any City Council meeting. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Schroer if anyone from the County contacted him early last spring, fall, or winter about the County project. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 8 Mr. Schroer stated that he knew there was a public hearing: The only time he was made aware of it was when the signs went up saying the road would be closed. Once he found his mailbox after it was misplaced from the construction, there was a note telling him where the mailbox had been moved to and a note stating that the first attempt to maii out notification on the project was sent to all the wrong addresses. He received the original letter expl-�ining the project started on possibly June 30, two days after the project staried. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Mr. Schroer was not the first person.to express issues with the County. She stated that Mr. Burns, City Manager, ar Mr. Elora, Public Works Director, would wark on this and get back to him. Mayor Jargenson stated that since no ather members in the audience. were coming to the podium to speak, the meeting wouid commenee to the:old business portion of the agenda. OLD BUSINESS: 16. ORDINANCE NO. 1130 ''�F THE CITY �F FRIDLEY MINNESOTA AMENDING THE CITY �-.CO�� :-�0 IN�LUDE A NEW_ CHAPTER 409' ENTITLED "FRANCHISE FEES:" `°' • Mr: Burns, City Manager, stated that he would like to do a summary of the franchise fee proposal and then respond to comments. , Mr. Burns s�id the proposal far tne franchise fee entails the City.proposing a three percent franchise fee that would apply to residential customers. The three percent would apply to Minnegasco and Northern States Power Company (NSP) utility bills. The increase would cost the average residential customer about $36 per year. CommerciaUindustrial customers would be charged a flat rate because both Minnegasco and NSP are concerned about outside competition coming in and being able to operate without a franchise fee. Mr. Burns said there would be a flat ra�e applied to ±he �lectr�c or gas meter based on the type of service. That way, no matter who comes in to deliver the energy source, there is some sort of fee applicable for utilities. The larger the use, the higher the commerciaUindustrial fee. Ninety percent of all commerciaUindustrial customers would be paying less than $13 per month for each of the two franchise fees. There would be a cap of $150 per month per meter for the large commerciaUindustrial customers. Mr. Burns said that the City would generate about $716,000 per year from the franchise fee. Franchise fees are needed primarily to balance the General Fund budget. In 1999 the projected use of fund balance was approximately $1.3 million. For the year 2000 the projected use of fund balance is approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Burns said the reason for the franchise fee was because the City has been adding a number of new programs and services principally in public safety. The City will have added 6 new police officers by the year 2000. There have been five police officers added since 1994 with another one coming on board. The City has picked up operating costs for the Fridley Community Center which was built in cooperation with School District No. 14. The City has picked up operating costs for the Rental Inspection Program. The City has taken over grant funded youth programs. The City has started mowing University Avenue. Mr. Burns said there was a long list of things THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 9 that have been added to provide better services for the residents of Fridley without offsetting. revenue sources. There has only been one property tax increase in the last eight years. Mr. Burns said the second reason for the franchise fee was to offset the State's changes in th� �� definitions of property tax classifications and to offset very inelastic state aid revenues anc� property taxes. The franchise fees are needed to give flexibility to address iuture issues .and . problems. Gymnasium space was badly needed so a.�double gymnasium was proposed to be built� for youth and adult programs. The City would like ta be able:ta purchase new fire equipmsnt in�. the future. There is a need for additional street lighting in Fri�ley: Mr. Burns said the franchise fee would not be able to cover ali of:the above-mentioned ifems, but it would be a start. The franchise fee would be more favorable than the_property tax increase because of tax diversity for the City. It is incremental in nature and .applies to all property that uses local government services. It also enables the City to find a wayto recover some costs. The franchise fee would be less expensive for the residential property 'owner than property taxes would be. Mr. Burns stated that at the first reading of the franchise fee the City hea�d�co�cerns about the impact of the fee on certain commerciaUindustrial users. The fear was ex�'essed that certain - ut�lity customers, due to the nature of their businesses, were likely to be impacted by exorbitaait franchise fees. After taking a look at several utility bills, staff recommended that a new sectian 409.05 be added. The new section would provide a rebate for franchise fees paid in excess of five percent for any calendar year. Concerns were expresseu that the franchise €ees may: �e applied to certain customer services, such as Minnegasco's "Service Plus." Staff added language -- that makes it clear that the franchise fee applies only to metered gas or electric service. Another change, as pointed out at the first reading, was that a new Subsection 3 be added to Section 409.02 of the proposed ordinance. This new subsection establishes that the customer classifications on which the fees are based are those established by the two utility companies and approved by the Minnesota Public Utility Commission. It was also required that these definitions of customer classifications be made available at the Municipal Center and on the City's web site. Councilmember Wolfe asked about the possible increase in the next twenty years. Mr. Burns stated that the franchise fee has a ceiling that will not allow the City to collect more than four percent, which is in the twenty-year franchise agreement. The Franchise Fee Ordinance takes a four-fifths vote of Council for approvaL - Councilmember Bolkcom stated that one of the questions she has been asked by a couple of business owners was regarding the issue of separate meters. Mr. Burns stated that the utility companies desire to have flat meter charges rather than percentage franchise fees. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the ordinance also applies to the City of Fridley. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Burns to share information on other communities' franchise fees. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 10 Mr. Burns stated that the City has looked into whether or not other cities have applied franchise fees to any accounts other than metered accounts and they do not. Coon Rapids allows exemption for school districts. The City has not heard from Minneapolis yet regarding their policies. Minneapolis has a five percent franchise fee, ; and. Coon Rapids has an approximately five percent franchise fee also. Mayar Jorgenson asked Mr. Burns haw long the franciuse::fees ha�e been in existence. Mr. Burns stated that the Minneapolis and St. Paul franchise fees go back to the 1930s. Coon Rapids' dates back to I973. Blaine' adopted a franchise fee last year, and Mounds View's was adopted in 1994. : Mayar Jorgerison stated that norrnally, second-readings of ordinances could not take public comment. The City Council decides whether or not they would like to take public corriment. Councilmember Barnette stated that there are lot of people in attendance who were not at the public hearing. If they have something to say, he-ielt it was the responsibility -of the City Council to listen. _. _ Councilmem.ber Bolkcom stated ±hat she agreed with C�uncilmember garnette. She �velcomed any new information. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he was �lso o�sen to public comment. Councilmember Billings stated that he was always open to new information. � � Mayor Jorgenson stated that the City Council was going to receive public comment regarding the franchise fee, but it was not the only item on the agenda. She asked that comments be brief, mindful of the statement of ineeting conduct read earlier. She reminded people to behave in a respectful manner or she would have to deal appropriately with them. Nlayor' Jorgensori� asked that anyone who addresses the City Council to ' sfate their name ' and address for the record. Mr. Scott Hanson, Atom-Mation Company, 7779 Beech Street N.E., stated that the franchise fee was a tax. It seemed that this tax that is a little unfair because it taxes certain companies at one rate and other companies at another. Mr: �ianson asked what the flat rate was. Mr. Burns stated that it was a rate roughly calculated at three percent of 65 percent for the average customer category bill. Customers would be chazged at a rate reflecting the average rate for all the customers in that category. Mr. Hanson stated that the tax base was still the same. It was not diversifying, it was still from the taxpayers. He asked how the City could collect more than five percent if the rebate was over five percent and the flat rate was three percent of 65 percent. Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that when a franchise fee is based on the average bill in that category the people who are the smaller users in that category tend to get taxed at a higher � THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 11 percentage than people who are heavier users in that category. To limit the unfair impac,t the: rebate gives back the amount that was paid in excess af over five percent. Mayor Jargenson asked Mr. Knaak to clarify that the franchise fee was not a sales tax. Mr. Knaak stated that the legislation that allows the City to impose a franchise fee speciftcally states that they are fees but that they are unusual in that in addition to allowing the �ity� to use them for purposes compensating for costs in administration, they are also allowed to be used as . revenue producing sources. They are not a fax. Taxes and sales taxes are: only authorized after special legislation is passed. Mr. Hanson stated that it was a sales tax regardless of vuhat it was. called: > A franchise fee was a tax, and that was all there was to it. Councilmember Barnette stated that the City Attomey was just clarifying the terminology. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that there are a fair amount of people that rent homes-and pay the utility bills themselves. Mr. Hanson s�ated that the franchise fee was a sales ta�c because it was based on the utility that was being purchased. Ms. Lillian Meyer, President of the League of Women Voters, stated that the League was very opposed to any fees that are raised that .are not put forth as a tax when that was basically what they were. It was a hidden tax. Mayor Jorgenson stated that one of the reasons they are implementing the franchise fee rather than asking for a property ta�c increase was that there are levies by the legislature that do not allow the City to raise taxes more than a given percent over what they have been in the previous year. For about the last seven or eight years the City Council has been drawing down the reserve funds that were generated during the 1950s and 1980s when additional revenues were coming in over and above what was needed to operate the City. Mayor Jorgenson said that the City Council decided to draw down on the reserves rather than collect those additional revenues. They felt they owed it to the City to keep those revenues down and to provide the same level of services the citizens were asking for. The City could not generate the revenues they needed with property:tax:; People have some control with their utility costs. Mayor Jorgenson said the ordinance states that people below federal poverty guidelines would receive rebates back on that franchise fee. The City has looked at every option available to raise revenues needed for the programs everybody wants, but the only other a�ternative was to stop those programs and still keep reasonable property taxes so as not to force people out of their homes. It was no different than a cable franchise fee. Mayor Jorgenson understands that people are angry and feel it was a hidden tax, but the City has looked at this very carefully. The City Council was not trying to pull anything over on anybody. Ms. Meyer asked what the maximum amount of revenue the City would receive if the City raised property taxes in Fridley. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 12 Mayor Jorgenson stated that would be approximately $400,000. Councilmember Billings stated that it would be an eleven percent increase. Ms. Meyer stated that the League favors having a taac__called a tax. Mr. Jeff Van Keuren, Public Affairs Manager, United Defense, .4800 East River Raad; stated that United Defense does not support passage of this : franchise fee. They do not disagree with the City that there are very valid needs regarding how: the money would be proposed to be used. They simply disagree with the :passage of a franchise fee based upon the fact that it was a bad tax policy in all considera.tion. He stated that h� read about franchise fees and �earned that they can be enacted to raise revenue or to defray municipal costs accrued as a result of the utility operation for which the franchise fee was being collected. Mr. Van Keuren had wrth him a copy of a February 199�i report to the legislature from the Minnesota Department of Public Service that looked at franchise fees in general, and it generally portrayed municipalities by and -large using franchise fees as general fund items: The municipalities were not tracking:the franchise fee other than a general fund item. United Defense feels that if there was a valid need to irr�prove infrastructure in the City related to electricity and gas, the franchise fee may be a viabie option specific to that need. United Defense does not believe that the franchise fee shou:d be used as a general rax. It would be better applied as a sales tax completely under the auspices of the law. United Defense supports the need for the City to provide services to its residents and businesses, but they do not think this was the right way to do it. Mr. Burns demonstrated the following example to show an example of the franchise fee deduction on a utility bill for a commerciaUindustrial bill: During the last twelve months a customer's NSP bills added up to $12,800 on a 109 kilowatt demand charge. The customer usually pays a$93 per month fee under the large commerciaUindustrial category. If you multiply five times $12,800, the fee they should pay under the change being proposed is $640.00. This company would be entitled tq a$476 rebate. .__ Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Burns if the new charge would help companies that have multiple meters because each meter would pay five percent. Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that, in general, this new change would help the smaller user because the customer would mast iike�y pay the ei�ht or nine percent franchise fee associated with the smaller com�any because the fee for his customer category was based on an average usage for that category. The big company with many large meters was not going to benefit as much as the smaller company who would be affected by the demand charge. The maximum any large company with multiple meters would be charged per month would be $150 for each of those large primary meters. Mr. John Holmen, owner of Alltemp Distribution Companies, 5400 N.E. Main and 5101 Industrial Boulevard, stated that this was kind of a shock when he received the notice of the franchise fee. He felt that companies such as his were being penalized because of the multiple meters. In his second building he would have to pay $93 for each meter. There are multiple meters in his other buildings, too. He felt that the fee was unfair for multiple meters. He wondered if there was a rebate or program where they could be treated fairly. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 13 Mayor Jorgenson thanked him for coming to the meeting anct�°ft>r� also talking previously to Mr. Burns for clarification. Mr. Holmen said it helped to speak to Mr. Burns, as he explained the. fee very we11. I3e said he understands the process of the franchise fee a lot better now. Mr. George Fuglsang, owner of Metal Tek Inc., stated that he: spoke to Mr. Burns a week ago; and understands the fee better now also. Mr. Fuglsat�g stated that he did not fee� the:fee,would do his company much good. His company has multiple meters, and he °figures they wo�ld have to pay $4,500 to $5,000 per year. He stated that ne has fixe or six meters affected by:-:this proposed fee. He felt that next year the City's revenue would°noi be flat,, and the valuation and taxes would go up. Mayor Jargenson stated that even though market value was going up, the legislature was trying a new formula that was driving taxes down. Mr. Fuglsang stated that his taxes have gone up, but th� City.'s portion went down: Councilmember Billings stated that tfie City certifies a specific.amount to the County. Then the County, through the formulas provided by the state, determines how much of that goes againsS residential and how much goes against commerciaUindust�ial. The City was anticipating that the real estate ta�ces the City collects will be the same in the year 2000 as they are in 1999, even though the real estate values are going up. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, believed that a certain portion of fire insurance companies fees were kicked back to the City. Councilmember Billings stated that if that was the case, the City has not been collecting it. Mr. Harris stated that as he and Mr. Burns went through the multiple meters issue, something stuck regarding the definitions. The definitions for NSP in the ordinance clearly leaves out that separate meters under residential and the small industrial companies for low demand have single or three phase non-demand electric meter service. It was about customers, not meters. Mr. Burns stated that it was not part of the ordinance. The ordinance states that customer categories are defined as Minnegasco and NSP defines them. Mr. Harris stated that under their current definitions, it says "these customers," not mentioning multiple meters. Mr. Burns stated that what Mr. Harris was referring to was not the ordinance. Mr. Harris asked where it states that in the ordinance. �ie said it did not even mention meters when referring to large commercial users. Under Minnegasco's fee schedule therms per month is talked about, but it did not say a word ahout meters. Mr. Burns stated that the meter approach was defined in the franchise ordinance that has already been approved. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 14 Mr. Harris stated that he would like to see that. F�e asked. if i� was per meter. He asked why it did not say per meter anywhere else. He felt it was a ticket for:full employment far attorneys. He agreed with Councilmember Billings to say what we mean and mean what we say and to write an ordiriance that everybody can understand. Mr. Burns stated that the franchise fee ordinance clearly states that the franchise fee would be based on monthly meter charge. Mr. Harris asked if it addressed multiple meter charges. Mr. Burns stated that it does state per meter. _ Mr. Harris stated that he did not think so: Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the only place it spelled out separate meter use was under partial rebate. Mr. Burns explained that the intent :.-�ivas ta. provide a monthly meter charge for different categories of commerciaUindustrial customers as well as residential. Mr. Harris stated that was not what the ordinance states. He cauld not see where multiple meters was addressed, especially in large commercial, secondary and pr�mary. � Mr. Knaak stated that what Mr. Burns was referring �o was the earlier franchise fee ardinance that provided for three methods of proposing the franchise fee. What was being consider�d was a flat meter fee per customer base, which is exactly what the ordinances states. Mr. Harris asked why the clarification explanation was not anywhere except in the franchise fee ordinance. Councilmember Billings stated that it was by xeference.. Instead of rewziting the entire franchise agreement, which has � already been passed in another ordinance, it has been included by reference. Mr. Harris stated that he hated those because you can miss them. Mr. Knaak stat�d that the specific per meter method contained in the proposal was one of the three that,was specifically allowed in the unde�lying franchise fee ordinance. ' Mr. Harris stated that it does not specifically state that. Mr. Knaak stated that the only way the City can charge the particular ordinance was in the manner allowed by the underlying franchise. Mr. Harris asked if the four percent fee was a specific num.ber spelled out in the franchise fee. Mr. Knaak stated that was the cap of the franchise fee. Mr. Burns stated that the four percent was the total franchise fee they can charge to both utilities. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 15 Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the only way they can charge more than:three percent was to go through the whole process again including public hearings and a vote by City Council. Councilmemtier Billings stated that in any given classification of customer, the flat fee. was based on three percent of the 65 percent which means that the person in the bottom two pereent=ofthat classification would pay more than three percent. The Franchise. Agreemet�t refers .to: a four percent cap on the franchise fee. The average woul+d be three per.ce�i in arYy classification: Councilmember Billings stated that he felt that the five percent, in terms of rebate, was not inconsistent with what the franchise fee ordinance spelled out. Mr. Harris stated that he hoped not and thanked Council:. Mr. Joe Nelson, 1357 64�' Avenue N.E., stated that when the school board needs to raise revenue they go by referendum. That information goes before the public by way of a vote. He wondered if that would be appropriate here. Mr. Burns stated that it was not something the City is required to do: Mr. Knaak stated that it was possible if someone wanted to initiate a�ax increasepursuant to the City Charter they could do so. There was no requirement that the City had to initiate a tax increase in this way. There was no procedure here that would allow the City to initiat� that kind of proposal. Ms. Linda Huber, Chairperson, Fridley School District No. 14, and 1im Ferguson, School Board Member, Fridley School District No. 14, asked which school districts are going to be impacted and what the financial amount would be. Mr. Burns stated that all the four school districts would be impacted. School District No. 14 has an estimated impact of $10,042. The other school districts have an impact of less than $400. The main reason for School District No. 14's higher amount is because that school district has several large meters. Ms. Huber stated that she believed that School District No. 14 has been a very good steward of the money for the district. Every time they have had to ask the voters for any increase, whether it was a bond or a levy, the district goes to the voters, educates them, gives them time for review, and then asks for approval. The district is very fortunate that they have had a positive result on all of their votes. This past year they had:to �ut $654,000 out of their budget. They are cutting back on staff and have terminated several probationary teachers. They reduced four tenured positions, and some teachers were asked to come back with reduced contracts depending on the money they receive at the end of the year from the legislature. Ms. Huber said the district is in a negative $350,000 fund balance, and could not see any way to come up with the $10,000 fee to pay the City. ' 1Vloney impacts the kids as well as staff. The school district shares many things with the City. Ms. Huber did not want to become adversarial but felt this was something the City needed to think about. She suggested perhaps tabling this issue and bringing it come back another time. She also suggested capping this to equal what the other districts are paying. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City supplied police officers to School District No. 14. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 16 NIr. Burns stated that the City does supply the poliee Afficer for the middle school and also for Project Safety Net far the school. Having employees. in. the schools costs the City about $100,000 per year in Police Department services alone. Part of the money was initially grant money, but tHe grants are three-year grants. Then the expenses .ar€: the City's responsibility. The City has been applying for a new grant for the year 2000, but they-=�ia�e to pledge that they will continue those employees at full City expense wtren the grant runs: crut. ._ Ms. Huber asked if the officers are full-time in their school twelue.months per year. Mr. Burns stated that there was an:officer in the middle school:totally devoted to the middle school. There was another officer. in the elementary school approximately fifteen percent of the time in the elementary school. The other half is.split between other districts. Ms. Huber stated she is unaware of that and would have to check on that. Councilmember Billings stated that when school is out of session the officer is typically placed in investigation work. According to' Public Safety Director David Saltman's calculations, that was taken into consideration. . _ Mayor Jorgenson stated that another example is that the DARE officer is put into.Fridley schools but paid for by the City. The City cannot continue to absorb all of these costs for these programs. Mr. Ferguson stated that the real question was=is it valid and good taxing policy to tax another taxing authority. He also wanted to remind the City that every time they applied for a grant they looked at the fact that the grant was going to run out, and maybe the City should not apply for it. He asked if the City looks three to four years down the line to the point of how the City was going to pay for employees after the grant money runs out. Mayor Jorgenson stated that they have tried to budget, but the legislature continues to tinker with the property tax reclassification which has left th.em with flat revenu�s. The City has no control over tHat. � Mr. Ferguson stated that the City Council has to ask themselves if it is good taxing policy to tax another taxing authority. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the City is_.#�aced with some:of the�same issues the school district is with children that nave more social needs than in the past. Mr. Ferguson stated that a lot of the underlying reasons have been discussed in as much detail with the school district and City staff. Mayor'Jorgenson stated that she would love to have a meeting with the school district to discuss it. Ms. Huber stated that she asked for a meeting the first time she called Mr. Burns, and it never materialized. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 17 Mayor Jorgenson stated that they have a number of businesses that are making the sa�e�.�equest. Council felt that it was best to take this to a public forum where all the information is availat�le to everyone. Ms. Huber asked which school district would be benefiting from the Medtronic project and TIF .. _- financing. Councilmember Billings stated that it was anticipated that the-additional revenues generated �n :, the property taxes to the Columbia Heights school district would be approximately $3 million per year. The majority of that would go to the State of Minnesota. Ms. Huber stated that she wanted people to know that they would love to be the best neighbor possible to Medtronic, but Medtronic is in the Columbia.Heights school district: Councilmember Barnette stated that one of his considerations in the franchise fee ordinance was of one taxing agency taxing another taxing agency. Mr. Ferguson wondered if it was valid tax policy. _: __ Councilmember Barnette stated it is something they have all struggled with. Mr. Ferguson and Ms. Huber thanked Council for their time. Mr. Fred Bischke, 1490 66�' Ave. N.E., stated that he was very happy with the services he receives. He is also happy with School District No. 14. Last spring the school district faced a $650,000 deficit. Parents and community residents formed a group called SOS (Save Our Schools) and spent a lot of time and effort lobbying the legislature. In the end they were able to get a much larger increase in funding. The sentiment for supporting good schools was very strong in Fridley, and that makes Fridley a very good community. The tax bothers him because it is a tax from one public entity to another. He urges the City to exempt School District No. 14 as well as Columbia Heights and Spring Lake Park school districts from this tax. Ms. Gail Ahrens, 198 Mercury Drive, stated that it was very easy to look at an $18 million school district budget and say that $10,000 is a small amount and should not hurt. She said she was also part of Fridley's SOS coalition. SOS fought for every dollar the legislature would give the students. They have been underfunded for ten yeazs. What the legislature gave them did not - even make up for the shortfall over ten years. Eighty-fi�e percent of an $18 mil�ion budget is : compensation costs, so really the City was looking at $10,000 against fifteeri percent of the budget. It has basically been cut down to the bone for four years. She felt for the churches, but they have a congregation, and the church can appeal to make up for the shortfall to the school district to the congregation. There are no individuals to make up for the shortfall so when the City takes the $10,000 away it is gone for good and will not be replenished by any other body. She proposed that the City exempt all school districts from the franchise fee. She felt thaY a flat fee should be assessed against all school districts regardless of number of ineters. Anything less than that was community cannibalism. Ms. Ahrens thanked Council for their time. Mr. Robert Lange, 189 Logan Parkway N.E., encouraged the City to deal more with raising the taxes with indications so they would not get into issues like this. It appeared the City has been borrowing money from funds for capital improvement projects. He was satisfied with the City's THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 18 services, but he thought that all non-profits should be exe�ript. He sugge�ted that the City should address the user fee for necessary services. He wan�ed to:call attention to page 19 of the July 26, 1999 minutes where it states that non-profits pay sales ta�ces, but non-profits do not pay sales taxes. � Mr. Clem Coverston, 1424 Creek Park Lane, representing St: Philips Church, stated that the church saw the franchise:fee as a;change in policymore than the;_dollar arnountand that what had been a tax exempt institution was now being taxed. The amount was not the importance, but the church did not know how they wauld be taxed in the future. Councilmember Barnette stated that they cannot charge the franchise fee on anything else. NIr. John Hinsverk, 6070 Seventk� Street N.E., :stateci that the proposal takes almost $750,000 out of tne economy from residents and businesses. It was very easy to see the positive things tYte City wants to do with that money. What was impossible to see was the negative efrects. The people have that much less spending money to spend or save and invest. It was impossible to do a study to figure exactly what they are, but they are: just as real nonetheless. There seems to be a real fear in the political bodies from the highesf:to the lowest level of not addressing every need or problem. He felt it was okay to say no, and it was okay that Fridley is not able to have every program. . Mr. Tim Werner, resident, stated that taxing the church or school district is taxing him again. The church is going to come back and ask for rnore money. Businesses will increase costs also. � He felt the citizens would say no to sam�e programs. The City, at some point, has to look at the bottom line and say they cannot keep adding programs. Maybe the grevious year's spending � limit should be this year's spending limit. He asked if spending has gone up with inflation adjustments, per capita. Councilmember Billings stated that the budget has remained the same since 1990. The population has increased, so based on that, per capita spending would have gone down. The annual budget was preriy much th.e same.. Mayor Jorgenson stated that 85 percent of the budget is people costs which are going to escalate. The medical expenses for all of the employers, which the City has no control over. The City was trying to do the best they could with what they have. The fund balances would be drawn down over $1,000,000 if the City did not use the franchise fee. The City has looked at cutting spending in every way possible ; and laid off five employees- about four years ago. The only new employees are .police officers. Crime has been down because of the addition of more police officers. Mr. Werner stated that the two police officers hired this year are not going into the schools. One for next year would be going into the high school. Mr. Warner asked if the City Attorney said they could not take this to the referendum. Mr. Knaak stated that it was not possible for the City to put this before the voters like the school district does. There was a separate opportunity under the City Charter for a referendum. A group of citizens can get together, and fifteen percent of the entire list of registered voters would have the ability to have it placed on the ballot. It does not mean that there eannot be a ■ ■. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 19 referendum. In order to enact this, the City Council really cannot put the matter befi�re the citizens. There was no procedure in place for the City to do that. The only way a xeferendum could be put in place was by an ordinance by the City Council. Mr. Werner thanked Council. Ms. Gail Ahrens, stated that the pamphlet states that the :Crty-tivas currently transf�rri�g $i.3 : million a year from the fiznd reserves for 1999 for the budget.. She asked if the City was planning .: to continue drawing down the reserves and was also hoping to raise $715,000 per year-for-..the franchise fee. Mr. Burns stated that, typically the City does not draw dovv� quite as much for-ihe budget. He thinks they have a reasonable chance of breaking even with the $7 i 6,000. �. Ms. Ahrens asked how much the fund reserves aze. Mayor Jargenson stated that Focus News had it listed as $24,000,000, but that was not cash just` sitting there, that was all the cash the City has set aside for various projects. -_::-_ Ms. Ahrens asked everyone to remember that it was a very difficult process for the school districts to recoup anything that is charged to them through this franchise fee. Mr. Ferguson asked if the police officer going in the schools next year was-budgeted by grant ��-- money and if it was specifically requested by Mr. Dier. Mr. Burns stated it was budgeted by grant money, and he was not sure if Mr. Dier requested it. Mr. Ferguson stated that he was not aware that the school district requested the police officer. Maybe the City should not hire the third policeman until the situation was clarified. Councilmember Billings stated that it was entirely possible that the City may not get the grant because of the situatiori in Colorado. There is a tremendous competition for the grant money. Mr. Greg Patterson, 1509 N. Timber Ridge, and President of the Timber Ridge Homeowner's Association, asked the City Attorney if it was possible for the City Council to adopt a resolution placing this question before the voters on the ballot at the general election. Mr. Knaak stated that the manner of doing an initiative was not as Mr. Patterson just suggested. Whether the City Council, by resolution, would want to support or not support a citizen effort in order to pass an ordinance that would create a fee, there would be nothing to prevent the Council from doing that. The process does not provide for it. Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Knaak if there was anything that prevents the City from placing a question on the ballot at the general election. NIr. Knaak stated that the City does not initiate that process. The process has to be brought forward by the citizens and by the petition. • THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9,1999 PAGE 20 Mr. Patterson stated that the City Council delaye� asking 1he citizenry if they thought this was a good idea, and there are no laws preventing the Citq from putfiing it on a ballot. Mr. Knaak stated that there would be nothing to prevent :the City Council from taking any position at all in a petition effort. The City cannot be in-t�at party or intervene in that process in any way for or against. It is a citizen initiative. ;The C:ity cannot take any action until it is presented in a:petition signed by a certain percentage ;of. the :vote: :The same process is in place for a referendum, and:the:City Charter provides for the referendum: .If prior to the effective date of the ordinance, : if they ean provide a petition. si�ed by fifteen percent of the voters, it goes onto the referendum. :. Mr. Patterson asked if there .�vas a very narrow window that the taxpayers have for overturning this. Mr. Knaak stated that by referendum the answer is yes. Mr. Pat�erson asked if there was other°recourse later. Mr. Knaak stated it was conceivable. -- - Mr. Patterson stated he wanted a yes or a no. Councilmemb�r Biilings stated that the City Attorney was there to advise the City Council. The- City Attorney� said that he would need time to research the question. At this moment the City Attorney would need to research that section on the Charter because it was not something the City Council deals with on a daily basis. To stand there and demand an answer right now was unreasonable. Mr. Knaak stated that, as he reads the Charter, the initiative language that would allow for a repeal of the ordinance would provide for that given the fact that there was, in existence, a referendum that specifically was directed toward the appeaL Mr. Patterson thanked Council. Councilmember Billings stated that City staff has made minor modifications to the proposed Franchise Fee Ordinance. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve the second reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to substitute the language presented in this evening's agenda in its entirety as a substitute for the language adopted previously. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. � Councilmember Billings explained that the motion mon h b n�e t�e puUlic hearing an a after the minor modifications that staff has made in the last first reading in the agenda at the present time. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON>I)ECLARE�2,,�'"H� -` MOTION CARRIED UNANI��OUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend .Sl�mean each separatelY mtered usel o the sentence: "For purposes of this section customers sha service provided under the franchise." Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. U PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE; MAY�g�J�`RGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . NiOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Sect�onthl. and gassc� d� 1� ri�berl2 strike by inserting the word "metered" between the words Y the word "gas" and insert the word "metered electric" between the::words monthly and bill. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. - UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMO�JSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to add a.n he Citl of Fridleylmay re cv etat ebat of school dismct paying for one or more customers i tY franchise fees paid in excess of �2,000 in any given calendar year. Those eligible for the rebate can make application for the rebate at the City on anl e hereaffarm or deny t e 1 ebategw thin a in which the rebate is applicable. The Crty sh reasonable time. For purposes of this section custom� os ncludes renumberingtSect ons 409 07 of the service provided under the franchise. Tlus mo and 409.08. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, NIAYUR JORGENSON DELCARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the ordinance would be published. There was a sixty-day period for the City to wait until the ordinance was enacted, but it would appear on November's utility statement. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she has been asked by the Council for a five minute break before continuing with the meeting. The meeting was recessed at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:45 p.m. NEW BUSINESS• 17• REPLAT REOUEST PS #99-03 BY STFpHEN VARICHAK TO CREATE THREE SEPARELTE LOTS GENERALLY . LOCATED AT 1583 GARDENA AVENUE (WARD 2)• Mr. Craig A. Ryd, 5961 Benjamin Street; stated:that h�. wanted to make.a;cornment briefly before : he had to leave for work. He stated that there is a drainage problem that exists on his property that has almost become a�safety issue. His wife and two kids have slipped and fallen when getting the mail because the water pools into his ctriveway. The driveway has a water problem at the beginning a.f the driveway. Water comes down .the hill and pools into:his driveway. He is not the only one with , the problem in his neighborhood. In considering building in that area please, be aware that there are prablems with safety issues: The trees make the area a lovely area. Preserving that area as far as' the trees are concerned was very important to the gro�p of people in the neighborhood. Ttie trees are beautifui. He thanked Council and stated that he was a correctional officer and had to go to work. Mr. Hickok explained that this is a reglat of Lot 2 on the corner of Benjamin Street and Gardena Avenue out of Auditors Subdivision 92 to develop three separate lots to accommodate three single family homes. Currently, on that lot there exists a single family home with a garage. The plan was for that to be removed. In 1949 the lot was platted. In 1966 the existing home was built. In 1976 the existing home was connected to City water and sewer. The Planning Commission decided on July 7, 1999- to recommend_ approval of the plat if the petitioner - completed soil analysis on each plat. The analysis has been completed, and the information has been forwarded to staff. The soil has favorable conditions for a 22-inch wide running footing and on each of the three lots. Mr. Hickok stated that the proposed lots exceed the size standazd required by City Code. All three lots have suitable soils, and all grading site plans will need approval of the City's Engineering staff prior to the issuance of building permits. Councilmember Wolfe asked Mr. Hickok about the grading issue on Lot 3. He asked if they dig down to grade would that expose the re�ts of the trees. _ Mr. Hickok stated that the roots are below the grading line. Ms. Sue Wick, residing at 1565 Gardena Avenue N.E., stated that she thought the only tree it would not affect would be the tree on the corner and she thought there was a tree missing. Mr. Hickok stated that he thought that the tree missing vvas actually on the adjacent property. Ms. Sue Wick stated that she lived on the adjacent property and would give comment later. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hickok for clarification of the tree document Mr. Hickok has shown. He asked if the area shown to represent the setback area could mean that the house can be no closer to the property lines than that but that does not necessarily mean that someone was going to build right down by that particular tree. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct and staff believed a home could be built without affecting the roots of the trees. He said the developer should come up with a plan. Councilmember Barnette stated that the house directly behind where he lives was' a heavily .; wooded lot with mature oak trees. When that home was built about twenty yeaFS ago they had some ofthe same concerns. They have a tree right next to_their house and all of thase trees have survived. � Ms. Wick stated that was some consolation. She stated that she was also concerned about.how the drainage ditch adj:acent ta her property would work. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok if the petitioner: �vanted to remove any of the trees would they have to justify that. Mr. Hickok stated that it was much like the Totino-Grace develQpment. . City staff would evaluate based on the setbacks where the trees wouid be: removed:: They would expect to see every building permit plan that comes �in. They have to identify the trees and beyond the removal of four trees to be removed staff would be very critical. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that one of Ms. Wick's concerns was that ane of her trees might be affected even though it is not on the property. Because of the root system there might be a problem. Mr. Hickok stated that staff has done the best they could based on their estimations. He was unable to say that it would not damage her tree for certain. That tree is outside of the building area, and they do not anticipate that the builder and the future home buyer would need to damage the trees on the outer edge. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what all the stipulations about soil and backfill do for drainage. Mr. Hickok stated that many of them deal with the fact that this is very sandy soil. A foundation should not be cut into a hill and then backfilled with sand, for example. More granular material would be needed to hold itself together pressed against the foundation like it should. Sand in that condition would drop down and erode out exposing the foundation evenCually. Other stipulations talk about downspouts �says that these three homes will not be bringing their new roof areas down the driveway through Benjamin and down the catch basin but instead it would come off the roof through the gutter downspout system and come over land which is far better because with sand you get saturation. Part of that stipulation is protecting the root system of the trees. Every time you step water it has a potential of wanting to seep in before it goes down to the next level. After the water drains to the street it would go to the catch ba�in which have been utilized as a drainage .. area. The catch basins are there already but are not working at the present time. That was something new that staff has heard through the Planning Commission process. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that one of the biggest issues is with the drainage problem of the driveway into the slope. Mr. Hickok stated that there was an existing condition. Related to this project, the City is not going to contribute to any drainage problem, control the rooftop drainage, take very little water ending up coming off the driveway, and put it into that area. It is a very nominal amount. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what he meant by a very nominal amount. Mr. Hickok stated this area was designed to� accomme daoe� a QuWWhether or not he dra age driveway or off the roof on the backside. It �ras not a q area could accommodate the water coming off the ro driveway s toymake that failis deep enough, and you could not take enough water off that roof and Y ' lmember Wolfe stated that it was not going to change the amoun e°f�vewa flt w s that Counci building. It is just that rig�it now t he issue w a s n o t ; s o � u c h: fl o w i n g . o f i Y t he ca tc h b a s i n w a s n o t h a n d l i n g t he water pro perly the way ;it is. .: Mr. John Flora, Public Works Directar, stated that ha na e, rroblem. They have not seen the Planning Cornrnission me�ting minutes: r.e�ardmg the dr S P problem but would certainlylook at it to. see if it is something that has to be dealt with. Mr. Stephen Varichak, 1558 Briardale, stated that Mr. Hickok has done a great job. Mr• Varichak said he was willing tzs'go with whatever M e of t e waterl prob emstbe nghdiscussed. only adding two driveways. He said he was unawar There was drainage that gaes dawn into the hole. There were no water tables in the property currently nor when they bore 15 feet:down_ He stated t ck of the lotsy Heus a ed that they would they would probably never see any water run off the ba el�minate part of the City's financial deficit problem by building three new,houses. They would raise the local tax base from $1,000 to probably $10;000 to $12, 000. Any builder would have to g o through the requirements the City has. He thinks there would be very minimal amount of excessrunoff. ad' acent to this property on the north Ms. Kat�iy Miller, �950 Benjamin Street, owns the prope o e s needed to come before the City side. She stated that it was a sad day when the property Council to request the City to take action to stop or red�bersv of p hentCrty SCounc 1� hat hhe neighborhood. They have been informed by me nei hborhood's opinions should be voiced, but that theRd edent and vo�ters�would 1 ke change• g neighborhood's opinion. She asked why she was there. The no longer are looking for City Council to vote as ihey aaeT 1�d she th ught he m joncty Y can vote, hopefully, based on the majority interest of t e taxp y, were resent. The trees and the open space are really one of the�ma or issues, and the City needs P to preserve and protect the natural environment in the neighbor Ms. Miller felt that everyone needed to start protecting the integrity and dignity of nei hborhoods in�the City of Fridley in general: She felt e builde s ba ke nto a tree th t was not g values and model it. S he as ke d w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n i f t marked to be taken out? Children play in the area, slided �� tchildren and the ne g hbo slwould in the woods. It has been a safe and natural environm like to keep that. There are Boy Scouts who come lo� he h sds to work toward their different achievements. The replating of the three houses wou Ms. Miller stated that the Drainage Section 205.04.04 Sre`c�t�ioff caus ng floodi g� ero son,aor t s altered and no use shall be permitted that results in water deposits of minerals on the adjacent properties." Drai ro ert es or Onto natural wat rwaysOS1As states "No erosion shall be permitted onto neighbon g p P even far as she knows, there was no section code that overrides this code from her property, THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 25 though it has a current water drainage or a natural water flow. There would be more water, and there was erosion on that property. 1�1s. Miller felt the current issue was that adding additional water to that property with t�e way it: _�_ was sitting, would create erosion on the hill next to their driveway, going down the center of_- their lawn, and would create additional grass slowly deteriorating on tha:t point an the::lawn.. Thirty-five percent of the trees would be taken out, possibLy more, which naturally.absorb.water. New sod would be put in and probably have a little mare water flow with that. There> was definite erosion on the street. The catch basins do not work, water flows back into her two neighbors across the street on their driveways. She asked if. Council could. .guarantee: one ; hundred percent that there would be no erosion; and no additional water by placing two additional houses on the adjacent lot. Ms. Miller did not think so. It sounded to her from everything she has read in the code that Council could not adversely affect neighboring properties. She still did not see any code that states you can adversely effect her property because there was a natural water flow down there. If the City does look at this issue of the erosion problern, then there are two areas of erosion taken care of potentially. T'he taxpayers of the City of Fridley would have to pay for the developers to have the ability to send extra water into her yard withaut paying for the improvements that need to be made. The neighborhood group has tried an alternative plan which was on the table, but she has not heard from Mr. Varichak or his partner Mr.Surdyk. Ms. Miller stated that she assumed since she has not received a response that the developers are more interested in the bottom line than in the preservation �f the current environment. There was an offer still on the table to put out $25,000 for a portion of Lot 1 to help preserve the space and- the trees. The option was to increase the two lots at the south end of the property which would raise the sale price of those two lots. This offer was somewhat contingent on the fact that as a neighborhood they would only like to see rivo houses built on the property to retain more of the trees, natural beauty, dignity and integrity that they are up their trying to keep. This offer was not going to raise the value of her property but would retain the dignity they have in the neighborhood. The trees and open space aze important to all communities, and the City needs to preserve and protect the natural environment within this neighborhood. Councilmember Barnette asked Ms. Miller who had proposed the $25,000 for the property. Ms. Miller stated that she had spoken with Mr. Varichak and was given a proposal saying that . she would like to buy a portion of Lot 1, enough o£ it to save the four trees at least., The proposal.:: . also allows Mr. Varichak to expand out in the other properties, as much as it would take for him to get some more money, but to keep this plan down to two houses. Councilmember Wolfe stated that building bigger houses does not fit in the neighborhood there. They would be more of an eyesore in the neighborhood. Ms. Miller stated that it would be an eyesore to a point. Ms. Miller did not think it was about building two huge houses to make up the money. Part of everybody's responsibility as a citizen, investor, or whatever is to retain the integrity of what you are building on. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that just because you have a bigger lot does not mean you nee� to build a bigger home. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 26 Ms. Miller stated that you could build a little :bit. bigger home artd get a little bit of that extra dollar back. Maybe two bigger homes would 1oQk a lot better than three homes scrunched in together. Mayor Jorgenson stated that that would be an agreement they could urork out with Mr. Varichak. It was not something the City could work on, that wouid.be a private tt�ing. Councilmember Billings asked if the City subsidizes the-drainage:_correction for the developer. Is Ms. Miller saying that;if.tius development does not go througl� and there are not three houses here that there does not need�to be achange in the drainage. Ms. Miller stated that there probably still would need to be a change in the drainage. Unfortunately, she did not have a lot.af faith that that would happen. It has not been looked at before even though it was an issue before: Counci�member Billings asked if the drainage needed to be corrected anyway, how would the City arrive at the correction of the drainage� being a subsidy ior the developer. He asked if it needed to be fixed whether the developer does something or not. Ms Miller stated that it should be. Once the erosion goes away, the issue goes away. She stafed that she was guessing that by the time this thing was done, Council would allow it anyway, and would also allow extra water flow in there. Putting in different catch basins would not take care of all of the erosion issues. There are other issues going through the center of the lot too. She assumed that extra water was going to mean some extra firming that would need to be done to that area, that she is sure would mean an additional cost to the City. Mayor Jorgenson stated that one of the issues that she heard loud and clear from the neighborhood was that they did not want any additional water going into the neighborhood, but they also do not want to have any assessment against the neighborhood for any correction of the water that was already there. If the City does water improvements they are assessed against the benefiting property owners. What the neighborhood group was asking for was exactly what they said they do not want. � Ms. Miller stated that she believed she heard that the City has a budget set aside for correction of storm water issues. Mayor Jorgenson :�tated that the City does have another budget set aside, but it is also the benefiting properties that pay t�ward any issues being corrected. Ms. Miller stated that she believed the residents many, many years ago had an assessment for corrections that have been paid even before she was a property owner. Mayar Jorgenson stated that some of the properties have paid $200 to `$300 toward the correction of storm water issues. Currently storm water conection issues are basically no more than $1,000 per lot. Ms. Miller stated that her question was that until there is a project, corrections are not going to be assessed to the property owners. In a previous conversation with City staff she wondered if it meant that now it was assessable when it was not a week ago. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 27 Mayor Jorgenson stated that the money Ms. Miller refened to for the Storm Water �mprovement : Projects go through a capital improvements process in which they look three to,five years ahead as to which projects are going to be done. Mr. Flora stated that rivo different issues are being discussed. Storm Water Improvement is an :_ assessable project. When they aze talking about putting in a catch basin or fixing a ditc�:basiir; �� that would become a maintenance issue. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that one would be assessed and one would not. The catch basins would not be assessed. The Stonybrook Project was a:major: project, and homeowners :w�re > assessed $1,000. The surrounding group was also assessed. ;< Ms. Miller asked Mr. Flora what a good exampie would be:%r•what wauld be assessable. Mr. Flora stated that, for example, fixing the hole, by draining:--Draining the hole involves a storm pipe going a long distance. If they are talking about just fixing the catch basin, that is a maintenance type of project. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that it sounds like there are drainage issues there currently, so, ultimately, no one can say at this time how to fix it. They need to study it in more detail. Mr. Flora stated that staff has not seen the problem. A possible solution would be to increase the catch basin ar to change the catch basin in order to allow better water flow. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Mr. John Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director, was out in the neighborhood and could see some issues with problems or potential problems. Ms. Miller stated that the improvements they are talking about are not assessable, the issue brought forth tonight was truly the additional erosion or potential for additional erosion by adding more water onto her property or her neighbor's property. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there are multiple houses with the same adverse effect and if it was documented the water was not there before. She asked if it had to be corrected. Mr. Flora stated that he does not think they are talking about additional water. The water that would come from a rainfall was the same water that would go to the same place. The only issue was the timing. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was additional erosion that was not there today. It happens after the homes are built. Now someone has to fix it. She asked how they would determine if that is what happened because of the homes being built there. Mr. Flora stated that that might not occur. Mr. Hickok identified that it should preclude that from happening. Ms. Miller stated that additional driveways are additional hard surface. They do appreciate the stipulations they have in place, but she did not think that they could tell her one hundred percent that there would not be additional water going into her lawn. Trees would be gone that would have been naturally absorbing water. Two extra driveways would be putting extra water onto THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 28 Benjamin Street, and there are tvs!o extra roofs putting more water into the back and flowing it down the hill. She heard minimal effect when the TCAAP project. The Councilmembers have seen that effect since that project. Mr. Jerry Tiller, 1555 Gardena Avenue, stated that he has a degree in Soil Science from the University of Minnesota. He would like to plunge into the:discussion, but that is not the issue he came to talk about. He will leave it alone, except to say. thai there will be additional water added to this site from construction of the houses, and there will be::less water removed when you take those big oak trees off the lot. He stated that the. City of Fridley seems to be in a difficult transition period. In :1982, the City put tQgether .:a comprehensive community plan that mapped out visions for the future. �iot iong after, the City embarked on a Values First program, that identifies and promotes the values our community and neighborhoods live by. More recently, Council endorsed a Facing the-F�.�ture wiih H�pe Program. That program was initiated by an interfaith collaboration' of City churches. It was linked to a similar purpose and enhances the Fridley Community V'ision and Values First Program already established. Mr. Tiller stated that while .everyone strives to instill values and mold a progressive vision for = our future our zoning and subdi�ision ordinances first enacted in 1958, and only tweaked a few times since then, are inadequate to support the values of the espoused and the future we hope for. Fridley is a mature, inner-ring suburb, long past its high growth hey day, yet everyone has tastill abide by a' subdivision ordinance that is simplistically pro-development. Unlike the Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and many progressive growth communities in the metropolitan area 'including Blaine, Fridley's subdivision ordinance stands obsolete with its inattention to preservation. It contains a few small pegs on which to hang the value preservation ideal in this modern age. As written in the ordinance, the City Council are the most substantial of those few pegs. Mr. Tiller felt that this evening, the unified Gardena neighborhood was trying to pry Council out and far enough away from a wall of an obsolete ordinance so that the residents could hang their hopes for the future upon Council. He would make four points to convince you to facilitate the reasonable compromise Ms: Mi?ler has just put o*� the table. . That compromise :would allow development of the two truly buildable lots of the proposed replat, while preserving almost all of the magnificent oaks that help to give our neighborhood its character. Mr. Tiller hoped that the four points taken together, with all of the others, would help Council to summon up the courage to take a concrete step for facilitating that compromise tonight at this stage af the process. . However, the neighborhood was :so committed to the compromise that they were prepared to go as far into the process as they needed to go in order to achieve it. During the Planning Commission meeting on July 7, 1999 the Chair and Vice Chair both stated that a property owner could do anything they saw fit as long as it adheres to the zoning guidelines. He asked if Council would take note and begin comparing destruction of those oaks to the destruction to the trees in the rain forest. Mr. Tiller said that recently the three Fridley area churches that initiated the Facing the Future with Hope program that City Council endorsed conducted a survey Fridley neighborhoods in order to determine the values and concerns of Fridley's citizens and reported their findings to the City Council. The Gardena neighborhood was not selected for the survey so instead now more directly let the attendance of Gardena residents at tonight's meeting and the petition you have been presented, be a survey of our values and concerns. Simply stated, "We are opposed to a THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 29 three-lot replat of Gardena Lot #22, we believe that the proposed Lot #1 would be reckless and irresponsible, destructive to neighboring lots, and insensitive to the character: and value of our neighbarhood." Mr. Tiller concluded by reminding Council that Gardena is one of Fridley's oldest neighborhoods. It was first settled when Fridley was still a village, a full decade,:before Fridley became a city in 1949. It was conect to :say that as Eridley celebrates iis 50�' :birthday,: Gardena� ; neighborhood celebrates its 60�'. Mr. Tiller said that the previous owner hamesteaded this lot for fifty years. Originally, like many of her neighbors, she lived in a basement house. In 1956, she built the':house that now stands atop her original basement dwelling. Many know her adamatlt wish that her beautiful lot would always be preserved from development. A fevu of the neighb�rs suspect that a conservation covenant was written into her will. The neighbors have not- finished their investigation of that yet, but they do know that her son sold her property to -a buyer who intends to keep the present lot intact. Mr. Tiller said that so far it is all the neighborhood knows abaut the history of transactions concerning that piece of property, other than that Mr. Varichak purchased it on speculation that he would split it into three. Fridley is in a period of difficult transition. Council has promoted the Values First program, and now by Council's actions they must face the challenge of living up to those values. Council has endorsed an interfaith effort to bring Fridley's citizens into a discussion about values and into planning for the City's future: > Now Gouncil must closely listen to what the residents have to say and act accordingly. Mr. Tiller asked Council not to let the fear of legal reprisals force them into adhering to Fridley's out of date anti-preservation ardinances. Through Council's ability to attach stipulations to replat petitions, they have the power to differentiate between what was worth preserving and what was not. Do not say that Council sympathizes with the neighborhood's concerns but that they are powerless to act appropriately. If Council is powerless then they are not our leaders. The neighbors did not come to the meeting to hear sympathy from administratoxs. If Council is indeed leaders they would not approve Mr. Varichak's petition, especially since there was a viable compromise alternative on the table. The Gardena neighborhood urged Council to facilitate that compromise with eager determination and expected that Council would do so. The neighborhood knew that Council could. Mr. Tiller thanked Council. Mayar Jorgenson asked Mr. Tiller iP his �raperty was split off of his _father's propertyy. ,; Mr. Tiller stated that his father split his property into three other lots, so there are four lots altogether. He split it with the intention of giving each lot to one of his three sons, which he did. They all took great care to preserve the trees on the lots. Mayor Jorgenson stated that at one time that area was called Peck's Woods. Mr. Tiller stated that he loved Peck's Woods. He said it was the greatest playground a child could ever have. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 30 Councilmember Barnette stated that it was like de}a �u. He remembered 35 years ago Jerry Tiller's dad stood up and asked Council to not touch Peck's Woods. He stated that his question was how Council could deny Mr. Varichak the same rights that they allowed his dad. Mr. Tiller stated that it was a different, unusual lot. It was more densely populated with trees than his father's lots ever were. Councilmember Barnette- stated that there has been a compramise between Mr. Varichak and staff to presen�e as many.trees as they can. Mr. Tiller stated that at .first there were only nine stipulations. It was a good thing Council opposed it thus far because now. there are more stipulations at least. There are 23 stipulations already, however, the�e should probably ;be more and better ones in terms of preserving trees. It was still a wish list as faz as he was concerned about preserving the trees. Mr. Tiller knew that oak trees are probably the most �sensitive trees to root damage. Preservation of this lot was important. If houses could be easily built. They could feel comfortable that it would not cause a lot of the damage to the a�jacent lots, and they would not �emove more trees than are necessary that would be different. Councilmember Barnette stated that these are quike large lots. Mr. Tiller stated that a 75 foot frontage is not a large lot. Mr. Hickok stated that initially they ranged from 11,000 — 17,000 square� feet. Presently 9,000 is t�e minimum. Mr. Tiller stated that given the character of the land, three was too much. He felt that Council had the power to do what they needed to do if they believe. There was a reasonable compromise on the table currently. Councilmember Barnette stated that it was a comnromise that Council cannot make because they do not own the property. Mr. Tiller stated that Council has set 23 stipulations already. He wondered what was to stop Council from setting two more. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Tille: what they would be. Mr. Tiller stated that if Council gets specific then there could be a stipulation that might encourage preservation and might facilitate the compromise. Councilmember Bolkcom askeci him what the compromise he was speaking of was. Mr. Tiller stated that the compromise was the offer that Ms. Miller made to Mr. Varichak t purchase part of Lot #1 for $25,000 with no intention of developing it but making the other two lots larger and more valuable in terms of size. Councilmember Billings asked what the size of the northerly lot would be then. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9.1999 PAGE 31 Mr. Tiller stated that sizing was not discussed. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Varichak to address the specifics of Ms. Miller's offer. Mr. Varichak stated that he was, basically, offered $25,000 for a lot. It does not make any sense to him. If she wants to buy the lot for a minimum of $65,000 that was , f ne. : If she vvants to develop it down the road that would be fine. It does not make any sense to him to take a chunk : _ out of that lot and have dead area there. If she would lilce to-preserve it she could buy the whole� thing. That lot would sell for about $65,000. The other twa_ lots would sell for a minimum of :: $55,000. If you go out and look at lots today and:g�:up to:Ham Lake and Hugo, they are getting :.- $50,000 plus for about the same size of lot. These lots- would be a bargain_in that :respect. It would not be a problem to sell these lots. Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Knaak if the City could stipulate that the developer not move more than four trees on that lot. She asked if the City would be telling the developer that he could not sell that piece of property and then taking it away from him. Mr. Knaak stated that stipulation by definition requires mutual agreement. When you are dealing with a development agreement, as a condition for approvals, these kinds of concessions are mutually agreeable. If the City were to try to unilaterally impose that kind of condition, it would raise the question that Mayor Jorgenson presented. Mayor Jorgenson asked if Lot #1 vvas taken over by the neighbors who pulled together and decided to acquire this property, in order to preserve the propertSr. She asked if it would be well advised to put it into some type of nature conservancy program rather than have someone later down the line acquire all of the property and turn it into development. Mayor Knaak stated that what they could do is transfer it to a trust or put covenants on the property that would restrict its use well into the future. That would be a voluntary private transaction, and those neighbors could do what they wanted. Mr. Bailey Tiller, residing at 1535 Gardena Avenue, asked Council to go and look at the beautiful area as it is. When Council saw it and enjoyed it, they would know why the residents attended the meeting and stayed so late in the night. He thanked Council. Mayor Jorgenson stated that they have all been to see the site. Councilmember Wolfe asked Mr. Knaak if they could legally stop Mr. Varichak from developing the lots. Mr. Knaak stated that Council was not under obligation to permit the plat, but if he met the basic conditions of the platting, it was possible that he could persuade the court on the development and compel the City. Mr. Tiller stated that the problem in the subdivision ordinance was that it was not up-to-date. There are preservation ordinances in certain communities. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Knaak if they could legally not approve the subdivision because they want to change the ordinance. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9,1999 PAGE 32 Mr. Knaak stated that they aze at the pr.eliminary plat approval stage. Something like a moratorium could be considered and'passed_for the purpose of conducting a study. However, that did not apply to a plat that has been preiiminarily approved. Council was at the right point in the process�because it has not been preliminarily approued. Councilmember Wolfe stated that everyone inxests in::things that we do not want to lose. He did not feel that Mr: Varichak should be punished: City staff and Mr. Flora looked at ways of making sure it works to keep it nice. For example, if you bu� a stock you want to make money on it, but sometimes you cannot; He felt that, basically, what Mr. Varichak was doing was buying stock and hoping to make some:rnoney. < Mr. Tiller stated that, in the schools they teach preservation. It is not always the economic aspect of things that should govern the: decisi�ns. _ CounciTmember Billings asked Mr. Tiller if ne would agree that both o the options would eacli indicate that there would be three lots there. He would like to preserve the northernmost lot, and constructiori on the two southerly lots was reasonable. NIr. Til�er stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Varichak if he was indicating rhat the northernmost lot could be purchased by the neighborhood because he doesn't have any commitments to sell that to anybody else at this point in time. Mr. Varichak stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings stated that as he saw it, it boiled down to two things -- where was the lot line between the two northerly lots, and what is the selling price of the lot. Mr. Tiller stated that the person offering to buy the lot has no intention of ever redeveloping and reselling it. It adds preservation value to the neighbarhood. ,. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Varichak if he agreed that the selling price of the northerly lot would be offered at no greater cost than $10,000 more than the average cost that the southerly two lots would sell for. Mr: Varichak stated that.he wouid agree. � � -� Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Varichak if he would agree to a time frame for the neighborhood group to gather money to buy the lot. Mr. Varichak stated that he was thinking of the time frame being within a year by June 1, 2000. Mr. Tiller stated that they were offering a deal that they were simply not interested in. Councilmember Billings stated that if Mr. Varichak was willing to sell the lot to the neighborhood then it sounds like what the neighborhood was asking for. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 33 Mr. Tiller stated that Ms. Miller proposed, two larger lots on the south side: A portion of the present lot she would purchase and preserve with her money. It was -property that ad}oins her property, and she was intending to put the lot into some conservancy covenant. Mayor Jorgenson would encourage the neighborhood to investigate putting together a purchase price to acquire that lot and put it into the conservancy. The City Council coul>d. not -be a broker for the neighborhood. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Mr. Varichak: was saying no deal to Ms. Miller's proposal, so the neighborhood need to move beyond that:point. Councilmember Barnette asked how the neighborhood could deny Mr. Varichak the very same thing that Mr. Tiller was allowed. Ms. Wick stated that she thought Mr. Tiller's letter was incredibly powerful. She stated that it seemed incredibly ridiculous for the neighborhood to come up with $65,000. She thanked the of Council for coming out to look at the site. She stated that she felt now there was.not a chance for anyone to win. She felt what Council was leaning toward was probably to approve the replat request. Mr. Varichak was not winning because he has had to put more money ot�t to approve the soil. The neighborhood was not winning because they did not want to see three houses go in there. Ms. Wick said she hated the idea of walking out her back door and seeing air conditioner units, siding, trampolines, swingsets, kids and cars in what used to be a gorgeous area. Moving all of the houses closer together would put them closer to her backyard, and she could not be happy with that. There was also her trees' roots would be destroyed. She did not like the idea that someone wants to make a compromise, because it was 12:30 p.m., so maybe they should table it. Ms. Wick said she was one of the people who delivered the flyers and wanted to share some responses she got. Most of the people stated that they were surprised that three houses were going into the lot because it seems too small to fit three. She stated that it was, really interesting that tliey were all talking about integrity, values, and preservation for their nice city, but it came down to someone who wanted money, the developer. When they were on the other issue, they wanted to put the franchise fee to keep the City nice, but the first people to march up to the microphone are the people who are concerned about paying the money. Ms. Wick said she felt the important point Mr. Ti11er brought up was whether or not Council �ias the courage to walk away from the current ordinances. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she thought everyone was entitled to a reasonable return on their investment. The tough part was for Council to consistently apply the decisions they make. The compromise Councilmember Billings was trying to bring about for the neighborhood was his effort� to try to bring a win-win situation. She felt it was a reasonable solution. She asked Mr. Hickok where they were with the sixty-day action law. Mr. Hickok stated that sixty days would be up in early October. Ms. Wicks asked if there was any other consideration for the moratorium and would ur�e Council to consider this. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 34 Mayor Jorgenson stated that there was a° potential for the moratorium for tree preservation, but that was something Council would have to think about. Whether the Council chooses to table this item was something they would have to decide. Ms. Michelle Hatlen, 5955 Benjamin Street, stated that she would like to see Council table this for the moratorium or see if they could came up with a compromise with Mr. Varichak. Ms. Miller stated that she was concerned that Council would approve the plat request. The concern with the plat was the excess water. She fe�t that the issues would not be recognized one week later. Mr. Flora stated that he would have additional information available regarding the catch basin after the next major rainiali: .Staff needs to see the issue first before they decide what action to take. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Ms. Miller could telephone Council or come to the open forum portion of a Council meeting to address the issue. Ms. Milier stated that additional water would effect her property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she felt she would like to table this item, and she wanted to pursue tree preservation. Councilmember Wolfe stated that Mr. Varichak has been given 23 stipulations. He asked Mr. Varicl�ak his €eelings on negotiating with the neigiibors. Mr. Varichak stated that he would give the neighbors until June 1, 2000. Tabling the decision would be wasting his time. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she wanted issues discussed regarding tree preservation and water drainage problems. , Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she wanted to wait two weeks to find out more information about the tree preservation ordinances. Councilmember Wolfe stated that it seemed like Mr. Varichak has made the most adjustments. He asked how- Council could stop Mr. Varichak and still stay cansistent with what Council ha� done for Fridley. • MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve the Replat Request PS #99-03 with the following 23 stipulations. 1) Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impact to the low area located along the;,northern mo�t edge' of property. The plan shall include retaining walls on Lot 1, immediately adjacent to the home, to assure a slope of twelve percent (12%), or less around the home's foundation. The plan shall also include a terraced drainage area, in the twelve inch drainage easement, to slow existing run-off and assure some saturation of roof-top directed toward the pond, 2) The petitioner shall dedicate a 20 foot utility easement and a 50 foot drainage easement along north property line of proposed Lot 1; 3) No grading or land alterations shall be permitted within 50 feet of the north property line of proposed Lot 1; 4) Provide proof that the THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 35 old well located on the site is properly capped or removed; 5) During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable; 6) Petitioner to pay $750 per lot park fees prior to issuance of building permits; 7) Petitioner to grant code required 12 foot utility arrd drainage easement along western boundary of property; 8) Petitioner to pay all water and sewer conneetion fees; 9) The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. Ail trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be identified on the proposed site .plan for each house, and shall be marked on the site for approval by City staff prior to issuance of building permits; .10) A perimeter drain system, as recommended. in the S'�S Consultants soil report.submitted by the ' petitioner, shall be installed around the outside of each house basement, in accordance wit� FHA Special Bulletin 87-1. Backfill around and over: the.drain pipe shall be a free draining granular material such as three-quarter-inch to one and ar�e=half inch r.ocl� or pea�gravei;ll) No siit soils shall be used as wall backfill, except for :the uppermost 18 to 20 inches to act as a cap, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil rep�rt submitted by: the petitioner; 12) All masonry shall be thoroughly braced internally prior to backfilling, � as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 13) The soil used as exterior backfill, for a distance of at least 18 inches from the walls should be a free-draining sand in accordance with paragraph 4.5, of the STS Consultants Ltd., Project # 97479, dated July 27, 1993; 14) Si1ty soil from the site shall only be utilized to cap the backfill at the surface, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 15) All backfill shall be sufficiently compacted so as to not settle after construction as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 16) All exterior grades shall be sloped positively away from the walls in all directions to reduce groundwater infiltration into the backfill, as recommended in the S'�S Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 17) Gutters and downspouts shall be installed on all three homes and shall direct all run-off from all roof areas to the west drainage easement. Approval of each home plan submitted will be partly predicated on this iiiformation about how the downspouts and gutters will be designed and installed; 18) All door stoops should be supported on frost depth footings, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 19) Sidewalks and other slabs appurtenant to the building shall not be rigidly attached to the structure to allow free/independent movement, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 20) No patio slabs shall be cast to extend under the sills of sliding glass doors, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 21) A sub-base course of a minimum depth of 12 inches and consisting of pit run sand shall be installed below the conventional driveway �2j Adequa e recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; compaction and density of the footing subsoil, compaction of backfill around foundations and under the floor slabs, particularly the garage slabs will be required. To assure this is true, these phases of construction, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; and 23) The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the width of lot 3 by 10' to 80 feet and lot 2 shall be reduced by 5' to 75 ee=ev ewedt and approv ed by staff prior todsubmiss on lot 1. The revised preliminary plat shall b of the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBEBOLK OMT VOTING N NAY,i� MAYO VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Knaak if they could add a 24`� stipulation to deal with possible costs of runoff repair in the event of additional damage to the Miller property. THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9 1999 PAGE 36 Mr. Knaak stated that the.y could do that and have the conditions contained in the development agreement to hold the developer responsible.. Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Varichak if he,would agree to a 24`� and 25`� stipulation. Mr. Varichak stated that he would not hav�e: a problem with that. MOTION by Councilmember W-alfe. to .amend:the motion to add the 24�' and 25`� stipulation: 24) Any water runoff problems arising °from the construction or development of the plat will be corrected by the petitioner. or,, owners, :and 25) These conditions will be included in a development agreement between; -the petitioner and the City of Fridley and will be recarded as a condition of final approval of the plat and shall bind the petitioner and his heirs and assigns. ; Seconded by Councilmembet Barnette: �TPON A VOICE VOT�, ALL VOTING AYE, MAi�pR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Councilmember Bolkcom stated that there was a 50`� Anniversary Task Force Meeting on Thursday at 5:30 p.m. She asked that everyone who is planning to attend the meeting please call Roberta Collins at (612) 572-3500. Councilmember Bolkcom also said a Craigbrook/Pearson Way meeting was held last Wednesday evening. There will be an informational letter going out for people who could not attend the meeting. Mayor Jorgenson stated that last Thursday she attended a meeting with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City received a Governor's award for cooperative planning on the Highway 65 improvements that were done. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE,. ALL VOTING AYE, M�LI'OR JOD.aGENSON DECLARED_TI�E MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:10 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Nancy J. Jorgenson Recording Secretary Mayor f AGENDA ITEM � 4R CITY C�WNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1999 CfTY OF ' fRIDLEY TO: William W. Burns, City;Manager fi�" � FROM: DATE: ' Barbaza Dacy, Community Development Director August 18, 1999 SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance I3�claring Property Excess, Lots 9 and 10, Block N, ' Riverview Heights The owner of 571 79`h Way has inquired about purchasing a portion of the City owned property immediately to the west of their property. The City acquired lots 9 and 10 in 1996 via the tax forfeit process. -It is proposed that Lot 9, or about 25 feet, would be conveyed to the property awner to-the east (the Holman's), and the City would retain Lot 10 as part of its land area for the r�cent storm water improvement project in Riverview Heights. In order to convey Lot 9, the City has to pass �n ordinance declaring the property excess and authorize the Mayor and City Manager tc-execute-the appropriate documents. First reading of the ordinance is recommended in order to initiate the process. The City Attorney has recommended that the best way to convey title of Lot 9 is to co�vey it fust to the Fridley HRA. After second and fmal reading of the ordinance, staff will prepare a deed for the Mayor and City Clerk's �i�ature. The HRA will in turn conduct a Fublic hearin� a�c� ±hen authorize conveyance to the adjacent properly owner. Anoka County has also been requested to approvs this approach. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached ordinance for second reading. : � .� M-99-191 1 ■ ORDINANCS NO. 1120 AN ORDINANCB UNDBR SBCTION 12.06 OF THB CITY CBARTSR D$CLARING Cl3RTAIN REAL ESTATB TO BS SIIRPLIIS AND AUTHORIZING T8$ SAL$ � THEREOF. SECTION 1. The City of Fridley is the.fee:owner of the tract of la�nd within the City of Fridley,, Anoka County, State of Minnesota, described as faiiows: Lots 9 and lo, Block N Ri�ervi'ew Heights,::according to the plat thereof on.file and._of .rec.ord in the office-of the County Recorder.in and for An�}ca`County, Minnesota. All lying in Section 3, Township-3�0.,:...Range 24,-Gity of- Fridl-Ay, �aunty of Anoka, Stat� of Minnesota. Section 2. It is hereby determined by the City Council that �he 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 the above-described real estate. -- - PASSBD AND ADOPTBD BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDL}3Y THIS 23RD DAY OF AIIGIIST, 1999. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK First Reading: August 9, 1999 Second Reading: August 23, 1999 Publication: September 2, 1999 L NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4,1999 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage calted the August 4, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. _ ROLL CALL: _. ' Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig �:_. �. Members Absent: LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Scott, Hickok, Planning Coordinator Missy Daniels, Planning Assistant Roger & Shirley Frank, 5512 Fillmore Tom Gonyea, 50 Groveland Terrace, Minneapolis, MN . Dave Gonyea, 50 Groveland Terrace, Minneapolis, MN -- Nlr. Voigt, Voigt Bus Company APPROVAL OF JULY 7 1999 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the July 7, 1999, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING� CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, #99-05. BY JIM BARTOW: To allow con#inued maintenance of a second de:ached accessory structure on � Lot 17, excepf the South 55 feet thereof, Auditors Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE �fO�TE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPEftSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the current owner of the property is Southview Bank and the petitioner is Jim Bartow. The petitioner is seeking a special use permit to allow a second accessory building at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. There is a garage that exists on the site and a new home. The property is located at the intersection of Rice Creek Road and Old Central. The lot size is 16,990 square feet. 3 � -� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 2 Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Paul Litwinczuk, who previously owned the property, had planned to build a new home with an attached garage and keep the detached garage. in October, 1997, the City issued a special use permit to Mr. Lifinrinczuk xo allow him to keep the existing detached garage. The stipulations were not met, and tlae special use permit was revoked on March 1, 1999. The garage was set on a demolition schedule where the-owner of #he property was to remove the second accessory garage by May 1, 1999, or the City would demolish the garage and bill the property owner. Prior to May 1, the City was contacied by Southview Bank and informed that as of May 15; 1999; they would be the owner of the property. They wished to repair the garag� and keep it. As a` result of the Bank's interest in improving the property, demolition of the t��rage.�was postponed pending the outcome of this request. Mr. Hickok stated second accessory buildings over 240 square feet are ��: permi�ed; � specia! use in the R-1 zoning district. The square footage of the detaeh�d�g�arage ��0 _: .: square feet) combined v�ith the s quare footage o f t he a ttac he d garage (576 �quar.e�feet) will not exceed the code maximum of 1,400 square feet. Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following stipulatiQns: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, � � All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to , prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. �- AI� r�ecessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. - The struc'iure shall not be used for a home occupation: ` All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City. � The siding and roof materials sha:l! match the exterior of the existing home. Landscaping of the lot, subject to City staff approval, shall be completed. An overhead garage door; matching the garage door on ihe attached garage, - shall be installed. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure timely completion of the project. Failure to complete the improvements by November 1, 1999, shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. Ms. i��adig �tated they hav� gone through this before and have been messing around - with this property for�over two years. Do they have assurances from the Bank that they will take responsibility for this or from the new owne�'? Mr. Hickok stated the Bank has an interested buyer. This buyer has expressed some frustration in having to go through this special use process because, as he described it, he would hav� had the roof done, siding on, garage doo�s=install�ed;�and��the hause sald - by now had he not had to wait through this process. The buyer understands he needs a special use permit in order to do this, and he was aware that this was coming before the Planning Commission this evening. The petitioner is not present to speak on his own behalf. He did express concern about the bond, but understood where the City is coming from. Mr. Hickok stated the City would likely have concems because of the history on this property. - 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 3 Ms. Modig asked that if the Planning Commission acts on the request and it then goes to the City Council, will the peti#ionec then have to appear at that time? There is no advantage to put off a decisiQn any-:longer. Mr. Hickok.stated he would encourage the Commission to act on the request this evening. For the 60-day agency action law, he tk�ought they needed to draw this to a close. Mr. Sielaff asked who Mr. Bartow �s. . Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Bartow is_.the new owner. Mr Hickok believed that his purchase of the property is conditior�ed upon approvaf of the special use permit. The owner will be doing the repairs. The Bank has asked the City to hold this because they have a buyer who is willing to fix it:up. Ms. Savage asked that if the special use permit is approved with the stipulations, the petitioner cannot oppose tho�e stip�lafions. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. At this point,. he feels that going forward_ to the City Council with th�se stipula�io�s is astrQng sta#ernent tkia# it is time to fix or demolish the garage. Mr. Sielaff stated he is not clear about the role of the Bank with this special use permit. . Mr. Hickok stated this is a tax farfeitur� property. Before it came back to the Bankon Ma�r � 5, they had finro interested parties. The Bank, in its due diligence, went out to the market and had finro poter.tial buyers. Both were interested in keeping the garage. Mr. Bartow apparently took the lead, put toqether a purchase agreement, and agreed to purchase the property contingent upon approval from the City and have the work done in a timely manner. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:44 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he has no problem with the request. If they want to pursue this, it will be on its way to the City Council. If the petitioner is not at that meeting, it will fall by the wayside, the garage issue wilt:Ybe settled;l•�nd the City �+vill be on its way to plar�°B. � MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #99-05, by Jim Bartow, to allow continued maintenance of a second detached accessory structure on Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditors Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE4 2. Ail necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The structure shali not be used for a home occupation. 4. All vehicles shali be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the existing home. 6. Landscaping of the lot, subject to City staff approvat, shall be completed. 7. An overhead garage door, matching the garage door on the attached garage, shall be installed. 8. A letter of credit:of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building >. permit #o ensure timely completion of the project. 9. Failure to complete the improvements by November 1, 1999, shall constiit�#e a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit ,-:�, � �� UPON �A�VQICE�VOTE, ALL�1/OTIN� AYE, CHAIRPERSON SaVA��GE t?��L�REp►. ' � �- � THE MOTI6N CARRIED UNANfMOI�SLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council will consider this request on August 23. 2. P�JBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #99-06 BY ROGER FRANK: : � . , Eor a second a�cessory building over 240 square f�et #o be used as-a garage on his pro�erty, legally described as Part of Lot 7 and 8, Auditors Subdivision No. 25, Anoka County, Minnesofa, lying west of the east 400 feet thereof and lying east of the state highway right-of-way, subject to an easement acquired by the ° eity of Fcidley for utilities �nd street p�rpose� across th� easterly portio� of - above described property, generally located at 5512 Fillmore Street. MOTI�N by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:45 P.M. Ms. Caniels�st�ied tne speciat use permit is to allow-a second accessor�r building aver° - 240 square feet on the lot and also to comply with the building permit requirement of 1984 when the buitding was actually constructed. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and has been used as such since 1961 when the current home was moved onto the lot. In 1972, a building permit was issued for an attached garage and kitchen. In 1984, a permit was issued which is the subject of the special use permit hearing. To the north, south_and west are multi-fiamily townhorr�es and to the east is a public:-s�hool. Ms. Daniels stated the structure that is the subject of this hearing was built in 1984 and measures 30 feet x 26 feet x 12 feet high. It is currently used as a garage and for storage of miscellaneous building materials. It has a flat roof design meant to accommodate a second story, but that is not allowed by code. There is a 14-foot height limitation for accessory structures, and this is already at 12 feet. Because of the flat roof, the building has a commercial appearance. The north face of the building is stained from run-off from roofing materials. The property itself has been the subject of several citations because of outside storage on the property. These problems together 0 ■ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 5 make it essential to include a stipulation regarding maintenance, storage, and building appearance of the accessor� structwre.-.�A stapulation cegar�ing the use of the garage for residential purposes only will be requ'rred. Currently the area of the accessory structures is 1,600 square feet, which is:more than what°is� allowed by code. Another stipulation requires walling off an existing single car garage. There are now three separate garages on the property — a single-car at�ached garage, an attached two-car garage, and a detached two-car garage. The petitioner is planning to wall off the single car garage to meet the requirements. Ms. Daniels stated tha# staff has received one letter�and one ca11 concerning the structure. Both believed an addition�l gacage was gaing to be built. They also expressed con�ern for�theupkeep°o#-this=accessory structure and the property in generaL Ms. Daniels stated �staff�recomrnends aRprovai of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The subject garage shall be- prope�ly repaired so that all surfaces are clean and well maintained in appear.ac�ce. The tar will have to be rerr�oved before - repainting in order to ach'reve�tfie desired appearance. �� 2. The subject garage shall not be utilized for home occupation purposes. No home occupation shall exist within, and no storage related to a home occupation within the home shall be permitted. 3. - The hard surface drive sha�l be repaired and consistent �naintained. 4. The 11-foot by 24-foot single staff garage beneath the principle structure shall be finished as livin� space prior to sale of property or November 1, 1999, which�ver comes first. 5. A permit shall be obtained prior to the "finishing-off' of the 11-foot by 24-foot garage as living space. 6. A bond in the amount of $10,000 shall be given to the City to assure that all clean-up and building modifications occur prior to November 1, 1999, or that the City has adequate demolition funds if these stipulations are not addressed. ^ 7. .The 26-foot by 3(i-foot fl�t-roofed detache� garage shafl be removed from this site by January 1, 2000, for failure to comply with stipulations 1-6 of this . approvaL Mr. Sielaff stated the result of this is that by the year 2000 they will have a single car garage. Ms. Daniels stated, no. The house has a single car garage that is at the back of the home. That structure will be converted to living space. The property will then have an attached finro-car garage and a detached two-car garage. This will bring the total square footage for accessory structures to 1,362 square feet, which is less than the 1,400 feet allowed by the code. Ms. Modig asked what would be removed by the year 2000. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 6 Ms. Daniels stated the detached garage would be removed only if there is a failure to cornply. Mr. Frank s#ated he ovvned the property. He has no problem with the stipulations. It is in his best interest to make the property as attractive as possible. Mr. Kondrick stated .stipulation.#6 requires a bond and the modifications to be completed by November 1:� : Mr. Frank stated he could complete #he work by that date. Something else has come up. The people: who are interested in the property want to use the double garage as _ living space. He just wanfis to make it more salable. If they want to use that garage space as living space; they will have to take out a permit anyway. Ms. Daniels stated th�t �rould require a permit but nothing else. Mr. Hickok stat�d it �vould requ6re th�t a!! the stipul�tion� be rnet because they would be moving closer to tha� date. Th� clean-up and ntaintenance of the garage and the property would still apply. Ms. Modig stated this ha� to be done before the sale of the property. Does the listing agreement state and is the realtor aware of the special use permit so thaf potential buyers are aware the requirements? Mr. �rank stated the ro e p p rty is not currently listed. It is for sale by owner. He pfans to have everythi�g ci�ared up before selling the prop�rty. Mr. Kondrick asked, if the petitioner were to sell the property before November 1 and did nothing, what recourse does the City have to make these things happen? Mr. Hickok stated a special use permit is a contractual agreement to do certain things. That would be a problem because it would endanger the future owners. Full disclosure is ess�niial. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:59 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he assumed Mr. Frank is aware of the stipulations and understands the direction that the City is going with this and what the City is looking for in terms of improving the property. It would help him, future buyers,and the neighbors. He would recommend approval with the stipulations. Ms. Modig agreed. Her only problem is that she is concerned about the fact that the property is for sale at this time, and what assurances the City has that the property owner will make the potential buyers aware of what must be done. ff the property is : PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 7 sold and work is not completed, is there a way to be sure that the potential owner is aware of the special use permit and the ramification�� : Mr. Hickok stated a special use permit is fifed wi#h the:property:: Any title search will reveal this. . Staff will get this to the County after approval by the City Council. The bond would assure that the work is done. A future ov�ner may have that surprise, but he trusts that the current owner would communicate this. In the event that it is a problem, the City has the funds to do the demolition. �fhe new propert�r;ovrrraerwould be made aware ahead of tim� that #hi� was°a stipulation filed agains� #ie: pr.operty:: �1f the City were to go ahead with tMe demolition, the new property owner w�ould b�e notified in advance. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to remmmend approval of°Special Use Permit, SP #99-06, by Roger Frank, for:a second accessory building over 240 square feet to be used as a ga.cage:on his property, legally described as Pari of Lot 7 and 8, Auditors Subdivision Na 25, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying west of the east 400 feet thereof anc+ lyirg eas# of the s#ate highway right-of-way, subjert to an easement acquired by the City of Fridley for utilities and street purposes across the easterly portion of above described property.,..generally located at 5512 Fillmore Street, with the following stipulations: - 1. The subjeci garage shall be properly repaired to that all surfaces are clean and well maintained in appearance. The tar will have to be removed before repainting in order to achieve the desired appearance. 2. The subject garage shall not be utilized for home occupation purposes. No home occupation shall exist within, and no storage related to a home occupation within the home shall be permitted. 3. The hard surface drive shall be repaired and consiste�tly maintained. 4. The 11-foot by 24-foot single staff garage beneath the principle structure shall be finished as living space prior to sale of property or November 1, 1999, whichever comes first. 5. A permit shall be obtained prior to the "finishing-off' of the 11-foot by 24-foot ..garage as living space. 6. A bond in the amount of $10,000 shall be given to the City to assure that all clean-up and building modifications occur prior to November 1, 1999, or that the City has adequate demolition funds if these stipulations are not addressed. 7. The 26-foot by 30-foot flat-roofed detached garage shall be removed from this site by January 1, 2000, for failure to comply with stipulations 1-6 of this approvaL UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on August 23. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REZONING REQUEST ZOA #99- 03 BY TOM & DAVE GONYEA GONYEA COMPANY INC.: E PLANNING COMMISSfON MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 8 To rezone the property described as Lot 2, Biock 1, Anderson Development Replat. The current zoning on the property is M-4, Manufacturing Only. The developer proposes a rezoning to M-1, Light Industrial. The purpose of the rezoning is to ailaw construction of a multi-tenant industrial office complex, generaliy located at 7690 Central Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Kondcick,. seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the: public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE�:ALL'VO°T'ING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED ". `; : " THE MOTI.ON CAR�lE� AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:03 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated� the petitioners are seeking to rezone property located at the corr��r vf � Osborne and Central Avenue. The ro e ' p p rty is currently zoned Ni-4, Manufacturing Only. The requested zoning is IVS-1, Li�ht Industrial. The purpose is to aflovir the construction of a 39,406 square foot warehouse/office building. Mr. Hickok:stated the Anderson Dev�lopment was originally pfatted in 1969. _In 1997, the City of Fridley changed the.zoning fcom M-1, Light Industrial, to M-4, Manufacturing-.- Only... The purpose of rezoning was to assure thai #he remaining industrial.paccels in the city were preserved fior manufacturing, thereby protecting surrounding neighborhoods and roadways from heavy trucic traffic common to industrial warehouse developments, and to assure compatibility with the surrounding development. Mr. Hicknk statPd ttiis request would revert this parcel to its previous designation. The proposed buiiding has an office-w�rehouse r�4io of 55°�/0 office and 45% warehouse. The building wili be designed with a substantial depth and will also have 14-foot high doors and a 16-foot to 2Q-foot clear span inside, as oppnsed to 30-foot clear heights desired by trucking, transfer, and high pile storage industries which would result in large volumes of truck traffic. Those were the types of impacts the city hoped to avoid. The petitioner stated that, by design of the building, they will limit those interested to the type of industries that the City was tooking for. Mr. Hickok stated the building is oriented in such a way that all overhead doors are concealed. The design is a crescent shape and the overhead doors are at the west face of the building. The docks are designed in a way that they supplement the warehouse and office and make the building attractive. It would discourage heavy warehouse tenants who would be looking for through docks for trans-shipment locations: Mr. Hickok stated the emphasis is on office facing the streets, and the parking would encourage manufacturing and high tech to occupy the space. The site currently has hard surFace coverage of 91 %. The petitioner is working with their civil engineer to design an appropriate stormwater ponding solution. Simultaneous to this rezoning request, the petitioner has also requested a 10-foot variance to allow the building to exist 90 feet from the CentraF Avenue right-of-way rather that the required 100 feet. When an industrial district is across from residential properties, the code requires a 100- foot setback. The southern 54 feet of this site is across from residential property. For 10 PAGE 9 AUGUST 4, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, rocess. The lot is having the petitioner go through the variance p that resident, the City � the fee ownex=Q��s ParceL This would allow the split is also being requested by � arcel to be sold to the adjacent westernmost 45 feet of the existing undeveiap P owner. Mr. Hickok state d staff recommends app�o�� of the request �++�th �ihe followin9 stipulations g0 feet �. qpprovat of uarian�e, VAR #99=08, a��o��g constFUCtior��#'t�"� building venue adjacent to-a residential district, rather than 100 feet as from Central A required by Code �-- aration�of west 45 feet of property 2. qpproval of lot sp�+t, L.S. #99-03, �o:allow sep fi uration as sfiown in fih� site p�an da�ee W' h 9he(e evat on and resulting lot �n g lex in accordan 3, Construction of th� officelwacehouse comp Ce With the site plan dated - plans dated (revised) 5/4f99: 4, Construction of the offuc�efv�a�ehouse site in accordan n e�it for 5/4/99. e!an to iss�ance of a buildi g p 5. City staff approval of a revised landsca�p P this project. e of this property in corriunction with the the we�t ea9 of Fridiey. g_ qpproval of a berm along°roved by the ��tY ro osal prior to landscape plan, to be app rovai of all site grading and drainageeCS�ues related to this p 7• App ermit for this pro� issuance of a building p the Central P�venue or Osbome g, No �leet �ehicles shall t�e par�eed ar stored along Road parking area s of this project. f�� o�ernight storag�e osed bu Id �Ig.eet vehicles shall be parked in the side yard west A(lo to issuance of the building g. Anoka County shall approve access locations p permit for this project. to allow tural banding shall continue around all faces of the building 10. All architec face appearance. finished building downcast to protect against horizontal glare to residential 11. All lighting shall be shall be neighborhoods or roadways. Co�e Chapter 214) 12. q Comprehensive Sign Plan (in t foaClty Counc I pproval prior to issuance of prepare d an d s u b m i tt e d t o t h e C yor buiiding signs i n t h i s p r o � e c t. a s i g n p e r m it for the free-standing arking requirements. Can this e? If that use c ha n g e s s o m e w h at, will the parking Mr. Kon dric k s t a t e d n o m e n t i o n Sas been made of t e p building suppo� the proposed u requirements s�il�'•be met? e to warehouse space. They Mr. Hickok stated staff has analyzed the mix of offic for vehicle parking. if the office use increases to 60%, he exceed the requirement an industriai use. would then be concerned about this being ehensive plan. Mr. Sielaff asked if this use is consistent with the comp� industrial. Th��'�fore, . Hickok stated the comprehensive plans ve'plan.es this site as Mr rehe it would be consistent with the comp 11 PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 10 Mr. Dave Gonyea stated the,y.ha�Q �o p�oblem with the ' the building height wo��} be �e�een.��6 feet and 20 fee will not go higher than 16 feet t: stipulations. They had stated 0 1 8 f e e#. T h e y have a build�ing design for ha b a s e. T h i s is no t suited to a heavy ware h o u s e Y P r o b a b ly S prin g L a k e P a r k t h a t a r e s e�; u p i �;a sirn��ar fashion ��/ S e. T h e 9 0- f o o t d e e p a bout purchasin g th e p r o p e Y h a ve bui ldings in rt y a n d having it rezone d, p e r a p s 7 p /o to e g � �o Mr. tenan ts would fi t i n t o t h e M- 1: d� s��. T�� Y h� v e s e v e r a l Ander s o n a p pr o p r i a t e f o r t h e L i g h t I n d t � s t r i a l: t� s e, T heX wo��d have a o f t h e par king area in the back. The P o t e n t i a l c l i e n t s t ha t wouid be y wouFcf �nat�need that much spa eXfor trucks So �te�or the set up for some pan�i�g b�ck there. If they did not use it f add some green space; With #he way #h� building is desi uld be company to the west and Anderson Truckin , °� p°nding, they would likely the finro buildings for further screening. 9ned, it screens the bus 9 A berm and trees will be placed between Mr. Kondrick asked if they understood stipulation #1. _ Mr. Dave Gonyea stated the variance affects a building. The actual.setback line accoss from th pproximately 400 sqt�are-feet of the _, portion of #he bwiiding: Ff �hey had to, ihey co��d,:take 10 f e residentiai_affects oniy the southem building but it would affect the appear�nce. eet off from that portion of fitie Mr. Tom Gonyea stated that on the o�ce/wareh �!� the o�ce use in the design is so the� do not have a a• ouse ratio, one reason they go heavier Mt• Kondrick stated things can change in th p �k10�g proble�n. enough parking, e future and he wants to be sure there i s Mr. Tom Gonyea stated they have parkin base more than they anticipating havin . 9 d on office use. 9 On the building in Spring La e Park,e II u e s�s from 3,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. N o n e o �f YoU were to d r i v e by, yo� Would see an excess of 9� f the uses are heavy truck uses. Mr. Dave Gonyea stated they try, to �. Parking spaces. have no problem with the stipulationP t�n more parking than what the nee y d• They MO�N by Mr. Kondrick, seconded b y Mr. Sielaff, to close the pubiic hearing, UPON A VfliCE VOTE;::,�� VOT11�:G Ay�, CHAIRP THE MOTION CARRIE� qNp THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOS D AT g. DE� LARED : r, . Mr. Kondrick stated he is familiar with the .22 P�M� building. building in Spri�g Lake Park. It is a nice MO—� by Mr. Kondrick, seconded b Request, ZOA #99-03, by Tom & Dave onye'a'aGo� re�mmend a property described as Lot 2, Block 1 PP�oval of Rezoning Manufacturing Only, to M-1 � A�derson Developm nt Re � Y� �nc., to rezone the , Light Industrial, to allow the construc �t on� of a m�:f enant 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 11 industrial office complex, generally located at 7690 Central Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of variance, VAR #99-08, allowing construction of the b�ilding 90 feet from Central Avenue, adjacent to a residential district,, rather than ..100 feet, as required by Code. 2. Approval of lot split, L.S. #99-02, to allow separation of.west 45 :feet of property and resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dat�ect 5f�1g9 (a�tached). 3. Construction of the offiee/warehouse complex in a�cordance:witk� ih�e.�et�vation plans dated (revised) 5/4/99. � � ' 4. Construction of the office%r�rarehvuse site� in accocdance with tt�e: site plan dated (revised)5/4/99. 5. City Staff approval of a revised tandscape pian to issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. Approval of a berm along the west edge of:this property in conjunction with the landscape plan, to be approved by_the City of Fridley. ?. Appraval of all site gradi�g and drt�t�rage-issues related ta this proposa! prior to issuance of a building permit far this pro�ect,_.: - 8. No fleet vehicles shall be parked or stored along the Central Avenue or Osbome Road parking areas of this project. AN overnight starage o# incidental fleet vehicles shall be parked in the side yard west of the proposed building. 9. Anoka County shall approve access locations prior to issuance of the building permit for this project. 10. All architectural banding syall cor�tinue around-all fdces of the builcting to aliow finished building face appearance. 11. All lighting sh�ILbe dowr�cast to �ratect against horizontal glare to residential neighborhoods or roadways. 12. A Comprehensive Sign Plan (in acc�rdance with G�ty Code Ghapter 214) shall be prepared and submitted to the City for City Council approval prior to issuance of a sign permit for the free-standing or building signs in this project. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE M�TION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on August 23. 4. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT, L.S. #99-02. BY ANDERSON TRUCKING, INC,: The purpose of the� f+at�sali# is to setl �a 45 foot by�5D.12 foof parc�l to an adjacent property owner. The parcels that are involved include: Parcel "A" — all of Lot 1 and the West 45.00 feet of Lot 2, all in Block 1, ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT REPLAT, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, generally tocated at-9240 Osbome Road. Parcel "B" — Lot 2, Block 1, ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT F�EPLAT, according �� the duly recorded plat thereof, except the West 45.00 feet thereof, generally located at 7690 Central Avenue. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 12 MOTION by:;.Mr� Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and-to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED �1tVD THE PUBUC HEARING OPEN AT 8:23 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request:is��reia#ed to the previous request. The petitioner is Anderson Trucking who curr.en#ly awns the property that the Gonyeas will be buying. � The lot split involves xhat property and the property owned by the Voigt Bus Company. � The trucking company is seeking a lot split to separate the westemmost 45 feet from Lt�i :� � 2, Anderson Developrnent, and to sell that to Lot 1, Anderson Development, or the Voigt � Bus Company. Pending approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the property will revert to Ni-1, Light �ndustrial zoning, consistent with the Voigt Bus k Comp.any zoning. Mr. Hiekok sta�ed the exesting Voigt site is 155,2�Y square feet whi9e �h� existing Lot 2 is 146, 250 square feet. The property is relatively level. Bo#h the Voigt Bus Company and the �onyeas prefer a berm between the parcels. Currently there is not enough room on the Voigt parcel to accomplish the landscaping, much less the berm. The landscape berm plan wiN be required to assure compliance with screening and gensral landscape requirements. Legal consolidation with the Voigt site will also be required. Mr. Hicko�c stated that staff re�ommen�s approval ofithe lot split, L.�. #99-02, wi#h the - faliowing stipufations: - 1. A�proval of Variance #99-08, allowing construction of the building 90 feet from Central Avenues adjacent to a residential district, rather than 100 feet, as required by Code. 2. Approval of ZOA #99-03 to allow separation of west 45 feet of property and resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5/4/99 (attached). 3. Approval of a berm along the west edge of this property in conjunction with a landscape screening pian ror both properties, to be approved by the City of Fridley. 4. Approval of ali site grading and drainage issues related to the proposal for a berm on this parcel, prior to commencement of the berm building project. 5. Anoka County shall approve any modified access on Osborne Road prior to commencement of the modification. 6. Filing of°this lot split's�hail be done is a manner that assures the 45-faot additi�tir� ... _ to the Voigt property will be consolidated with the existing Voigt parcel (Parcel A). Proof of consolidation shall be filed with the City of Fridley, once processing has been completed at Anoka County. Mr. Tom Gonyea stated Mr. Kevin Olson from Anderson Trucking is ill and unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Gonyea will speak on his behalf. Mr. Sielaff asked if the 45 feet will go to Voigt and will be used for landscaping only. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 13 Mr. Hickok stated it will be used for landscaping and for additional space. As he understands, Voigt will be moving the curb a�d gutter out and using additional space in the future. Mr. Sielaff asked if there would be more hard surface area in the future. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. That will have to meet the requirements of the engineering department. Potentially, there could be more fiard surface.� The bus�ct�cr�pany may need some additionat spac� fc�r maneuvering: The #iming is �sser�ial� because of the proposed development on the adJacent parcel. � Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. Gonyea and Mr: Qlson ur�derstood th�°stipulations. Mr. Tom Gonyea stated they ur�derstood the°stipulatians: As was indicated, this is kind of a last chance to do something #here: When And�rson Triacking sold the lot to Mr. Voigt, the space met their needs:at..th��ime.._Mr. Voigt had expressed interest in. additional space but it did not make-ser}se at the #irne. Th�y have been warking with Mr. Anderson for several years to try to get something built on the lot and rezone�i. This was the right time to make this change. : Mr. Voigt stated he was not aware of the stipulations. His infentian for that property is to move their drainage pond and add on to the current building for future growth or put up another building. He plans to use it for additioreal parking at th�s time. It would be green space until suet� #ime as �hey dec�d� to b�ild: ��>Their original buifding plan did have a- � phase finro. It is their intention to continue=with that pl�n. i�e was not aware ofi the berm. He now has a fencE. Mr. Tom Gonyea stated they had talked about the �pace, the se#backs for a parking lot, and had talked about a joint berm. It would be 5 feet on each side of the property line. Ms. Savage stated that Anderson Trucking is responsible for the stipulations. Mr. Hickok stated that is correci. if the saie of this propetty occurs, the berm wifl be a requirement. Staff had a joint meeting with the Bus Company and with the Gonyeas at the beginning of this process. A berm was discussed. Staff has had some concems about the overall appearance of the Voigt Bus Company. It is an impoctant piece to this request. Without it, staff would not support a lot split unless there would be some additional landscaping and the berm. The height will be reviewed and apprQVed by staff prior to construction��°. The',blue fence on the bu�: cornpany propert�r has blown down finrice and is cause for future concern. Mr. Voigt stated he would like to know the size of the berm. Mr. Dave Gonyea stated the berm would probably be 5 feet on their property and 5 feet an Mr. VoigYs property. The berm would probably be 4 feet high with pine trees on top of that. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 14 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOlCE VOTE, ALL VOTING A�E, CHAIFtPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE Pi78L��.HEARING�LOSED AT 8:35 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated it appears that everyor�e knows what is�:going on and understands. He would recommend approvaL MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms: Modig-; to recommend approval of Lot Split Request, L.S. #�9-02;_by Andersor�_T�ucking inc., to seli a parcel 45 feet by 450.12 feet, to the adjacent property owner�with P�rcel A�ontaining all of Lot 1 and the West 45.00 feet of Lot 2, aN in B1ock 1, Anderson� Devel4pment Replat, according to the duly recorded platthere,�genecally locat�d at 1240 �sborne Road; and Parcel B, Lot 2, Block 1, And.erson: DevetQpmer�t-f�eplat,:according to=the duly recorded. plat thereof, except the West 45.00 feet tf�erEOfi,� generally located at 7690 Central Avenue, with the following stipulations: .. .� __ _ 1. Approval of Variance #9.9-08,. allowing construction of the. building �90 ,feet from Central Avenue, adjacent to: a:residential district, rather than 100 feet, as required by Code. 2. Approval of ZOA #99-03 to allow separation of west 45 feet of property and resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5/4/99 (attached). 3. Approval of a berm along the west edge of this property in conjunction with a mlandscape scr�enir�g plan�for both properties, to be approved by the;Citjr of Fridley. . 4. Approval of all sit� grading and drain�ge issues related tc� the proposal for a berm on this parcel, prior to commencement of the berm building project. 5. Anoka County shall ap�rove any modified access on Osborne Road prior to commencement of the modification. 6. Filing of this lot split shall be done in a manner that assures the 45 foot addition to the Voigt property will be consolidated with the existing Voigt parcel (Parcel A). Proof of consolidation shall be filed with the City of Fridley, once processing has _been completed at Anoka County. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on August 23. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the May 18, 1999, minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 15 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12. 1999, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the May 42, 1999,� minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLAREa .:fa:: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 14 1999 APPEALS COMM:ISSION �'' MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to r.eceive the July 14; 1'999, minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAlRPERSON.SAVAGE..DECLARED THE IMOi'IOfd CARRIEQ UNAlVIMOUSLY. -- ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjoum the rtneeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED -- THE MOTlON CARRIED AND THE A►UGUST 4, 'l99�, PL�4NNING �ONFNWSSIOW MEETiNG ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper � Recording Secretar� 17 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSIOW. MEETING AUGUST 1'1', 1999: CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle calied to arder the August 11, 1999, appeals Co�mmission meeting at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry. Kuect�le, Terrie Mau, Carol Beaulieu Members Absent: Ken Vos, Btaine,Jor�es Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coerdinat�r - Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant Lori Skotterud, Planning lntern Dave Gonyea, 50>Groveland��errace, Suite B John Holman, Alltemp Distribution - Dave Nelson, 7395 Van Buren Street Michael Klismit�, 7905 East River Road Rachel Klismith, 7905 East Ri�,�er Road APPROVAL OF JULY 28,1999 APREALS COMMIS�ION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve the July 28, 1999, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bolin stated that the Variance Request, VAR #99-16, for the Texaco Station located at 8100 East River Road, has been withdrawn. Donald and Patricia Kisch were seeking a variance to move their existing free-standing sign due to the expansion of East River Road. They were seeking to move their sign back out of the right-of-way. They were under the impression that the County easement that goes across the front of their property was actually,County-owned property. .,The property line has nat changed.and, therefore, the sign is 10 feet back from the property line. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR#99-18 BY TOM AND DAVE GONYEA: Per Section 205.17.03D.(4).(a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to decrease the , required setback befinreen a building and the right-of-way line abutting an adjoining residential district from 100 feet to 75 feet to allow the construction of an industrial multi-tenant office building on Lot 2, Block 1, Anderson Development, generally located at 1290 Osborne Road. _: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 2 MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms: Mau, to �pen the��public hearing. �� - � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV KUECHLE DECI.:A►�3E�`" .`�'.-� THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioners are seeking to rezone the property locat�d-a#:the � corner of Osborne Road and: Central.Avenue. The curcenx zoning is M-4, Manu��ctur�� Only. The request of the zoning is M-1, Light IndustriaL T�e:purpase of the request�is °:. #o allow for the construction of a 39,406 square foot office/wareh�r�se building: - Anderson Development was originally platted in 1969 anci then replatted in��9�3: =T#�e�.: :�- replat coincided with the development of the Voigt Bus Camparty, ar.developrne�� vest ��. �:� of the Gonyea proposal. In 1997, the City of Fridley rezoned tMe��prop�er#y from:A�1-1 Light Industrial, to M-4, Manufactu�ing Oniy. The Ci�ty's Rurpos,e..in�that r�z�ning was to. assure that the remaining industrial parcels were preserved for m�nc�fact�rrir�g;.thereby protecting the surrounding neighborhoods and roadways from-heav� trt�e�-traffic.and tQ insure compatinility with the surrounding development. Mr. Hickok stated the Gonyea request would revert this pareel to this origi�tal ,{� � designation. The Commission might ask how this develapment is difFer��t firc�r�r�v�hat the �ity was attempting to avoid ,in rezoning it M-4, Manufacturing Only. The proposa! places a building on-site whose officelwareho�ase ratio is 55% ofF��/45% warehou�e. The parking on-site has been designed to accommodate more office use than a typical warehouse/industrial building. - - Mr. Hickok stated the developers also indicate that the building will t�e designed with a` substantial depth. Unlike some shipment locations, this will be much deeper and have the offices in the front. This building is desig�ed with 14 ` high u�ors �dvhich will give � 16-20' clear height in the building. The result of theses lowered dimensions also would have a direct correlation to the volume of truck traffic. The orientation of the building on the site has all overhead doors concealed in crescent shape on the west faces of the building. The docks are designed in a way that supplement the warehouse and make the office warehouse-more attractive and discourage heavy warehouse tenants that would be looking for through docks for trans-shipment. Mr. Hickok stated to clarify site orientation, to the east is Central Avenue, to the north is Osborne Road and Spring Lake Park, the Voigt Bus Company is to the west, and to the south is Ande�son Trucking. The building has been designed with a crescent shape. Ther� is access to tt�e north fro�n Osborne Road for-tn�c�CS�and those°firucks can ,;�4'� ` circulate behind the building and exit to the south. If the development works better to have trucks come in from Central Avenue and exit to the north, that can be done as well. . Mr. Hickok stated the site design perspective provides preferr�dseparation-of heavy .� truck traffic and passenger vehicle traffic, typical of the office area in front of the building. The parking area has been designed to discourage heavy truck traffic on the front and allow it to loop around the back without complication. The crescent shape of the building puts office on the street fronts and gives a very nice high finish to those 19 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 3 street faces and wraps the building and open door activity into the southwest comer of the site. This is a preferred design to give the building#tau�-ftni�aed #aces �nd allows the open door activity and maybe some of the nuisance fac�ors about a� p.rQp�rty like this can be contained in an area south of the building. Mr. Hickok stated the design of the building is to be a rock-�ee fifock;with iwo types of rock-face block and nice glass office entrance features. There will a(so: be�a band of windows along the front and east and west face of the:bu�lding. r�Gi#�r,, s�aff has asi�ed: that the banding detail be brought arcn�cr�:afl-four sides of the buildir�gztc� �ave �ro�e Df a finish all the way around. The truck:.ar,ea i�r back is concrete block; more°afi a standard flat-faced concrete block as opposed °tQ=�h:e �rack-face btac�C.. .�:si�aff �els that it is important to tie them together wi#h cot�ar�nd �banding�°in'tFt� cheaper; plain ge�eric , surfaces on the back. Mr. Hickok stated the heavier emphasis on�offce:spa:ce and required parking will encourage manufacturing high-tech indus#ries to--occupy this space within. The City engineers analyzed the site and d�termined-#�ia�a�ddi#ional storm ponding design and calculations will be necessary. Initially it was�belier�e±d-�hathard surface coverage was at 91 %. The petitioners have recalculated for- us tha#�#hey are at about 85% coverage now and believe they can drop it•down to a 1ow�S0°/a �ange �y the time the pond is �� designed. They do feel that the truck turnaround area in that crescent in the southwest _ __ __ _. corner is larger than it needs to be and they will be able to accommodate a pond and �, � _._ __ _ actually increase the green space in that southwest corner. That is good news and the pond is essential to this project. Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner has also requested°a 10' variance to aitow the building to exist 90' from the Central right-of-way rather than 100'. The lot split is also being requested by Anderson Trucking which woul� also allow the westernmost 45' of this existing undeveloped parcel to be sold to the adjacent owner Voigt Bus Company. There will be a low berm between this new development and Voigt Bus Company. Voigt Bus Company is interested in obtaining 45' to allow potential future expansion area for their buses and vehicles around their building. Mr. Hickok stated the concern as discussed in the Planning Commission meeting is that Voigt Bus Company has some land issues to be reckoned with. That project has yet to be finished and, as part of the lot split, there will be a landscape plan approval necessary for the lot split before it happens. The variance request by the Gonyeas is related to the zoning across the street on Old Central. The properties east are zoned C- 1, Local Business: Across #�re�tfieet there is�� single farr��Jy�ome th� t��oerlaps the �j industrial site across the street. When there is a R-1 single family site across the street from M-1, Light Industrial, there needs to be a 100' setback. Mr. Hickok stated the hardship statement is that the way the site plan has been designed, the variance for the building Jo�ation would serve to block out the truck yard of the neighbor to the south and keep a uniform look to the other 90% of the building. The face of the building would remain constant along the entire central face instead of being stepped. The City has granted a variance to the Keller Structures/Tri-Star Installation building at 6095 East River Road from 100' to 68'. ZO APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 4 Mr. Hickok stated a stepped buiiding face on the southem 35' of th� building would ,. allow an alternative that would place the building back 10' in that locatiorr,#h�reby eliminating the need for a variance and allowing 350' of green space ta be piar�ted on the front of the building. The atternative being discussed by staff wouid actttalty s#e�::th�e.� .�_ building face back and provide a 100' setback in that location and on a site tha# couid� use extra green space. This would subtract 350 square feet of leasabie spa�e�fr:�ra��i�� .. complex but add 350' of green space in front of t�� -cvrrrplex and v+rauld :t�� one. -�.°-� alternative to avoid a variance for this project. _ Mr. Hickok stated staff has no recommendatian fQr:�/ari�ce #�,��-f�8, �ir��ce=it i�;�i#�i��:.=-�� previously granted parameters for an M-1; Ligfi� Indusirial. cor�pte�c: : Staff wauld� recommend that if the Commission chose to .grant #he. variance the following stipulations should �pply. 1. Approval of Rezoning ZOA #99-03 and LS #99-02. ,: 2. Construction of the Warehouse would be in conformance with the office warehouse complex plan submitted and da#ed revised May 4, 1999. 3. Cit� staff would need to app��vQ the r�vised landscape �lan prior to the issuance �fi the building permit for this project. - Ms. Mau asked if the single-family homeowners across the street�have�made any -�� -- ° comments about this. Mr. Hickok stated staff has heard no comment from neighbors on this project at all. Mr. Kuechle asked where the pond would be located. Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioners have been working with their civil engineer to make a determination of the site o# the pond�. There is � pond to the. west.behinci the Voigt Bus Company and the civil engineers believe that the pond is oversized. The engineers mentioned having a two-stepped pond approach having a pond in the southwest corner handling the storm water to dump into the pond south of the Voigt Bus Company. N�ir. Kuechle asked about the r�vidfih of Ce�a#�a�:Avenue. .{..�. Mr. Hickok stated that it has a 100' right-of-way width at this time and a right-of-way dimension outside of the travel area of 10' each side before the private property with the new design reconstructing Central Avenue. Mr. Dave Gonyea stated that the pond would probably be in the southwest part of the back parking lot and run north and south along the neighborhood of 40' and 100' wic��. If they didn't do any ponding, they still would put in 100' or so of green space. Mr. Kuechle asked how many tenants he anticipated having in the building. 21 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 5 Mr. Gonyea stated that hawing,39;0�0 square feet, there would be about 5 or 6 tenants. Ms. Mau asked Mr. Gonyea if he fiad any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Gonyea stated he didn't. Ms. Beaulieu asked Ititr.: Gany.ea if any"n+eighbars tafked to him. Mr. Gonyea stated th.at no::neighbocs have.talked to him. Mr. Kuechle thanked a1�Ir: Gonyea-a�d asked �if anyone else wanted to address this issue. . . MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRfED`�AND THE PUBLIC HEAR�NG WAS CLOSED AT 8:00 "P.IVf. Ms. Beaulieu stated that the Commissior� appro�red a variance like this in 1,987 which- was from 100' to 68' and-#his is asking for 100' to 90'. She stated she is;in favor.of the variance request with the stipulations in place. Ms. Mau stated that since they haven't heard from any of the neighbors, she wouldn't have a problem granting the variance. It is such a small part of aJarge building and to keep the continuiiy of the struciure is more important. _ Mr. Kuechle stated that he would recommend approval with the stipulations as outlined by staff. He stated that Central Avenue is very wide and puts the building a little further from a residential area. MQTION by Ms. �eaulieu, seconded-�y Ms. Mau, to-recommend approval of V�riance_ request, VAR #99-08, by Tom and Dave Gonyea, to decrease the required setback between a building and the right-of-way line abutting an adjoining residential district from 100 feet to 75 feet to allow the construction of an industrial multi-tenant office building on Lot 2, Block 1, Anderson Development, generally located at 1290 Osborne Road. with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of Rezoning ZOA #99-03 and LS #99-02. �' 2. Construction of the Warehouse would be in conformance with the office warehouse complex plan submitted and dated revised May 4, 1999. 3. City staff would need to approve the revised landscape plan prior to the issuance of the building permit for this project. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ZZ APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 6 Mr. Hickok stated that this variance request would go to:Ci�y��ouncil on.August 23; 1999. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIAI�CE.REQ�JEST VAR #99- 13 BY GENE AND MARY HARSTAD: Per Section 205.07.03D.(1) ofthe FrBd{ey Zoning Gode, to� reduce:tfie�required ° front yard setback from 35 feet to 18 feet far�an ex�s�ing hot�e due tv t#�e widening of East River Road and� subsequent modifications to�f�t�xa#on St�eet�on Lots 1& 4, Block G, Riverview Heig:hts Addition,,,generally located at.50Q Ironton Street. Ms. Skotterud, Planning Intern, s#ate�i�th.at.:the petitioners are requesting #o reduce their required front yard setbackfrom-35'=�o23'-dwe.to#t�e:widsning�of-East River Road and . the subsequent modifications to Ironton Street. The hardship as stated by the petitioner is that if something should happen to their house they could not rebuild on an existing foundation. At some point in time they could sell even though the front setback is non- conforming without any problems: When they built 22 years ago, they placed it on the _ !ot as far away #rom East River Road as they could., S�aff recommends approval due to- the hardship of land created by taking of �dded right-of-way required for East River ftaad Imp�overrient Project: This request is �vithin-previousl,+ granted:dimensions. -��- � Ms. Beaulieu asked how many properties have the same problsm with the road construction.- Mr. Bolin stated that 4Q properties were identified a couple of years ago-as-having potential problems due to the expansion. Some of the potential probiems identified a couple of years back aren't problems at this time. Some of the proposed areas to be taken by the County are just easements now that don't require any variances at this time. MOTlON by Ms. Beaulieu, secQnded by �i1s. MaU to close the pablic hearing. :- -. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:04 P.M. Ms. Mau stated that this is a definite hardship brought on not by their own making and she didn't see hovu they could: not approve it.. �.It certainlyfis:within o��i�r;�ar�anc�s that have been granted in the past. Ms. Beaulieu asked who initiated the variance, the petitioners or the County? Mr. Bolin stated he wasn't sure who initiated it. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve Variance Request, VAR #99-13, by Gene and Mary Harstad, to reduce the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 18 feet for an existing home due to the widening of East River Road and 23 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 7 subsequent modifications to Ironton Street on Lots 1& 4, Block G, Riverview Heights Addition, generally located at 500 ironton Stree#: _ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAiRPERSON'KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRfED UNANIMOUSLY. ... � ' 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATtON OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR#99-14 BY MICHAEL'AND RACHEL KLISMITH: ' Per Sectiom205.07.03D.(1) of the Fcidley Zoniag Code; to reduce the front yard setback from 35 fieet to 25 feet, and : Per Section 2Q5,04:05B of the °Fridley Zaning :Code, to ailow an existing �- accessory structure in tE��-front�yard �on �Lo#� 7:& 8, Block 3, Sprin�brook Rark Addition, generally Iocated a17905 East River Road. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARFNG OPEN �4T..8�:�&r�.M.--. . Mr. Bolin stated #hat Mr. and Mrs. Klismith are seeking a variance to Fed�ce their-frant -- yard setback from 35' to 25' and ro allow the existing accessory structure to be placed in the front yard of their home locat�d at 7905 East River Road. ,,The Code does requice a minimum front yard setback for acce�sory stn.�ctures as well as main structures of 35' and also requires that all accessory structures be located in tlae side or rear yard of a p� operty. _ Mr. Bolin stated the Klismith property is surrounded to the north and east by R-1 Zoning, single family homes. To the south across 79�' Way is a convenience store zoned C-1. To the west is a mix of R-3 and R-1 zoning. Their lot was platted in 1922. The home was built sometime prior to 1949. The garage was built in 1976, and a variance was granted to the Klismiths in 19�92 to increase the-heigMt-af the fence in their �ront and side --- , yard. Their hardship "statement states that it would cause them undue hardship to tear it down and move it so it would be behind their house or at least more than 35' from the lot line. Mr. Bolin stated City staff recommends approval due to the extraordinary circumstances., :T�ese are act�ally finro reqtaesis: in one..�:,g�nilar �ariances have been granted for the setback request. A rec�nt one was Variance #97-02 in which the setback was reduced to 18' for a garage. Staff supports this variance request to allow the accessory building in the front yard and noted, for the record, that this should not set a precedent for the City to grant all future requests for people who are looking to place accessory buildings in their front yard. The finro main reasons this request has staff support are (1) the fact that there was a building permit for the garage granted in 1976 that had a stipulation on the permit stating that it only needed to be setbaGk 25' from the south lot line and (2) the shape of the lot doesn't leave the property owners many other options for placing the garage on the site. The petitioners were working with the building department trying to obtain a building permit to put a screen porch addition onto 24 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 __ PAGE 8 the west side of their home to meet all the setbacks, and they need the variance for the garage in order to have a fully conforming lot. Mr. KHsmith stated that staff presented the request very clearly. They do have th� odd shaped lot to contend with and they needed to have to variance to add the porch� an�d - - give a little more space in the home. They were looking at it mor� as a three-season porch to get a little more�use for their family. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to�:cl�se-the public hearing. ': UP�N A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHA�FtP�RSOT�''KUf�HLE ��L�If�E� ,��: THE MOTION`CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEAR11V�r�CLOSED AT 8s1� P:M�. -- Ms. Beaulieu stated that the hardship pertains to��h� year it was built, :the shape of�the lot, and being a corner lot. She stated she definitely sees the hardship. Mr. Kuechle stated that this is a hardship of no making of the current property owners, and it would give undue hardship to tear the garage down and not allow th�m to put on a screen porch. He would recomrnend approvaL Ms.-Mau d�k�d that i# they would decide to �uil� a new garage sorfre day; �nrould #hey have to conform to the 35'? Mr. Bolin stated that if the variance was granted they wouldn'f need to..�" ` ' Ms. Mau stated Yhat it would be an undue hardship, and she wo�ld iike to stipulate that � if the time ever comes that if they want to rebuild the garage that they would need the setback. Mr. Kuechle stated that they could possibly do that. Mr. Bolin stated that if the-garage burned or was des#royed, a stipulaticn like tt�e on� = mentioned would recjuire the property owners to go through the variance process again. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to approve Variance request, VAR #99-14, by Michael and Rachel Klismith, to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet and to allow an existing accessory structure in the front yard on Lots 7& 8, Block 3, Springbrook Park Addition, generally loca�ed�at 7905 East River Rv�l.�= .. ��:, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON 14UECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - 4. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST. VAR #99- 15. BY ALLTEMP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY: "` Per Sec±ion 205.18.06.G(2) of the Fridley Z�ning code, #o allow unscreened loading docks adjacent to the public right-of-way on Lots 1& 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, generally located at 5400 Main Street. 25 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 9 MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VQTING AYE, CHAIRPEF+�S?�i�t:KUEC.f{�E::DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING"WAS QPEN AT 8:17 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that John Holman from Alitemp Distribution Companq is°seeking a variance to allow unscreened loading docks that wo��d be facir�g�ln#�rstate��694, in order to construct a 176' x 174' addition. The zoning �cod� daes require that all, tc�ad�ng docks be screened with a 6' high solid scre.ening fence if they are visible fror� a:;pt�bfic right-of- way. The entire property is stightl� o�er 25 acres. in size. : Mr. Bolin stated the three iaading d�cks needing :th� variance`:are on the northem`end opening up towards the Inte.fstate 694. This property is zoned;M-2. The residential properties to the east of the site are zanect:R-2: To the nor�h is Interstate 694. To the west there are railroad tracks and some other industrial sites. The north edge of the _ building would be setback about 75' from the northem edge of the existing building. It would be fully screened from any of those residents to the east of the property. There is quite a grade change from the front of the building to the interstate. V1/ith fhe proposed addition the petitioner would still have plenty af:parking._ Mr: Bolin stated the �roposed addition wot�ld only add 4& additional parking spaces to the site. The petitioner would have approximatety 500 parking spaces, and he is only required to have 457 parking spaces. The �etitioner has filed a letter of intent to meet the City's required paving and curbing requiremen#s wiihin 5 years,: The lot was originally platted in 1941. The building �ermit was::giv�n in 1957. The site has continued to grow with expansions every few years. With the proposed addition, there will be well over 350,000 square feet developed on this site. The doors with the unscreened loading docks are facing the freeway and with the vegetation that MnDOT has planted and, with the change in grade, unless you are standing on Home Depot's roof, the doors are not visible. Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner's hardship•letter state� tha# the�e_w�uld be #ruck doors - facing north toward Iriterstate 694 and it is necessary to have the dock on that side from an operational standpoint. It is their plan to add additional warehouse space to the south in the future. They plan to build an extension on to this addition in the next few years. When they do this there would not be sufficient maneuvering room for trucks to have access to any docks on this side of the building, and the docks on the north wall would not be se�n'from tn#�:r.sta#e 694 d�e�tothesigr�rfcant grea#>s+e{�aration betweerr :� the building and the 126' setback form the north property line. Also, there is additianal � screening from the extensive shrubbery on the Interstate 694 right-of-way. Mr. Bolin stated past variances have been granted to finro petitioners for unscreened loading docks. One was at 7880 Beech Street, a chemical lab, and another one at 8101 Ashton Ave., which is Lindstrom Metric. City staff recommends approval of the variance request with stipulations and the petitioner's letter of intent to install the code required pavement, curb, and gutter. Staff indicated that the doors will face Interstate 694 and won't be facing a roadway with residential homes right across from it. The addition is screened from the neighboring properties. The grade change in the vegetation that 26 � 1 �.. 1� APPEALS COMMiSS10N MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 10 MnDOT has planned along the Interstate does screen the docks from the freeway, and _ also the petitioner will install all required paving, curbing, and any additional landscaping within five years. Mr. Bolin stated staff is recommending the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall complete all of the paving, curbing, guttering, and landscaping to. � approval of Cifiy staff within five years of the issuance of the varian�e;��ar.::the ° � variance shall become null and void in that the building would b�cart�e:�a.non- - conforming use. 2. The petitioner shall grant a 17-foot bikeway/walkway easement a�ross,#he :,� .: :: �-F �: easternmost edge of the properly in the event that a bikeway/walkv�a�-�s cons#�'ucted along Main Street. 3. Alltemq shall pay any assessments associated with future off-street _. .,.. _ bikeway/walkway path along Main Street. 4. The petitioner shall file the letter-of-intent to comple#e #he curbing and paving �u�it�� - Ar.oka County Recorder to pravide future owners notice of the property. The - pro�osed exp�nsion is set bac�: 75' f�om ti�e-nort��n edg� �� he existing buildir�g. -- To the east, the residential properties will not be able to se� the ioading aock�: � Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any compliance issues in the past with this site. _. Mr. Bolin �tated there were none. Ms. Mau asked if there was a variance request on this property before. Mr. Bolin stated that there hasn't been a variance request except the one last year that was withdrawn. Ms. Mau asked what�the tie in with the Bikeway/walkway was. Mr. Bolin stated that in the past the City and Anoka County have had a desire to get an off-street bike path along Main Street, and the majority of the properties along there don't have any easements across. The City would like to start conn�cting the easements that are currently th�re and the ones that�would be added,�in the fut�r� fior> a bikeway/walkway. Mr. John Holman stated he is willing to do the easement but asked who is going to pay for moving the fence and vegetation to make way for the bikeway/walkway. Mr. Hickok stated that, traditionally, the County Highway Department and the City have a joint �ffort to restore property to its previous condition. The City would like to see screening continue and Mr. Holman's property restored to its previous condition after the bikeway/walkway would be put in. 27 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 11 Mr. Kuechle asked Mr. Holman if the west side of his building was paved. Mr. Holman stated that the west side was mostly not paved. There ace�:some d:riveways on the west side, but there is still quite a bit of gravel on the west side and also on the south. They intend to put additions on the building and that is why they asked forthe� five year extension for the paving, curbs and gutter. Ms. Beaulieu asked if he was okay with the four.s#�p:ulations. Mr. Holman stated he was. MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu to close�the public. hearing. :>: UPOtV A VOtCE VOTE, ALL VOTING /��fE,:CI#A#RPE42�[�1�t'l��l.fCHLE QECLiARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:36 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #99-15, to allow unscreened loading docks adjacent:to the public right- of-way on Lots 1& 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, generally,lo.eated;�at .5400 Main Street with the following stipula:ions: - _ ,_ 1. The petitioner shall complete all of the paving, curbing, guttering, and landscaping to approval of City staff within five years of the issuance of the var,iance, or the variance shall become null and void in that the building would.become a non- �- conforming use. 2. The petitioner shall grant a 17-foot bikeway/walkway easement across the easternmost edge of the property in the event that a bikeway/walkway is constructed along Main Street. 3. Alltemp shall pay any assessments associated with future off-street bikeway/walk�vay path along Main Street. ,, 4. The petitioner shall file the letter-of-intent to complete the curbing and pavi�g with Anoka County Recorder to provide future owners notice of the property. The proposed expansion is set back 75' from the northern edge of the existing building. To the east, the residential properties will not be able to see the loading docks. . , UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOiING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #99- 17, BY DAVID NELSON: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) of the Fridley Zoning code, to reduce the required side yard setback from a property line from 56 feet to 3 feet, and Per Section 205.07.01 B.(4) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to allow a private garage to exceed the square footage of the dwelling unit by 12.6 feet, to allow the : APPEALS COMiV11SSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 12 construction of a garage on Lot 23, Block 4, Shaver's Subdivision No. 1, generaily located at 7395 Van Buren Street. MOTION by Ms. Beauiieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE V(7►TE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTIOI� CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN AT 8:37 P..M. . Mr. Bolin stated tha� petitioner Dave Nelson was seeking to decrease the req�iredr.rea�` yard setback from 5' to 3' and also to allow a part of the garage to exceed the�squz�fe .- footage of the-dwelling unit by 12.6 square feet. The petitioner would like ta�repl� I��: ' existing 440 square foot garage with a new 792 square foot garage. This wauid.exce�d �:- the dwelling unit by slightly over 12 square feet. The City code reqtsices a. rr+in�rr�urr� side .- - yard setback of five feet and also requires that a private garage not exceed the sqr�are �-° footage of the dwelling unit. Mr. Bolin stated the property located at 7395 Van Bursn is zoned R-1 as are all the surrounding properties. The lot was platted in 1950 and the home built in 1951. There is no record of the building permit for the existing garage. The petitioners':hardship statement states that to move �he garage completely in back of the house would greatly corrpromise th� aesthetics of the 5ackyard. The 12.6 square ��et of the garage exceeding the house is so minimai that no one will notice without knowi�dge of the building code and #he aid af a measuring device. . IV►.r. Bolin stated staff recommends denial of thes� two variance requests. No variance- has bee� granted to allow the square footage of a private garage to exceed the square footage of the dwelling unit. It is possible for the petitioner to remove one foot off the length of the back end of the garage. If a foot or finro was taken off the back side of the garage, it would bring the garage to be less than the dwelling unit. Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends that if these variances are granted, the following sti�ulations �e a�ded: 1. No home occupation shall take place from this garage 2. The garage and home have matching siding/color scheme. 3. The garage shall be built to meet all fire and building codes. Mr. Kuechle asked if an accessory building was built on this-lo�t, �:could th�:corrabination . of the garage and acces�ory building exceed the size of the house? Mr. Hickok stated that the first accessory building shall not exceed the first floor living area of the home. Fourteen hundred square feet is the total allowable combined total of the accessory building and the home. Mr. Kuechle asked if_there are any fire codes they should be addressing in any stipulations and is the three-foot separation enough to meet the fire codes? � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUS711, 1999 PAGE 13 Mr. Bolin stated that 3 feet is the breaking point. If it is any less than three feet, then you have the fire wall issues. Ms. Beaulieu asked if neighbors to the north had any concerns. Mr. Bolin stated that no neighbors have expressed any concems. Mr. Kuechle asked if City staff had any probl�rn:anrith separa#ing th�e fi�o�variances out. so that they could choose to grant the varian�e�for �he three foot setback from #�e side yard but not approve the one exceeding the squaFe��foot of the �arage from the d�rrelling unit. Mr. Bolin stated, yes. Mr. Dave Nelson stated that his house is a very old house. The garage is bigger and kind of takes the place as far as eliminating the need for a bigger house. He stated he thinks the house measurements could be wrong. It is a real small house and he has no desire to add on to the house. He has no desire to build a shed_ and feels adding on to the garage would be adequate. He feels 12.6 feet is not:na�iceable without a_measuring device. Ms. Beaulieu asked Mr. Nelson if they approved the thr�� fieet but not the garage -° ext�nsion, could he consider rnaking the garage a_couple of feet shorter? Mr. Nelson stated that even if it is a foot sma!ler, he v�rould still .ae charged the same :. amount for building. He asked if he could get someone from the City to measurethe house and find if it is bigger than the garage. Ms. Beaulieu stated that it would be a bad precedent to set if they let someone have a garage bigger than a house. She stated that she understood why he would want to go from five feet to three feet and not cut the trees down in the backyard. Mr. Nelson stated that he might not build at all if it does come down from 5' to 3'. He definitely would like to have the extra 12.6 feet. Ms. Mau asked if he had spoken with the neighbors to the north about putting in a garage that large. Mr. Nelson stated that he had told them he wanted to put in a bigge� garage. He asked � if adding a little porch would add on to the square footage of the house? Mr. Bolin stated that it would have to be living space. Mr. Kuechle stated that might be something he would have to consider because he is ` really close. He stated that he thought the garage looked like it should be attached to the house. Mr. Nelson stated he wouldn't want to attach the garage to the house to begin with. 30 �� _ APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1999 PAGE 14 Mr. Boiirr stated that he could possibly attach the garage to the house with a screened in breezewayto give hirn enough square footage. Mr. Nelson stated that he didn't want to attach to the house in case of fire hazards and protection for the house from smoke damage. MOTION by. Ms. Beaulieu, -seconded by Ms. Mau,` to close the public hearing: �- ` UPON A VOICE VO�E; ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECL��#�#�` s THE M�TION CARRIED AND THE PUBLtC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:54'�W:�11'., �`:� '`� ; Ms. Bea�;lieu stated that she saw the hardship from 5' to 3' because she c.�n see: how = .� he vvouldn't war�t to move the who!s structure to the back of his house. She �'tated 't�at �-: � granting the garage variance is a precedent that she wouldn't care to vote for. Ms. Mau stated that she agreed. She feels the garage is Grying to be attached to the house. She has a problem with 3' rather than 5' and doesn't feel comfortable with the precedent of the garage being: bigger than the house. Mr. Kuechle stated that � 2:6 feet does�'t both�r him as �n�ci� as s��ting-the-��ecedent - for g� anting a variance for the primary accessory buiiding treing larger than 2he square foot of the house. He wduld recommend ap�roval of the side yard setback from 5' to 3', and he wauid recommend denial of the 12.6 extra square feet . MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by IVIs. Mau, to approve variance, VAR #99-17, by David Nelson to reduce the required side yard setback from a property line from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow the construction of a garage on Lot 23, Block 4, Shaeffer's Subdivision No. 1, generally located at 7395 Van Buren Street with the following stipulation: 1. No home occupations shall take place from this garage. 2. The garage ard home shall have matchi�g siding/color scheme. - � 3. The ga�age shall be built to meet all fire and building codes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. _ MOTlON by Ms. B�aul�eu, seconded �y Ms. Mau, to deny:�ariane�;-:�AR #94-1Z;�b� David Nelson to allow a private garage to exceed the square footage"of the dwelling unit by 12.6 feet to allow the construction of a garage on Lot 23, Block 4, Shaeffer's Subdivision No. 1, generally located at 7395 Van Buren Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated that the City measured from an aerial perspective and suspects that Mr. Nelson's measurements are correct. It is unconventional for the City to measure houses, but it is a possibility with the building inspection staff. 31 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11. 1999 Mr. Kuechle. stated that Mr. Nelson still has the option to receive the request for the extra 12.6 feet at the City Council on August 23, 1999. 7. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Mr. Hickok provided an update of past Planning Commission and City Council actions. Mr. Hickok stated that he wanted to take a moment to introduce Lori Skatter�tad. He stated Lori in #he second year of intemship at the City of Fridley and is in a gfadyate program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the Planning Program. �ori has� �: been a wonderful additinn to the staff and will be with the City through�th� end ofi = August. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIOIV by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Ma�, to �djourn the meeting. :- UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRRERSON KUECHLE DEGLARED. �..� THE AUGUST 11, 1999, APPE�4LS �OMNlISSION ME��ING ADJOURNED AT 9:05 P.M. _ _ _ _ Respectfully Submitted, � . _. , ��.-w.J �ig� .iohn � Recording Secretary 32 , . . � / � qTlf OF FRIDLEY _ AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL":�'M'EETING OF AUGUST 23, 1999 DATE: August 16, 1999 � � TO: William W. Bums, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planner SU�JECT• Special Use Permit Request S�# 99-05, 6291 Central Avenue NE This property is located at the SE cArner of Old Central and,Rice Greek Road. The former owner of this prc�perty, Paul Litwinczuk was granted a special use aermit (#97-07) in October 1997. The Gity Council granted the permit to allow Mr. Litwinczuk's existing 2-car garage to remain. He bui�t his new home with an attached 2-car garage, therefore a permit-was necessary to keep his existing garage. Mr. Litwinczuk's special use permit approval included 7 �#ipulations. Mr. Litwin�zuk failed the requirements for � of the 7 stipulations. • All vehicles were be parked on a hard surface as approved by the City. A hard surface driveway has not been installed. • The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the new dwelling. The siding and roofing materials have not been replaced. • A letter of credit of $2�,000 shali be submitted tc� assure c;ompletion of the project in accordance with City requirements. No letter was submitted. In February of 1999, The City revoked SP #97-07. Upon revocation, the City gave Mr. Litwinczuk the opportunity to re-apply for the special use permit, provided he did so by March 31,1999. If no application was made by ihat date, Mr. Litwinczuk was to have his 2"a accessory garage removed.by May 1, 'i999� Finally, if he did r�ot take care of his dernolition bysa. May 1, 1999, the City would do the work and assess the property. Mr. Litwinczuk did not make application for his special use permit by March 31, 1999 and he did not begin demolition either. During the last week of April, the City was contacted by Cherokee State Bank in West St. Paul. The banker, Joe Gish indicated #hat the property had been through the Sheriff s Sale process, and Mr. Litwinczuk had a period whereby he could reclaim the home by May 15,1999. At that point, Cherokee Bank would own the property. He pleaded with staff to allow his bank to keep 33 .: the garage, stating that he had 2 potential buyers for the property, both of whom wanted the garage and stated that they would re-roof and re-side the structures within a week of their closing on the property. Both potential buyers expressed frustration for hav'rng to wait through the speciat use pErmit process. On August 4; 1999, the Planning Commission considered a special use permit requ�stby Jim : Bartow. Mr.- Bartow is one of the two potential buyers identified by Mr. Gish �t �hecokee Bank. Mr. Bartow wants to begin his work on this site and has stated that he plan�,:#o mav� quickly on the garage roofing and siding, once the permit is approved. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Bartow special use:p+errn�fi fequest with 9 stipulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Speci�l Use Permit SP #99-05 with_the following stipulations: 1. A!I grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City �rior to construction: 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation. 4. All vehiGles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by th� City. 5. The si�ing and roofing materials shall match the exterior of the existing home. 6. Lands�aping of the lot, subject to City Staff approval, shall be completed. - 7. An overhead garage door, matching the garage door af the attached garage shall be. installed. 8. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to ens�are timely completion of the project. . 9. Failure to complete the improvements by November 1, 1999, shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. M-99-193 34 Ci of Fridle Land UseA lication July 21,1999 �o eo_AG GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Jim Bartow 3040 Woodlane Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 RequestedAction: - Special Use Permit ... Purpose: To allow a second aceessory structure in excess of 240 square feet. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residentiat) Location: 6�91 Centrai Avenue NE Size: 16,694 squaze feet .38 acres Existing Land Use: - Sir.gle famil}� ho�?%�.. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: 1�: Offices & Gl E: Single Family & R-1 S: �^.�arehouse & M-2 _ 4V• Shopping Center �ss K-3 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with �'lan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sections 205.07.1.C.(1) requires a special use pernut to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet. Zoning History: 1930's - Original home is built. 1939 - Lot is platted. 1973 - Garage is built. 1995 - Demo. pemut issued for garage. - Special use pernut for: garage: 1997 - SP#97-07 issued f�r garage. 1999 - SP #97-07 revoked. Legal Description of Property: Part of Lot 17, Auditor's S�iodivision No. 22. Public Utilities: Water and sewer are available i SPECIAL INFORMATION at the site. Transportarion: Central Avenue provides vehicle access to the site. Physical Characteristics: Lot is relatively flat, covered by existing ara e and home. SUMMAIZY OF PROJECT Jim Bartow, petitioner, is requesting a special use pernut to allow the continued use of the existing detached garaee. RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends approval of this special use pemut, with 9 stipulations PLA.NNING COMMISSION �CC�l'vIMENDATI�N. . The Planning Commission concurred with staf�s recommendation � � CITY COUNCIL ACTION � 35 SP 99-OS An- al�is � The previous owner of the property, Paul Litwinczuk, lost the property to foreclosure and subsequent Sheriff s sale. The previous owner had received a special use permit in 1995 for the detached garage, but this permit became invalid after ane year because construction of the new home had not started, :In October of 1997, Mr. Lit�,in�z� received a new special use permit to allow him to keep the detached . garage. This special use permit, SP:#97-07, contained seven stipulations addressing improving the detached garage, This stipulations were not met and the special use permit was revoked on Mazch 1 1999. _ y _ At the revocation hearing, Mr, Litwinczuk was given until Apri12, 1999 to apply for a new special use pernut. If said application was not made, the garage was to be demolished and removed on May ��, : 1999. During the latter part of A�ril, the Ciiy was contacted by Southview Ba:nk Southview Bank - informed staff that as of May 15` , 1999 they would be the owners of the property and wished to_re air the garage, to City re�uirements, and keep it. As a result of the Bar,k's interest in improvin tlie p property, the demolition of the garage has been postponed, pending the outcome of this spe� al us� permit request. The petitioner is requesting a new special use permit be issued, so that the he and the bank can repair and keep the gazage. Staff Recommendation View ofhome & detached gazage. City Staf,�'recommends approval of this special use permit, with stipulations. Second accessory buildings over 240 square feet are a permitted special use in the R-1 zoning district. The square footage of the detached garage (360 squaze feet) combined with the square footage of the attached garage (576 square feet) will not exceed the code maximum of 1,400 squaze feet. Stinulations Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the special use permit subject to the following stipulations: 36 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior af the existing home. 6. Landscaping of lot, subject to City staff approval, shall be completed: 7. An overhead garage door, matching the garage door on the attached garage, shall be installed. 8. A letter of credit of $20,000 sha11 be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure tunely cornpletion of the project: 9. Failure to complete the improvements by November 1, 1999 shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. 37 � � CfTY OF. FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1999 DATE: August 17, 1999 ' , I �j� TO: William Burns, City Manager �� FROM: Bazbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Missy Daniels, Planner RE: _ Planning Commission Action on Special Use t ermit # 99-06 Introduction The City of Fridley has been asked for a special use pernut by, Roger Frank to allow a second accessory building in excess of 240 square feet and to comply with a building pernut requirement of November 28, 1984 in a.ccordance with section 205.07.O1.C(1) of the zoning code. The property is Part of Lots 7& 8 Auditor's Subdivision # 25, generally located at 5512 Fillmore Street. Staff recommend�d approval with seven stipulatioi�s. Plannin� Commission Action At the August 4, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP #99-06. A motion was made to approve the requested special use pernut and the Planning Commission unanimously approved the request with the seven stipulations. Ms. Modig and Mr. Kondrick expressed concem about the recourse the City has if the properiy is sold before the work is completed. Staff stated that a special use permit is filed with the properiy and a title search wouid reveal this. The bond would also assure that the work is done. If the City were to go ahead with the demolition, the new property owner would be notified in advance. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the follawing stipulations: 1. The subject garage shall be properly repaired so that all surfaces are clean and well maintained in appearance. The tar will have to be removed before repainting in order to achieve the desired appearance. 2. The subject garage shall not be utilized for home occupation purposes. No home occupation shall exist within, and no storage related to a home occupation within the home shall be permitted. : 3. The hazd surfaced drive shall be repaired and consistently maintained. 4. The 11' by 24' single stall garage: beneath the principle structure shall be finished as living space prior to sale of property or Novennber l, 1999, whichever comes first. 5. A permit shall be obtained priar to the<"finishing-off' of the,11' by 24' garage as living space. 6. A bond in the amount of $10,00U'shali be given:to the City to:assure that all clean-up and building modifications occur prior to November l, 1999 .o� thatthe City has adequate demolition funds if these stipulations aze not addressed. 7. The 26' by 30' flat-roofed detached garage shall be removed fro�n this site by January 1, 2000 for failure to comply with stipulations 1-6 of this approval. M-99-190 �� City of Fridley Land Use Application SP-99-06 � August 4, 1999 • •' GENERAL INFORMATT+ON _ . . . _ SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Roger Frank 5512 Fillmore Street = . Fridley, MN: SS432 . Requested Action: . Special Use Pertnit Purpose: To allow a second accessory building in excess of 240 square feet and to comply with a building pemut requirement of November 28, 1984. Exisang Zoning: R-1 (Single Family) , Location:- 5512 Fillmore Street Size: - 19,500 sq. ft. .45 acres - Existing L,and Use: Single Family home Surmunding Land Use & Zoning: N: Multi-Family, R-3 E: Public School, P S: Two-Family, R-2 _—W: Mu1ti-Family. R-3 , -- - _ Comprehensive Plan Confdrmance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sections 205.07.O1.C.(1) requires a special use pernut for accessory buildings other than ttie first accessory. . building, over 240 square feet. History: Auditor's Subdivision was recorded in 1939. In 1961, the house was moved to the site due to highway improvements at . � what was the Hwy 100 and Hwy 65 :. intersection. In 1972 a building permit v�as ,, issued for an attached garage and kitchen, �~ �. : In 1984, a pemut was issued for a .. _ detached gazage, which, being a second :. accessory building over 240 sq. ft., _. _ required a Special Use Perinit . Legal Description of Properiy: Pazt of Lots 7& 8, Auditors Subdivision # " 25 Public Utilities: Water and sewer are available to the site. Transportation: Fillmore Street provides vehicle access to the site: Physical Characteristics: The accessory building, the subject of this request, exists on site as built in 1984. Condominiums surround the property on the north, west and southwest. To the east is a public school and directly south is a wooded area. The grade increases _ _ _ _e„_ dramarically at this wooded area and there _ _ — _ : _ are single family homes above on Hillwind Road. SUNIl�IARY OF PROJECT Roger Frank is requesting a special t:se permit to comply with the buiiding pennit stipulation &�in= `� November of 1984 when he constructed the accessory building. He is cumently selling the properiy and wishes to cleaz up this outstanding issue. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff'recommends approval of this special use permit with stipulations. I � Accessory buildings are permitted with a special use pemut in R-1 districts. Mr. Frank apP1Ying '` for this permit will clear our records and bring this Special Use Permit building into compliance with the Code. PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION _ RECONIlVIENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously approved _ Lhe request. _ __ _ CITY COUNCII. ACTYON . ' August 23, 1999 _ , _ 60 DAY DEADLINE DATE August 30, 1999 Staff R�port Prepared by: Scott Hickok Iviissy Daniels 41 STAFF REPORT SP #99-06 Request Roger Frank is requesting a special use permit for a second accessory building that is over 240 squaze feet. The property, located at 5512 Fillmore Street, is a single-family home. The accessory building to which the request applies was constructed in November of 1984. At that time, the building permit stipulations stated that the petitioner was to convert the existing garage to living area or obtain a special use permit for the new accessory building. A special use;permit was not obtained in accordance with the stipulation. Mr. Frank is now interested in selling his house and hQpes to rectify any outstanding :issues with the property. Historv . _ .� Auditor's Subdivision.was recorded in 1939. In 1961, the house was moved to the site due to higliway improvements at what was the Hwy 100 and Hwy 65 intersection. In 1972 a building permit was issued for an attached garage and kitchen. In 1984 a permit was issued for a detached garage, which, being a second accessory building over 240 square feet, required a Special Use Permit. Analysis . The structure measures 30' by 26' and is 12' in height. It is constructed of stucco to match the house. The building is currently used for a garage and for storage of miscellaneous building materials. A flat roof design was utilized to accommodate an eventual second story "carriage house". The building matches the home from an exterior materials perspective, but overall has a commercial building appearance. With 12-foot sidewalls, a pitched roof to match the house would not be possible. It would exceed the 14-foot height limitatiori set by the Code. This accessory structure has not been well maintained. The north face of the building has been severely stained from tar and roofing materials that have washed off in that direction. The appearance from adjacent properties is unappealing. The praperty itself has been the subject of numerous property maintenance complaints and citations. A stipulation regazding property 42 maintenance, storage, and building appearance will be essential to rectify the sub-standard, existing conditions. With the appearance of the structure, there is also concem about the use of the gazage.when a ne�v ;: buyer takes on the property. A stipulation regarding the use of the garage for residential purposes only will be required. No home occupations will be pernutted in the accessory structiue.and no :. ,_ storage of supplies related to a home occupation shall be permitted. A hard surfaced drive is also required. One exists currently, but it will need ta be properly, :� maintained. The petitioner has indicated that he walled off a sing�e-stail garage on the existing structure. This is. ;-. important because the City Ordinance regazding R-1 accessory°structures requires that:the ca�i�in�d total of accessory buildings (attached/detached) on a=pxoperty shall not exceed-140U square feet. If:; Mr. Frank did wall off the single stall garage beneath the;originai-structure, his accessory;structure total is 1356 squaze feet. If he did not, his total would be i,62U.square feet. A prospective buyer . indicated that the I 1' by 24' single-stall garage was not walled o€� from the other accessory building space. If this is the case, the petitioner exceeds the 1400 square �eet-l�ix and this. musi be conected. A stipulation regarding proof of modification by City inspection wil�°be-required. If it is-�ue that the 11' by 24' space has not been walled off from the remaining portian of the attached garage, a tirne limit for doing so must be imposed. If proper constru�tion steps were not tak�::in this timelimit, the approval of the sgecial use germit would thereby� faiL View of garage from the north 43 �' i Resident ��nc�rns,'Questions City staff has received one letter concerning this project (attached). 'The letter was in opposition to an additional accessory building and "to the existing one, for that matter." Considering special use permit requests rarely come years after a p:oject is completed, there may be some confusion with the notice for a hearing on this one. There is n� additional accessory buildirtg planned. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously approved the requested special use permit with the seven stipulations below. Staff Recommendation Second accessory buildings over 240 square feet are a permitted special use in a residential district. Since this building was constructed in 1984, there will not be any additional impact to the surrounding area. City staff recommends approval of this special use permit with stipulations. These are: 1. The subject garage shall be properly repaired so that all surfaces are clean and well maintained in appearance. The tar will have to be removed before repainting in order to achieve the desired appearance. 2. The subject garage shall not be utilized for home occupation purposes. No home occupation shall exist within, and no storage related to a home occupation within the home shall be permitted. 3. The hard surfaced drive shall be repaired and consistently maintained. . . 4. The 11' by 24' single stall garage beneath the principle structtiue shall be finished as livi�g - space prior to sale of property or November 1, 1999, whichever comes first. 5. A permit shall be obtained prior to the "finishing-off' of the 11' by 24' garage as living space. 6: A bond in the amount of $10,U00 shall be given to the City to assure that all clean-up and _ building modifications occur prior to November 1, 1999 or that the:Cit�r has adequate , demolition funds if these stipulations are not addressed. 7. The 26' by 30' flat-roofed detached garage shall be removed:from t,his. site:by January-1, . �.. : _ 2000 for failure to comply with stipulations 1-6 of this approval. 45 � AGENDA ITEI�iI � CITY COUNCIL ME�TttV� OF QUGUST 23, 1999 CfTY OF FRIDLEY Date: 8/17/99 1 � / �. To: William Bums, City lldanagec,� From: Barbara Dacy, Cornmunity D�veloprrrent Director :. Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator ; Paul Bolin, Pianner RE: Appeals Commission action on VAR #99-15 M-99-189 Alltemp Distribution: Company is seeking a=�ariar�ce to allow unscreened loading docks facing I- 694, in order to construct a 174' X 180' addition: Pe:itioner has.filed a letter of intent to pave and curb th� site in accordance with code within 5 yEars. During April of 1998, the petitioner had made a similar request for 8 loading dock doors and also to reduce the amount of paving and la�ndscaping requi`ed on the,site.� This original request wa� withdrawn by the petitioner due to the high cost of paving the large ,site vp to code standards. Du�ing the spring of 1999, the peti�ioner met��vith City staff to discuss an acceptable timeframe for the completion of the paving, curb, gutter, and landscape requirements. Alltemp Storage has given the City a"letter of intent" to meet the City's paving, curb, gutter, and landscape requirements as future building plans are completed. The petitioner will include these required elements into all future expansions, and within the next five years will have ALL gravel areas paved, curbed, guttered and landscaped where necessary. APPEALS COMMISSIC3N ACTION At the August 11, 1999 Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR 99-15. After discussion over the proposed project and Staff's recommendation, a motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the variance with stipulations. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends approval of this variance request, with stipulations, and the petitioner's letter of intent to install pavement, curb, and gutter. Due to the location of the proposed building expansion, the unscreened overhead doors will not have any detrimental impact on neighboring. properties. The new building is located to the west of the existing building and the loading doors will face I-694. The combination of grade change and the vegetation planted along the Interstate will completely screen the loading dock doors from public . � view. In the past, the City has approved two similaz variances. The properties that received these variances are located at 7880 Beech Street and 8101 Ashton Avenue. -- -, -- -� The peritioner will have a11 gravel areas paved, curbed, and landscaped as necessary within-f�e�years or this variance.will become null and void, making the proposed building a"non-conforming" use. ° STtPULATIONS If the City Council were to grant this variance request, staff recommends that the foltowing ,; stipulations be attached. + 9. Petitioner complete all paving, curbing, guttering, and landscap�ng to the approval of Cit}F ,�.. Staff within 5 years of the issuance of the variance, or varian�e s�ra/l l�ecome null-and void. .:� ... 2. Pefitioner grant a 17' bikewaylwalkway easement acr�oss th�. eastemmost�edge .of propec#y,. �, F�� in ti�e event that an off street bikeway/walkway is constructed afor�g Main S�r�eet. ��y�: ` 3. Al/temp to pay any assessments associated .with futvre` off°street bikeway/walkway path along Main Street. 4. Pefitioner shall frle le#fer of intent with Anoka County Recorde� #o -pravide nvtice for ft►fure o�vners cf propert�r _ e 47 City of Fridley Land Use Application : VAR-99-15 . August 11, 1999 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATI�N Applicant: John C. Holman Alltemp Distribution Company 5400 NE Main Street Fridley, MN 55421 Requested Action: Variance Purpose: To allow unscreened loading docks adjacent to the public right-of-way. F,xisting Zoning: M-2 Heavy Industrial Location: 5400 Main Street NE Size: 1,106,424 sq. ft. 25.4 acres Existing Land Use: Storage warehouse Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Commercial & C-3 (I-694) E: Single Family & R-1 S: Heavy Industrial & M-2 W: Heavy Industrial & M-2 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sec. 205.18.06.G.(2) requires that all loading docks be screened with a 6' minimum solid screening fence if visible from the public ROW. Zoning History: Lot originally platted in 1941. Original building built in 1957. Legal Description of Property: Lots 1& 2, Auditors Sub. #78 Council Action: August 23, 1999 Public Utilities: Existing buildings connected Transportation: Site is accessed by Main Street. Physical Characteristics: Relatively flat, eastem edge:of.property covered by large grassy berrn &.trees, :` remainder of site covered: by. buildings; -' pavement, & gravel. ` SUMMARY `OF PR07E�T , Property-owner is seeking �+ariance to allow unscreened loading docks facing I-694, in order to construct a 256' X 180' addirion. Petitioner has filed a, letter of intent to pave and curb the site in accordance with code within S years. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP (Full letter attached) SUMMAR'�;: aF ANALYSIS City Staff`recnrrimends approual of this variance request, wi�l,t.stipulations, and the petitioners letter of intent_to install pavement, curb, and _.__�:,. gutter. . • (View from location of proposed loading docks looking toward the I-694 R.O.W.) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin VAR-99-15 ANALYSIS _: John Holman, petitioner, is currently requesting that a variance be granted to allow 3 loading dock doors to face a public right of way. If ths variance is approved, the petitioner will construct a 46,000 sq. foot addition to the site. During April of :� 998, the petitioner had made a similar request for 8 loading dock doors and also to reduce the amount of paving and landscaping required on the site. This original request was° withdrawn by #he petitioner due to the high cost of paving the large site up to code .standard�. During the spring of 1999, the petitioner met with City staff to discuss an acceptable tirnefr�m+� �' , for the completion of the paving, curb, gutter, and landscape requirements. Mr. Holman has given the City a"lett2r of intent" to meet the City's paving,: curb,: gutter; and - landscape requirement� as future building plans are completed. The petitionerwill include these �- required elements into all future expansions, and within the next five years will have ALL gravel areas paved, curCed, guttered and landscaped where necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends approval of this variance request, with stipulations, and the petitioners letter of intent to install pavement, curb, and gutter. Due to the location of the proposed building expansion, the unscreened overhead doors will not have any detrimental impact on neighboring properties. The new building is located to the west,of-the existing �building and the loading doors will face I-694. The combination of grade change and the vegetation planted along the Interstate will completely screen the loading dock doors from public view. In the past, the City has approved two similar variances. The properties that received these variances are located at 7880 Beech Street and 8101 Ashton Avenue. The peiitioner will have ail gravel areas paved, curbed, and landscaped as necessary within five years or this variance will become null and void, making the proposed building a"non-conforniing" use. STIPULATIONS If the Appeals Commission were to grant this variance request, staff recommends that �i�� following stipulations be attached. .• 1. Petitioner complete all paving, curbing, guttering, and landscaping to the approval of City Staff within 5 years of the issuance of the variance, or variance shall become nult �and voiaf� 2. Petitioner grant a 17' bikeway/waikway easement across the easfemmost edge of pr+operty; � in the event that an off streef bikewaylwalkway is constructed along Main Street. ": 3. Aiitemp to � pay any assessments associated with fufure off street bikeway/walkway path along Main Street. 4. Petitioner shall file letter of intent with Anoka County Recorder to provide notice for future ,,_ . owners of property. � �� AGENDA ITEM � � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1999 - ClIY OF ' FRIDLEY DATE: August 20, 1999 � TO: William Burns, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator _ SUBJECT: Resolution Con�enting to HR.A Tax T evy f�r Taxes Payable in 2000 - - This is the fourth year that the �IRA has utilized a tax levy. The levy, �vhich is equal. to .0144% of - the City's taxable market value, produces between $185,000 and $200,000 in annual revenue for the Authority. The HRA nas used tr�e bulk af t�'us revenue to support repay,nent of the $1.5 million loan from the City. Each year the HRA makes $143,332 in principal and interest payments on the loan. The remaining funds are deposited :nto the HRA's General Fund for other activities As of August 1, �999 the HRA has paid off $358,330 on the loan, leaving a principal balance of $1,320,409. The term of the loan runs through February 1, 2�12. The HI2.A adopted a resolution at their August 5, 1999 meeting. The deadline for certification to the County Auditor's office is September 15, 1999 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution consenting to an HRA tax levy colkctible in 2000. . M-99-192 51 RESOLUTION NO. -1999 A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN°'` " AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA ADOPTING A 1999 ,TAX LEUY COLLECTIBLE IN 2000. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Fridley, .Minnesnta (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City af Fricltey, Minnesata �the .. "Authority") at its regular aneeung on August 5, 1999, adopted the attached HItA Resolution`Na 1999; A Resolution Adopting A 1999 Tax Levy Collectible in 2000. __ 1.02. The Council must consent to any Authority levy prior to its becoming effective as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033. Section 2. Consent. 2.01. The Council hereby consents to the HRA Resolution and to the levy described therein. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COTJNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 23RD:DAY OF AUGLiST,1999. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 52 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ! � CfTY OF FRiDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY ��-�OU�CIL-��:l�III�EETING �OF AUGUST 23, 1999 �r � To: William W. Burns, City Manager 1��' � From: Date: � Sara S. Hill, Human Resources Director ��-�- August 19, i 999 Council Salary Ordinance Attached is the ordinance to adjust Council salaries by 5% for the year 2000 and subsequent years. Please present this ordinance for its first reading at the August 23, 1999 Council Meeting. Thank you for your attention to this ma'�ter. 53 . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE BY AMENDING APPENDIX F TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADNSTMENT OF SALARIES FOR TI� MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.07 OF THE CHARTER OF TI� '` CITY OF FRIDLEY The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: T'he annual salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers during .2000 and subsequent years shall be as follows: Mayor Councilmember-at-Large Councilmember, Ward I Councilmember, Ward II $8,820.00 $7,245.00 $6,405.00 $6,405.00 � Councilmember, VVard III $6,405.00 In addition, the Mayor and Councilmembers shall be entitled to the same benefits enjoyed by full-time authorized employees of the City of Fridley. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1999. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 54 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR � TO: WiLLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER ,�(� FROM: RICHARD D: PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR CRAIG A. ELLESTAD, ACCOUNTANT SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A"PROPOS�D" BU�GET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 WITH MAXIMUM TAX INCREASE. DATE: August 19, 1999 In conformance vvith Chapter 275, Section 065 nf the bSinnesota Statutes, attached is the "proposed" 2000 Draft Buc�get. Chapter 275 requires the City:to certify a°'proposed" �udgei to the County Auditer prior to September 15. � We request the City Council pass the attached resolution and adopt the2000 "proposed" budget. RDP/ce Attachment 55 RESOWTION NO. - 1999 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A"PROPOSED" BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 WHEREAS, Chapter 7, Section 7.04 of the Ciry Charter provides that the City Manager shall prepare an annual budget; and WHEREAS, Chapter 275; Section 065 of Minnesota Statutes requires that the City shall adopt a pcoposed budget before,September 15; and WHEREAS, Chapter 275, Section 065 of Minnesota Statutes requires that such "proposed" budg8t b'e ' certified to the County Auditor, NOW THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the following "proposed" budget be adopted and appro�ed: GENERAI FUND Taxes and Special Asses$ments: Current Ad Valorem Deliquent, Penalties, Forfeited Saecial Assessments Licenses and Permits . Licenses Permits Intergovemmental: Federal _. State- Local Government Aid Homestead and Agriculture Credit Aid All Other Charges for Services: Generai Government Public Safety Conservation of Health Recreation Fines and Forfeits Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Revenues Other Financing Sources: Sales of General Fixed Assets Liquor Fund Closed Debt Service Fund TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Fund Balance: General Fund Reserve TOTAL GENERAL FUND ESTINWTED REVENUE $ 4,274,460 59,000 4,000 17t,700 544,200 5,000 1,743,395 1,068,907 528,800 1,538,260 122,775 200 222,800 185,000 435,000 145,350 20,000 200,000 232,900 11,504,747 19,907 $ 11,524,654 56 Legistative: City Council Ptanning Commissions Other Commissions City Management: General Management Personnel Legal Finance: Elections - Accounting As�essing MIS City Clerk/Records Police: Police Civil Defense Fire: Fire Rental Inspections Public Works: Municipal Center Engineering Lighting Park Maintenance Street Maintenance Recreation: Recreation Naturalist Community Development Building Inspection Planning Reserve: Emergency 100,000 Nondepartmental: 55,290 $ 11,524,654 APPROPRIATIONS $ 195,952 1,760 5,130 275,814 134,153- 296,26U - JO,19O 610,808 142,149 237,528 136,481 3,477,888 12,635 834,481 96,396 220,505 486,063 203,600 903,422 1,317,533 798,739 260,211 284,414 487,252 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Cable N Fund $ 147,500 Grant Management Fund 203,810 Solid V`laste Abatement Fund 270,000 Housing Revitialization Fund 250,000 Fund Balance 44.854 • . TOTAL SPECIAI: RE1lENUE FUNDS $ 916,164 �� CAPITAL PROJEGTS FLNaS_ Capital Improvement Fund , - Taxes-Current Ad Valorem $ 70,550 HACA 15,000 Interest on Investments 417,225 Park Fees 30,000 Fund Balance ' 1.008.425 TOTAL CAPRAL PROJECTS FUNDS $ 1,541,200 AGENCY FUND Six Cities Watershed Fund Taxes-Cur�ent �4d Valorem : . 6,200 TOTAL SIX CITIES WATERSHED FUND $ 6,200 TaTAL ALL FiiNDS $ 13,988,218 �� General Capital Improvement Streets Capitaf Improvement Parks Capitat Improvement Six Cities Watershed $ 153,715 211,905 300,544 250,000 $ 916,164 �� $ 256,500 980,000 304,700 $ 1,541,200 �.— 6,200 $ 6,200 $ 13,988,218 � PASSED AND ADOPTED BYTHE CITY CC7UNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 23TH DAY OF AUGUST 1999:"' "' ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY-CIERK 57 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER FROM: ` RICHARD D. PRIBYt; FINANCE DIRECTOR CRAIG A. flLESTAD, ACCOUNTANT SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A"PROPOSED" BUDGET � FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 WITH NO TAX INCREASE L�ATE: August 19, 1999 _ In conformance with Chapter 275, Section 0�5 of the Minnesota Stat�tes, attaGhed is the "proposed" 2000 Draft Budget. Chapter 275 requires the City to certi#y a"proposed" budget to the County Auditor prior t� September 15. We request the City Council pass the attached resolution and adopt the 2000 "proposed" budget. RDP/ce Attachment : RESOLUTION NO. -1999 A RESOLUTION �4DOPTING A "PROPOSED" BUDGET �OR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 WHEREAS, Chapter 7, Section 7.04 of the City Charter provides that the City Manager shail prepare an annual budget; and WHEREAS, Chapter 2�5, Section 065 of 11�linnesota Stat�rtes reqrtires that #he City shall adopt a prbposed budget before Septemb.er 15; and WHEREAS; Chapter 275, Section:065 of Minnesnta Statutes requires that such "proposed" budget be ce�tified to the County Auditor; NOW THEREFORE, BE !T RESOLVED that the following "proposed" budget be adopted and approveci: ESTIMATED R�V�NIIF _ GENERALFUND Taxes and Special Assessments: - C�rrentAd Valorem. $_3,825,521 Deliquent, Penalti�s, � � ' F�rfeited �poc9a! Assessments Licenses ard Pp►mits Licenses Permits . Intergovemmental: Federal State- Local Govemment Aid Homestead �nd Agriculture Credit Aid All Other Charges for Services: General Govemment Public Safety Conservation of Health Recreation Fines and Forfeits Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Revenues Other Financing Souroes: Sales of General Fixed Assets Liquor Fund Closed Debt Service Fund TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Fund Balance: General Fund Reserve TOTAL GENERAL FUND 59,0�0 4,QQ0 174,700 54�t,200 5,000 1,743,395 1,068,907 528,800 1,538,260 122,775 .. 200 222,800 185,000 435,000 145,350 20,000 200,OQ0 232,900 11,055,808 46$,846 $ 11,524,654 59 Legislative: City C.�uncil Planning Commissions Otlier �ommissio�s Gi!y M2nagement: General Manageme^t Personnel _ __Legal _ Finance: Elections Accounti�g Assessing MIS City Clerk/Records Police: Police Civil Defense FIrA; Fire Rental Inspections Public Works: Municipal Center Engineering Lighting Park Wlaintenance Street Niaintenance Recreation: Recreation Naturalist Community Development Buiiding Inspection Pl�nning Reserve: Emergency Nondepartmental: . �•� $ 115,952 1,760 5,130 2?5,814 134,153 296,260 30,190 61 C,808 142,149 237,528 136,481 3,477,888 12,635 834,481 96,396 220,505 486,063 203,600 903,422 1,317,533 798,739 260,211 284,414 487,252 100,000 55,290 $ 11,524,654 SPECIAL REVENUE F NDS „ . Cable TV Fund $ 147,500 Grant Management Fund 203,810 Solid Waste Abatement Fund '_ 270,000 Housing Revitialization Fund - > 250,000 Fund Balance gg�g� _ TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FtiN4� '.-� :.' � $`916,164 �'APITAL PRWEGTS FL�DS ; ,�„� Capital1mprovemeM Eund Taxes-Currenf Ad Ualorem � $ 70,550 HACA 15,000 Interest on Investrnents 417,225 Paric Fees 30,000 Fund Balance 1.008.425 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $ 1,541,200 AGENCY FUND �„• ,, Six Cities Watershed�Fu�td Taxes-Current Ad Valorem 6,200 TOTAL SIX CITIES WATERSHED FUND $ 6,200 TOTAL ALL FUND3 "':` $ 13,988,218 $ 153,715 211,905 300,544 250,000 $ 916,164 � Generat Capital Improvement $ 256,500 Streets Capital Improvement 980,000 _ . Pa�lcs Capita) Improvement °�° 304,700 Six Cities Watershed $ 1,541,200 6,200 $ 6,200 $ 13,988,218 PASSE� AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 23TH DAY OF AUGUST 1999. NANCYJ.JORGENSON-MAYOR ATTEST: • DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK �� 1' TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER ;:�� ' FROM: RICHARD D. PR18YL,:�IN�►NCEDIRECTOR ' " ' CRAIG A. ELLE�TAcD,'ACCOUNTANT . ` " Sl1BJECT: RESOLUTION �CERT1FYlNf :THE "PROPOSED" . TAX LEVY REQUIREMENTS°FOR Z000 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA FOR COLLECTION dVITH MAXIMUM TAX INCREA�E �ATE: August 19,1999 In conformance with Chapter 275, Sect�on Qa5 of the Minnesota Statutes, :attached is a resolution certifying the "proposed" tax levy requirements to the Anoka County Auditor. Chapter 275 requires the City to certify its "proposed" tax levy requirements prior to September 15. The staff is recommending a 2000 "proposed" tax levy of $4,495,833. This is an approximate increase of $460,000 over what has been appraved the past five years. We request the City Council pass the attached resolution to ce�tify the "proposed" tax levy requirements. RDP/ce Attachment 61 RESOLiTTION N0. -1999 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYIN� "PROPOSED" TAX T,EVY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2000 TO THE COI�NTY 4F A�T�KA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Chapter 275, Section 065 requires;the Gity to certify its "proposed" tax levy requirements to the County Auditor; .. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Fridley certify to the County Auditor of the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, the f�liowing "proposed' ta�c levy to be levied in 1999 for the year 2000. GENERAL FiJND : General Fund $ 4,408,044 CAPITAL PROJECT FiJND _,_ Capital Improvement Fund - Parks Diuision t�GENCY FLJND Six Cities Watershed Management Organizarion Stonybroak Creek Sub-Watershed District TOTAL ALL FUNDS 72,689 6,200 8,900 $ 4,495,833 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY 'THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI� CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 23 DAY OF AUGUST, 1999. . " ' ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 62 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR BURNS CITY MANAGER '� � ' TO: WILLIAM W. � � FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR :' CRAIG A. ELLESTAD, ACCOUNTANT '. � S�JBJECT; RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE "PRO�3SED" ° TAX LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2000 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA FOR COLLECTION WITH NO TAX INCREASE DATE: August 19, 1999 In conformance with Chapter 275, Section 065 of the Minnesota Statutes, attached is a resolution certifing the "proposed" tax levy rec�uirements to the Anoka Cou�ty •�° �* � Auditor. Chapter 275 requires the City fo certify its "proposed" tax levy requirements prior to September 15. The staff is recommending a 2000 "proposed" tax levy of$4,035,671. This is essentially the same levy that has been approved for the past five years. We request the City Council pass the attached resolution to certifv the "proposed" tax levy requirements. RDP/ce Attachment 63 RESOLUTION`NO. -1999 . A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING "PROPOSED" TAX LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2000 TO THE COUN3'Y OF ANOKA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Chapter 275, Section 065 requires the City to certify its "proposed" tax levy requirements ta°the County Auditor; _ NOW THEREFORE, BE iT:RESOLVED, that the City of. Fridley certifyrto the County Auditor of the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, the following °proposed".tax levy to be levied in 1999 for the year 2000. ►I :. • � AI� General Fund _: _ . :'11 • ':•1 � �1►I� .. Capital Improvement Fund - Pazks Division ' A.C�NCY Fi1ND Six Cities Watershe3 Management°Organizatian Stonybrook Creek Suo-V4�atershed District TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 3,947,882 72,689 6,200 8,90u" $ 4,035,671 PASSED AND ADOPTED EY T.� CIT:' COU*1CIi: OF Tf� CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 23 DAY OF AUGUST, 1999. � ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK . ' NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR � � CRY OF FRIDLEY Name Dale Warren AGEIdDA ITEIVI CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGIJST 2�, ��1"��9J Position CSO Coordinator Non-�xempt Appointment Starting Starting - Sala Date Replaces $10.62 Aug. 9, Brian per hour 1999 Owens �� I � � CRY OF FRIDLEY AGEI�DA ITE1� �. w _ CITY COUNCIL .MEETING OF ��l�"i.UST ��, 1999 CLi41MS � �870►� - 889►:��' . •J �. _ . � CRY OF FRIDLEY' AGENDA ITEM - CITY COUNCIL MEETING O� AIJGUST 23, 1 J99 Type of license CIGARETTE SALES .. ..- - Cub Foods - - 2�� - 57th Avenise NE Fridley, MN 55432 FOOD SAL�S Cub Fa��s - 250 - 57"' Avenue NE Fridley, MN �5432 L I CENSES � Approved By: Fees: Fridley � 998 LLC Police Departm�nt -$� 25:00 Fir� Department _ _ Community Development � Fridley 1998 LLC �olice Department $ 4�.00 Fire Departme�� -- - Community Development GAS SE�tVI.r.E� Airco Heating & Air Conditioning George Rogstad 4020 Central Ave NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Alliant Heating & AC Jeff Zimmerman Fredrickson Heating & AC 3550 K�rr�bec Dr #'� Eagan, MN 55122 " GENERAL CONTRACTO.R-RESIDENTIAL Cascade Builders Inc (20003261) Bruce Johnson 8024 Aldrich Ave N Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 Commercial Erectors Corp. (20130410) 23035 162 St NW Elk River, MN 55330 Elite Roofing 8� Construction Inc. (20015200; P.O. Box 432 Cottage Grove, MN 55016 F S Remodeling (5989) 24329 Seelye Brook Drive St Francis, MN 55070 James Prokopowiez Jim Jackson Frank Koukol r��• Ron Julkowski, Building Official Same State of Minnesota Same Same Same �,� Type of License � , _Approved By: GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL (CONTINUED) G W Construction (5802) Greg Whitley ' State of MN 7949 Lee Ave N � Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Harmony Homes Inc (20122134) Todd Blair Same � v 3158 Viking Blvd NE Wyoming, MN 55092 Lennander Contracting (20175134) Scott Lennander 11100 Yates Ave N Champlin, MN 55316 Rasmussen Construction (20112713) Robert Rasmus�en 26525 Lake Ave Zimmerman, MN 55398 Stifter Bros. Construction Inc. (20064402) Joel Stifter 3445 219 Lane N.W. Anoka, MN 55303 !i EATI N G Airco Heating & Air Conditioning George Rogstad 4020 Central Ave NE Coiumbia Fieights MN 55421 Alliant Heating & AC Jeff Zimmerman Fredrickson Heating 8� AC 3650 Kennebec Dr #1 Eagan, MN 55122 Allan Mech�anical Inc. : Elmer Wedel 7875 Fuller Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Doody Mechanical Inc. James Doody United Sheet Metal 520 Front Ave St Paul, MN 55117 PLUMBING S 8� S Plumbing & Heating Eric Swanson 8374 Windbreak Trl N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 .: Same Same Same Ron Julkowski Building Official Same Same -_ _ Same Same Same State of MN Fees: � � CfTY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM - CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1:'9��9 ESTIMATES Carl J. Newquist, Esca. Newquist & Ekstrum; Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6�01 tiniversity Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of May, 1999 Ri�uminous Roadways,Inc. 2825 Cedar Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55407 1999 Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 1999 —10 FINAL ESTIMATE ..................... ........................................... $ 17,964.00 ............................................ $? 67,8OQ.65 Ron Kaasa Canstructio:: 6C�05 -- 250`h Street East Elko, MN 55020 1999 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb & Gutter & Sidewalk Project No. 322 Estimate No. 5 " ........................................... �� ............................�,eo.,.... $ 6,839.71 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DMSION 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 August 23, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fridley : _ . c/o William W. Burns, City Ivianager 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 _ Council Members: � CERTIrICATE OF THE ENGINEER We hereby submit the Final Estimate for 1999 Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 1999-10; for Bituminous Roadways, 2825 Cedar Avenue South9 Minneapoli�, MN 55407. "' We have viewed the work under contract for the construction of 1999 Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 1999-10 and find that the same is substantially complete in accordance with the contract documents. I recommend that final payment be made upon acceptance of the work by your Honorable Body and that the one year contractual maintenance bond commence on August 23, 1999. Respectfully submitted, John G. Flora Director of Public Works Prepared by: Checked by: JT:cz 70 August 23, 1999 To: Public Works Director City of Fridley REP�RT Ol�i FINAL INSPECTION FOR CITY OF FRIDLEY STtZEET IMPROVEMENT �SEAI.,COAT) PROJECT NO. ST. 1999-10 � We, the undersigned, have inspected the above-mentior�ed project and find that the work required by the contraet is substantial!y �omplete in conformity �vith the plans a.�d sFecifications of tke project. All deficiencias ;�ave been corrected by tiye contractor. Klso, ttie work ior whicn t'rie City feels tne contractor should rece:ve a reduced price has been agreed upon by the contractor. So, therefore, v��e re�ommend to you that �he City appmve the attached FIN�L ESTIMATE for the contractor and the one-year maintenance bond, starting from the day of the final inspection that being August 23, 1999. Jon Thompson, Construction Inspector Tom Haller, Project Coordinator 71 August 23, 1999 City of Fridley 1999 STREET IMPROVEMENT (SEALCOAT) PROJECT NO::ST: 1999-10 CERTIFICATE OF CONTRACTOR " Thi� is to certify that items of the work shown in-the statement of work certified.herein have been actually _ furnished and done for the above-mentioned projects in accordance with fhe ,plans and specifications heretofore - approved. The final �ontract cost is $222,�,OG.28 and the final payr�ient of $167,800.65 for the improvement project would cover in full, the contractor's claims against the City for all labor, materials and other work down by the contractor under this project. I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is just and correct. Tom Haller, Project Coordinator 72 August 23, 1999 City of Fridley 1999 STREET IMPROVEMENT' (SEALCOAT) PROJECT NO. ST. 1999-10 PREVAILING WAGE VERIFICATION This is to certify that Bituminous Roadways, Inc. has abided by the Prevailing Wage Provisions as specified by the Minnesota Department of T abor and Industry for Anoka County I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is just and conect. BITIJMINOUS RO�WAYS, INC. Tom Haller, Project Coordinator 73 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6431 UMVERSI'TY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 FROM: City of Fridley Estimate No. FINAL Engineering Division Period Ending: August 16, 1999 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council For: Bituminous Roadways City of Fridley 2825 Cedar Ave South 6431 University Ave, NE Minneapolis MN 55407 Fridley, M�1 55432 Dated: August 23, 1999 1999 STREET INIPROVEMENT PROJECT (SEALCOA'I) PROJECT NO. ST. 1999 - 10 � Job Code: STATEMENT nF WnRK .:mount ' Total Esiicnated Unit This This Totai Contract Item Quantity : Unit Price Estimate Estimate `; Toial ' Amount Sealcoat with FA-3 modified . 377,197 SY 0.5000 272,718.00 136,359.00 382,742.00 191,371.00 Additional oil : 377;197 SY 0.0225 38�;742.00 8,611.70 382,742.00 8,611JO Sweep before seaicoat applicati 377,197 SY 0.0100 272,718.00 2,727.18 382,742.00 3,827.42 Sweep after sealcoat application 377,197 SY 0.0420 382,742.00 16,075.16 382,742.00 16,075.16 30 m. x 30 in. loose rock signs 45 Each 47.0000 25.00 1,175A0 45.00 2,115.00 Deduct for rock 377,197 SY 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL TOTAL SUMMARY: Original Contract Amount Con�act addi:ions: Contract deductions: Revised contract amount Value Completed To Date Amount Retained (0%) Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE $ t 64,948.04 2 t 0,327.76 210,327.76 222,000.28 0.00 54,199.63 167,800.65 LL.:� $222,000.28 Bituminous Roadways Project No. ST. 1999 - 10 Estimate No. FINAL CERTIFICATE OF THE CONTRACTOR Page 2 I hereby certify that the work performed and the materials suppiied to date under the terms of the contract for this project, and all authorized changes thereto, have sn actual value under the contract of the amounts shown on this estimate (and the finai quantities on the final estimate are correct), and that this estimate is just - and correct and no part of the "Amount Due This Estimate" has been received By Contractor's Authorized Representative (Title) CERTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER ` I hereby cer;ify that I have prepared or examined this estirnate, and that the cuntractor is entitled to payment of this estimate under the contract for reference project. CITY OF FRIDLEY, INSPECTOR Date By Checked By Respectfully Submiited, John G. Flora, P.E. Public Works Director 75 / AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1999 CITY OF _ PRIDLEY DATE: August, '17, 999� � TO: William W. Bums, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator - SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Rezo nirg Request ZOA # 99-03, Tom and Dave Gonyea - and Anderson Truckinq inc On August 4, 1999, #he Planning Commission considered rezoning request ZOA #99-03 to allow the property lacated at the Corner of Osbome Road and Central Avenue N�. The Commission recommended approval of #he request with 12 stipulations. The purpose of this rezoning request from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to M-1, Light Industrial is to allow censfiruction of a 39,4G�6 square f�ot �ffice%�arsho�se complex to be built on-�ot 2, Block 'f , Anderson D�evelopment Replat. Currently, the property is undeveloped. The rezoning �equest w�uld revert this parcel to its '! �97 zonir�g designation. By design, this development will protect the surrounding streets and residential neighbors from impacts the City sought to avoid. The City's intent of the rezoning to M-4 was to protect the small number of remaining industrial acres in Fridley from warehousing and industrial uses that encourage heavy truck traffic and have the potential to disrupt nearby residential areas. This proposal places a building whose office to warehouse ratio is 55% office to 45°'o warehouse. The developer has indicated that the building will be designed with a substantial building depth (unlike shallow trans-shipment facilities), 14' doors and 16'-20' clear heights, as opposed to nearly 30' clear heights desired by the trucking, transfer, and high piled storage industries whose presence result in large volumes of truck traffic. The building design also shields the truck dock activities from surrounding roadways and adjacent non-industrial use�. . From a rezoning criteria perspective, this �equest is consistent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of rezoning ZOA # 99-03, with 12 stipulations: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of variance #99-08, allowing construction of the building 90' from Central Avenue, adjacent to a residential district, rather than 100',as required by Code. 76 2. Approval of LS # 99-02 to allow separation of west 45' of property and resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5-4-99. 3. Construction of the office/ warehouse complex.in accordance with the elevation plans dated (revised) 5-4-99. 4. Construction of the office/ warehouse site in accordance wi.th the site plan dated (revised) 5-4-99. 5. City Staff approval of a revised landscape plan to issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. Approval of a.berm along the west edge ofthe easterly property in conjunction with the landscape plan, to be approved by the City of Fridley. 7. Approval of all site grading and drainage issues related to this proposal prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. 8. No fleet vehicles shali be parlced or:stored along the Central Avenue or Osbome Road parking areas of this project. All ovemight stocage-of incidental fleet vehicles shall be parked in the side yard west o�-the proposed building. 9. Access locations shall be approved by Anoka County prior to issuance af the bailding permit for this project. 10. All architectural banding sl�all continue around alt faces of the building to alfow finished building face appearance. 11. All lighting shall be downcast to protect againsfi horizontal glare to residential - neighborhoods or roadways. 12. A Comprehensive Sign Plan (in accordance w�th City Code Chapter 214) shall be prepared and submitted to the City for City Council approval prior to issuance of a sign permit for the free-standing, or building signs in this project. M-99-195 7� City of Fridley Land Use Application ZOA #99-03 July 29,1999 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Tom and Dave Gonyea 50 Groveland Terrace, Ste B Minneapolis, MN 55403 • _ Requested Action: _ : Rezoning Purpose: : __ To allow constcuction of a 39,406 square foot industrial office warehouse. Existing Zonin� Residential- M-4, Manufacturing Only Location: 1290�Osbome Road Size: 146,250 sq. ft. � �xisting Land U�: : Undevelo�ed Surr�undirg I,3n�i Use & Zoning: � N: City of Spring Lake Park E: Commercial, C-1 & Single Family, R-1 S: M-1, Light W: M-1, Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Confoimance: Section 205.20.Ol.Allows for manufacturing uses only. Zoning History: Anderson Development lot platted in 1969, Replatted in:19�3 Lega1 Description of Property: Lot 2, Block 1, Anderson Development Replat Council Action: August 23, 1999 Public Utilities: Available in public right-of-way Centcal : Transportation: Development is accessed via Osborne Road Physical Characteristics: This property is undeveloped, relatively level and located on the corner of Osbome Road and Centcal Avenue. -- SUNIlVIARY OF PROJECT i he peationers are seeking to rezone the property from M-4, Manufacturing Only to M-1, Light �a�� o� c� b�a � �a�a� Warehouse/Office building. In 1997, the City of Fridley rezoned the property from M-1, Light Industrial to M�, Manufacturing only. The intent of the rewning was to preserve iadus�ial l�nd for man�facturing, protect neighborhoods and roadways from heavy truGk tra�i�c commo�z t� I�dustrial warehouse ` developments, and to assure compatibility with surrounding developmen� The current request would revert the land to its previous designarion. The developer has indicated that the building design was specifically chosen to provide low ceiling heights (16' clear rather than 30' clear), an office building street appearance, and a protected rear dock area to assure that the building will attiact tenants whose impacts would coincide with the vision the City had for the site as an M-4 development. STAFF RECOMNIENDATION Staff recommends approval of rezoning ZOA 99- 03, with stipulafions (attached exlubit A) PLANNING CONIlVIISSION RECOIVIlVIENDATION Concur with staff Staff Report Prepazed by: Scott J. Hickok � � GTY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA I�E11�! :° CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AU°�UST 23;�'"1999 DATE:' August, 17, 1999 TO: William W. Burns, City Manag�r ��!" ' FROM: Barbara Dacy, Communi�rDevelopmen�t.Dir.ector - Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator - 5UBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning Lot 2, Block 1 Anderson _ Development Replat. - On August 4, 1999, the Planning Commission consid�red rezonin�:`request Z(9A #�9-03 to � allow the property located at the corner of Osborne Road and Central Avenue NE. to be rezoned from M-4, Manufac:turing Only to M-1, Light Industrial.:The Cc�mmission recommended approval of the request with 12 stipulations. STAFF RECOMNIENDATION Staff recornmends a�prova0 the irst reading-of an ordinance tA re�or�e Lot 2, Block 1; -- Anderson Development Replat, with 12 stipulations. M-99-194 79 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OE THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONIl*tG DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Fridley daes ordain as -follows: SECTION 1. Appendix C of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. Be and is hereby rezoned subject to the stipulations adopted at the August 23, 1999 City Council Meeting., SECTION 2. The tracts or azeas within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Anderson Replat, Anoka County Ivlinnesota. Is hereby designated to be in the Zon�d District M-1, Light Industrial SECTION 3. That the°Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tracts or areas to be rezoned from the Zoned district M-4, Manufacturing Onlp to M-1, Light Industrial. PASSED r�ND ADOFT�D BY THE CIT'Y COLiNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 23� DAY OF AUGUST, 1999. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: First Reading: ' Second Reading: Publication: August 23, 1999 August23; 1999 September 13, 1999 September 28, 1999 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR :1 � � UfY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA: ITEM CITY COUN�I��:�I�A'E�TIN��:fl'F AUGUST 23, 1999 DATE: August, 17, 1999 � TO: William W. Bums, City Manager� FROM: Barbara: Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning CoordBnator SU6JECT: Resolution Authorizing':Lot Split LS' # 99-0z, by Andersan Truckin Inc. On August 4, 1999, th� Planning-Commission consideresi 1ot split request, LS #99-02, by Anderson Trucking. The Commission recommended approval of the request with 6 stipulations. The purpose of this lot split request is:to sell the westemmost 45' by 450.12' undeveloped parcel to Voigt Bus Company. Voigt purchased its orig9nal develop.►aient parcel from Anderson Trucking Inc. At this time, Voigt Bus Company would like to preserve their future expansion opportunities by purchasing additional land. Simultaneous to this request, Tom and Dave Gonyea have requested approval of a rezoning and variance request to construct an office warehouse building. The rezoning request is from M-4 tc�. M=1, and the variance requ�esi is to aliow the building to be 90`, rather than 100' from a right-of-way adjacent to r�sidential p�aperty. Each �f the requested �ctions ..,, are linked through stipul�iio��s. This will pr2vent an u��de�ired outr,ome: s;:�h as an a�N�eved lo: split with inconsistent zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing the lot split LS # 99-02, with 6 stipulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Approval of variance #99-08, allowing construction of the building 90' from Central Avenue, adjacent to a residenti�l district, cather th�n 1 QO',as required by Code. Approval of LS # 99-02 to allow separation of west 45' of property and resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5-4-99. Approval of a berm along the west edge of the easterly lot (Parcel B) in conjunction with a landscape screening plan for both properties, to be approved by the City of Fridley. Approval of all site grading and drainage issues related to the proposal for a berm on this parcel, prior to commencement of the berm building project. Any modified access on �}sbome Road shafl be approved by Anoka County prior to commencement of the modificatior7. Filing of this lot split shall be done in a manner that assures the 45' addition to the Voight property will be consolidated with the existing Voight parcel (Parcel A). Proof of consolidation shall be filed with the City of Fridley, once processing has beer� completed at Anoka County. M-99-196 : RESOLUTION NO. A RBSOLUTION APPROVING A SIIBDIVISION, LOT SPLIT, LS #99-02, T0 CREATB TWO INDIISTRIAL PARCELS, GENBRALLY I;OCATBD AT 7690 CENTRAL AVBNIIB WHEREAS, the PTanning Commission held a public hearing on the Lot Split, LS #99-02, on August -�4, 1999 and recommended approval with stipulations; __ _. and WHEREAS,"the "City Council.at.their August 23, 1999 meeting approved the Lot Split- request, witl�;st,ipulations attached as Exhibit A.; and WHEREAS, such approvai was to create two residential lots, based on new legal description which read as follows: Proposed New Parcel A: All_of Lot 1 and the West 45.00 feet of LaZ . 2, a11 in Block l, ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT REPLAT, according to-the-- duly recorded plat thereof. Proposed New Parcel B: Lot 2, Block l, ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT REPLAT, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, except the West 45.00 feet thereof. w'HEREAS, the City has received the required Certificate of Survey from the owners; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of _. � , Fridley dir�cts the petitioner to record this Lot Sp1it at Anoka County within six (6) mo�iths or said approval shall become null and void. PASSED AND ADOPTSD BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THB CITY OF FRIDLEY THiS 23rd DAY OF AIIGIIST, 1999. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK : NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR Resolution No. - Page 2 Ezhibit A 7. Approval of variance #99-08, allowing construction of tlie building 90' fram Gentral Avenue, adjacent to a residential district, rather than 100',as required b� £ode. 8. Approval of LS # 99-02 to allow separation of west 45' of property andx�sulting.lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5-4-99. 9. Approval of a berm along the west edge of the easterly lot (Pazce1 B).in,corijunction with a landscape screening plan for both properties, to be approved:by the City of Fridle}�: . 10. Approval of all site grading �and drainage issues related to the proposal for a bertn on this parcel, prior to commencement of tke berm building project: 11. Any modified access on Qsbome:Road shall be approved b�r Anoka County:prior to commencement of the modificatiQn: :;: 6. Filing of this lot split shall b� done in a manner that assures the 45-' addition to the Voight property will be consolidated with the existing �ioight parcei (Parcel A). Proof of consolidation shall be f led with the Ciry of Fridley, �nee procsssing has been eompleted at Anoka Caunty. � : f � QiY OF • FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY C�Ol�NCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1999 DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: William W. Bums; City Manager �� ,'� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Va�iance, VAR #99-18, Tom and Dave Gonyea _ _ I�ODlDiT10�'ml _ _ On August 11, 1999, the Appeals Commission considered variance request VAR #99-18, by Tom and Dave Gonyea. The Gonyea proposal shows_a 39,406 s.f. Office/warehouse building at Osbome Road and Central Avenue. The Appeals Commissivn recommended approval of the variance v�ith 5 stipulations: . _. � _ [�'.3CRIRi'ION �i RCQUFSf Code rsquires a 100' sefback fo�- the front yard of an industrial building adjacent to a residential zening distnct. The south 54' of this property is a�ross from a residential districf. The south 35' of the building could be moved back 10' to meet the 100' setback for that portion of the building. The building's floor area would lose 350 s.fi., however the developer could utilize that additional setback area �or landscape purposes. - PAST VARIANCE REQUESTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE The City Council has approved a 100' to 68' variance for the Keller Structures/Tri-Star Insulation Building at 6095 East River Road. RECOMMENDATION Staff had no recommendation since the request was within previously granted dimensions. The Appeals Commission has recommended approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of ZOA #99-03 2. Approval of L.S. #99-02 3. Construction of warehowse in c�nformanc� with the o�ce/ warehouse complex plans submitted ar,d dated (revised) 5-4-99 4. Construction of warehouse in conformance with the site in accordance with the site plan dated (revised) 5-4-99 5. City staff approval of a revised landscape plan prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. M-99-197 ., �• / � CRY OF fRIDLEY AGEN�3A"iTEM : CITY COUNCIL MEETI:�G �flF AUGUST �Z3, 1999 Date: 8/16/99 To: Wiiliam Bums, Gity Manager�j�y� From: Barbara Dacy, Community �evelopmertt Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinatoc Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant � �� IZE: Appeats Commission action on VAR #99 -17 M-99-188 INTRODUCTION Dave Nelson is seeking #o decrease the req�i��d �ide �ard set�ack from 5' to 3' �:and to allow a private garage to exceed the square footage `of° the dwel�ing unit by 12.6 -square feet. The petitioner would like % replace his existing 440 square Toof garage with a nernr 792 square foot garage, which would exceed ihe square footage�of fhe dwelling unit by slightly over 12 square feet. The existing garage curren�y meets the.�de required setbacks,; whi�e�the new garags would require a 2' variance to the setback. �, .: .- APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION At the August 11th, 1999 Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR 99- 17. After much discussion over the proposed project and StafPs recommendation, a motion was made to grant the variance for the side yarc! setback and deny the variance allowing the square footage of the garage to exceed the square footage of the home. While the sideyard setbadc reduction request was within previously granted dimensions, the request to allow the square footage of the garage #o exceed #hat�af th� home, would•have set a prec�dence that the Appeals Commission would like to avoid. The Appeals Commission re-iterated that the architectural style, siding, and colors of the garage match those of the home. The Commission also added a stipulation that the garage must meet all fire c�des. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends ,�enial of the variance to allow the square. fiootage of #h� garage . to exceed the square � footage of the home, and° iaa+s c�o recommendation on the request to decrease the required side yard setback from 5' to 3'. If approved, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. No home occupations shall take place from this garage. 2. Garage and home shall have matching siding / color scheme. 3. Garage shall be built to meet all fire and building codes. : City `of Fridley Land IJse Application VAR-99-17- August 11,1999 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Dave Nelson 7395 Van Buren St. NE Fridley, NIN 55432 - Requested Aerion: .. . Variance Purpose: To decrease the rec�uired side yard setback from 5' to 3' and to allow a private garage to exceed the square footage of the dwelling unit by 12.6 squar� feet.. Existir�g Zonirig: _ Residential - 1 � _ Location: 7395 Van Bur�n St.-AF�- Size: _ _._ � 14, 875 sq. ft ..34 acses �� - Ex:sting La�d Use: - Single Farnily �Iome � - � Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 - E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family & R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conforniance: - Consistent with Plan I Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sec. 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) requires a minimum side yazd setback of 5'. Sec. 205.07.O1.B.(4).(a) requires-a private garage not exceed�the square footage of the dwelling unit Zoning History: Lot platted in 1950. Home built in 1951. Legal Description of Property: : . Lot23, Block 4, Shaffer's Sub. #1 Council Action: August 23, 1999 Public Utilifies: Home is connected. Transportation: Home is accessed via Van Bru�en. ,. . Physical Characteristics: � Lo± is eovered by grass, home and an e�g ��• S�,�iVIlV�ARY OF PROJECT Dave Nelson is seeking the variances in order to construct a garage on his property. S�INgMARY QF HARDSHIP _ "To move the garuge completely in back of tdte house would greatly compromise the aesthetics - of the back yard..... The 12. 6 sq ff. that the garage is bigger than the house r�s-s�:minimal no one will notice without knowledge of the - building code and the aid of a measuring device. " (Full letter attached) SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staf�`'recommends denial of this variance request. No variances to allow the square faotage of a private garage to_�ed the square footage of the dwelling unit have been granted. (View of existing garage) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin � �r�k� .,i.�. � � 4= VAR 99-17 HARDSHIP STATEMENT � See attached letter from petitioner. ANALYIS Dave Neison is seeking to decrease the required side yard setback from 5' to 3' and to ailaw a private garage to exceed the square footage of the dwelling unit by � 2.6_ square feet �he :. petitioner would like to replace his existing 440 squar� foot garage with a new. ?92 squ�re faot . garage, which would exceed the square footage of �E#ie dwelling unit by siightly over 1�>:square : feet. The existing garage currently meets the code �equired setbaeks, while the new gacage would require a 2' variance to the setback. : . Fridley requires that the square footage of garag�s no# exceed the ss�uare footage of the dwelling unit in order to keep the principle use of a residential- pFOperty, residentiaL .Large garages have historically led to a commercial appearance and have often enco�raged illegai home occupations. 1RECOMMENDATIONS ; City Staff recommends denial of-tt�is varar�ce request. No variances�to allow the square footage ... of a private garage fo exceed the square footage of the dwelling ur�i#.ha:ve been granted. - (Existing garage) (Home) STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if these variances are granted that the following stipulations be attached. 1. No home �ccupations shall take plaee_from this garag.e. _ 2. Garage and home shall have matching siding ! color scheme. 3. Garage and home shall be built to meet all fire and building codes. : TO: WILLIAMW BURIYS, �'77'YMANAGER �'�� FR011�: RICHARD D. PRIBYE,' FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RECIE:i�E`BIDS AND A WARD CONTRACT FOR THE C011rSTRUCTlON OF THE FRIDLEYLIQUUR W.4REHOUSE DATE: August 20, 1999 Attached you will find the results of the bidding process that occun�ed on Thursday August 12, 1999. We were very happy with tiie interest that th;s project received from the consuuction °- community. We:. were told by KKE that they sent out 96 sets of plans. As y�a can see by fihe b:3 summaay sh�ei, we :�ad 12 Gene:-�.1 CcL�actcrs provide us v��1: a bid. '�1iis is far b�tter than �ve could have �ve; hoped for. It appears that we iut tile market at the nerfect rme on this groj�ect s�nce we received over cwice the response than we ant�cipated and the bids are far lower than we estimated. In reviewing the bids, the City and KKE added one more step to the bid review process. We called in the two lowest bidders to insure compliance with the specifications. This was done to try and eliminate any possible questions related to the bid specifications and subsequent change orders that might occur after the bid award. What we found in the review was that the apparent low bidder, CM Construction, forgot to include approximately $10,000 worth of mill work related to the wine retail area in the store. Because of this omission, we are recommending the awarci of the contract to the next lowe��i taidder, Lunu Martin Construction, inc., at a total bid of $419,800 with the inclusion of the bid bond RDP/me Attachment . . �' ;'` '� �'^:' - - � - s �� ... ' �_.n "'3 — r�� F�; � ;; — ,.,.�,. �. �<�a., ,:� , .;� �. �,; a� = :F��... '�_ . �� _. � � . � � - r>�,v ;��, � - . . .,.,�,.ti �� '�� ` ' �> ` � �� . _ �f� , �� _�-�_ + � . _ - � . . .. _ . . �.,"_..: . �: _� � , � ; ,. ; . ,; �,,. ; n a'� a , _. , �fi. , . . .. . . � . _ t i � .. . . �. � r .' _. _ ..., .. . fi � �� , r . �. �.�- � � . . ' , .��'.. .. ��.I�tl.F G` . . ' •i� t �� ' ..� . _ .. 1s�9:�_ _ . . ulie�o ii.. .f � . a AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL -:M��T1'N� OF AUGUST 23, 1999 CRY OF FRIDLEY - INFORII�AL ST�►TUS REPORTS ., � TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER ;�� FROM.• RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRE�TOR � SUBJECT: RESOL:UTIDNAMENDl-NG'AN�'.RESTATI�VG THE JUNE 28, 1999 RESOL UTIOIY PROYIDING FOR TH� ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SENIOR HOUSIIYG PROJECT, ON BEHALF OF MINNESOTA CHRISTIANHOiKES OF FRIDLEY, INC. TO PR�VIDE FOR AN INCREASE OF THE PRINCIPAL AMO UNi OF THE BONDS DATE: August 23,1999 �n d�e meehng of June 28, 1999, �e City Council p�ssed a msolution providing for tr�e issuance and sale of Senior Housing Revenue Bonds to provide fimds for a seniar housing projec� an behalf of Miimesota Christian Homes of Fridley, Inc. VVe have been asice�l by Briggs and Morgan, the Bo�d Co�.¢�sei ta pass a revised re,,olution related to the same project .The revised �solution we have received from Bond Counsel for the above project dces three things: 1. It increases the principal am�unt of bonds to be issued to $10,100,000. The bond dxuments achaally sho�:� $10,005,(�JO. The l2rger amount is in the event tliere needs to be any fiuther adjustinent This is an inc��ase from �e previously authorized amount of $9,360,000. The increased amount reflects the discount that is needed in order to market the bonds. 2. The interest Yate is being adjusted so �at it may not exceed 8% per annum. This also reflects cuirent market canditions and assists in the sale of die bonds. 3. Any language in �e previous Resolutian relating to ti�e banlc qualific�tion of �e bands is eliminated since bonds are no langer eligible for bar�k qualification once the principal amount exceeds $10,000,000. . The p�ticipants hape that this bond issue will ach�ally close within the next tlmee weeks. RDP/me Attachment A RESOLUTTON AMINDING AND RESTATING Tf� JUNE 28,1999 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR TI� ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SINIOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS, TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A SINIOR HOUSING PROJECT, ON BEHALF OF MINNESOTA CHRISTIAN HOMES OF FRIDLEY, INC. TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE OF Tf� PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF TI� BONDS WHEREAS on June 28, 1999 �e City Council of the.City of Fridley, Minne.sota (�e "City") adopted : Resolution No. 44-1999, Providing for the L�suance and Sale of Senior Ho�siiig Revenue Bcx�ds; ta ProviderEunds for a Senior Housing Project, on Behalf of Minnesota Chris�ian Hornes-of Fridle�, Inc: (the AResolutior�); and VV]HEREAS, it has heretofor�e �een dete�mined and declared that it is_necessaty and expedient, for d� City Council to amend the Resolution to provide for an increase of the principal amount of die bonds; NJW, TF�ERL�'ORE, BE TT RFSOLVED by the City Council of the City, that all teuns and provisions of the Resolution as initially adopted on June 28, 1999 be amended and nestated ta read- as follows: - - 1. A�. The City is, by �e c:'onstit�on and laws of �e State of Mumesota, �cluding Mirm�sota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), authorized to issue and sell its reveriue borids for the pucpose Qf financing the cost of housing developments for the elderly and to enter into agree�nents necessaty or convenient in ��e exe�i� of the powers granted by the Aci. 2. Authorization of Proiect: Documen�s Presente,�. T�tinnesota. �ristian Homes of Fridley, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Corporation"}, has proposed to this Council that the City issue and sell its City of Fridley Senior Housing Revenue �?ond� �3anfiL Cro�six�g H�rmes Proj�ct), Series 1999, ir: �.ibshantially the,_ form set forth in d�e hereinafter-mentioned Indenture (the "Bonds"), pursuant to the Act and loan the proeeeds thereof to the Corporation, in order to provide financing with respect to costs of �e acquisition, construcction, equipping and fumishing of an approximately 158,000 sc��are foot senior housing development of approximately 110 rental units, all desigried for indepenc�ei�t livin� ar�d common space including a dining room, Parlor, cammunity ldtchen, a ba�er and beauty room, a laundry room, a game room, a general store, solariurt�, guest room, underground parldng, car wash bay, and a hbrary geneially located west of University Avenue and north of 83rd Straet in the City (the 'Project'�. Fom�s of the following doc�unents relating to the Bonds have been submitted to �e City: (a) �an Agree�nent (the "L.oan A�nent'� dated as of August 1,1999 between �e City and , the Corporation, wherr�by the City agr�s to make a laan to the Corpo.ration of th� gross proceeds of sale of the Bonds and the Corporation agrees to undertake and cnmplete the Project and to pay amounts in repayment of the loan sufficient to provide for �e full and pr�mpt payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds; (b) Indentue of Tntist (the '`Indenture'� dazed as of August 1,1999, between �e City and U.S. Bank Tn�st National Associatian, as trustee (ti�e 'Tnastee'�, auti�arizing the issuaiioe of and pledging cextain revenues, including those to be derived from the Loan Agreenient, as security for �e Bonds, and setting forth proposed recitals, covenants and agreements relating thereto; 1059478.2 � (c) Mortgage Ag�eement (flve'7.Vlartgage'�, datad as ofAugust 1,1999, from the Corporation to the City, by which the Corporation gruits to ti�e City a mortgage lien on and sec.-urity interest in certaui mortgaged property, as descnbed therein, as further security for:�e payment of the Bonds and assigns to the City its interests in all le.ases and rerrts widi respect to the mortgaged pmperty; (d) Assigmnent of Mortgage Ag�ment(�e "�SSignment'� clated as of August 1,1999, from the City to the Tnastee, by which the City assigns its inte�st in the Mortg�ge: to �e Tni.stee; (e) Disbursing Agreement (the "Disbursing Agreement'� dated as of August 1,1999 by an,d among the Corporation, d�e Tivstee and the Disbutsing Agent (�is c�ocument nat to be executed by �e CrtY)� ( fl Band Pu�hase Agc�ient (the "Band Puc�hase Agreerrient'�, b7' and between Dougt�ty Summit Securities LLC (the "IJnderwritei'�, the Corporation and the City, �rovicling for the punchase of the Bonds from the City by the Undenaniter and set�ing �e tem�s and canditions of purchase; (ga Prelir�unuy Officia�: Shten��t, _together wi� the f�n of final Official Sta�ine�t a�vd the insertion of the final undervvriting details of the Bonds, including �e interest°ra�es thereon, and any o�er changes d�eemed necessaiy or desirable, intended to consstitute the fomi of tY�e final Officiai Statemern� and including all Appendices �eneto (togedier ihe "Official Statement'�, descnbing die offering of �e Boivds, and certain temzs and pr�visiens of the foregoing doc�unents; and : (h) Regulatorv Agreement (the'Regulatory Agreement'� dated as of August 1, i999 by anci among the Corporation, d�e T'rustee and ;he City. Fi ' . It is hereby found, detemiined and decla.*ed tha� (a) The Project constitute.s a senior residential rental project authorized by and desscnribed in the Ac�t. (b) There is no litigation pending or, to the best of its lmowledge, tru�eatened against the City relating to the Bonds, the L.oan Ag��aemen� �e Bond Punchase Ag�eement or the Inderrture ar questioning the due organization of �e City, or the powers or authority of the City to issue �e Bonds and undertake the t�ansactions contemplated hereby. (c) The execution, delivery and perfom�ance of the City's obligations Lux�er �e Bonds, the Indenture, ti�e Band Purchase Ag�ement, �e Regulatory Agceement and the Loan Agrternern do not ar�d will not violate any o�er of any coutt ar other agency of govemment of which the City is aware or in which the City is a party, or any indenture, a�nent or other ins�.nnent to which �e City is a party or by which it ar any of its pivperty is bound, or be in conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute (wi� due notice or lapse of time or both) a default under any such indenUire, agreement or other inst�innent 1059478.2 2 e (d) It is desirable d�at the Bands be issued by �e City upon the tem�s set farth in the �, under the pro�1isians of which �e City's interest in the L.oan Agreement will be pledged to d�e Tnistce as sec�uity for the payment of princilxil of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. (e) The Loan Agree�nent provides for payments by the Corporation to the Trustee for �e acooimt of d�e City of such anwucrts as will be sufficiern to pay the priricipal o� premiim�, if a�ry, and interest on �e Bonds when due. The Loan Agneement. obligates the Coiporation to pay for all costs of operation and maintenance of ihe Project Facilities; inci�ding adequate insur�nce, 4xes and special assessments. A reserve fimd has bcen establishad under the provisions of the Indenture in connec,�tian wid� d�e iss�uance of the Bonds. (�} Und�.°r the provisians �f fhe Act, ar� as pravided in the L,oan Agreement and Indent�s ,� . the Bonds are not to be PaYable from nor charged upon any fu�ds other than ar�ounts payable pucsvarrt:tr� °, the I.oan Agreeinent and moneys in �e funds and accounts held by d�e Tn�stee which are pledged to �e payment �r � C:ty is mt subject to anv liability ��; �?o owrie�s ef the Bor�ds slrall ever have-the right to compel tt� exe�ise of the tax�ng power of ��e Cit�� to pay any of the Bonds ar die inte�st �, nar to enfom,e payment �eitof against any property of the City; the Bonds shall not consstiitute a charge, . lien or encumbiarice, leg�l c�r �equitable, upon any properiy of the City (other than the.interest of the City in �e L,oan RepaYments to be made by the CoYporation urxier �e Loan A�ment); and each Bond issueci under the Indenture shall recite that such Bond, including interest �ereon, shal� not oonstitute or�give rise to a chuge against the generai cr°.ydit or taxing powers of the City. ios9a�s.z 3 � 4. Approval and Fxec�rtian of �►oc�uner�s. The fom�s of Laan A,gc,ae� Indentime, Bond Puc+chase Agreemen� Disbursing Agreement, Regulatory Ag�ement, Mortgage and Assigrm�ent refemed to in pa�a�-Z,: : : are approved 'Ihe Loan A�eme� In�h,me, RegulatorY A� Assigiurierrt and Bomd P�u�hase Agneen�errt :. shall be executed 'm �e name and an behalf of �e City by the Mayar and the City Manager, ar exec�rted or at�bad':.. _ by other officers of �e City, in substantially �e fa�n on file, but witi� all such chariges therein, not in,consi�t widi ' the Act or oti�er law, as may be approved by the officeis executing the same, which approval shall be conch�iveiy evidenced by the execution thereof; and then shall be delivered to �e Tn�stee. Modific�tions to the fo�n oP Mortgage may be made at the discretion of the parties thereto. 5. Aparoval, Execution and Deliverv of Bonds. The City shall pnoceed fo�wid� to issue �e:Bonds, :� in an aggnegate principal amount of not to exceed $10,100,000, in �e form and u�acm t�e .te�ns set fort� in t�e Indenture, which terrns are for dus pucpose incoipoiated in this resolution and made�a;part;h�reof; p�nvided, however, thax �e initial aggnegate principal amount of and �e maU.mties of the Bo�xis, die � razes �on, and any provisions for �e aptional or mandatory �tion the�of s1�all all be as set forth in �e final fomi of the Indenture to be approved, executed and delivered by the officeis of die City au�orized to cb so by ti�e provisians of �is Resolution, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by such executian azid delivery; and provided furdler that, in no even� shall such maturities exceed 35 yeats or such rates of interest procbuce a net inter�.st cQSt in excess of 8.00% per annum. The Undervvriter has agreed puYSUant to the provisions of 1he Bond:F�;has� Ag�emen� and subject to the conditions therein set forth, to purchase d�e Bonds at �e purchase price set fordi.in the Bond Purchase Agreement, and said purchase price is hereby accepted. The Mayor, City l�anager and other City officers are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Tna.stee, togeflier with a certified copy of thi� Resolution and tl�e o�er doc�unents-� by Section 3.5 of the Indenture, for au�entication, regis�ation and delivery to the Unde�vvriter. As provid�d in the Indent�, each Bond shall contain a recital that it is issued ptusuant to the Act, and such recital shall be corich�sive evidence of the validity and reguiazity of d�e issuance thereof. 6. Official Statement. The City hereby approves the fonn of and consents to the circulation by the Undenvriter of the Official Statement in offering the Bonds for sale; provided, however, �at the City has not participated in the prepaxation of the Official Statement or independendy verified the infonnation in the Official Statement and takes no responsibility for, and makes no representations or war�anties as to, the accucac,y or completeness of such infom�ation. 7. Certificates, etc. The Mayor, City Manager and o�er officers of die City aze authoriz�d and directed to prepare and fiirnish to bond counsel and the purchaser of the Bonds, when issued, cerafied copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing from the books and records in tr�e officers cus�tody and cornroZ or as oti�erwise lmown to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and ai�idavits, including any heretofore fumished, shall constitute representations of �e City as to the tiuth of all statements contained therein. 1059478.2 PASSED AND ADOPTID BY TI� C1TY COUNCIL, OF THE CIT'Y OF FRIDLEY T�-IIS DAY OF . _1,999. NANCY J. JORGINSON - MAYOR I.4M�.�li DEBRA A. SKOGIN - CTTY CLERK 1059478.2