The URL can be used to link to this page

03/20/2000 - 4680- - ., � cmror Froa�r FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET M�v�day, Matc.ch 20, 2000 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS .� � , ITEM NUMBER -j � � C,,`�- M.i� �-� L`� �-� ZLE" l�� l—r`a`l � C'-'✓ � � � � 7 : � 1 `K-t � ,,� ! � �i;�ll S �� I � � � �'l� GLti I�� l�.G' C��,n ��'l(;1 Y`n,� �f" � � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 CRY 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 will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of March 6, 2000 NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2000 - ............................................................. 1 14 2. Special Use Permit, SP #00-01, by US West Wireless, LLC, to Allow the Construction of a 90-Foot Telecommunications Tower, Generally Located at 7835 Main Street N.E. (Ward 3) .................................. 15 - 23 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 3. Set a Public Hearing Date for April 10, 2000, for Consideration of the Revocation of Special Use Permit, SP #76-08; for a Home Generally Located at 401 Ironton Street N.E. (Ward 3) ................................ 24 - 34 4. Set a Public Hearing for April 10, 2000, for Consideration of the Revocation of Special Use Permit, SP #94-18, for the Sinclair Service Garage Generally Located at 6290 Highway 65 (Ward 1) ......................... 35 5. Set a Public Hearing for April 10, 2000, for Consideration of an Ordinance Revising Chapter 407 of the Fridley City Code in its Entirety, and Amending chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "General Provisions and Fees" (Right-of-Way Management) ....................................... 36 - 70 6. Resolution Receiving Final Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisetnent for Bids: Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2000 —1 ......................................... 71 — 73 7. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Local Use .................................... 74 - 75 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 PAGE 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 8. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment for Riverview Heights Improvement Project No. ST. 1999 — 1 .......................................................................... 76 - 77 9. Resolution Directing Publication of the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the Riverview Heights Improvement Rroject No. ST. 1999 —1 ........................... 78 - 79 10. Resolution Authorizing Changes in Appropriations for the General Fund, Special Revenue Fund and the Capital Improvement Fund for Fourth Quarter, 1999 .....................................................................:......... 80 - 82 11. Motion to Eliminate the Position of Corporal in the Fridley Police Department and Promote the Two Existing Corporals to the Rank of Sergeant .......................... 83 - 84 12. Claims ...............................................................................:....... 85 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 PAGE 4 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 13. Licenses ....................................................................................... 86 ADOPTION OF AGENDA. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda —15 Minutes) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 14. Assess the Effect of the Proposed Transfer of Ownership Between Time Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc . ..................................................................... 87 - 88 15. Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #99-02, by the City of Fridley, to Allow for Limited Temporary Outdoor Display and Sales Promotions in Commercial Districts. In Addition, the Amendment Will Delete a Part of the Ordinance that Allows � Display of� Petroleum Products between Pumps and Temporary Display of Merchandise Within Four Feet of the Building at Service Stations....................................................................................... 89 - 98 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 PAGE 5 NEW BUSINESS: 16. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Sections 205.13, 205.14, 205.15, and Section 205.16 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Accessory Uses, and Section 11.10 Pertaining to Fees (Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #99-02, by the City ofFridley) ..........................................:........................................... 99 — 105 17. Appoint City Council Member to the Joint Task Force Established Between the City of Fridley and the City of Columbia Heights ...................................... 106 18. Approve Reappointments to City of Fridley Commissions................................................................................ 107 -108 19. Informal Status Reports ................................................................ 109 ADJOURN. 1 :: . .. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 .�.��.Q,��'G�., �G� �n � U � �� F� 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. disabiliry, 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 with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TI'D/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. A � ,. . . �'' APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT'AGENDA:��/ i;' w V� APPROVAL OF MINUTES: �5 � ` City Council Meeting of March 6, 2000 ►� �, NEW BUSINESS: 1. Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission �� Meeting of March 1, 2000 ............ 1-14 .,'>, . ... , . � 2. ; Special Use Permit, SP #00-01, by US West Wireless, LLC, to Allow the Construction of a ' '' 90-Foot Telecommunications Tower, Generally , Located at 7835 Main Street N.E. :: (VNard'3) .........................:........ 15 - 23 � .., - , ,,;.:, . . . ' 1 • 3. Set a Public Hearing Date for April 10, 2000, for Consideration of the Revocation of Special '. Use Permit,� SP #76-08, for a Home Generally Located at 401 Ironton Street N.E. (Ward 3) .......:...............::.. .. 24 - 34 ,, APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: �,�Q,D �AS NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 5. Set a Public Hearing for April 10, 2000, for Consideration of an Ordinance Revising Chapter 407 of the Fridiey City Code in its Entirety, and Amending chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "General Provisions and Fees" (Right-of-Way Management) ............................... 36 - 70 �/ 6. Resolution Receiving Final Plans and �/ � Specifications and Ordering Advertiseme for Bids: Street Improvement Project Np. ST. 2000 —1 ...............................: 71 � 73 ,,JT. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Ai �� System Construction Funds for Local Use................................... 74 - 75 � Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment for Riverview Heights Improvement Project No. ST. 1999 —1 ......................... 76 - 7 C� , � 4. Set a Public Hearing for April 10, 2000, for Consideration of the Revocation of Special Use � Resolution Directing Publication of the � Permit,` SP #94-18, for the Sinclair Service Garage Hearing on the Proposed Assessment fo � Generally Located at 6290 Highway 65 the Riveroiew Heights Improvement (Ward 1) ................................... 35 Project No. ST. 1999 —1 ............. 78 - 79 � r�, ,. � � � � •• _ : r� i . -- -FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 PAGE 2 .; �,,,_:�� i.�c1 � APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: PUBLIC HEARINGS: �(� �� J� o��,� �: �� C� �, , NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 14. Assess the Effect of the Proposed Transfer�s� , , of Ownership Between Time Wamer Inc. and �� . , America Oniine, Inc . ..................:. 87 - 88 V 10 ; Resolution Authorizing Changes in Appropria ' l� f�� cb ; G a t, y�,, . f o r t h e G e n e r a l F u n d, S p e c i a l R e v e n u e F u n d , and the Capital improvement Fund for Fourth - ; , � Quarter, 1999 .............................. 80 - 82 • � Z' T t A d nt ZTA #99-02 b the 11. Motion to Eliminate the Position of Corporal in , the Fridley Police Department and Promote the Two Existing Corporals to the Rank of Sergeant .................................. 83 - 84 i .: 12. � � Claims i `', 13. Licenses 15. ornng ex men me , , y City of Fridfey, to Allow for Limited Temporary Outdoor Display and Sales Promotions in Commercial Districts. In Addition, the Amendment WII Oelete a Part of the Ordinance that Allows Display of Petroleum Products befinreen Pumps and Temporary Display of Merchandise Within Four Feet of the Buitding at Service Stations ................................... 89 - 98 � �/ �.r,� 8 'a 3 6 �,,�. � � � /� w �� g' �� l NEW BUSINESS: - 16. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Sections 205.13, 205.14, 205.15, and ........... 85 Section 205.16 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Accessory Uses, and Section 11.10 Pertaining to Fees (Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #99-02, by the City � ^. T,;rIDf Fridley) ...... . 99 —105 �� .G`.,�.......c,�.`,�i-%�� t�t�} � � �i�.a,• Y (. (_ 0 +v��v� • 1�.. �, � �� .. .................................. 86 ADOPTION OF AGENDA. . . � � ��. � � r� ...,,,F 1, . 7 : , . . . . . � /.��'�< .. i.' .. .. . j OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda —15 Minutes) I a �" �_ ) �h�', a��a� 17. Appoint City Council Member to the Joint Task Force Established Between the City of Fridley and the Ciry of Columbia Heights{� .....�.......�......^...... 106 S 1�/�" 1 �,� l.^r r1� ��-� � 5.� !�w`j� � t`�� •,�_{ 18. Approve Reappointments to Ciry of Fridley Commissions ............ . ..,...... ..... 107 -108 �� ;� ( r, � C. ��n.v��. SAUULyC. 9�� , O ��1.�Ctµ/�% �- R�� r•`�a',nr C��.v�.. v �� 19. Informal 3tatus Reports .............. 109 � i`�': • C:Etr��.�:C �-�� C+' �Lct�� ADJOURN. � , r �� ='� THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MARCH 6, 2000 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at 7:36 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Jorgenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Billings, and Councilmember Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: None STATEMENT OF MEETING CONDUCT: Please be reminded that those present at today's meeting may hold a variety of views and opinions regarding the business to be conducted. The exercise of democracy through representative local government requires that ALL points of view be accommodated at these proceedings. 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 other with the same degree of courtesy and respect which you desire to be given your views and opinions. Any departures from this standard will be addressed by the Presiding Officer through whatever means are deemed appropriate. Thank you for your attendance at today's meeting, and your agreement to abide by these standards of personal conduct. PRESENTATION: Mr Brandon Shar� Fridlev Wal-Mart Store Manaaer Mr. Sharp stated that he was present to award a check in the amount of $6,870 to the Fridley Middle School. Mr. Siah St. Clair, Naturalist, thanked Wal-Mart and especially Mr. Sharp for his persistence and hard work to keep the application for the funds on track. This money will be spent on the wetland curriculum of the middle school in Fridley that is taught to all of the students. They do environmental assessments, wetland surveys, and determine water quality and other aspects of wetlands within Fridley and adjoining areas. Mr. Sharp stated that this is part of a Clean Air and Water Act Grant that Wal-Mart has established that each store applies for. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6. 2000 PAGE 2 Mr. Sharp stated that he would like to present Ms. Connie Thompson, Senior Program Coordinator, a check in the amount of $5,000 for the senior center. Mr. Burns stated that Ms. Thompson could not be present at the meeting to accept the award, but he would accept it on her behalf. Mr. St. Clair stated that Wal-Mart presented another award to Springbrook Nature Center for the New Year's Eve program of this past year. He said the City appreciates Wal-Mart being a really good neighbor. Mr. Sharp stated that they have a charity appeal a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving where a portion of a Saturday's sales goes toward wherever they choose. The staff at Wal-Mart chose Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Sharp thanked the City Council. Mayor Jorgenson and the City Council thanked Mr. Sharp. PRESENTATION iVls. Marv Billstein, Mediation Services for Anoka County Ms. Billstein presented the City Council with a report on the services provided by Mediation Services for the residents of Fridley in 1999. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Mediation Services for Anoka County strives to bring peace and harmony to the community. Ms. Billstein stated that was conect. They have referral sources for the law enforcement community and some people at the City offices to assist people with complaints of neighbors parking in the wrong spot, dogs barking, accidental damage to homes, and similar things. They also have a family visitation program for parents who are in conflict with their children. Their "Students to School" program is aimed at reducing elementary truancy. They work with parents, representatives from school, social workers, and students to reduce truancy. The City Council thanked Ms. Billstein. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Citv Council Meetins of Februarv 14, 2000 Councilmember Bolkcom stated that on page 7 the sentence, "Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas if they were going to televise the plans" should be changed to "Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas if they were going to televise the lines." FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL NIEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6 2000 PAGE 3 OLD BUSIIV'ESS: 1. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1137 REPEALING CHAPTER 31 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 31. ENTITLED "PAWN SHOPS" AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES:" Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that staff was proposing to rewrite the City's pawnshop ordinance in conjunction with participation in the Minneapolis Automated Pawn System. The most significant of the changes is a change in the fee schedule. Currently, there is a licensing fee that ranges between $10,000 and $15,000 for three classes of pawn shops. The new legislation establishes a$3,000 annual license fee for all pawnshops and a$1.50 transaction fee for every transaction recorded in a pawn shop. The Public Safety Director expects that the combination of license fees and the transaction fees would be sufficient to allow the City to receive the same amount of revenue under the new ordinance as it was receiving under the old ordinance. Staff recommended Council's approval. WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1137 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. NEW BUSINESS: 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15. 2000: RECEIVED THE NIINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2000. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 21-2000 APPROVING A SUBDIVISION LOT SPLIT LS #00-01, TO ESTABLISH TWO INDIVIDUAL PARCELS ON THE PROPERTY. GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1491 RICE CREEK ROAD BY K. ROBERT FINNAMORE�,(WARD ZZ Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a motion approving a subdivision lot split for property located at 1491 Rice Creek Road. Tt�e proposed split was requested by K. Robert Finnamore to allow the construction of a new single family home. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the request at their February 15 meeting. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 21-Z000 APPROVING A SUBDIVISION, LOT SPLIT, LS #00-01, TO ESTABLISH TWO INDIVIDUAL PARCELS ON THE PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1491 RICE CREEK ROAD. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1VIINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 4 4. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND ANN L. BATESON, GEORGE F. BATESON, MARY E. PIETRINI AND DENNIS J. PIETRINI FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OLD CENTRAL AND HEATHER PLACE (WARD 2): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a motion to approve a development agreement between the City of Fridley and George F. Bateson, et al., for property located at the northeast corner of Old Central Avenue and Heather Place. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, suggested that the stipulations for the George Bateson plat be incorporate into a separate development agreement. Staff recommended the development agreement for Council's approval. APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 22-2000 APPROVING A PLAT, PS #99-05, BY GEORGE BATESON, ANN BATESON. DENNIS PIETRINI, AND MARY PIETRINI TO REPLAT PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT__ THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OLD CENTRAL AND HEATHER PLACE (WARD 2): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a resolution approving a plat for George Bateson, et al., for four lots located at the corner of Old Central Avenue and Heather Place. On October 25, 1999, Council approved the Heather Hills North preliminary plat thaf creates four new single-family lots at the northeast corner of Old Central and Heather Place. Staff reviewed the final plat mylars and confirmed the accuracy of the document as it relates to both City and County requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the final plat for this project at their February 15 meeting. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 22-2000 WITH THE FOLLOWING EIGHT STIPULATIONS: 1) GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY'S ENGINEERING STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS, IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES; 2) PETITONER SHALL PROVIDE A 20 FOOT DRAI�IAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINES OF PROPOSED LOT 4; 3) FETITIONER SHALL PROVIDE A 12-FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PROPOSED LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4; 4) PROVIDE PROOF THAT ANY EXISTING WELLS OR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS LOCATED ON THE SITE ARE PROPERLY CAPPED OR REMOVED; 5) DURING CONSTRUCTION, SILT FENCING SHALL BE USED WHERE APPLICABLE; 6) PETITIONER SHALL PAY $750 PER LOT PARK FEE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS; 7) PETITIONER TO PAY ALL WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION FEES; AND 8) THE PETITIONER SHALL AGREE TO PRESERVE MATURE TREES TO FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL NIEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6. 2000 PAGE 5 THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. ALL TREES REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED FOR THE NEW HOMES SHALL BE MARKED AND APPROVED BY CITY STAFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 6. APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR 2000 RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND THE COUNTY OF ANOKA: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a motion approving an agreement between the City of Fridley and Anoka County regarding the City's 2000 residential recycling program. The agreement allows the City to receive up to $75,218.56 in State Score Funds from Anoka County for our residential recycling program. The agreement is an extension of the 1999 agreement that establishes recycling program requirements, reporting requirements, billing and payment procedure for receipt of S.C.O.R.E. funds and financial record keeping requirements. Staff proudly noted that the recycling program has steadily increased recycled tonnage since its inception. Staff recommended approval of this agreement. APPROVED AGREEMENT FOR 2000 RESIDENTIAL RECYCLIN,G PROGRAM BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND THE COUNTY OF ANOKA. 7. APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a motion approving an agreement for services between the City of Fridley and Anoka County Community Corrections. This agreement provides for "diversion hearings" as an alternative to the formal juvenile court system for first-time juvenile offenders in Fridley. Under the terms of the contract with the County, the City uses the County's Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant to pay the salary of a part-time diversion hearing officer who holds hearings approximately twenty hours per week. The hearings are for youth referred to the City by the County Juvenile Court System. They are youth who have committed minor offenses such as truancy, underage use of alcohol and tobacco and curfew violations. The hearing would also be used for minor criminal violations such as shop lifting. The hearings are held either here or at school district property and are attended by our hearing officer, Ms. Yaeger; the youth; the youth's parents; and a school representative in truancy cases. In shoplifting cases, a representative of the store where shoplifting occurred is often present. The hearings offer an alternative to the first-time underage offender and allows them to avoid establishing a criminal record. The City's Project Safety Net outreach workers conduct post-hearing follow-up to make sure that compiiance with hearing goals is achieved. Staff recommended Council's approval. APPROVED AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN TI�E CITY OF FRIDLEY AND ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6. 2000 PAGE 6 8. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINING PROJECT NO. 329: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a motion to receive bids and award a contract for sanitary and storm sewer lining. The low bidder for the City's 2000 storm sewer and sanitary sewer lining program is Lametti & Sons, Inc. from Hugo, Minnesota. Staff recommended that Council receive the bids and award the contract to Lametti & Sons in the amount of $201,515. This amount is well below the $240,000 that was budgeted. RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED THE CONTRACT FOR SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINING PROJECT NO. 329 TO LAMETTI & SONS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $201,515. 9. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PROJECT NO. 330: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a motion to receive bids and award a contract for miscellaneous concrete curb and gutter installation. The low bidder for the City's 2000 miscellaneous, curb and gutter program is Ron Kassa Construction of Elko, Minnesota. Staff recommended that Council receive the bids and award the contract to Ron Kassa Construction in the amount of $54,537.50. This amount falls within the amount that was budgeted. RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED THE CONTRACT FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PROJECT NO. 330 TO RON KASSA CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,537.50. 10. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2000 STREET IMPROVEMENT (SEALCOAT) PROJECT NO. ST. 2000-10: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a motion to receive bids and award a contract for the 2000 sealcoat project. The low bidder for the 2000 sealcoat program was Allied Blacktop Company of Maple Grove, Minnesota. The streets to be sealcoated lie between University Avenue and the City's border with New Brighton. The southern boundary for the project is the Columbia Heights border. The northern boundaries are generally Hathaway Lane and 61 S` Avenue. Staff recommended that Council receive the bids and award the contract to Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of $137,988.37. This number is well within the $180,000 that was budgeted. RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED THE CONTRACT FOR 2000 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2000-10 TO ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $137,988.37. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6 2000 PAGE 7 11. RESOLUTION NO. 23-20Q0 AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR THE 2000 CALENDAR YEAR: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a resolution authorizing a change in mileage reimbursement rates. The Internal Revenue Service has raised its mileage reimbursement rate from $0.31 to $0.325. Staff recommended that the City follow past practice and adopt the Federal rate. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 23-2000. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 24-2000 ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 20. 2000, TO ASSESS THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP BETWEEN TIME WARNER INC. AND AMERICA ONLINE INC.: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a resolution authorizing a public hearing for March 20 to assess the effect of the proposed transfer of ownership between Time Warner, Inc. and America Online, Inc. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, recommended that the City hold a public hearing to discuss the proposed transfer of ownership of local cable television facilities between Time Warner and America Online. The praposed hearing date is March 20, 2000. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 24-2000. 13. APPOINTMENT - CITY EMPLOYEE: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this was consideration of a motion appointing a City employee. Staff recommended that Council approve the appointment of Mary Trapp as the City's second full-time Information Systems employee. This move was provided for in the 2000 budget. Mr. Burns reviewed Ms. Trapp's work history. CONCURRED WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF MARY TRAPP AS MIS TECHNICIAN. 14. CLAIMS: APPROVED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NUMBERS 91998 THROUGH 92325. 15. LICENSES: APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 _ PAGE 8 16. ESTIMATES: APPROVED ESTIMATES AS FOLLOWS: Holstad and Knaak, P.L.C. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of February, 2000: $ 5,000.00 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432-4381 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of December, 1999: $ 17,472.80 MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, to approve the proposed consent agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: Mayor Jorgenson invited members of the public to come forward to address any items not on the agenda. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, asked if the City is paying prevailing wages for the contractors who are doing work for the City. Mr. Burns stated that the City does require prevailing wages from contractors on City projects. Mr. Tom Myhra, 6360 Able Street, stated that he felt many people feel they need more density. He likes single-family living and does not feel that living closer to people is what it is hyped up to be. He likes the idea of suburbia. It is not urban sprawl. It is progress. He thinks that the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETI�TG MINUTES OF MARCH 6 2000 PAGE 9 Northstar Comdor only came about because they need the people's vote for support for Hiawatha. The costs for the corridor are not very accurate, nor is the schedule. Eighty miles with sixteen stops in one hour and a half is not accurate. Construction costs of $2,800,000 is not accurate either. The residents cannot afford this when it will only serve three percent (3%) of the people. There was a commuter rail in Fridley at one time and it was taken out because people did not use it. This is a way to rescue the City of Minneapolis because it is a dying city. He felt there should be some kind of referendum as to what direction they should be taking on this. He said it was incomprehensible to him that people can say that they would like to be a part of a bureaucracy that tells them how and where to live. He hoped Council would think about this seriously. He asked if this is the route to go. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Myrha what he was going to do to get the people of the fourth fastest growing area of the country through the City if they do not go on the existing railroad track. Mr. Myrha stated that they should put in the highway first. Councilmember Billings asked if he is suggesting to widen University Avenue. Mr. Myrha stated that it would be appropriate to widen Highway 65. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Myrha if he was suggesting that four lanes of traffic in each direction of University Avenue can handle the rush hour traffic rather than the train. Mr. Myrha stated that it would be necessary to handle the daily traffic, not only the rush hour traffic. Councilmember Billing stated that the commuter rail only runs during rush hour. The roadway system is adequate except during rush hour. Mr. Myrha stated that he knows that. It is terribly expensive for the commuter rail for three percent of the people during rush hour. Once again they will have to subsidize the tickets and pay for the maintenance and repair. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she would encourage him to attend the public meetings in the future regarding the commuter rail. At the last public meeting, there were many people present who were supportive of commuter rail. Mr. Myrha stated that he did attend one meeting already. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she was concerned that the community keeps getting cut away by taking away homes to build highways. She was also concerned about pollution. She asked at what point you stop. Mr. Myrha suggested that there should be a split grade at University Avenue and Mississippi Street. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 10 Councilmember Bolkcom stated that with commuter rail, people might start thinking about living in places they might not normally think about. Ms. Jerri O'Dell, 7303 Taylor Street, presented a letter to the City signed by 319 residents in Fridley who want to enact a manufactured home park closing ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute. This measure would provide relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks in the event of displacement or manufactured home park closing. Through this ordinance, residents have some financial protection should their park ever close. If a park closes for redevelopment purposes, the park owner and/or redeveloper provides relocation costs to move all homes within a 25 mile radius or buys out the homes at their appraised market values if they cannot be moved. The likelihood that the manufactured home parks in Fridley may be closed for redevelopment is a legitimate concern for homeowners given that both parks are located on Highway 65 in a City that has little land left to redevelop. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to receive the letter. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated that he was disappointed in the last meeting on the light rail that the City held. It was handled in the way that no one could ask any questions. He noticed that Focus News mentioned that the money that was raised for the senior citizens by selling wreaths was put in the City's General Fund. He felt that this was wrong. People worked really hard to sell them. People thought the money was for senior citizens. Ms. Janet Flipp, 7325 West Circle, stated that she was present to support the ordinance protecting manufactured homeowners. She is the owner of one and is a disabled senior citizen raising her granddaughter. She said there are several citizens in the same situation. Mayor Jorgenson asked if there has been any proposal to remove the mobile home parks. Councilmember Barnette stated that he has the same question. Ms. Flipp stated that it may happen. Councilmember Barnette stated that as part of the Comprehensive Plan, the City must provide housing for low and moderate income people. Mobile home parks are a part of that plan. He has not heard of any proposals to buy them. Ms. O'Dell stated that several of the nine municipalities that enacted this ordinance do it as an insurance measure to protect the mobile home owners. Given the shortage of land in Fridley, there are probably a number of buyers who would love to get their hands on the property and should the owners ever decide to sell they would have the right to do so. It would be better for the ordinance to be put on the books ahead of time so everybody knows what the homeowners are to receive in the case of redEVelopment. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NIARCH 6 2000 PAGE 11 Mayor Jorgenson asked if they identified the two mobile home parks in the Comprehensive Plan as continuing on in Fridley. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. This is part of the affordable mix of housing. Mayor Jorgenson asked if a developer proposed to buy the properties would the development be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Hickok stated that they would have to evaluate the affordability mix of a new development that is recognized as a very important part of Fridley. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that they could certainly look at this ordinance. Ms. O'Dell stated that this ordinance states very clearly that the homeowners would be compensated for being displaced and makes all negotiations a lot clearer. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she thinks it makes sense to look at it, but she wanted to reassure the residents of the mobile home park that there is nothing in the immediate future to cause the homes to go away. Ms. O'Dell asked Mayor Jorgenson if she could speak for the owner of the park. Mayor Jorgenson stated that as long as the Comprehensive Plan has this as a mobile home park, the City would be very hard pressed to change the zoning of that particular piece of property to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council would have to approve that change. PUBLIC HEARING: 17. ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIVE ACCOUNTS FOR EXCESS POLICE PENSION RESIDUAL ASSETS AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH ASSETS: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:20 P.M. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that in 1999, the Minnesota State Legislature allowed the merger of 44 pension plans. Fridley was one of the cities that over contributed by about $2,100,000. Legislation was passed that provided for the return of those funds to cities that had over contributed. Funds must be spent on police-related activities, and the City must hold a public hearing on the spending policy. The City must pass a resolution defining the policy and the funds must be segregated from other funds. Staff proposed that the funds be used for FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 12 providing extended funding for police personnel and funding for capital outlay purchases and information technology purchases. Mayor Jorgenson asked if any members in the Council or audience wished to address this issue. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, asked where the money came from to begin with. Mr. Burns stated that it was paid out from the General Fund. It came from the City to support police pensions. Mayor Jorgenson stated that it was the pension retirement fund and the market has been doing so well for so many years. More money accumulated in that fund than what was anticipated. The legislature allowed the City to merge into another type of plan and now there is an overpayment. The money is being returned to the City to go back into the General Fund with stipulations. Mr. Eisenzimmer asked where the money originally came from. He asked if it was taxpayer's money. Mr. Burns stated that was correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that it is not just the City, they merged with 44 other communities. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that since the money is put out by taxpayers, some should go back to taxpayers and spending in Fridley should be reduced. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Council would love to do that, but the money cannot be used for anything outside of police-related activities. This was money that was set aside for the retirement pension plan for police officers so it needs to go back into the Police Department. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that it is a State law. Mr. Eisenzimmer asked if he could get a letter on the ordinance. Councilmember Billings stated that it was Chapter 222 of the laws of Minnesota. It was adopted through Senate File 318. Article 4 of that law allowed for the merger of 44 municipalities that has been administered by PER.A. The City does not have all of the State statutes but he could look at it on a website or go to the library or the State Capitol library and look at the State statutes. Mr. Eisenzimmer asked if the City would eventually get a copy of it. Councilmember Billings stated that he did not know. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that they could buy vehicles for the police department. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL NIEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6 2000 PAGE 13 Mayor Jorgenson stated that it could be used for police personnel, overtime and for grants and for capital outlay items including motor vehicles or laptop computers for police cars. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that some of the grants used to hire police officers may be expiring so some of this money could be used to continue having those police officers. In a sense this is saving taxpayers money. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, to close the public hearing. Seconded by Council- member Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: 18. VARIANCE REOUEST, VAR #99-31 BY MAUI INC (SPIKERS GRILLE & BEACHCLUB), TO REDUCE THE PARKING DRIVE AISLE FROM 25 FEET TO 22.5 FEET, TO REDUCE THE PARKING SETBACK FROM THE REAR LOT LINE FROM 5 FEET TO 3 FEET. TO REDUCE PARKING STALL SIZE FRO�I 10 FEET BY ZO FEET TO 9 FEET BY 18 FEET TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1200 OSBORNE ROAD N.E. (WARD 21(TABLED JANUARY 3 20001• MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to accept the letter of withdrawal of the variance request by Spikers Grille & Beachclub. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok exactly what Spikers was asking for in the letter. vlr. Hickok stated that they are withdrawing the variance request to analyze other options. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Sprikers wanted to come back at a further date would they have to start the process over. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings asked if it would make more sense for clarification for the record, that this is not a tabling. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that the withdrawal of the request would be action on Council's part. Once the request is withdrawn there is not a risk that they would somehow be approving it by not acting. If it is acknowledged as being withdrawn in the record, that should be the end of it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they were to deny it, would they have to go through with the presentation and find reasons to deny the variance request. She asked if it would make more sense to accept the letter. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 14 Mr. Knaak stated that was correct. Council would have to make a record and have reasons for denial in the record based on what is before them. A voluntary withdrawal on the part of the applicant would be very defensible in court. They would not have to deal with adequacy or inadequacy of anything that may be on the record for basis of denial. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Knaak if they need to include in the motion that the variance request has been withdrawn. Mr. Knaak stated that the letter is already in the record and the minutes should reflect the fact that it has been accepted. They do not need to do this by formal resolution. It is enough to state that it has been withdrawn upon the request of the applicant and that the City accepts that. They could make an affirmative motion to remove it from the agenda to take focused action, but it is not necessary. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the railroad ties in Spikers parking lot have been cleaned up. Mr. Hickok stated that they have been cleaned up. NEW BUSINESS: 19. RESOLUTION NO. 25-2000 ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIVE ACCOUNTS FOR EXCESS POLICE PENSION RESIDUAL ASSETS AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH ASSETS: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 25-2000. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. ' UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 20. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #00-02, BY GEORGE SROKA, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FROM 5 FEET TO 2 FEET 6 INCHES TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1363 - 53RD AVENUE N.E. (WARD 2): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this was a request for the property at 1363 - 53`� Avenue. Mr. George Sroka, the petitioner, is seeking a variance to reduce the required side yard setback of 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches in order to construct an 11 foot 4 inch by 28 foot long garage expansion at 1363 - 53`d Avenue. City Code requires a minimum side yard setback from the garage to the property line at 5 feet. The petitioner's hardship is stated as "Presently all the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built with a single FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING NIINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 15 garage." Adj acent to the garage, the neighboring home has its living area. That living area is approximately 12 feet from the lot line. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance request. Initially, the petitioners were asking for a two and one-half foot sideyard setback. Historically, the City has granted a variance for two and one-half feet from the lot line. The new survey revealed that the garage would be six inches closer to the lot line, meaning that it would be two feet from the lot line and six inches closer than the City has ever gone with a variance. Staff recommended concurrence with the Appeals Commission on the denial of the variance. Alternatives to the variance exist. The garage could be built at the two foot six dimension that was originally requested within the parameters with what has previously been granted. The revised request is not within those previously granted dimensions and would be setting a precedent. Staff recommended that if the variance was granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1) All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition; 2) Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage; 3) Garage shall not be used for any home occupations; 4) The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line; and 5) Garage plan shall not be modified to include a porch behind addition due to a ten foot setback requirement for living space. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Hickok to explain the Stipulation No. 5 about the ten-foot living space. He asked if there was living space there now. Mr. Hickok stated that behind the existing garage there is a porch. If the variance was granted, it should be clear that the porch should not carry over to the side property line. Ms. Lonnie Sroka, sister of the petitioner, George Sroka, stated that she was confused. She said she did not realize that she had an option of going to two feet and six inches. That option was fine. She did think they had a problem with that. Ms. Sroka brought some drawings illustrating the existing house and garage plans. They wanted to modify what is existing for the garage and then attach another garage attached to the existing to match with the same materials. The house was originally built with no garage but it was added later. Presently, according to the zoning ordinance it is a requirement now to have a two car garage, so it is not compliant. A survey was done, and they found that everything is a bit skewed on the lot and the neighbor's lots. She does not know who really meets the five foot setback from the lot line requirement within the Swanstrom Court development when it was first built. A survey shows another neighboring lot that had received the variance for a precedent setting setback on the same street. One neighbor's house has a setback for a garage at 5.3 feet, but there is a slab that comes over farther than that so the vehicles are actually closer to the property line. They meet the 13 foot acceptable distance between the buildings, but they do not meet the 22 foot garage addition. Ms. Sroka stated that she felt that zoning really regulates the density of the area of the neighborhood. She did not believe that she would affect the character of the neighborhood by adding this garage. The original garage was put on with no building permit, and no inspections FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 16 were done. The problem with doing the construction one way is that there is a full basement that may be affected. That could add a lot of money to the cost. Pricing out just adding the garage stall next to the existing one is very expensive coming to about $18,000 which is about $58.00 per square foot. If they have to go in and underpin and not add as much square footage, tear the roof off, and put new trusses on, the cost would be about $83.00 per square foot. It would add about a third to the cost by doing it that way. She would be very happy to stay 2 feet 6 inches away from the property line if she could do that. Mr. George Sroka, 1363 - 53`d Avenue, stated that he appreciates all of his sister's work. He was a custodial engineer working at a Minneapolis school for seven years and now also works part- time at the Minneapolis library. Mayor Jorgenson asked if they went to a single car garage and not move the load bearing wall versus a double garage, if they would be able to stay fairly close to the variance requirements. Ms. Sroka stated that if the wall was removed they might as well rip that part off. That would be doable, but it adds about a third more to the cost. She said she was amazed at how expensive it is. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she may find with inspection, that the garage that was put in there without a permit is substandard. There may be some repair work in order to keep it. Ms. Sroka stated that she is hoping to leave as much of the existing garage there and add on to that. Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Hickok if the City discovers, through inspections, that the existing garage is without a permit and substandard, if they will they have to repair that. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Because they are placing new demands on the original foundation the garage would have to be built to a new and modern standard, whether or not they go with the option that adds on or they tear it down and build a new foundation. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she wants to make sure there is not a misunderstanding that if the petitioner just adds another parking stall, if the other portion does not meet code, they will still have to make some modifications. Ms. Sroka stated that the only place that they would do tampering with the existing garage would be at the foundation away from the basement foundation. Mayor Jorgenson stated that by adding on to the existing structure they would still have to meet the codes. Ms. Sroka asked if she finds something wrong with the foundation in that spot it would still have to meet code. Mayor Jorgenson stated that was correct. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6 2000 PAGE 17 Ms. Sroka stated that Mr. Sroka bought the house for $83,500. His tax assessment last year was $105,000. They are looking at quite a bit of money in relation to percentage of what it would cost to do this and it is a concern. Mr. Sroka's salary is $35,000 per year, and it would be a big stretch for him to do that. Councilmember Billings asked Ms. Sroka what the width of the garage would be by going two and one-half feet away from the lot line. Ms. Sroka stated that it makes it 10 feet six inches. Councilmember Billings asked if it would work to put a garage in the backyard and add a driveway around the house. Ms. Sroka stated that she would have to take down some nice trees to do that, and there is no alleyway. The house is built on an easement, and there is an easement in the back. There is a standard oil easement in the front so it is already not built within zoning ordinances. The back has an easement, and the property slopes downhill there. Councilmember Billings asked if the sloping roof was going to stay and if there would be a flat roof on the new garage. Ms. Sroka stated that the roof would be a gable filling in the end portion with a structure and carrying that ridge line across with new trusses going from front to back. She is trying to match the character of the existing house. Councilmember Billings asked if the existing structural wall that is there would stay in place. The inside of the garage would only be 10 feet 6 inches wide. Ms. Sroka stated that was correct. She spoke with the neighbor as soon as she got the survey in and talked with her about how close things were. Councilmember Wolfe asked if she would have to go back to the Appeals Commission. Mr. Hickok stated that Council has the final authority to make the modification of the variance request. Ms. Sroka stated that if she could find another solution to shorten it, she would come in and do whatever she can to get it away from the property line. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the option presented tonight was presented to the Appeals Commission. Mr. Hickok stated that there was discussion about the different types of designs but the two foot setback was new to them that evening. They were a bit concerned about the new numbers and their inability to react to that and to think through what the locations might be. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NIARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 18 Ms. Sroka stated that the new survey she had came in the same day of the Appeals Commission meeting. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Hickok if that meeting would have been different if the request was for two feet six inches for the setback. Mr. Hickok stated that he thinks the Commission is always more comfortable acting within the bounds of what they have done before. The Commission talked about the idea of taking out the wall of the existing garage and the new addition. He has concerns from a design perspective that moving the garage this close to the property line means a number of compromises. This includes having a gable at one end and a hip at the other end, an overhang at one end and not at the other end, having an internal wall in the garage versus basically rebuilding the garage properly and not having an internal wall. At five feet of setback the garage would be 23.1 feet in width. Standard new two car garage construction typically is a 22 foot wide garage as the standard. This would be 23 feet at five feet of setback and the petitioners could have the hip to match the other hip and have an overhang to match the other side. The Appeals Commission had concerns about design and trying to put on an addition to the garage versus taking it down and doing it in such a way that it would look right. Mr. Burns asked if the design was really the issue here. It seems to him the issue is setback. Mr. Hickok stated that setback is the issue and if they want to do a gable end on one end and a hip on the other that is fine but those are products of granting a variance and of being closer to the lot line than they normally would. He concluded that makes the design relevant. Councilmember Wolfe asked if the structure would have footings if the petitioners went the way Mr. Hickok was talking about. Mr. Hickok stated that with a garage that was built without a permit to begin with, they would be most satisfied with that implement. Ms. Sroka stated that she does not think the house looks bad with the gable and the hip on the other end. The neighborhood has both hips and gables. She does not think anybody in her block meets the five foot requirement for setbacks. The house that got the variance for 2 feet 2 inches is right down the block. That also has two garage doors that is separated with an end piece. They are trying to build a second garage without it costing a lot of money. The way they approached it makes sense. Councilmember Wolfe asked if there was a gable on one end and a hip on the other end for a neighboring house. Ms. Sroka stated that the garage was on the front of the house and the roof changes. She asked what the process was for the request. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Council would make the final decision this evening or they could request it to be tabled for more time for other possibilities. Her only concern is that when they FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6 2000 PAGE 19 get in there and start working on the load bearing wall if they will find that it was not built per code. Ms. Sroka stated that they would only be excavating in two areas. It was built in 1959 and has not settled at this point. Mayor Jorgenson asked when the garage was put on. Ms. Sroka stated that she thinks that the garage was put on a year later. Ms. Stella Sroka, mother of Lonnie and George Sroka, stated that the original builders are not around anymore but she is sure that it was done right and they were very well known. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was a possibility to look at one of the City's low interest loans ar grants because of Mr. Sroka's income. Mr. Hickok stated that if Council is compelled to give them time to investigate that, that is certainly something they can answer. Ms. Sroka asked if they were low interest loans. Mr. Burns stated that it was at five percent. Ms. Sroka stated that they could look at what else could possibly be done for this project. Mayor Jorgenson stated that they could look at the potential resale value and it sounds like there is a little more work that needs to be done on the internal wall issue. Giving 60 more days would give more time to explore housing loans available through the City if they would choose to table this until March 20. Councilmember Barnette stated that he feels that this is a family coming to them to improve their property and neighborhood rules and we should take their time to do that. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve Variance Request #00-02. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Variance Request #00-02 to have the setback read from iive feet to three feet. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Councilmember Billings stated that several years ago they approved a change in the zoning ordinance to allow the expansion of garages to within three feet of the property line. They put a stipulation in that the maximum width be 22 feet. The intent of the legislation was that if they were going to be creating a variance from the standard operating procedure that it not be strictly for the sake of someone wanting to build a 60 foot wide garage or a 40 foot wide garage door. A variance from five feet to three feet would be in keeping with something that is reasonable based FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6 2000 PAGE 20 on what they have done in the past. How the petitioner finances should not be a determining factor on whether or not they pass a variance. Mayor Jorgenson asked Ms. Sroka if she understands the motions. Ms. Sroka stated that he is saying that they can go to three feet and work it out and figure out how to do it. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend the variance request by including the stipulations as follows: 1) All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition; 2) Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage; 3) Garage shall not be used for any home occupations; 4) The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to the property line; and 5) Garage plan shall not be modified to include porch behind addition due to a ten foot setback requirement for living space. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Jorgenson asked for a vote on the main motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 21. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Burns stated that the City now has $52,000,000 worth of new construction this year. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she received a letter about taking part in the year 2000 census. She urged all citizens of Fridley to partake in the census. It is very critical for the City and school districts for funding. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Flora to remind people that it is still snow season, and they still could get a ticket. Mr. Flora reminded everyone that the parking ordinance is effective until May 1 with no parking on City streets from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. regardless of whether or not there is snow. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he wanted to congratulate Carrie Varichek, a Fridley High School student in gymnastics. She advanced to the State tournament. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL NIEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6 2000 PAGE 21 ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MARCH 6, 2000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Nancy J. Jorgenson Recording Secretary Mayor CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage cailed the March 1, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Brad Sielaff Connie Modig, Dean Saba Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Leroy Oquist Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Missy Daniels, Planner Jon Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director Robert J. Viera, US West Wireless Consultant Leigh Harris, Chamber of Commerce APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 16 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the February 16, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #00-01, by US West Wireless LLC, to allow the construction of a 90-foot telecommunications tower, legally described as Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 3, East Ranch Estate Addition subject to easement, generally Iocated at 7835 Main Street. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:31 P.M. Mr. Hickok sta'ted the petitioner, US West Wireless, is requesting a special use permit to allow construction of a 90-foot telecommunications tower on the property that is owned by Talco, Inc., located at 7835 Main Street. There is a small 24-foot by 18-foot fenced compound that would also be required as part of this proposal. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 2 Mr. Hickok stated that the equipment will be located at the corner of the building along Main Street. The compound is a relatively small area and is screened naturally by existing vegetation along the east side, and there will be additional landscape between the parking lot and the compound itself. Code requires a special use permit to allow telecommunications towers and wireless telecommunications equipment in the industrially zoned districts. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow construction of the 90-foot monopole tower and telecommunications equipment. The petitioner has met code requirements for issuance of a special use permit. Staff recommends a number of stipulations. Ms. Savage asked what the. Staff meant by "negative impacts" in the report while at the same time granting approvaL Mr. Hickok stated that they like to have towers like this blend or give a stealth design and back up to a power line behind it so they blend together. In this situation, the upright and the 90 feet is in the middle of an area of much lower rise development. There is not a lot they can do to downplay the size of a 90-foot monopole in this area. The petitioner did go to a location that staff had selected as a monopole site. The property owners were not interested in the lease agreement, however, so this is an alternate location. This is not ideal, but staff recommends approval even though they would like the tower to be shorter. The tower does need to be in the certain range of their other equipment and of a certain height for the technology to work. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Hickok about the additional stn.rctures on the tower. Mr. Hickok stated that it is designed so they can co-locate at least a second and potentially a third user depending on the equipment needs of the third user: Mr. Saba asked if that would involve additional structures on the ground. Mr. Hickok stated that their ideal is to have many users on a pole to limit the overall number of poles needed to serve the City. With technology becoming more advanced, 90 feet may now be high tech enough to get a third user on the site. Mr. Sielaff asked if staff looks at the design for the unauthorized entry. Mr. Hickok stated they do. There is a building permit approval process that happens, and they check the enclosure and the gate as part of the process. Mr. Sielaff asked if staff still needs to review it. Mr. Hickok stated that Staff would still review it and make sure all stipulations are being met. Mr. Kuechle asked if the colors would match the existing structure exactly. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAG E 3 Mr. Hickok stated that is a standard stipulation used on other applications, and it may be that another color may be more suitable. The petitioner, Mr. Robert Viera, a US West Consultant, stated they do not have any problems with any stipulations and he has nothing to add. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:44 P.M. Mr. Saba stated that he does not have any problem with granting this request and does not have any problem with the specific location. Mr. Kuechle agreed. It is an excellent location being far away from residential areas and it is a good choice. Ms. Savage stated she agreed. Ms. Modig stated that she agrees also. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve Special Use Permit, SP #00-01, by US West Wireless LLC, to allow the construction of a 90-foot telecommunications tower, legafly described as Lot 7 and 8, Block 3, East Ranch Estate Addition subject to easement, generally located at 7835 Main Street with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it blends into the surrounding environment. 2. A non-corrosive finish shall be used to match the color of the existing structure, City Staff to approve the color and design of the pole prior to installations. 3. The tower shall not be artificially illuminated except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 4. All screening planting shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan, dated February 3, 2000, submitted by US West. 5. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry. 6. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility equipment on this site. 7. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this application. 8. Any future placement of antennae on the tower shall require review by the City to determine if the equipment location requires additional stipulations or a revised special use permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 4 Ms. Savage stated this request would go to the City Council on March 20, 2000. Ms. Modig asked if there were any other approved sites on the list that have not been agreed to by the property owners. Mr. Hickok stated that it is the only site that staff is aware of. When staff was working with the telecommunications engineers, the location was really central to an area of need and had all of the characteristics that staff was looking for. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #99-02, by the City of Fridley, to allow for limited temporary outdoor display and sales promotions in the commercial districts. In addition, the amendment will delete a part of the ordinance that allows display of petroleum products between pumps and temporary display of inerchandise within four feet of the building at service stations. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:46 P.M. Ms. Daniels, Planner, stated that this proposed ordinance amendment is for temporary outdoor disp�ay and sales in the commercial districts, C-1, C-2, C-3, and CR-1. This came before the Planning Commission in November and they had two parts to this amendment. The first part is to create an ordinance that would allow temporary outdoor tent sales and promotions of that type. The second part of the ordinance is to streamline the ordinance for outdoor displays at service stations. The proposed temporary display ordinance is basically the same with a few changes and there are a series of options for display at service stations. Ms. Daniels stated what they are trying to accomplish with the ordinance for temporary outdoor display is to provide businesses with an opportunity to conduct special outdoor promotions and still maintain and enhance the image of Fridley. Currently the ordinance for outdoor displays opposed to outdoor storage is that it allows display befinreen pumps at service stations and temporary displays within four feet of the station building. The ordinance for outdoor storage allows the special use permit for garden centers, and outdoor RV sales and unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment are allowed. Ms. Daniels stated that staff is proposing an ordinance amendment that would allow up to three outdoor sales events per business per year in commercial districts and six for multi-tenant bwildings; an administrative permit process for these events rather than Commission or Council action to streamline it; and a ten day timeframe for promotions with 20 days between each of them. This allows businesses to conduct sales events that currently are not permitted. Three events per year fall between the extremes of 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 1. 2000 PAGE other cities of allowing o� not allowing them at all or permitting them continuously. The proposed ordinance language can be found in C-1, C-2, C-3, and CR-1 reading as follows: 1. USES PERMITTED A. Principle Uses B. Accessory Uses (5) Temporary Outdoor Display, Sales, or Promotion of Merchandise subject to the following conditions: a. The property owner shall obtain a Temporary Outdoor Display License from the City at least one week prior to starting the event. The property owner shall submit the information required on the license application. The City shall approve the license prior to commencement of the event. b. A temporary Outdoor Display License is required whether merchandise is sold for profit or given away as part of a promotion. c. Only items associated with the principal use may be displayed. d. Three events per year are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 days apart. e. Six events per year for multi-tenant developments are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 days apart. f. The duration of each event shall be no longer than 10 consecutive days. g. The merchandise shall be displayed in a manner that does not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic or otherwise cause unsafe traffic conditions. h. The merchandise shall not be displayed in the boulevard or on any landscaped area. i. If a tent is to be used, the property owner shall obtain a building permit and comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code related to tents. Fees for tents shall be as established by the Uniform Building Code. j. The property owner shall pay the fees as established in Chapter 11 of the City Code. k. Signage for temporary promotions must meet the temporary sign definition with the exception that they may be displayed only during the ten-day event. (214.02.36) 11.10 Fees License fee sfiall be as follows: CODE SUBJECT FEE 205.30 Temporary Outdoor Display License $75.00 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 6 Ms. Daniels stated the changes made are: (1) six events per year for multi-tenant developments and (2) sign requirements, in that the temporary signs are allowable for each event and still must meet the definition for a temporary sign and only be up for ten days. The next part to be reviewed is for service stations only. They are proposing a deletion of language in C-1, G2, and C-3: The display of petroleum products between pumps; or the temporary display of merchandise within four (4) feet of the station building is permitted. The City has come up with four options for a change in the current ordinance as follows: Option 1: Delete the provision in the above ordinance language permitting outdoor display of petroleum or other products associated with service stations. The advantage to this option is that enforcement is streamlined. The disadvantage is that it would take away the outdoor storage opportunity stations have under the current ordinance. Option 2: Delete the above language and add, "Merchandise offered for sale may be displayed outdoo�s provided the display area does not exceed a greater number of square feet than ten (10) percent of the ground floor area of the building housing the principle use. No storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front or side yard setback or parking area." The advantage is that it still allows service stations outdoor display, eliminates the unenforceable word temporary, and creates a defined amount of space to allow the displays. The disadvantage is the negative impacts to aesthetics. It is also di�cult to measure and enforce a square foot amount of space. Option 3: Delete the word temporary from the current ordinance and delete the allowance for display between the pumps. The advantage is that it allows stations their current displays within four feet of the building and deletes the word temporary. The disadvantage is the negative impact to aesthetics: Option 4: Do not delete any current language. Leave the ordinance as is. The advantage is that it does not change the ordinance. The disadvantage is the negative impact to aesthetics. The word temporary is still unenforceable. Ms. Daniels stated that it is staff's recommendation to approve the first option of deleting the provision in the ordinance language that permits the outdoor display of petroleum or other products associated with service stations. They have talked with businesses a number of times and the main concerns that were raised were that permanent outdoor storage issues are not addressed with this proposed amendment. That is correct because this is not intended to address that issue. Their special use permit process addresses all permanent outdoor storage. This is a chance to have temporary displays and promotional sales. Ms. Savage asked if the service stations still have the option of applying for the temporary display no matter which option is selected and are still able to apply for a special use permit for permanent outdoor display. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 Ms. Daniels stated, yes. Mr. Sielaff asked if temporary was defined in the ordinance. PAG E 7 Ms. Daniels stated that temporary was not defined, It simply states: "temporary outdoor display" and usuaily the displays are a year long and there is no way to enforce it because it is not defined. Ms. Modig asked if they used option 3 and are talking about the temporary display within four feet of the building, is there a need to put in a height recommendation? Ms. Daniels stated that currently on�y the building code states the heights for the building. It has not 6een an issue and is not in the ordinance now, but is something they may want to consider. Mr. Saba asked if option 3 permits the sale of propane tanks out front. Ms. Daniels stated that would be allowed if that was approved. Ms. Modig stated they would have to have a special use permit for that. Ms. Daniels stated that is incorrect, and it is part of the outdoor display that is allowed. Mr. Sielaff asked if the $75.00 fee was for each event. Ms. Daniels stated that is correct. They would have to get a license for each one for staff to review their plans and where they would put everything. Mr. Kuechle asked if it was staff's preference for option 1 and, secondly, option 3. Ms. Daniels stated that is correct. Mr. Kuechle asked why staff did not prefer option 2 to option 3. Ms. Daniels stated that the options are close, but it is hard #o tell what ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area of the building is so option 2 would be harder to enforce than option 3. Mr. Kuechle stated that option 2 would be more restrictive. Ms. Daniels stated that option 2 is more restrictive depending on the size of the building as to the size of outdoor display. Option 3 is favored over 2, because it does allow display within four feet of the station building usually on the sidewalk against the windows. Mr. Kuechle asked why option 2 does not just state four feet also. r� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 8 Ms. Daniels stated that is the same as option 3, and they certainly could put that in option 2. Ms. Savage asked if there are other cities that are using ordinances similar to option 1. Ms. Daniels stated that most of the cities around Fridley do allow it, or the ordinance does not have anything in it that allows it, but it is not enforced. A lot of the cities close to Fridley have the ten percent (10%) area. Mr. Saba stated that he feels that because service stations do not have shopping ca�ts, it is easier for people to pick up things like the salt right by the car. He feels option 3 is more descriptive. Mr. Kuech�e asked if most service stations place their islands close enough together, does it seem necessary to allow storage befinreen islands? Ms. Daniels stated that they would not cause hardship by removing that clause in the ordinance because most do not have room between the islands. That is from an era when someone was changing the oil while fueling the car. Ms. Savage asked if anyone from the public wanted to address this. Ms. Leigh Harris, President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the first part of the ordinance regarding the specialre e�st t on bus nesses eelgardiny elbminating thers. She has talked with many of the se �i display�option; and they say that would be a hardship to them. The businesses are also concerned about the aesthetics of their appearance and work hard to keep it nice. Mr. Kuechle asked if Ms. Harris had any views on the idea of cutting out the between the islands storage. Ms. Harris stated that she does not think they would have a problem with that because that is in reference to a different era. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTE PU LEC HEA'RING WAS C OSED AT 8 11RP.M. THE MOTION CARRIED AND TH Ms. Savage stated that she does not like the appearance of the service stations with the outdoor displays. If Cub Foods cannot display the salt, why should service stations be allowed to? If they want to improve the image of Fridley, then they need to be more restrictive. Th�s ordinance is not sa nder the first' part of the o dinance or the special outdoor displays, it can be allowed use permit. She would be in favor of option 1. : PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 9 Ms. Modig stated that it is part of their business, and people do not have the advantage of taking a ca�t like Cub to pick up the items and bring to the car. She would be in favor of option 3 and including "no storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front or side yard setback or parking area." One of the things she questions about that statement is that they are saying "storage" again and this is addressing displaying. They may need to change "storage" to "display" to clarify for businesses. This ordinance is not relating to storage, it is relating to displays and temporary displays. Mr. Hickok stated he does not think that it is overstating the fact that the ordinance includes the word "storage". There are situations where pallets of salt may be off- loaded from a truck and may sit for a short time in a location as storage. Mr. Saba stated that service stations in general are an outdoor business. The main p�oduct they sell is outside and there are certain products that should be placed outside. Ms. Savage stated she understands that, but feels there is a balancing that has to be used between the needs of the merchant and the aesthetics of the City. Mr. Kuechle stated that he agrees and he would opt to allow storage in the four feet and would not allow storage within the front or side yard setbacks and would not allow storage between pumps. He agrees with Mr. Saba that service stations are outdoor businesses with a lot of movement and cars, and they could look at what is more unattractive between the salt outside or the grocery carts that are always left outside. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment #99-02, 205.13 C-1 Local Business District Regulations. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of option 3 to delete the word "temporary" from the current ordinance, delete the allowance for display between the pumps and add "no storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front or side yard setback or parking area". UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONERS MODIG, KUECHLE, SIELAFF, AND SABA VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 7 2000 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the February 7, 2000, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAG E 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9 2000 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the February 9, 2000, Appeals Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 3 2000 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the February 3, 2000, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS 6. Discussion on the Storm Water and Critical Area Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that so far in the Comprehensive Plan they have seen the synopsis of the community vision, the plan overview, the land use chapter, the housing chapter, the parks and open space chapter, the transportation chapter, the sewer chapter, and the water supply chapter. There are a lot of State laws and regulations that communities have to meet when they are preparing the plans. The surface water plan is required to meet the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and the State identifies the types of information that should be in that plan. The critical area element was established under the Critical Areas Act of 1973. The critical area is a natural resource that is very important to the State. In 1976, the State said that the Mississippi and the entire length of it is a critical area. The State requires communities along the river to adopt zoning ordinances to protect certain features along the river. They have to keep in mind that there is a regional authority over the City of Fridley called the Watershed Management District. Ms. Dacy stated that the surface water management chapter states the goal statements about how the City tries to manage the runoff. There are a system of ponds, storm sewers, and hdw the water is treated. They want to ensure the water quality is high before it runs off. The issues of flooding are of importance. They want to protect the wetland resources that the City has left. They want to control erosion and the impacts of sedimentation. �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 11 Ms. Dacy stated that the Critical Area plan focuses on the east bank of the Mississippi River and west of the River Road. The intent is to keep an eye on the land uses within the corridor and increase th� connections to and within that area. There are nice parks along the river, and they are trying to encourage bikeways to the river. They want to keep an eye on and preserve the natural resources along the river. The plan has spent a lot of time on the wetland health, the rate of the water going through the nature center, the quantity of the water, and the quality of the water and the impact to the Nature Center. Ms. Dacy stated the plan speaks of monitoring the same types of issues along Rice Creek. The City is in Phase 1 of a Clean Water Partnership Grant from the State. There has been a lot of testing going on about the quantity of the water that is going through the Springbrook Nature Center, the quality of the water, and analysis of the wetland health. Staff has coordinated the hiring of a consultant that is now looking at the data and they will receive a final report in May. The Public Works Department has a very proactive capital improvement program. They have completed a lot of projects throughout the City. The City did adopt the ordinances that the Metropolitan Council and the DNR had asked all communities in the Metropolitan area to adopt such as erosion control and a variety of storm management requirements to appropriately treat water runoff for new developments. The Metropolitan Council staff will review the Critical Area plan and they will probably have to amend that zoning district ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated that staff is offering this for review and comments on the chapters and then they will send the plan out to Rice Creek and the Six Cities Watershed District. The Environmental Quality & Energy Commission will be discussing this on March 21. A public hearing for the entire plan will be on April 5. This will be available at the library; and if anyone is interested, they can call the Community Development Department. Jon Haukaas, the Assistant Public Works Director is available for any questions this evening. Ms. Savage asked if the parks by the river were being maintained by Anoka County or Fridley. Ms. Dacy stated that the parks south of I-694 are being maintained by Anoka County, Riverview Heights Park and Manomin Park are maintained by the City, and the Islands of Peace Park is maintained by the County. Ms. Savage stated that the bike path is not in very good condition along the river, and she does not feel that the park area is very well maintained along the river. She would be in favor of enhancing the.riverbanks somehow. The Girl Scout Camp building could possibly be made into upscale apartments or put in restaurants or cafes. The Rice Creek bank stabilization project has made an enormous difference with the flooding problems. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 12 Mr. Kuechle asked if there was any data whether or not there was more run-off into the river. Mr. Haukaas stated they do not have any regional data like ihat. Mr. Saba stated that there is some data from the Nature Center that is being conducted pertaining to the water runoff. He feels it is an education aspect collecting the data to learn about the effects of water runoff into the Mississippi River, and it would be nice to put an educational report together regarding the watershed. Mr. Haukaas stated that the up and coming Phase 2 Storm Water compliance regulations will affect cities Fridley's size. That has education and public involvement into the storm water plans. -Siah St. Clair, the City Naturalist, will add some storm water education components to some of the programs. Fridley will be developing more programs over the next year involving television cable station and handouts in the newsletters. . Another component is to stencil on all of the catch basins "no dumping, drains to river" for a very visual notice for people. Mr. Kuechle stated that there seems to be a lot of wellhead testing activity in the parks. Mr. Haukaas stated that is primarily based around the Commons Park due to the ordinance plan that TCE has been detected. That is an on-going study being done with the Department of Health. Fridley has four wells that some contamination has been detected. The worst one, #9, is not being used at all. It is pumped twice per year and is being tested but not put into distribution. The other three are only used during summer peak demand periods and used one at a time so no significant amounts are taken from the wells. It is tested by the City of Fridley and by the County on a quarterly basis. They have not violated the Clean Water Act standards in any instance. Ms. Dacy stated that she is not aware of the location he is speaking of. Mr. Kuechle stated that it is the park just south of I-694. Mr. Haukaas stated that it is associated with the N.I.R.O.P. Navy plant there to test groundwater to determine if they have made any impact to the groundwater as a result of that plant being there. That has been completed and no problem has been found. They treat the water on site and the treated water is pumped to the river. Mr. Sielaff asked if the local surface water management pertained to local water management plan including groundwater. Ms. Dacy stated that when Anoka County is done with the plan, the City will have to address wellhead issues. The plan tonight is for surface water referring to the wellhead issues and the water supply chapter has been reviewed previously. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 13 Mr. Sielaff asked if they have to separate surface water from ground water for separate documents. Ms. Dacy stated that was correct due to state regulations and the Department of Health. Mr. Sielaff stated that there has been improvement in the Rice Creek water, and there should be data included from the Medtronic project water runoff. There should be data from various wells including the N.I.R.O.P. site for the groundwater quality monitoring and evaluation on a routine basis. Wellhead protection should be a program in itself with data collection. Is the Groundwater Management Plan the wellhead protection plan as listed in the introduction? Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. Ms. Modig asked for more information about what is going on at Springbrook Nature Center. Ms. Dacy stated that in 1996 the City received funds to complete the grant program called the Phase 1 Analysis to take samples of the water going through the nature center, the rate at which it goes through, the vofume and take inventory of the vegetation and species. The City has hired an intern who has gone out and done some testing and they are working with other communities. Julie Jones of the City of Fridley staff is working with Coon Rapids, Blaine, and Spring Lake Park to obtain information. The data will now be analyzed by a technical consultant and hopefully they can make recommendations as to ways the City can make sure that the degradation occurring will not get any worse and try to restore some of the loss and that will require partnership with the upstream communities. They hope the final report will be available in June of this year. The State does offer a Phase 2 grant application for funds to implement recommendations of a study. Metropolitan Council has established more grants for these types of issues. Ms. Modig asked if it deals with the runoff of the stream that goes from Wal-Mart's parking lot into Springbrook Nature Center. Ms. Dacy stated that prior to Wal-Mart developing, there was a creek and they had to install a pipe underneath their parking lot. Wal-Mart created ponding in compliance with the current standards before they discharged their runoff to meet the current standards. Ms. Modig asked if some of the runoff is coming from upstream. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. Mr. Sielaff asKed if the Locke Lake problem was taken care of. How will they decide if there is going to be another problem with sediment? 1.� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1, 2000 PAGE 14 Mr. Haukaas stated that there is intermittent monitoring and checking of depths by the DNR in Locke Lake. He imagines that sometime in the future they will have to do another project like that with the river. The City is not doing the monitoring, the watershed districts themselves are involved in the monitoring. Mr. Sielaff asked if there is something that is being done continuously to prevent more erosion. More erosion will result in greater sedimentation. Mr. Haukaas stated that Rice Creek Bank Stabilization Phase 1 is a prime example of that protection, and they are looking at Phase 2 right now. Upstream of that is increased storm water regulations statewide. As communities develop, these issues are looked. Mr. Sielaff stated that they are not sure what is going to happen out there or when. Mr. Haukaas stated that is correct. Ms. Dacy stated that the last chapter is the implementation section, and, hopefully, it will be presented on March 15 or at the public hearing in April. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 1, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, .� � � �� Sign L. John ,�,�' Recording Secretary 14 � AGENDA ITEM a CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 GTY OF • FRIDLEY Date: 3/14/00 �� To: William Burns, City Manager ,�,.!;� From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planner RE: Planning Commission action on SP #00-01 M-00-42 INTRODUCTION US West Wireless, petitioner, is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 90' telecommunications tower on property owned by Talco, Inc. located at 7835 Main Street. A small 24' x 18' fenced compound will also be required as part of this proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At the March 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, a pubtic hearing was held for SP #00- 01. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission endorsed staff's recommendation for approval. A motion was made to recommend approval of special use permit, SP #00-01, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it b/ends into the surrounding environment. 2. A non-corrosive finish shall be used to match the color of the existing st�ucture, City Staff to approve color and design of pole prior to installation. 3. The tower shall not be artificially illuminated except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 4. All screening plantings shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan, dated February 3, 2000, submitted by US West. 5. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry. 6. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencemenf of installation of any facility equipment on this site. 7. No signs other than warning or eguipment information signs are permitted as part of this application. 8. Any future placement of antennae on the tower shall require review by the City to determine if the equipment location requires additional stipulations or a revised special use permit. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the planning commission and grant the proposed Special Use Permit, SP #00-01, with the stipulations as presented. 15 City of Fridley Land Use Application SP #00-01 March 1, 2000 GENERAL INFORMATION � SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: US West Wireless Talco, Inc. 426 N. Fairview Ave. #101 7835 Main St. NE St. Paul, MN 55104 Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Special Use Pemut to allow the constzuction of a 90' telecommunications tower in an industrial zoning district. Existing Zoning: M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Locarion: 7835 Main Street NE Size: 62,000 square feet 1.42 acres Existing Land Use: Industrial (Talco, Inc.). Suirounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Industrial, M-2 E: Vacant, M-2 S: Industrial, M-2 W: Industrial, M-2 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sections 205.18.1.C.(7) requires a special use permit to allow telecommunication towers and wireless telecommunications. Zoning History: 1972 - Lot is platted. 1974 - Building is constructed. 1991 - Building addition Legal Description of Property: Lots 7&8, Block 3, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition. Public Utilities: Property is connected to City utilities. Transportation: Main Street provides access to site. Physical Characteristics: Lot contains e�sting building of Talco, Inc. SU1VI��IARY OF PROJECT US West Wireless, petirioner, is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 90' telecommunications tower. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit #00-01 to allow the construction of a 90' telecommunications tower at 7835 Main Street, with stipulations. • Petitioner has met code requirements for the issuance of the special use permit. CITY COUNCIL ACTION March 20, 2000 � (Talco Inc. & Pole Location) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin SP #00-01 PROJECT US West Wireless, petitioner, is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 90' telecommunications tower on property owned by Talco, Inc. located at 7835 Main Street. A small 24' x 18' fenced compound will also be required as part of this proposal. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT HISTORY In 1996, the federal government passed a new Telecommunications Act. This act affected wired and wireless operators of telecommunication services, cable television, open video systems, multi-channel video distribution, telephone, long distance, data transmission, cellular phone, personal communication sei-vices (PCS), and direct broadcast satellites. Over the past four years the number of 75' to 250' mono-pole towers or lattice-type tower structures has been on the rise in both metro and rural locations across the state. The 1996 Telecommunications Act opened the door to a whole new wave of technology. Communities have been required #o recognize and accept the new technology. Cities do have the ability to control the location of PCS towers, however, cities cannot take a position of "not in my city". A typical PCS tower may have a 75' to 125' mono-pole structure. Ample ground are is generally required to allow the electronic control devices to exist beside the base of the tower. A chain link fence surrounding the tower and equipment is typically required. With site users such as US West there is very little encroachment on the land, beyond the pole itself. In this particular case, US West is proposing a 20' x 18' chain link fence to surround and secure the base of the tower and control devices. TELECOMMUNICATION ACT'S IMPACT ON FRIDLEY In December of 1996, the Cify Council established a moratorium temporarily prohibiting the construction of new communication and antennae array. The moratorium establishment allowed the City to take a comprehensive look at the impact of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and establish acceptable antennae locations. With the moratorium in place, staff worked with PCS consultants to get a clear understanding of the technology, issues, and to determine how many antennae locations would likely be required to serve the community. As a result of the analysis, an approved site approach was approved. The City of Fridley now has a series of approved sites for the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities. To install a telecommunication tower in an industrially zoned area not on the "approved site" list, a special use permit must be obtained. Talco, Inc. , located at 7835 Main Street, is not an approved site ant therefore a special use permit is required for US West to proceed with the installation of the 90' mono-pole. 17 SPECIAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS The purpose of a special use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety of the area in which it is located. The special use permit gives the City the ability to place stipulations on the proposed use to eliminate negative impacts to surrounding properties. The City also has the right to deny the special use permit request if impacts to surrounding properties cannot be eliminated through stipulations. With SP#00-01, the petitioner is seeking the special use permit to construct a 90' telecommunications tower. Telecommunications towers are a permitted special use in the M-2 Heavy Industrial zoning district. This telecommunications tower is designed so that it will withstand wind and ice loads as required by the Uniform Building Code. In the event that the tower were to begin falling over, it is designed to break apart and collapse on top of itself rather than tipping over. The negative impact from this proposal is that the appearance of the tower will not be consistent with the surrounding area. The petitioner's Radio Frequency engineers have indicated the location of a tower in this location or the immediate vicinity is crucial to link in with their existing system. The petitioner made several unsuccessful attempts to even discuss the possibility of placing a tower on the Agro-K site at 8030 Main Street with the property owner. Agro-K was placed on the City's "approved site" list despite the property owners objection to the designation. The petitioner has indicated that the mono-pole will be constructed to accommodate two other providers, as code requires. The pole finish will be approved by City Staff to ensure that the pole blends with the surrounding environment as much as possible and the ground control structures will be screened from the public rights of way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit #00-01 to allow the construction of a 90' telecommunications tower at 7835 Main Street, with stipulations. STIPULATIONS If the Planning Commission were to grant this Special Use Permit request, staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached. 1. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it blends into the surrounding environment. 2. A non-corrosive �nish shall be used to match the color of the existing structure, City Staff to approve color and design of pole prior to installation. 3. The tower shall not be arti�cially illuminated except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 4. All screer�ing plantings shall be installed in accordance with the landscape plan, dated February 3, 2000, submitted by US West. 5. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry. : 6. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility equipment on this site. 7. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this application. 8. Any future p/acement of antennae on the tower shall require review by the City to determine if the equipment location requires additional stipulations or a revised special use permit. 19 U S WEST Wueless. L.L.C. 12S Nonh Fa�rview Avenue Room 101 St. Paul. MN �5104 �'�,�� lite's beder here � January 28, 2000 Scott Hickok & Paul Bolin Ciry of Fridley 6�31 University Ave. Fridley, MN SS�i32 Dear Scott Hickok & Paul Bolin: This letter accompanies an application for a Special Use Permit by US West that will allow the location of a PCS monopole for our digital, wireless phone system at 7835 Main St. in Fridley. History US West Wireless, LLC purchased a license in the 1,800 MHz radio frequency spectrum in January of t 995. This enables voice and data to be sent and received over the airwaves through a network of antenna that can be mounted on existing structures or freestanding towers. This Penonal Communications Service is a digital signal rather than analog and provides a clearer, more secure connection while providing possible services such as paging, fax, video, data, caller ID, and voice messaging to handheld PCS telephones. Proposed Use US West Wireless, LLC is proposing to install a PCS telecommunications monopole on the property at 7835 Main St. T}�e antennas will be mounted at a 90-foot centerline for the Alpha, Beta and Gamma sectors. The dimensions of the antennas are 42" x 4" x 4" and will be securely fastened to the monopole. We will work with the ciry to ensure that the monopole and equipment are unobtrusive, retatively unnoticeable and aesthetically pleasin�. An unmanned prefabricated equipment pad will be located within our leased area and will be located in the southeast corner of the properry. The cell site will require single phase, 200 amp, 208 volt, electrical service and T-1 telephone for utilities. These will be obtained from the site and separately metered. Included you will find a site plan and zoning drawings; photographic renderings are available upon request. Zoning and Special Use Permit Standards Per the planning commission and ciry council's recommendations of "approved sites," we fint pursued Agro-K, located at 8030 Main Street. We were unable to reach an agreement due to landowner's unwillingness to even discuss the possibility of our entering into a binding contract. I made numerous attempts to contact the properry owner directly and was unsuccessful each and every time. It was also determined that all other ciry designated sites could be defmitively ruled out by US West's Radio Frequency engineers based upon their proximiry to other sites that are part of our system. U5A n�� Proud Sponsor 36USC�80 � "'►' J I chose to punue 7835 Main S�eet as it fiu well in our devised network design, the zoning is favorable and the landlord was/is willing. We wili construct a monopole that can accommodate two other providers at 75 and 60 feet. US West engineers can provide the ciry with definitive documentation stating that our monopoles can accommodate the equipment of two other providers. Also, landscaping will be provided to ensure that our equipment is not observable from tra�c traveling down Main Street. I believe that we have met all criteria as set forth by the city to add the aforementioned properry to the list of "approved sites" according to the amendment procedures of Section 205.05.03. I appreciate the assistance I have received from the Planning Staff. ( look forward to working with you to provide CDMA PCS cellular capabiliry to your area. Sincerely, . �� / �% ��✓� � ,� r Robert J. Viera Real Estate Consultant U S West Wireless 651.387.0059 �21 U S WEST Wireleu. L.L.C. 426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 �'�� life's bener here � January 23, 2000 City of Fridley 6-13 L Universiry Ave. N.E. Fridley, yt�1 �5432 Re: [ssue of Abandonment Dear Ciry of Fridley: This letter serves to inform all relevant pacties that US West Wireless will remove its monopole and restore the properry owner's land to its ori�inal condition within one (l) year upon terntination of the lease at 7835 Main St. N.E. in Frid(ey. /'�,� G� � . 5teve Mangota Real Estate Nian U S West Wireless �� U5A �� Proud Sponsor ��s��o 22 � w z '� J � � a° cai W �+1 = � 0 �a 4a �W w OW – ' —1i _ –� �� ; M �� N r � � g W � Z W J�.. J ; M N O j 7 3 Z 1� • m �� . �_' '�'��.��.�. � � a W d' N � N ♦ �j �a N W� W H 1 _. _. _. _ j �� 0 j 'i R�t� [C � I �w � N¢ � I W O W W � Z 3 � I � a N � � � V U � � � � ZZ W p I W ! h- O J Z N J V � J I X� Z W QI ' � I Q W I ' � �. � R � � � I a ��I � � I i I j � I I � � I �._._._._.—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•— — —•—•—•—•—•---•— —••—• —•---•--� 2332115 NroW . � � 0 � a J ^ a W �� N h 23 _ . . � AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 UT1f OF FRIDLEY DATE: March 16, 2000 � �I TO: William W. Burns, City Manager ,�' FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Revocation Hearin for a S ecial Use Permit at 401 Ironton The purpose of this memo is to request that the City Council set a public hearing to consider revocation of a special use permit issued for a home at 401 Ironton. To revisit history briefly, a special use permit was issued in 1976 (SP#76-08) for the home at 401 Ironton. At that time, the City Code made provisions for a single family residence to be modified into a two-family dwelling. The home is a large, two story, single f late DecemberWS aff in pec ed the stru tu en modified into a separate apartment. In Structural �elements from the inspection lead staff to believe that this structure's deferred maintenance has caused the home to be incapable of further accommodating a second dwelling unit. In fact, it was determined that a total of 4 living units were created in the home. Three separate inspection reports have been included in your reading file for your convenience. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council set April 10, 2000 as the public hearing date for consideration of revocation of Special Use Permit, SP #76-08. M-00-50 24 March 10, 2000 Norma Willson 401 Ironton Street Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Ms. Willson: Thank you for your patience as the City prepared its response to you regarding your property at 401 Ironton. As you know, in response to your request for a rezoning, the City had a number of inspectors evaluate the structure to determine if improvements would be necessary to alfow more than two dwelling units. This letter is to both summarize the findings of that inspection and let you know where the City stands on those findings. To revisit history briefly, a special use permit was issued in 1976. The special use permit was to allow the conversion of your two-story, single-family dwelling into a two family dwelling. The City's Code at that time allowed that type of permit and alteration. On February 16, 1994, Steve Barg, City of Fridley Planning Assistant, contacted you regarding his concern about more than 2 dwellings at this address. You were asked to provide information about all units and chose not to do so. Separate from Steve Barg's Code Enforcement Division, you asked the City's Rental Housing Division for, and received, a rental license for more than two units. The City's Rental Housing Division issues hundred of licenses annually. Your applications for rental licenses did not raise a flag with them about the number of rental units, relative to your property's zoning. Your property's proximity (next door) to legitimate R-3, multiple family units apparently made it difficult for staff in the field to distingui�h where the line lies between the single-family and multiple-family zoned properties. However our rental inspectors expressed concern about your rental units. 25 Norma Willson March 10, 2000 ` PAGE 2 It is quite likely that you misinterpreted the zoning and your 1976 special use permit, believing that you were entitled to more than 2 units. By zoning, you were only entitled to the two approved units. Nonetheless, once all facts were known, it was the City's responsibility to respond by taking whatever action was necessary. In September 1999, the City did respond. The City asked you to give tenants proper notice and to have all but the finro approved units vacated. Beyond the finro units, other spaces occupied did not meet Building Code requirements for habitable spaces. That fact, I understand is what caused you to apply for a rezoning in November 1999. If successful, a rezoning would have allowed you more than the 2 units approved in 1976. Our staff was concerned however, that in spite of our discussions with you, you may not have been clear about what a rezoning would mean to your property. The City clarified, a rezoning is a discretionary grant on the part of the City. The City Council must decide whether or not a request is in keeping with the overall vision and best interests of the City. A rezoning in Fridley, historically, also has involved consideration of all health, safety and welfare issues. It is those health, safety and welfare concerns at 401 Ironton that are the source of much concern for our staff. Our inspection in December revealed that the structure is inadequate to allow more units. As a matter of fact, staff has determined that the special use permit allowing the second unit should be revisited and staff will recommend that the second unit opportunity be eliminated and the special use permit be revoked. In December 1999, the basement and attic (third floor) were still occupied , in spite of the City's insistence that the areas be vacated months earlier. In early February 2000, a new tenant from the basement of 401 Ironton introduced herself to City staff. She indicated that she had just moved in and that she was representing you in a request for information about the inspections etc. Her comments about moving in were puzzling since the City has asked that only the two units be occupied , no other spaces are to be occupied at this point. Remember the inspection report revealed that there are a number of concerns with your home. Concerns that not only make it clear that 3 or 4 units are not possible, but also concern that the special use permit issued in 1976 should be revisited based on the condition of the second unit. 26 Norma Willson March 10, 2000 PAG E 3 In conclusion, the City asks that you recognize this letter as your notice. On March 20, 2000, staff will ask the City Council to set a public hearing to reconsider your Special use permit. At that time, staff will recommend that the hearing be set for April 3, 2000. If April 3, 2000, is approved as the meeting date, the meeting will take place at 7:30 in the City Council Chambers, 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley. If you have questions, please contact me at 572-3599. Sincerely, CITY OF FRIDLEY Scott J. Hickok Planning Coordinator C-00 21 27 � GC i .- .i ;-..�� Property Address: 401 ironton Street Property Owner: Norma Wilson Inspected by: Dave Jensen, Building Inspector Dick Larson, Fire Marshall Kevin Hanson, Building Inspector �� Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planner • L� ••- �� • _ � •- •� - ••t l• - - �- t=�� 3'd Floor Unit • fire window lacking ladder to grade • needs "tagged" fire extinguisher - minimum size 1A-10 BC • needs smoke detectors attached to walls or ceiling • toilet is not secured to floor - floor in bathroom needs repair or replacement • unsecured electrical receptacle in entry way • storage in hallway • water stains on ceiling • bathroom fan - vents to a habitable room, exposed electrical • handrails do not meet code requirements e � P ��.x,-i F� % 2"d Floor Unit • toilet runs constantly • floor appears to be damaged (spongy) in bathroom • mold in bathroom & on kitchen ceiling • water stain on kitchen ceiling • broken windows • needs "tagged" fire extinguisher - minimum size 1A-10 BC • needs smoke detectors attached to walls or ceiling Basement Rental Rooms • Egress window need to be finished • Padlock on bedroom door must be removed Outside / Other Issues • steps to 3`� floor unit need to be replaced • more than'4" gap in deck and stair railings • no evidence of electrical inspections on any "add on work" : "�"/Cli/L( r :'� C.:: :•�-{.' f�s�iL�,j�i � E � "� � � //�o.c� Tofc3 T /�. 2�.J �-�L l��J � �-S �A �.� ko�.J .[� . lZ-� �9' � �r.v .J � !L �Jq/U T� T o /h��- �� oo� � o,vE ,��v�oc.,�i 2�� i.�L ��i�-� 2��,c�.o�.. f� T�vc_� 13 �D•eoo� /Z�.v i�L. �li�l� f�,v.� % GJ o �.�`'. o�A�G:/. c� �/r- ,�'0�' �-'/S /.� �-,c/Zc- : `.�� ,--,� �'� � � - . G � �.��,v �- z o �v,�v � t.: o ,� T��- �"1!� .�%� r SS' ��, 5!�c. `� L� �'.�y�r l� y. /% !�J/a cS �jP£!�/O �.� G� /¢l��Gt��'.L3 ,.�r.' �`��" � / r" � � � % O f%/,%!/� .lr'/!'% �� %��'�it, %'�✓ � 7 �� % r./ J J�y ��+_ v W � G � � ��/ / �! �Y• � ��'W C �. .�.4� .��2 So.J . � �s FiQist/.�y � ..�/.�'.�,.�r---`.�tfT�. c .�., %�rfrG.� � ..P= �/ 1 r ._!'/�`-� � �'"" !;' ,�"-- �...r,•'�'"•. r> � ,_ � > ��- ,- � .-� iG'� `! d v �- s�, %`� � /�'.'. � %� ..2.� . . :�" /-�� ...-�-� �- �.0 G--' C �. f �fil�° :� CV . �' t �! � ,I. � � �:w:,i'z�: � /%',�i�;%'/. ti` ' ,f==..''...1_ '.e_r. ;> .�' f, ,,..,�'r`r��'".�,*'„� i.. � ,�_.�; ... .;, �_' ... ��,�' ��,� �Eit� T/� � - �4 �0�9�� o a �-✓ ,i , c> ;��.-�',� - ??.;�.� �=i:;r �"il.j � � ��il�Z� l.�o T,�,IEi�- ,� �.9��i��- ,�o�.-�, � ,�E L�'S�� rS ?!o .� ��-1 % t� r �>-- �.- r� r.�,�"�-°' ��/�' C . '�o2�e fc;=-.��.�Y ; �! -�--��-.�:�.� � ,�,eE.� ' y � �� T��2 �r-• �� , 3 �` f�"'��'e� /1,�1G �2a�� J .tid.e �l� EGfL.C.S,.S' �,v/�Jbt�`v t��G L. O rJ�2 Q// .S P.�fC�2.�' s/ Z� �0 2 j� 7-��,e.�r� �<•�r� R ,4 i L.s. 04- 3 �� -,�r�.e.d ,�,�ics �02 �£ ��G�c.c�r�i��-s . �� i��•� .E�..Q/G S �ai� �T'�i�„� /f/p r 7'-"o GJ ol�� , . 29 ' .�� ?'� 7�2 i�2 �•v T'- � ST.O/,� � T� Z '`'D �!� �'.� /.v .�r/� � � �L" ,� £�.�/2�i2 �i�G.�' G' G/� f��` -�L s Z' L��/�� 2�/L S IC G.qGf./�� .�/� s � � � a Go �� -. � �jc � o s �v �G- �Gr2•G.4 �- �� o,�r �x .� ,��. o�vc�- � �".Q/2 5 '["a /� .c�2.' �L. rao.f2 .��.c� D i.J �2 o.v r c�' D��., t.. c...i �G � G(% ! N D o c.c� v.d Soy �-',r/ !v� �� .� 3 '�� '�oo,e yo �- ��.v�.s,��.� -�,Q � C,�,rJ7,�G� ��- � G�.�s��.•�c c=-� �� /r�j�4N� 3�0 k��% c� �.v � o� s � �� ,ea.�.�.�G- o .v �.¢ �a- �.� �-�e y ��-,¢i�s . .� �(/ .�TT�� /�.v � i �.a :. o� � C..:�%/%?� E y �l/� � t� S T�G�� O l'� T rJ � G- / r�,2.D , �D b � � � 3 � �29aZ' �O- � .�uM� � 4 � ��(�� I" � �� /T�'��-� �� G � � �� oa,e ,�EirJ�,Q Gt� l i.�i v/�c/ cs' 7/ �� l L /�G ��/G� % �� '-4. . . /%�/� � ,S � �P �/ . foie �i� ,8/ T9�G � .�oo.A. 5 /�/,Tri �lC.vs �l+�i G. � � J ?'�/� t' T ��i° ��2T /� �•� TS 1 c5 , �� ` Tr�i i S� T.�o �o t" �y �t� i � <a a �. - �.0 �. � / �.� 3fi�i4�El� �'o.� ,Bi�Ti4�/10� .4.v,d ,(!i� t-G .�l.v � � 30 .. � � 3 �D�LOO2 �v �vT. . � �• �- ��-- �,�s a� �,J ,e��,��.� -,�o f'�",e.�c � r� � �c.00� ,c�.�o�.�v� �s;� � d� �'� . °�"'�'G.o� � � /� o �.+�.c�i7�.JG-- �i� s f'� � r�v.J �... c� ar-��- �� r%�2. �� ,�,c � �'�Y �,� �;.as�- ,e�oc��--� ,vo ,�— G-' ��/ G ��a r,.�/3-,,�E�-�I'",�G'',� -'/l% /��'� rr- � /oic � T C a��°�'�Ti+� ��r7�-- �,�� T d��P> �►'� v� �'.�-�.c''�� G�l i�v ,�.r�.��8,��-.� � �/ /1��-�,e� �`,e o,v ��a� � �� /�1�.�/� /.z% �,�sT' ,Qoo� : � �7-,� i. ti � ��.�-r � /,�� ''Jo 7-- �-� G� c�,c� �:.. � '�`� �40�.� � � �G'/�. J.-v �jPO�� "' � �c 7►-�l.8, ToiG � T ,C�o rr�,�, � tl�.,�L G s ��o.l.vs"� .�°!/� /,ti �� .D � O� 2 ��'�i�f'�/�..��ir�� _ � �� / �.�r1 � � r�!-�� /��ie � � ��20� �P.� �� o �a 2 . i� � � �/�.�� .v � -rc��-� -- w,�s--�.�, T��/�li�G�,r� �i�a� Tol �-� T r��o �� ;o ,!)� ; �£.� �,�� v.� ooi'�S � �� /��J �vl��,s . -�' S��}i.�' /�-,.�� i�� ,1/�� --� �.�� 31 ' � � 1 �'� � , ;" � .:��/t �- .y�^�� _�) -, l'� -- � �i ,� '' -'' .'/ � • y :. � _ `� ..'"%' � .. --v �� i%' - . ; , Y G .� �- � . ' � �5.� � d'� '-� �,� S� P�,�,� %c— S' �r�r,� �.� ��' �a r-:�' .:��-�,��-v G ,,20� �z S' �� o S /� �{ � � -s�.��2. �J � �T� � �,� y %� r/ � � % / � /� �.J o� ��'f'�/2- �'%4� ��,/'•�� S �i�G-� -� b w �` z-�� i �. . f��.P-i 'l �T� � �L � �G�/f2/�t��f /`-r .L-//''� �� /�" �GLf � � ��.. £ e �"�L / �' � G Gd 0.�. �G LJ / % �� Ll �" r�- 1� �,r? �? ,i 7-- ? - -� /, � /•G � ?-i�/i'2 .�?.��Gli..>� _s ,�� -� T � �� 32 ;. r--�•---�.-�.�,,...�.... t.... :•,-�-t-.r.-+.�--�c-�. _. -.--�� / ' _�� T / ��_/' � V %��' / r'°z/. � = INSPECTION REPORT � CtT1f� OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA � (612) 572-3604 _� ADDRESS / � a/• - i��- • � ' , -� ,, . � � F . � � • { �c .i ,.,• . . ._ -.- - - ' _ `. � . OWNER . `'r � t " L� � . �'"� - . - � - BUILDER -• � ��--" �-� 1 S • t � . �� ; - �-�. � � '` _ ' DATE t r PERMIT NO.' � 7��v . � DESCRIPTION DATE ti ni . -/� i c lif /�./� %� i5 .L � /�.� 1 �T'/1 L INSPECTION REPORT REPORT - 1 '� !r / ' r '< � r t i i t ; 9 If no corrections are listed above, app�oval hereby given to proceed. You wili be in violation of the ordinance if you do not call for the proper inspections and make corrections as called for. 33 l ` • - _-T- �t. ��i . - _.-' _ N Z u.� m � � a 0 � r-I � +�1 3 � � � � W � O 0 � W � .. Vf w Z z � � �, � u . t/� 0 � O �+ H .--1 0 � � w � � � � N � N � �� M I Ou1O O � U I O N O . O c�'1 �1 M l� c•'1 � C O � a� '� o � a bo '''� U 0 �+ w A d � U °a � o u�, � p V� O •-� �N �. .-+ cr1 � �l� N �O M Q O �� U U .-1 � � v�i 7 y a � a .� s� �,�-� :a a, W tr, 3 r°n o O O � � S� � � � U fs+ f� S��t N r�-I a,a, �x.�xaa� 00 0o s� � � � � O O�� x U x, i i,+ � c7��x A wci az°c"n � 3 00�� .� .� , . � ,� � :a o0 O� N N p �\ t� �� N N \ � M \ \ � � \ 00 tL \ \ \ \ \ N rn rn �o � r �p .o .� � � � � � � ,� a, �+ M � � ro � � � � w W � � � v v v � aL�,+► .0 �+� �� a�� a°',, � a �,.a a a a a V � d0 00 O+ C+ U p� � � � � � � .� .� '� � i.1 � y-1 .,�.{ � � � � •-�1 •�-I Ri r-�1 � '.7 r"� �"� r'� '� � (�i 3 w oa aa a w a m z �0 0 Ey �, Z � o r�i � ��` UE � �n �o � � � N ^� � � � Q Q • 1� O� O Ill f� M �p � w w O N O� . �p .,..� �O O C�i ^ .�7 a a .� �-+ rn � � �-�i °D '�'� � � ` � � . � � � � ,k � � d � `� �� a`i o `a e � Q `� `� � 3 a �° � � � � � � `x `�`� �� ..�� . , � � �r � � � � 3 �� 34��. . � •.� �� c� � � �� .w � �� . .� �`N � v, � �� v� � � � _\ � � � � � � "� � y 'F'6 � � .� � � �� !�'� � V � �� , �� l�' O C � � � � rr� '!.3 � Q. • � � � � � � � �� CJ W (� •` V 1 � � ' q � � / AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 CfTY OF FRIDLEY DATE: March 16, 2000 . � TO. William W. Burns, City Manager �!�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Revocation Hearing for a Special Use Permit at 6290 Highway 65 The purpose of this memo is to request that the City Council set a public hearing to consider revocation of a special use permit issued for an auto repair service at 6290 Highway 65. To revisit history briefly, a special use permit was issued in 1994 (SP#94-18), for the Sinclair Service Garage at 6290 Highway 65. The Special Use Permit included several stipulations. One stipulation stated that there were to be no junked or abandoned vehicles left or stored outside. Further, the special use permit provisions for service garages in the C-3, General Shopping District, make it clear that cars left for repair are to be left outside no longer than 3 days. ' This facility has violated these two stipulations and to date has not cooperated in correcting these violations. Further, the violation of the Special Use Permit has caused the facility to run out of space to park vehicles to be serviced on their lot, and cars are being parked on the street and boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council set April 10, 2000 as the public hearing date for consideration of revocation of Special Use Permit, SP #94-18. M-00-49 35 AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 CRY OF FRIDLEY TO: William W B i ` _ . urns, C ty Manager �� PW00 004 FROM: John G. Flora� Public Works Director DATE: March 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Ordinance Revision The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has completed its review and published rules associated with right-of-way management in compliance with the 19971egislative requirements in Chapter 123. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has also updated its model ordinance regarding the right-of-way management as a result of the PUC rules. The City Council adopted Chapter 407 establishing the right-of-way management chapter in April 1998. This revision is submitted to follow and to comply with recent state legislation and rules. The changes inherent are as follows. • The word "public" has been added for all right-of-ways for additional clarification. • It officially adopts the 1997 session laws • Added 11 definitions from the League model • Redefined the restoration process • Clarified denial and revocation criteria • Established a nuisance item for failure to register right-of-way facilities • Deletes our prior indemnification section and adds the PUC verbage • Increases the registration fee from $15 to $50 • Increases the excavation fee from $200 to $300 as a result of this past year's experience The revised ordinance has been provided to all the utility companies. Recommend the City Council set a public hearing for April 10, 2000. JGF:cz Attachment � ORDINANCE NO. �.TrV AN ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 407 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVZSIONS AND E'EES" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 407.01. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE 1. To provide for the health, safety and well-being of its citizens, and to ensure the structural integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the up blic rights-of-way, the City strives to keep its up blic rights-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Although the general population bears the financial burden for the upkeep of the up blic rights- of-way, a primary cause for the early and excessive deterioration of its up blic rights-of-way is frequent excavation bv persons whose equipment or facilities are located therein. up blic right-of-way obstruction is a source of frustration for merchants, business owners and the general population which must avoid these obstructions or change travel or shopping plans because of them and has a detrimental effect on commerce. Persons whose equipment or facilities is located within the up blic right-of-way are the primary cause of these frequent obstructions. The City holds the up blic rights-of-way within its geographical boundaries as an asset in trust for its citizens. The City and other public entities have invested millions of dollars in public funds to build and maintain the up blic rights-of-way. It also recognizes that some persons, by placing their equipment or facilities in the up blic right-of-way and charging the citizens of the City for goods and services delivered thereby, are using this property held for the public qood. Although such services are often necessary or convenient for the citizens, such persons receive revenue and/or profit through their use of public property. As a result of all these intrusions in the up blic right-of-way, it is �eees-sL� appropriate for the City to establish a system of documenting what is placed in the up blic rights-of-way within its municipal boundaries a��--�e s��Fe ��}�'"' ""' "'"'' �7"""r to inform its citizens and the other public entities of the equipment or facilities that have been placed in the right-of-way that is held in trust for them. 2. In response to the foregoing facts, the City hereby enacts this �eFt Chapter of the City Code relating to right-of-way permits and administration, together with making necessary revisions to other Code provisions. This Chapter imposes reasonable regulations on 37 the placement and maintenance of }��f1e�s e€-��e-��}e�t-�-��g��T �ea�,�-a�9�}�� e�r�g�}��r��r�--a�� g�see�ts-€Qe-�sT-�r€e�t��-o�- facilities and equipment currently within the City's ublic rights-of-way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this Chapter, persons disturbing and obstructing the up blic rights-of-way will bear aTa�� sna��e--e= the financial responsibility for their work ��___��. Finally, this Chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights-of-way. a�� a��s ��e �'- �' -' t�re-�t�� e-t3t-} ��}� s-�� s s-�s��-�ETE}--e�r �r- This chapter shall be interpreted consistentiv with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantiallv codified in Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.16,� 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81 and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws overnin applicable ri hts of the city and users of the right-of-wav. This cha ter shall also be interpreted consistently with Minnesota Rules Part 7819.0050 - 7819.9950 where possible. To the extent any provision of this chapter cannot be interpreted consistentiv with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. 3. In addition to the foregoing recovery of costs and regulation of use, the City Council determines that there is an existing and legitimate state and local public policy, which authorizes the City to require payments as reimbursement or return to the public for the use value of the public rights-of-way from those who obtain revenue or profits from such use. This reimbursement is provided for and defined in this ordinance as the "user fee." This fee does not apply to the repair, replacement or reconstruction of an existing facility. Telecommunication facilities are exempt from a user fee by state statute. a. Public Interest and Welfare. The City Council finds that it is in the public interest to provide for the payment of a user fee by all persons who use and occupy the right-of-way for operating their businesses. This provides equity b� requiring all users of the ublic right-of-way to pay compensation apportioned equally among them all for the value and benefit of using such ublic right-of-way. To ensure such fair treatment, this Chapter exempts franchise holders which pay franchise fees to the City on the date of adoption of this Chapter from the payment.of a user fee. � . �e�}��i�a�� , : .. . . .. b. Not a Rate. The City Council finds and determines that the user fee authorized by this Chapter is not and is not intended to be a rate as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. § 216B.02, Subd. 5. Such user fee is not a fee for a service that is provided to the customer of a person using the ublic right-of-way, but is rather a fee paid for the right of that person to operate in the public right-of-way, and to maintain the equipment � a*_�'_'_'_ =l in the ublic right-of-way in the City of Fridley. 407.02. DEFINITIONS" The following definitions apply in this Chapter of this Code. Reference hereafter to "sections" are unless otherwise specified references to sections in this Chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized. a. "Abandoned facility" means a facility no longer in service or �hysically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or . still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right-of-way user. b. "Applicant" means any Person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way. c. "City" means the City of Fridley, Minnesota. For purposes of section 407.27, City means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. d. "Commission" means the state Public Utilities Commission. e. "Conqested riqht-of-way" means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right-of-way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota 5tatutes, Section �1�U.u4, subaivision �, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. f. "Construction Performance Bond" means any of the following forms of security provided at permittees option: Individual project bond (1) Cash deposit 39 (2) Security of a form listed or approved under Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.73, sub. 3 (3) Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the City (4) Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the city (5) A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the city. .. ,. e�et-�re�€e�e�see�r�-ge�s-�e�� e e�s�r�t�e '_, ='�_„_�-., �l ��.�� e€ t-�re-�}g#�-e-€-�Fay---Fe�r ��—e � e�e��gg�� ea��e °-�� la��ee�� _ ,. ., =}==--= =�= g. "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the Right-of-Way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the Right-of-Way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such Right-of-Way earlier than would be required if the excavation did not occur. h. "Degradation Cost" means the cost to achieve a level of restoration as determined by the City at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in proposed PUC rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. i. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the City to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the Right-of=Way caused by the excavation, and which equals the Degradation Costs. j. "Department" means the Department of Public Works of the City. k. "Department inspector" means any Person authorized by the City to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this Chapter. 1. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Public Works of the City, or �r� �— '�== the Director's designee. m. "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right-of-way ��}�••�*�� excavation, obstruction, patchinq, or restoration as establish by 'ep rmit. n. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a clear and immediate danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or . � replacement of Facilities in order to restore service to a customer. o. "Equipment" means any tangible assect used to install, repair, or maintain Facilities in any Right-of-Way. p. "Excavate or excavation" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right-of-way. q. "Excavation Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this Chapter, must be obtained before a Person may excavate in a Right-of-Way. An Excavation Permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the Right-of-Way described in such permit. r. "Excavation Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by an Applicant to cover the costs as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code. s. "Facility or Facilities" means any tangible asset in the Right-of-Way required to provide Utility Service. t. "Five-year project plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next five years. u. "High densitv corridor" means a designated portion of the , public right-of-way within which telecommunications right- of-way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit svstem or other common structure. v. "Hole" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. � w. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such Person or Persons, authorized by a Registrant to accept Service and to make decisions for that Registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this Chapter. x. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the City incurs in managing its Rights-of-Way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering Applicants; issuing, processing, and verifyinq Right-of-Way permit applications and inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right-of-way permits. Management costs do not include payment by a Telecommunications Right-of-way User for the use of the � right-of-way, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123; Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 or 237.163 or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the City fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 407.29 of this chapter. y. "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a Right- of-Way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the Riqht-of-Way for a period in excess of 8 consecutive hours. z. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this Chapter, must be obtained before a Person may obstruct a Right-of-Way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that Right-of-Way for a period over 8 hours by placing Equipment described therein on the Right-of-Way for the duration specified therein. aa. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by a Permittee to cover the costs as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code. bb. "Patch or Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A Patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the . replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A Patch is considered full Restoration only when the pavement is included in the City's five year project plan. cc. "Pavement" means any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of-way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with asphalt, concrete, aggregate or gravel. dd. "Permittee" means any Person to whom a permit to Excavate or Obstruct a Right-of-Way has been granted by the City under this Chapter. ee. "Person" means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate or political. f� ."re� se �� "—�te�a-�s--a�•r� ��t�a �e� ee�-g�s��e-�e�-s e � � '�.. � : � ^ � � �s se��,�re�-e � ��i-�es�s e�r� � ��r--}�re��r��tg, ��t 3. �� e�� e-�-a ��t�re�s�i�-a sa� e .... � �. , � �e�i�re��s�-�f� �i e��t-g�� e e��o� ��.-�r�,---a-��i��-�--��t�es so�e �-a-�s� g�r-e-€-a�r�e� �-� €e r�ge i �rg7-s� a��r-e�t�re�-�egT,rP.�,,± _-�-�• , 42 ff. "Probation" means the status of a Person that has not complied with the conditions of this Chapter. qg. "Probationary Period" means one year from the date that a Person has been notified in writing that they have been put on Probation. hh. "Repair" means the temporary construction work necessary to make the Right-of-Way useable for travel. ii. "Registrant" means any Person who (1) has or seeks to have its Equipment or Facilities located in any Right-of-Way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the Right-of-Way or place its Facilities in the Right-of- Way. i�. "Registration fee" means money paid to the city by a Registrant to cover the cost associated with registration. kk. "Restore or Restoration" means the process by which an excavated Right-of-Way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. 11. "Restoration Cost" means the amount of money paid to the City by a Permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 to PUC rules mm. "Right-of-Way or Public Right-of-Way" means the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements of the City. A Right-of-Way does not include the airwaves above a Right- of-Way with regard to cellular or other nonwire telecommunications or broadcast service. nn. "Right-of-Way Permit" means either the Excavation Permit or the Obstruction Permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this Chapter. oo. `�Right-of-way user" means (1) a telecommunications right- of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 237.162, subdivision 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. pp. "Service" or "Utility Service" includes but is not limited to (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216B.02, subds. 4 and 6; {�-}- �e � ��e��t��a � � e�s�--��$e � ��ee��-��-��e�ra--t��eir� ..: ..., � ��e—a�2�—asarrc��eiRittH��$�ene�---�see-t-i�� e-� �, , : ;�.+. �...., a- 43 eee��tg e�e�g�—e�--gewe� se��r��e�s-,r--{-37 ��—s-��ir�e�s �38�—a�� a—f6-}—�e�ee�e��e�re�--�}gn��W�-8se� �s �€i�tec�—i�- (2) services at a telecommunicators right-of-way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications svstems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chap. 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the city; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 308A; and (6) water, sewer, steam, cooling or heating services. qq. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to Excavate or Obstruct more of the Right-of-Way permitted or to extend a permit that had already been issued. rr. "Telecommunication Rights-of-Way User" means a Person owning or controlling a Facility in the Right-of-Way, or seeking to own or control a Facility in the Right-of-Way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this Chapter, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chapter 238, and telecommunication , activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. Section 216B.02 a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat. Chap. 308A, are not Telecommunications Right-of-Way Users for purposes of this Chapter. ss. "Temporary surface" means the compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the city's two-year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. tt. "Trench" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a lenqth equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. uu. "Two year project plan" shows projects adopted by the City for construction within the next two vears. vv. "Unusable or Unused Equipment and Facilities" means Equipment and Facilities in the Right-of-Way which have remained unused for one year and/or for facilities that are not registered or located by Gopher One Call or for which . . the Registrant is unable to provide proof that it has either a plan to begin using it within the next twelve (12 ) months or a potential purchaser or user of the Equipment or Facilities. ww. "User Fee" is the sum of money, payable to the City, by a person using or occupying the Right-of-Way; provided, however, that the City may at its option provide, at any time by ordinance or by amendment thereto, for a greater or different fee applicable to all such persons in an amount and by a method of determination as may be further provided in such ordinance or amendment thereto. 407.03. ADMINISTRATION 1. Responsibility. � The City Manager is the principal City official responsible for the administration of the Rights-of-Way, Right-of-Way Permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The City Manager may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. 2. Franchise: Franchise Supremacy. The City may, in addition to the requirements of this Chapter, require any person which has or seeks to have equipment located in any Right- of-Way to obtain a franchise to the full extent permitted by law now or hereinafter enacted. The terms of any franchise which are in direct conflict with any provision of this Chapter whether qranted prior or subsequent to enactment of this Chapter, shall control and supercede the conflicting terms of this Chapter. Al1 other terms of this Chapter shall be fully applicable to all Persons whether franchised or not. 407.04. REGISTRATION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OCCUPANCY l. Registration. Each person who occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the public Right-of-Way or place any Equipment or Facilities in the Right-of-Way, including Persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the City. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. 2. Registration Prior to Work. No Person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any Equipment or Facility or any part thereof in�any Right-of-Way without first being registered with the City. 45 3. Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a City ordinance permitting Persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the Right-of-Way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the Right-of-Way, and shall not be reguired to obtain any permits for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this Chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a Person from complying with the provisions of the Minn. Stat. Chapter. 216D, "One call" Law. SECTION 407.05. REGISTRATION INFORMATION 1. Information Required. The information provided to the City at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: a. Each Registrant's name, Gopher One-Call registration certificate number, address and E-mail address if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. b. The name, address and E-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a Local Representative. The Local Representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the Local Representative in an Emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. c. A certificate of insurance or self-insurance acceptable by the city: 1. Verify that an insurance policy has been issued to the Registrant by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self insurance acceptable to the City; 2. Verifying that the Registrant is insured against claims for Personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents, employees and Permittees, and (ii) placement and use of Facilities in the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents, employees and Permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground Facilities . and collapse of property; 3. Naming the City as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; . � 10 � e. 4. Requiring that the City be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; 5. Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the City in amounts sufficient to protect the City and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this Chapter. The City may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. If the Person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate required to be filed under Minn. Stat. § 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. f. A copy of the Person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the Person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said Commission or other state or federal agency. 1. Notice of Changes. The Registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the City information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the Registrant has knowledge of any change. 2. Grant of Right; Payment of User Fee. Any person required to register under Section 407.04, which furnishes utility services or which occupies, uses, or places its equipment in the ublic right-of-way, is hereby granted a right to do so if and only so long as it (1) timely pays the user fee as provided herein, and (2) complies with all other requirements of law. This legal entitlement shall not include use of the right-of-way for purposes not in furtherance of furnishing utility services for which additional authorization is required by this Code or other state or federal law, unless the person pays the user fee for such non-utility service use. The user fee reflects the value of the right-of-way needed for new facilities and is based on the average market value of the land, adjusting for the cost of acquisition and non-exclusive use. The dimensions .of the occupied land shall incorporate the Gopher One Call criteria of 2-foot clearance on all sides. Such fee shall be paid to the City in substantially equal (quarterly, semi-annual, annual) installments, subject to adjustment and correction at the conclusion of the calendar year. Such fee shall be paid for all and any part of a calendar year, prorated on a daily basis, during any time period in 47 which the said person uses or occupies the right-of-way to furnish utility serviced, or places, maintains or uses its wires, mains, pipes, or any other facilities or equipment in the right-of-way. This section does not apply to a person which uses and occupies the right-of-way for operating its business when there is a pre-existing franchise agreement between that person and the city and the payment of a franchise fees, nor does it apply to the repair, replacement or reconstruction of an existing facility. The grant of such right is expressly conditioned on, and is subject to, continuing compliance with all provisions of law, including this Chapter. ` 407.06. REPORTING OBLIGATIONS 1. Operations. Each Registrant proposing to work in the city shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground Facilities with the City. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the City and shall contain the information determined by the City to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of Excavations and Obstructions of Rights-of-Way. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: a. The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all Projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this section, a"Next-year Project"); and b. To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all Projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a ��Five-year Project"). The term "project" in this section sha11 include both Next-year Projects and Five-year Projects. By January 1 of each year the City will have available for inspection a composite list of all Projects of which the City has been informed in the annual plans. All Reqistrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter; by February 1, each Registrant may change any Project in its list of Next-year Projects, and must notify the City and all other Registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Registrant may at any time join in a Next-year Project of another Registrant listed by the other Registrant. . • 12 2. Additional Next-year Projects. Notwithstanding the foregoinq, the City will not deny an application for a Right-of-Way Permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the City if the Registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. 3. Applicants obtaining Anoka County Highway or Minnesota Department of Transportation excavation permits for facilities in their rights-of-way within the corporate limits of the City must provide a copy to the City and submit a copy of the plans with mapping data for recording purposes per Section 407.21. SECTION 407.07. PERMIT REQUIREMENT 1. Permit Required. , Except as otherwise provided in this Code, no Person may Obstruct or Excavate any Right-of-Way without first having registered and obtained the appropriate Right-of-Way Permit from the City to do so. a. Excavation Permit. An Excavation Permit is required �,• � D-�_-��} to excavate that part of the Right-of-Way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the Right-of-Way by placing equipment on facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. w�t-�-��e �� ..�_. ,j, 1 ..�. TM; r Multiple excavations limited to �e��Ei��e� 600 feet are considered one project and require an excavation permit. Each permit application Section 407.21. b. Obstruction Permit. will require the mapping data per An Obstruction Permit is required to hinder free and open passage over a specified portion of Right-of-Way for periods �n excess of 8 consecutive hours by placing Equipment described therein on the Right-of-Way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An Obstruction Permit is not required if a Person already possesses a valid Excavation Permit for �the same project. Failur.e to obtain an obstruction permit prior to the obstruction will require an after-the-fact obstruction permit plus payment of a delay penalty. �� c. Permit Waiver In the event of a major catastrophe or emergency declared by the City requiring the restoration of services that are within the right-of-way, the requirement for permits and permit fees may be waived by the City at its discretion. After restoration of the service has been completed, an updated mapping plan per Section 407.21 must be submitted to the City within 60 days. 2. Permit Extensions. No Person may Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless such Person (i) makes a Supplementary Application for another Right-of-Way Permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. 3. Delay Penalty. Notwithstanding subd. 2 of this section, the City shall establish and impose a Delay Penalty for unreasonable delays not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable in Right-of-Way Excavation, Obstruction, Patching, or Restoration. The Delay Penalty shall be established from time to time by City Council resolution and shall include any delay or damages charged by the City's construction contractor and may include liquidated damages consistent with the contract. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this Chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the City. SECTION 407.08. PERMIT APPLICATIONS Application for a permit is made to the City. Right-of-Way Permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions. a. Registration with the City pursuant to this Chapter; b. Submission of all required location and o� all known a completed permit application form, including attachments, and scaled drawings showing the area of the proposed project and the location existing and proposed Facilities. c. Payment of money due the City for 1. permit fees, estimated Restoration Costs and other Management Costs; 50 14 � 2. prior Obstructions or Excavations; 3. any ^~�'� ��' loss, damage, or expense suffered by the --r---- City because of Applicant's prior excavations or Obstructions of the rights-of-way or any Emergency actions taken by the City; 4. franchise or user fees, if applicable. d. Payment of disputed amounts due the City by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110� of the amount owing. e. When an Excavation Permit is requested for purposes of installing additional Facilities, and the posting of a Construction Performance Bond for the additional Facilities is insufficient, the posting of an additional or larger Construction Performance Bond for the additional Facilities may be required. SECTION 407.09. ISSUANCE OF PERMIT; CONDITIONS 1. Permit Issuance. If the Applicant has satisfied the requirements of this Chapter, the City shall issue a permit. 2. Conditions. The City may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the Applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of- Way and its current use. SECTION 407.10. PERMIT FEES 1. Excavation Permit Fee. The Excavation Permit Fee shall be established by the City in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: a. the City Management Costs; b. Mapping Costs; c. Degradation Costs, if applicable. 2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The Obstruction Permit Fee shall be es �a��=s�e�-��e—G��*—a�r� ��_ �e in an amount sufficient to recover the City Management Costs associated'with recording and inspecting the right-of-way obstruction. 51 15 3. Payment of Permit Fees. a. No Excavation Permit or Obstruction Permit shall be issued without payment of Excavation or Obstruction Permit Fees. The City may allow Applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. b. The mapping portion of the excavation fees- is waived if the mapping data provided to the City =F �'--�"_=;• is in GIS compatible and City format. 4. Non refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the City has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 407.20 are not refundable. 5. Application to franchises. Unless otherwise specified to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right-of-way user in the franchise. 6. Waiver of Fees. Payment of fees, as identified in this Chapter, with the exception of restoration costs, for water and/or sanitary sewer connections to property in the city are waived. However Registration and the Right- of-way Permit application must be submitted and approved by the city prior to commencement of any work. SECTION 407.11. RIGHT-OF-WAY PATCHING AND RESTORATION 1. Timing. The work to be done under the Excavation Permit, and the Patching or Restoration of the Right-of-Way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 407.14. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall Patch its own work. The City may choose either to have the Permittee restore the Right-of-Way or to Restore the pavement itself. a. City Restoration. If the City restores the pavement, Permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, during the twenty-four (24) months following such Restoration, the pavement settles due to Permittee's improper backfilling, the Permittee 52 shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with having to•correct the defective work. b. Permittee Restoration. If the Permittee Restores the Right-of-Way itself, the City may require at the time of application for an Excavation Permit the posting of a Cor.struction Performance Bond in an amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover the cost of Restoration in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules 7819.3000. If, within twenty-four (24) months after completion of the Restoration of the Right-of-Way, the City determines that the Right-of-Way has been properly Restored, the surety on the Construction Performance Bond shall be released. 3. Standards. The Permittee shall perform Excavation Patchinq and/or Restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the City and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. The City shall have the authority to prescribe the manner and extent of the Restoration, and may do so in written procedures of general application or on a case-by-case basis . ��e-��t�� e�e�e}�}��s a-�-s#a-��.��t�-e�--k�e��tr�de� ��t�= `=, , =_--==� ---="'===�=---- _ . _ _, � e�ta� � � � V � � €e-e�t�ee-�-e-� �e-�} g�-e€-�Fa�-,3-� €�ee-�e�� + t., ,. � } • � a � a- . . w@� cr.�rcr��c}'�oxe �6�� 6�—c�%—iilc�Acr-c�i-cSr�� 1�3�c �6ix—� A ��ge�t� ��ee-� s i�r-�ea�e� �e-��a�ree-w�i t-� t� � " - - -� } _ =-- r- e€ a�3 �Ee e�e-� a� e�-�egr�e-�a��e��t�e--�i Q-��-e€ w�-�� e��--�t�r�r-w�s��estt��€�e� ��e--e�e�a-��e�--��s-t-ttr��ee--�� e . �e--� ��e��e e�-�� i�-�� e�r�a� -�t��-e� _,... �... _,.. : .... �e�r�� e � €e e� r��e—t� s le��g—t�i�--��g�ee��re�r-e��e Methods of restoration may include, but are not limited to, patching, re�lacement of the right-of-way base, and milling and overlay of the entire area of the right-of-way affected by the work. 53 The permittee shall correct defects in �erformed b� ermittee or its agents. patchin Permittee or restoration on notification from the City, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the City. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the City, not i�ncluding days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 407.14. If the permittee fails to restore the right-of-way in the manner and to the condition required by the city, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restorations required by the city, the city as an option, may do such work. In that event, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right-of-way. - 4. Guarantees. By choosing to Restore the Right-of-Way itself, the Permittee guarantees its work and shall maintain it for twenty-four (24) months following its completion. During this 24-month period it shall, upon notification from the City, correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the City. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the City, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 407.14. 5. �Obligation. Construction triggers an obligation of the right-of-way user that the right-of-way restoration be completed according to the conditions set forth in this Chapter. The right-of-way user also assumes responsibility for "as built" drawings and for repairinq facilities or structures, including right-of-way that was damaged during facility installation. The obligation is limited to one year for plantings and turf establishment. 6. Failure to Restore. If the Permittee fails to Restore the Right-of-Way in the manner and to the condition required by the City, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all Restoration required by the City, the City at its option may do such work. In that event the Permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of Restoring the Right-of-Way. If Permittee fails to pay as required, the City may exercise its rights under the Construction Performance Bond. 7. Degra�iation Cost in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu of Right-of-Way Restoration, a Right-of-Way user may elect to pay a Degradation Fee with the approval of the City. However, the Right-of-Way User shall remain responsible for Patching and the 54 ls Degradation Fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. SECTION 407.12. JOINT APPLICATIONS l. Joint Application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way at the same place and time. 2. With City Projects. Registrants who join in a scheduled Obstruction or Excavation performed by the City, whether or not it is a joint application by two or more Registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the Obstruction and Degradation portions of the permit fee. An excavation permit application however must be completed. In these circumstances, the excavation fee will be waived. Mapping data must be provided per Section 407.21. 3. Shared Fees. Registrants who apply for permits for the same Obstruction or Excavation, which the City does not perform, may share in the payment of the Obstruction or Excavation Permit Fee. Registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. SECTION 407.13. SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATIONS 1. Limitation on Area. A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the area of the Right-of-Way specified in the permit. No Permittee may obstruct or do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any Permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be Obstructed or Excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. 2. Limitation on Dates. A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No Permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a Permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply 'for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This Supplementary Application must be �e�e approved before the initial permit end date. 55 SECTION 407.14. OTHER OBLIGATIONS 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining a Right-of-Way Permit does not relieve Permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the City or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A Permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including Minn. Stat. §§ 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System"). A Permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the Right-of-Way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. 2. Prohibited Work. Except in an Emergency, and with the approval of the City, no Right- of-Way Obstruction or Excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. 3. Interference with Right-of-Way. A Permittee shall not so Obstruct a Right-of-Way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the Right-of-Way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with City parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. SECTION 407.15. DENIAL OF PERMIT The City may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this Chapter or if the City determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its current use. 1. Mandatory Denial. Except in an emergency, no right-of-way permit will be granted. a. To any person required . to be registered who has not done so; b. To any person required . to file an annual report but has failed to do so; c. For any next-year project not listed in the construction and maior maintenance plan required under this chapter; d For any project which requires the excavation of any portion of a right-of-way which was constructed or reconstructed within the preceding five (5) years; 56 Zo e. To any person who has failed within the past two (2) years to comply, or is presently not in full compliance, with the requirements of this Chapter; f. To anv person who has outstandinq debt owed to the City; and g. To any person as to whom there exists grounds for the revocation of a permit t�r�e�-�ee��e�-4�7�.'i8 or �3—rf�-� rr ��i e—f��t� en--6 €�-ir�C-� `�p-y— `�r�rc rs�tt aiiEe v�a � e��r�-� e � ��e-g� � �P-r� � a� � ��e a��Te�-�:-. e-� � e�� e�tts�a e-e�� e� i-ff�e�€e�e ii�-��--a�--e�e��e�r,—�e-��n�� €�s��a�,,-e�--a-��e�-eve�� '�eT}�-•�-,-�� e}ea�e�s��g ��}s �i ^t�-rriti na.� •,�.,.•� � �.,o�urF.}P� �y—$}32—S��P-�-j�3Fi� �e��r��}e�ree-e-€ ��P �a ��e� s �e�a��g�e-��e-g��t�� e-�ea=��--s� €e�� ie=€a=e . 2. Permissive Denial. The City may deny a permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to prevent interference with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel over the right-of-way, would cause a conflict or interfere with an exhibition, celebration, festival, or any other event, or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its users. The City may consider one or more of the following factors: a. the extent to which right-of-way space where the permit is sought is available; b. the competing demands for the particular space in the right-of-way; c. � e. f. � the availability of other locations in the right-of-way or in other rights-of-way for the equipment or facilities of the permit applicant; the applicability of ordinance or other regulations of the right-of-way that affect location of equipment or facilities in the right-of-way; the degree of compliance of the applicant with the terms and conditions of its franchise, this Chapter, and other applicable ordinances and regulations; the degree of disruption to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses that will result from the use of that part of the right-of-way; the condition and age of the right-of-way, and whether and when it is scheduled for total or partial reconstruction; and 57 h. the balancing of the costs of damage to the right-of-way, part of the public served by parts of the right-of-way. 3. Discretionary Issuance. disruption to the public and against the benefits to that the expansion into additional Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section subd. 1, the City may issue a permit in any case where the permit is necessary (a) to prevent substantial economic hardship to a customer of the permit applicant, or (b} to allow such customer to materially improve its utility service, or (c) to allow a new economic development project, or otherwise required by law; and where the permit applicant did not have knowledge of the hardship, the plans for improvement of service, or the development project when said applicant was required to submit its list of Next-year Projects. 4. Permits for Additional Next-year Projects. Notwithstandinq the provisions of this Section subd. 1 above, the City may issue a permit to a registrant who was allowed under Section 407.07 Subd. 2, to submit an additional Next-year Project, such permit to be subject to all conditions and requirements of law, including such conditions as may be imposed under Section 407.09. SECTION 407.16. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS The excavation, backfilling, patching, repair, and restoration, and all other work performed in the Right-of-Way shall be done in conformance with Engineering Standards adopted by the PUC or other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with nr7�r-v�-�si�s the Minnesota Statutes Secs . 237 . 162 and 237 .163 . SECTION 407.17. INSPECTION l. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a Completion Certificate in accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Unless waived by the city, a person designated by the right-of-way user as a responsible employee shall sign a completion certificate showing the completion date for the work performed, identifying the installer and designer of record, and certifying that work was completed according to the requirements of the city. If necessary due to approved changes for the work.as projected when the permit,was applied for, the permittee shall submit "as built" drawings or maps within six months of completing the work, showing any deviations from the plan that are greater than plus or minus two feet. : 22 The city shall respond within 30 days of receipt of the completion certificate. Failure to approve or disapprove the permittee's performance within 30 days is deemed to be approval by the city. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work-site available to the City and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. 3. Authority of City. a. At the time of inspection the City may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well-being of the public. b. The City may issue an order to the Permittee for any work which does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the Permittee shall present proof to the City that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the City may revoke the permit pursuant to Section 407.20. SECTION 407.18. WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT 1. Emergency Situations. Each Registrant shall immediately notify the City of any event regarding its Facilities which it considers to be an Emergency. The Registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the Emergency. Within two business days after the occurrence of the Emergency the Registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this Chapter for the actions it took in response to the Emergency. If the City becomes aware of an emergency regarding a Registrant's Equipment or Facilities, the City will attempt to contact the Local Representative of each Registrant affected, or potentially affected by the Emergency. In any event, the City may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the Emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the Registrant whose Facilities occasioned the Emergency. 2. Non-Emerqency Situations. Except in an Emergency, any Person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, Obstructs or Excavates a Right-of-Way must subsequently obtain a permit, and as a penalty pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the 59 Legislative Code, deposit with the City the fees necessary to correct any damage to the Right-of-Way and comply with all of the requirements of this Chapter. SECTION 407.19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTIFICATION If the Obstruction or Excavation of the Right-of-Way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, Permittee shall notify the City of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. SECTION 407.20. REVOCATION OF PERMITS 1. Substantial Breach. The City reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any Right- of-Way Permit, without a fee refund, in the event of a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit including a threat to the safety of workers or the right-of-way user or the utility users. A substantial breach by Permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: a. The violation of any material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit; b. An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens; c. Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a Right-of-Way Permit; d. The failure to complete the work in a timely manner; unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the Permittee's control; or e. f. Failure to relocate existing facilities as specified in Sec. 407.23; or Failure of the utility to pay any required costs, fees, or charges billed by the City or g. The failure to correct, in a riot conform to a condition pursuant to this chapter. 60 24 timely manner, work that does indicated on an Order issued 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the City determines that the Permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any candition of the permit the City shall make a written demand upon the Permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the City to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. 3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within twenty-four (24.) hours of receiving notification of the breach, Permittee shall provide the City with a plan, acceptable to the City, that will cure the breach. Permittee's failure to so contact the City, or the Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Further, Permittee's failure to so contact the City, or the Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one (1) full year. 4. Cause for Probation. From time to time, the City may establish a list of conditions of the permit, which if breached will automatically place the Permittee on Probation f�r one full year, such as, but not limited to, working out of the allotted time period or working on Right-of-Way grossly outside of the permit authorization. 5. Automatic Revocation. If a Permittee, while on Probation, commits a breach as outlined above, Permittee's permit will automatically be revoked and Permittee will not be allowed further permits for one full year, except for Emergency repairs. 6. Reimbursement of City Costs. If a permit is revoked, the Permittee shall also reimburse the City for the City's reasonable costs, including Restoration Costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. SECTION 407.21. MAPPING DATA 1. Information Required. Each Registrant shall provide Mapping information required by the City in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100 to include the following information: 61 a. location and approximate depth of applicant's mains, cables, conduits, switches, and related equipment and facilities, with the location based on: 1. offsets from property lines, distances from the centerline of the public right—of-way, and curb lines as determined by the city; or � c. 2. 3. coordinates derived from the coordinate system being used by the city; or any other system agreed upon by the right-of-way user and city; the type and size of the utility; a description showing above-ground appurtenances; d. a legend explaining symbols, characters, abbreviations, scale, and other data shown on the map; and e. any facilities to be abandoned, if applicable, in conformance with Minnesota Statutes � 216D.04, Subd. 3. f. The permittee shall submit "as built" drawin any subsequent changes and variations from the provided under 407.08, Subp. 6. s reflectin information �g. The right-of-way user is not required to provide or convey mapping information or data in a format or manner that is different from that which it currently utilizes and maintains. The right-of-way user shall, however, include the cost to covert the data furnished by the right-of-way user to a format currently in use by the city as art of the permit application fee. These data conversion costs, unlike other costs that make up permit fees, may be included in the permit fee after the permit application process is completed and shall be immediately due to the city upon the ascertainment of the cost and notice of the fee to the applicant. Any permit for which such fee has not been paid within 30 days of notice from the city may upon written notice be revoked. The city shall not issue any other permits to the registrant related to any citv riqht-of-way until such fee is paid. h. Mapping data shall be provided with the specificity requested by the City for inclusion in the mapping system used by the city. i. For mapping data provided to compatible and City format, excavation fee is waived. 62 26 the City of Fridley in GIS the mapping portion of the 2. 3. Submittal Requirement. a. Within six (6) months after the acquisition, installation, or construction of additional equipment or any relocation, abandonment, or disuse of existing equipment, each registrant shall submit the Mapping Data required herein. b. Within two" (2) years after the date of passage of this Chapter, all existing right-of-way users shall submit detailed plans as may be reasonable and practical for all facilities and equipment installed, used or abandoned within the public right-of-way. c. Notwithstanding submitted by all be installed or this Chapte� at ordinances. the foregoing, Mapping Data shall be Registrants for all equipment which is to constructed after the date of passage of the time any permits are sought under these d. Six (6) months after the passage of this Chapter, a new Registrant, or a Registrant which has not submitted a plan as required above, shall submit complete and accurate Mapping Data for all its equipment at the time any permits are sought under these ordinances. Telecommunication Equipment. Information on existing facilities and equipment of telecommunications right-,of-way users need only be supplied in the form maintained by the telecommunications right-of-way user. 4. Trade Secret Information. At the request of any Registrant, any information requested by the City, which qualifies as a"trade-secret" under Minn. Stat. § 13.37(b) shall be treated as trade secret information as detailed therein. SECTION 407.22. LOCATION OF FACILITIES 1. Undergrounding. New construction and the installation of new facilities shall be done underground or contained within buildings or other structures in conformity with applicable codes when directed by the City Council. 2. Corridors. The City may assign specific corridors within the Right-of-Way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of Facility th�t is or, pursuant to current technology, the City expects will someday be located within the Right-of-Way. Al1 excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the City involving the installation or replacement of Facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the Facilities at issue. 63 2� Any Registrant who has Facilities in the Right-of-Way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the City shall, no later than at the time of the next reconstruction or.excavation of the area where the Facilities are located, move the Facilities to the assigned position within the Excavation of the Right-of-Way, unless this requirement is waived by the City for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as the remaining economic life of the Facilities, public safety, customer Service needs and hardship to the Registrant. Nuisance. Two years after the passage of this Chapter, any facilities found in a not been exercise right-of-way that have nuisance. The City ma! registered shall be deemed to be a any remedies or r or in equity, including, but not limited to, taking possession of the Equipment right-of-way to a usable condition. 4. Limitation of Space. or Facilities �hts it has at law �g the nuisance or and restorinq the To protect public health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its current use, the City shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional Facilities within the Right-of-Way. In making such decisions, the City shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the Right-of-Way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular Utility Service, the condition of the Right-of-Way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing Facilities in the Right-of-Way, and future City plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. SECTION 407.23. RELOCATION OF FACILITIES A Registrant must promptly and at its own expense, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, permanently remove and relocate its Facilities in the Right-of-Way whenever the City for gooci cause requests such removal and relocation, and shall restore the Right-of- Way consistent with Minnesota Rules part 7819.0050 - 7819.9950. The City may make such request to prevent interference by the Company's Equipment or Facilities with (i) a present or future City use of the Right-of-Way, (ii) a public improvement undertaken by the City, (iii) an economic development project in which the City has an interest or investment, (iv) when the public health, safety and welfare require it, or (v) when necessary to prevent interference with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel over the Right-of-Way. Notwithstariding the foregoing, a Person shall not be required to remove or relocate its Facilities from any Right-of-Way which has been vacated in favor of a non-governmental entity unless and until the reasonable costs thereof are first paid to the Person thereof. . ' 28 SECTION 407.24. PRE-EXCAVATION FACILITY AND FACILITIES LOCATION In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. §§ 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System") before the start date of any Right-of-Way excavation, each Registrant who has Facilities or Equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and a-g�� vertical placement of all said Facilities. Any Registrant whose Facilities is less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt, surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its Facilities and the best procedure for excavation. SECTION 407.25. DAMAGE TO OTHER FACILITIES When the City does work in the Right-of-Way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a�e�i��a�s persons Facilities to protect it, the City shall notify the Loca1 Representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that D_�'__'�=�� person and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each person shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any Facilities in the Right-of-Way which it or its Facilities damages. Each person shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the Facilities of another persons caused during the City's response to an Emergency occasioned by that persons Facilities. SECTION 907.26. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 1. Reservation of Right. If the City vacates a Right-of-Way which contains the Facilities of a Registrant, and if the vacation does not require the relocation of Registrant's or Permittee's Facilities, the registrant's rights in the vacated right-of-way are governed by Minnesota Rule 17819.3200 and the City shall reserve, to and for itself and a11 Registrants having Facilities in the vacated Right-of-Way, the riqht to install, maintain and operate any Facilities in the vacated Right-of-Way and to enter upon such Right-of-Way at any time for the purpose of reconstructing, inspecting, maintaining or repairing the same. 2. Relocation of Facilities. If the vacation requires the relocation of Registrant's or Permittee's Facilities; and (i) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the Registrant or Permittee, the Registrant or Permittee must pay the relocation costs; or (ii) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the City, the Registrant or Permittee must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by the City and the Registrant or Permittee; or (iii) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by a Person or Persons other than the Registrant or Permittee, such other Person or Persons must pay the relocation costs. 65 SECTION 407.27. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY ��e�g-i,�r��re-C-�t-�; e� �r--a-�e��g �-�� t�r�e� ��s C-l�a-g�e��-a �eg�s��a�� e� �e-r�t�-��_. �r_ -- -- F='-'-=�-- - =�-- ��i�2�c�t�e�6f T�i�-at.'_'_��l . a.k�.k>az� h �x�. t h�Aa�i.S�i�'-3i��6 �' ��i @—Ei�—A �—E� �-�—�6-�' ��3 � iii S ��'—�3ei3c�� f8 � a €-��-�-s e �� es�r�rQ�e�t�r��s �a-� � a � � e �Tp�e-s��-� ��e�a��eT�� afle�a��-e€-��^ •��es-��eg3 s�a�s e�e�t�a�-t-�es e€--FEeg��r�-s _ . F�tae�r�� t e��e� �e � s e�t s ��-�a�ta� e-� e-��e�e � ��-e e�e�s � s � e� ��}e � �s�ra�� ee-e €��zs� �.�-�� -e�e�rs�t�e� � e�T-��r�e�a� e�eT-�ep��Tr�s�ee-� �e�-e�e��a�ie�� . . _T_ho C' ts_��h�11—r�et—be ' A.. xzxc cic��z:axx :zvc ac =iicccFEli33��2E��6i�' �655@S �Y' @�t3f��'s�ccer'9'19rc� �e��s��--ffeQ�Qe-� ee-e�fe�ep-�€e��s�-s es e�e�a r�ts-a �s�rg ��e� e�a��eq�tg ��e �ee�a�-ge��e��te-Frt-�t�r�-�'-��eg�ge�re-e-as-�e t��s�� re �--� = }�r��::.�€ re�--�€—��re—��-e��ta g= xe s�=�� rr-e�-t�z ��€e �e��i s�re�t�e� e s s e��e�e�--e��e � e��-t�e-� i�-�€ t� � e Ee ��r�-�re t��e-e ��2 � 2�3 S��S 6�—gEEiii.f � ce _�� c�cc t-m rFrcrcz��r� � . BC..'zei3�� ._ .. -- -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- .... • • 1. Authority, Generally. As a condition for issuing a permit for work on a public ri ht-of-way, the City may require the permittee to indemnify the Citv against liability claims. The City ma_y require indemnification when a ermit authorizes a permittee to obstruct or excavate on or within a ublic right-of-way to install, maintain, or re air the ermittee's facilities. 2. Claims Indemnified City may require the permittee to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from all liability or claims of liability for bodily in�ury or death to persons, or for property damage, in which the claim: A. alleges a neqligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission of the permittee or its employee, agent, or independent contractor in installing, maintaining, or repairing the permittee's facilities; and alleges that the City is liable, without alleging any independent negligent, or otherwise wrongful act or omission on the part of the City; or � is based on the City negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission in issuing the permit or in failing to properly or adequately inspect or enforce compliance with a term, condition or purpose of the permit granted to the permittee. 3. Claims not Indemnified A permittee is not required to indemnify the City for losses or claims occasioned by the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission of the City except: A. to the extent authorized in subpart 2 regarding the issuance of a permit or the inspection or enforcement of compliance with the permit; or B. when otherwise provided in an applicable franchise agreement. 4. Remedy is Additional; Subroqation A defense or indemnification of the City by a permittee is deemed not to be a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the City• A permittee, in defending any action on behalf of the City is entitled to assert every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf.. 67 SECTION 407.28. ABANDONED AND UNUSABLE FACILITIES 1. Discontinued Operations. A Registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the City must provide information satisfactory to the City that the Registrant's obliqations for its Facilities in the Right-of-Way under this Chapter have been lawfully assumed by another Registrant and locate and provide to the City a map which clearly identifies the facility and also maintains it as a real property record. 2. Abandoned Facilities. Facilities of a Registrant who fails to comply with subd. 1 of this Section, and which, for two (2) years, remains unused or one year after the passage of this Chapter, any Facilities found in a Right-of- Way that have not been Registered with the city shall be deemed to be abandoned. Abandoned Facilities are deemed to be a nuisance. The City may exercise any remedies or rights it has as, law or in equity, including, but not limited to, (i) abating the nuisance, (ii) taking possession of the Facilities and restoring the Right-of-Way to a useable condition, or (iii) requiring removal of the Facilities by the Registrant, or the Registrant's successor in interest. 3. Removal. Any Registrant who has unused, unusable and abandoned Facilities in any Right-of-Way shall remove it from that Right-of-Way if required in conjunction with other right-of-way repair, w��—�r�—�� t-�� excavation or construction, unless this requirement is waived by the City or other remedy agreed to. SECTION 407.29. APPEAL A Right-of-Way user that: (1) has been denied reqistration; (2) has been denied� a permit; (3) has had a permit revoked; or (4) believes that the fees imposed are invalid, may have the denial, revocation, or fee imposition reviewed, upon written request, by the City Council. The City Council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the City Council affirming 68 32 the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. SECTION 407.30. RESERVATION OF REGULATORY AND POLICE POWERS A Permittee's or Registrant's rights are subject to the regulatory and police powers of the City to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. SECTION 407.31. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. If a regulatory body or a court of competent jurisdiction should determine by a final, non-appealable order that any permit, right or registration issued under this Chapter or any portions of this Chapter is illegal or unenforceable, then any such permit, right or reqistration granted or deemed to exist hereunder shall be considered as a revocable permit with a mutual right in either party to terminate without cause upon giving sixty (60) days written notice to the other. The requirements and conditions of such a revocable permit shall be the same requirements and conditions as set forth in the permit, right or registration, respectively, except for conditions relating to the term of the permit and the right of termination. Nothing in this Chapter precludes the City from requiring a franchise agreement with the Applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. • ' SECTION 407.32 Any fees imposed under this chapter shall be reviewed and adopted at least annually at the same time and in the same manner as other fees established by the City. At any time, in its discretion, the City expressly reserves the right to review the fees imposed in this Chapter and, upon notice and public hearing, modify them if it is satisfied that such action is necessary to reflect the cost of regulating and supervising the activities governed by this chapter. CHAPTER 11, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES Section 11.10 "Fees" is amended to include the following: 407.04 Registration Fee 407.07 Excavation Permit 407.07 Obstruction Permit 407.07 Permit Extension 407.07 Delay Penalty 407.10 Mapping Fee 407.11 Degradation Cost 407.05 User Fee (Residential, commercial or industrial) S�9 50.00 $�A�8-8$ 300.00 515.00 $15.00 Permit extension fee plus $100.00 penalty S10 if data is not in City format and City GIS compatible Restoration cost per square foot for the area to be restored �1��_ r=�-; ==} $1 per foot per year 7� 34 r � GTY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 � William W. Burns, City Manager� � John G. Flora, Public Works Director Jon H.�aas, Assistant Public Works Director March 20, 2000 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2000 - 1 PW00-022 The attached resolution approves the fnal plans and specifications and authorizes the advertisement of bids for the Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2000 - 1. Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution to allow us to advertise the project for an early bid opening to expedite the construction process. JHH/JGF:cz Attachment 71 RESOLUTION NO. - 2000 RESOLUTION RECEIVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2000 - 1 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7- 2000 ordered the preliminary plans, specifications and estimates of the costs thereof for the improvements in this project, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8- 2000 received the preliminary engineering report and set a public hearing for the improvements in this project, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 14, 2000 regarding this project, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 20 - 2000 ordered final plans and estimates of costs for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following improvements proposed by Council Resolution No. 7- 2000 are hereby ordered to be effected and completed as soon as reasonably possible, to-wit: Street improvements including grading, stabilized base, hot- mix bituminous mat, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, bikeway, necessary repairs to the storm sewer, water and sanitary sewer systems, landscaping and other facilities located on and under the following streets: 715t Avenue, 73rd Avenue Service Drive, 74th Avenue, University East Service Drive, Symphony Street and Symphony Court That the work involved in said improvements as listed above shall hereafter be designed as: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST. 2000 - 1 2. The plans and specifications prepared by the Public Works Department for such improvements and each of them pursuant to the Council resolutions heretofore adopted, a copy of which,plans and specifications are hereto �attached and made a part thereof, are hereby approved and shall be filed with City Clerk. � 72 Resolution No. - 2000 Page 2 The Public Works Director shall accordingly prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper advertisements for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for three (3) weeks (at ieast 21 days), and shall specify the work to be done and will state the bids will be opened and considered in the Council Chambers of the Fridley Municipal Center and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Public Works Director and accompanied by a cash deposit, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five percent (5�) of the amount of such bid. That the advertisement for bids for Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2000 - 1 shall be substantially in the standard form. - PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2000. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 73 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR � � CRY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 TO: William W. Burns, City Manager �'�`- FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director Jon H. I-�ukaas, Assistant Public Works Director .�� DATE: March 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Resolution for Use of MSAS Funds PW00-020 With the proposed project to upgrade 71�` Avenue, 73`d Avenue Service Drive, 74th Avenue, University Avenue East Service Drive, Symphony Street and Symphony Court under Project No. ST. 2000-1, the City can apply for its available population funds within the State Aid account for off-system use. The attached resolution requests disbursement of the City's population portion of the Municipal State Aid Systems (MSAS) construction funds for the proposed Project No. ST. 2000-1. Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution for submittal to the State Aid Office. JHI3/JGF:cz Attachment 74 RESOLUTION NO. - 2000 RESOLUTION REQUESTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION FUNDS FOR OTHER LOCAL USE WHEREAS the City of Fridley receives Municipal State Aid System (MSAS) funds for construction and maintaining 20� of its City streets, and WHEREAS 25.31 MSAS miles are currently authorized, and WHEREAS 25.22 MSAS streets have been built or resurfaced since 1988, and WHEREAS the City currently has 100.32 municipal streets that require maintenance and upgrade, and WHEREAS the majority of these streets have insufficient strength and poor surface drainaqe, and WHEREAS it is proposed to systematically install concrete curb and gutters and storm sewer system for improved surface water drainage and additional strength to the streets for traffic survivability, and WHEREAS the City State Aid routes are improved to State Aid standards and are in an adequate condition that they do not have needs other than additional surfacing, and WHEREAS it is authorized by MN Rules 8820.1800 to use part of the MSAS construction appropriation of our City's State Aid allocation on local streets not on the approved State Aid system, and WHEREAS the City proposes to improve surface water drainage and rebuild the street in the process, and WHEREAS it is proposed to use a portion of the City's population allocation funds to upgrade local streets, towit: 7ist Avenue, 73rd Avenue Service Drive, 74t'' Avenue, University East Service Drive, Symphony Street and Symphony Court, identified as City Project No. ST. 2000 - l, and WHEREAS the City indemnifies saves and holds harmless the State of Minnesota and its agents and employees from claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of or by reason or matter related to constructing the local street as desiqned, and WHEREAS the City further agrees to defend at its sole cost any claims arising as a result of constructing the local street, and WHEREAS the final approval of the State Aid for Local Transportation Division is therefore given. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, requests the release of MSAS funds for the upgrade and reconstruction of City municipal streets, towit: 71gt Avenue, 73rd Avenue Service Drive, 74th Avenue, University East Service Drive, Symphony Street and Symphony Court, identified as City Project No. ST. 2000 - 1. PASSSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 20H DAY MARCH, 2000. ATTESTED: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK �C �� NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR � � CfTY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: � AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 WILLIAM W. BL�RNS, CITY MANAGER �(� �"" RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR ALAN FOLIE, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR RESOLUTION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS IlVIPROVEMENT PROJECT N0.1999-1 March 15, 2000 Attached you will find the resolution directing preparation of the assessment roll for the Riverview Heights Improvement Project No. 1999-1. This project included 387 properties. The assessment for the storm water and the curb and gutter portions will be for 15 years at a rate of 6.5%. The assessment for the driveway portion will be for 5 years at a rate of 7%. RDP/sf Attachment 76 RESOLUTION NO. -2000 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS IlVIPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1999-1 WHEREAS, the costs for the Riverview Heights Improvement Project No. ST. 1999-1 have been determined to be $1,952,774.10 for the contract price for such improvement and $947,820.03 for expenses incurred in the making of such improvement so that the total cost of the improvement is $2,900,594.13. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA: The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $2,419,436.39 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited propertq owners is declared to be $481,157.74. Assessments for the storm water and the curb and gutter portion shall be payable in equal installments extending over a period of fifteen years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2001, and shall beaz interest at the ra.te of 6%z percent per annuxn from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. Assessments for the driveway portion shall be payable in equal installments extending over a period of five years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2001, and shall bear interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessments resolution. The Finance Director, with the assistance of the City Engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the Council thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS _ DAY OF , 2000. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR 77 � � CfTY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 WII.,LIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER � � RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR ALAN FOLIE, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR RESOLUTION DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FOR THE RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS IIVIPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1999-1 _ DATE: March 15, 2000 Attached you will find the resolution directing publication of the public hearing on the assessment roll for the Riverview Heights Improvement Project No. 1999-1. This project included 387 properties. These properties will be assessed a total of $481,157.74. The Public Hearing Notice will be published in the Focus newspaper on Apri17, 2000 as required by State Statute. RDP/sf Attachment [L�� RESOLUTION NO._-2000 RESOLUTION DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF THE IiEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1999-1 WHEREAS, by resolution passed by the Council on March 20, 2000, the Finance Director was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the Riverview Heights Improvement Project No. ST. 1999-1, AND WHEREAS, the Finance Director has notified the council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed by his office for public inspection, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA: A hearing shall be held on the 24�' day of April, 2000 in the City Hall at 7:30 p.m to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heazd with reference to such assessment. The Finance Director is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each pazcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Tfie owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City of Fridley, except that no interest shall be chazged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. He may at any time thereafter, pay to the City of Fridley the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the yeaz in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be chazged through December 31 of the succeeding year. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS _ DAY OF , 2000. ATTEST: DEBRA A: SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 79 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR / f CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 WII.,LIAM W. BURNS, CITY RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR CRAIG A. ELLESTAD, ACCOUNTANT MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1999 BUDGET DATE: MARCH 13, 2000 Attached you will fmd a resolution amending appropriations to the 1999 budget in accordance with the City Charter. The adjustments listed have arisen as a result of donations, unforeseen expenditures and revenues, and reclassification of account codes. You have informally approved all adjustments through the Budget REAPPROPRIATIONS form. We request that the Council approve the amendment of the attached budgets. RDP/ce Attachment : 1 RESOLUTION # - 2000 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR FOURTH QUARTER 1999 WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has involved itself in initiatives that provide for future charges and modifications that will allow for a better delivery of service, and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley had not incorporated these and other necessary changes into the adopted budget for 1998. NOW, TI-�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Fund and Capital Improvement Fund budgets for the following divisions be amended as follows: GENERAL FUND REVENUE ADNSTMENTS Police-Donation Police-Donation Police-Reimbursement Police-Reimbursement Donation-Donation APPROPRIATION ADNSTMENTS Police-Personal Services Police-Personal Services Police-Supplies/Charges Police-Supplies/Charges Police-Supplies Police-Supplies Police-Supplies Police-Supplies Reserve-Other Financing Fire-Capital 450 Minco-Sponsoring a Conference 5,152 Medtronics-2 Defibrillators 1,200 Gang Task Force-Overtime 1,200 Narcotics Task Force-Overtime 3,271 Safety Camp 1 27 1,200 1,200 450 5,152 68 2,943 210 50 -19,285 19,285 11 : Gang Task Force-Overtime Narcotics Task Force-Overtime Minco-Sponsoring a Conference Medtronics-2 Defibrillators Safety Camp-T-Shirts Safety Camp-Operating Supplies Safety Camp-Program Safety Camp-Rental Replace Chevrolet Suburban Replace Chevrolet Suburban SPECIAL REVENUE FUND HOUSING REVITALIZATION REVENUE ADNSTMENTS Fund Balance APPROPRIATION ADNSTMENTS Capital Outlay CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT -189,749 Bring Fund Balance to $250,000 -189,749 Bring Fund Balance to $250,000 REVENUE ADNSTMENTS Fund Balance 97,372 Optical Disk Records System APPROPRIATION ADNSTMENTS Capital Outlay 97,372 Optical Disk Records System PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TI� CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS TH DAY OF , 2000. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CIT'Y CLERK e : NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ! L CRY OF FRiDLEY To: From Date: Re: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 ,� William W. Burns ,.��;i�� Dave Saliman '' March 14, 2000 Sergeants The purpose of this memo is to request a structure change within the Police Department. I am requesting that we eliminate the position of corporal and promote the two existing corporals to the rank of sergeant. We currently have five sergeants and two corporals. One of the sergeants is assigned to supervise the investigation for a three-yeaz term and the other four are shift or team supervisors (they work the same shift as a specific team of officers with the same days off, etc.). The normal shifts are 7 AM to 7 PM and then 7 PM to 7AM. The corporals work a power shift from 3 PM to 3 AM which provide for overlap supervision when the regular sergeant is not working (annual leave, training, injured,.etc.). The reasons that I am requesting this change are as follows: ■ The move should be cost saving to neutral. The sergeants are at a higher hourly pay grade [$59,800 for sergeant to $55,369 for corporal...there is some difference depending upon the seniority of the corporal but by the time this takes place (2001) both will be at very similar rates]. The sergeants are exempt employees meaning that they do not receive overtime for additional hours (court, meetings, training, etc.) where the corporals are hourly. It is not unusual for one of the corporals to be the second highest paid employee in the department due to overtime pay (one year it was around $65,000). We use the corporals to provide much of our training, and even though this gives them a lot of overtime pay, it is cheaper to pay the trainers overtime than all of the officers that they train. If they were sergeants (exempt) we would just change their hours around. ■ This would provide more flexibility in scheduling. Currently the corporals are on permanent 3 PM to 3 AM shift. There would be some benefit to their personal lives (and in turn performance if you believe that it is better to remove some of the stressors from employees when possible) in that we can a11ow them to work a day and/or night shift in addition to the current shifts. The flexibility will assist us in providing for two more supervisors that can be assigned as shift supervisors. ■ The two curtent corporals have consistently finished at the top of the promotional tests. If there were an opening at the sergeant position, one of them would be selected to fill that position. The point that I am making here is that there should be no issue relative to any civil service rules, etc. The only reason that they are not sergeants, is that there are no cunent openings. : This will not make us "top heavy" relative to sergeants when compared to other similar sized cities. The range for cities within our classification (Stanton V) for the number of sergeants is 4 to 17. The average number of sergeants for the 23 cities in the class is about 7.5. Two smaller cities (Anoka and Golden Valley) have 6 sergeants each. Our closest comparable (in size and location) is Brooklyn Center which has 7 sergeants. The common term for the additional sergeants are relief sergeants or "swing sergeants". We have used corporals for this duty for a number of years and there has always been some issue as to whether they are a supervisor or patrol officer (corporals belong to the patrol officers bargaining unit, sergeants do not; corporals are hourly, sergeants are exempt; etc.) I believe that it is in the best interests of the City and the Police Department to make this change. I would propose that the change be made effective January 1, 2001. Please contact me with any questions regarding this issue. ; �� AGENDA ITEM � COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 CRY OF FRIDLEY CLA1 MS 92326 - 92532 : ! L CRY OF FRIDLEY Type of License LICENSES CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 LAWFUL GAMBLING Woodcrest Elementary PTA 880 Osborne Road Fridley, Minnesota 55432 � Barney B. Buss Approved By: Police Department TREE REMOVAL AND TREATMENT Arbor Design Tree Service, Inc. Donald L. Lawrence Paul Lawrence PO Box 290298 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Bullseye Tree Service � Brian J. Heacock Paul Lawrence 18519 Cleveland Street Elk River, Minnesota 55330 Reliable Tree Service 6600 Brookview Drive Fridley, Mirznesota 55432 Peter M. Vagovich GENERAL CONTRACTOR-COMMERCIAL TPC 5640 Memorial Ave N #C Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dan Edison Dauphinais Designs's (trimming) 14195 Brockton Lane Rogers, Minnesota 55374 Mike Dauphinais GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL Four Season Construction Co Inc (2456) PO Box 32033 Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Roger Forss Sears Home Improvements (20090017) 8823 Zealand Ave N Brooklyn Park, Minhesota 55445 Robert Lincoln Season's View Window & Doors Inc (20168713) 4067 Eaker Ave SE Delano, Minnesota 55328 Tom Prior :. Paul Lawrence RON NLKOWSKI Building Official Same STATE OF MINN Same Same Fees: Request Waiver $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $ 40.00 � � CnY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER,�.ry�f� r WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP BETWEEN TIME WARNER INC. AND AMERICA ONLINE, INC. DATE: MARCH 16, Z000 Attached is a public hearing notice that establishes March 20 as the meeting to discuss the proposed transfer of ownership between Time Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc. Minnesota State Statute 238.083 requires that the City either approve the transfer request within thirty (30) days of receiving the letter or determine the need for a public hearing. Staffs recommendation was to hold a public hearing to fully assess whether the transaction will have an adverse effect on the City's cable television subscribers. : PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley City Council at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue NE on Monday, Mazch 20, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Assessing the effect of the proposed transfer of ownership between Time Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc. on the existing level and type of service of the cable franchise now in existence in the City. This notice is made pursuant to MN Statute 238.083. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than Mazch 16, 2000. Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor Publish: March 6, 2000 (Star Tribune) March 9, 2000 (Focus News) :: � � cmr oF FRIDLEY DATE: TO: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 March 15, 2000 William Burns, City Manage�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Missy Daniels, Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the Proposed Temporary Outdoor Sales and Display of Me�chandise Ordinance, ZTA #99-02 Introduction The purpose of this public hearing is to consider two separate issues relating to outdoor sales in the business community. The first issue is represented in Attachment # 1 of Staff Report ZTA 99-02 and is an amendment to the commercial zoning districts in Chapter 205 (C-1, C-2, C-3, and CR-1) to allow temporary outdoor sales as an accessory use. The secortd issue is an amendment to clarify how much outdoor display is appropriate at automobile and motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing service stations. Staff has worked with the business community in an effort to find a solution that works for the City and business community as well. Four options were prepared and are discussed in Attachment # 2 of Staff Report ZTA 99-02. Whv the Chanqes? The Zoning Code currently does not clearly regulate outdoor sales and display of merchandise (tent sales or outdoor promotions) other than those activities that are permitted under the special use permit section. Without such an ordinance amendment, it has been difficult for staff to regulate duration, location; and signage associated with requests for outdoor sales and displays. There has been increasing concern about the image and appearance of properties in Fridley in general and especially along the major corridors (East River Road, University Avenue, and TH 65). How the zoning code regulates short and long-term displays can greatly affect this image. The ordinance currently allows some long-term display activities such as garden c�nters through the special use permit process, but it does not allow temporary outdoor sales or displays. C; �� Memo March 15, 2000 Page two Staff Approach Attachment # 1 Staff recommends an ordinance amendment to allow temporary outdoor sales and display of inerchandise in all commercial districts with a limited number of events and duration (Attachment # 1). There are several other requirements as well. In essence, the property owner would obtain a license and City approval prior to conducting an event. Attachment # 2 For service stations and motor fuel and oil dispensing operations, staff proposes to delete the current ordinance language allowing "temporary" outdoor displays. (Option 1 on the matrix of Attachment #2). Because the word temporary is not defined in this section of the ordinance, these facilities are having permanent outdoor displays instead of temporary. These facilities are allowed to display items between the pumps and within four (4) feet of the station building. Option 1 would mean that a service station could not have an on-going outdoor display anywhere on-site, however, the amendment would not prohibit the facility from conducting a temporary outdoor promotion or sale as outlined in Attachment #1. Planninq Commission Action At the March 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for the proposed outdoor sales and display ordinance amendment. (The initial hearing was November 3, 1999.) The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed ordinance amendment for temporary outdoor sales (Attachment #1). Concerning Attachment #2, a motion was made to approve Option 3, which deletes the word temporary from the current ordinance and deletes the allowance for storage between the pumps, but keeps the ability to display within four (4) feet of the station building. Option 3 was approved by the Planning Commission with the added language, "No storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front yard or side yard setback or parking area." , A majority of the Commission approved this option. Diane Savage was in favor of the staff recommendation of Option 1, which would eliminate the provision for temporary outdoor displays at service stations both in front of the building and between the pumps. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed temporary outdoor sales and display ordinance amendment, Attachment # 1. As for action on Attachment #2, staff recommends removing the provision allowing outdoor sales and display between pumps and within four (4) feet of the facility. (Option 1 of the matrix on Attachment #2). Should the Council decide to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff has improved the Planning Commission's additional language and it is reflected in Attachment #3 of Staff Report ZTA #99-02. M-00-44 .� City of Fridley Zoning Text Amendment Application ZTA # 99-02 � March 20,2000 GENERAL INFORMATIO�i Applicant: City of Fridley Requested Action: Zoning Text Amendment Purpose: To allow for limited temporary outdoor display and sales promotions in the commercial districts. In addition, the amendment will delete a part of the ordinance that allows display of petroleum products between pumps and temporary display of inerchandise within four feet of the building at service starions. Existing Zoning: Commercial — G1, G2, and C-3, CR-1 Location: All commercial districts Size: N/A Existing Land Use: N/A Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan SUMVIARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Businesses in Fridley have at times requested to conduct special temporary promotions. The City recognizes the benefit this may have for area businesses but at the same time recognizes the need to regulate the impacts from these promotions. The current ordinance does not allow outside temporary sales. The proposed ordinance would allow up to three a year per business, creating a balance between the extremes of not allowing them and allowing them continuously. 91 SPECIAL INFORMATION SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approving the proposed zoning text amendment with Option 1. PLANNING C01VI�VIISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission »na„imously approved the proposed amendment with a majority approving Option 3. CITY COUNCIL ACTION March 20, 2000 Staff Report Prepared by: Missy Daniels Staff Report ZTA # 99-02 Issue The Zoning Code currently does not clearly regulate outdoor sales and display of inerchandise other than those activities that are permitted under the special use permit section. Without such an ordinance amendment, it has been difficult for staff to regulate duration, location, and signage associated with requests for outdoor sales and displays. There has been increasing concern about the image and appearance of properties in Fridley in general and especially along the major corridors (East River Road, University Avenue, and TH 65). How the zoning code regulates short and long-term displays can greatly affect this image. The ordinance currently allows some long-term display activities such as garden centers through the special use permit process, but it does not allow temporary outdoor sales or displays. Analvsis Businesses in Fridley have at times requested to conduct special temporary promotions. The City recognizes the benefit this may have for area businesses but at the same time recognizes the need to regulate the impacts from these promotions. In November, staff brought recommendations before the Planning Commission for two proposed ordinance amendments. One, creating an ordinance that would allow outdoor displays in the commercial districts on a temporary basis, and two, deleting a provision permitting continuous outdoor display of petroleum products or other products associated with service stations. At that meeting, the Planning Commission agreed with staf�s proposed amendment for temporary displays. As such, this proposal is the same as in November except for two added sentences concerning multi-tenant buildings and signage (attached). Staff felt that under the previous proposal, multi-tenant buildings could theoretically have outdoor sales and displays all year. Therefore, a limit of six (6) events per year for the property is proposed. Currently, the ordinance only allows two temporary signs per year. Since signage would most likely be a necessary part of an outdoor display and we are allowing three displays per year, the sign requirements for these displays will be separate from our temporary sign allowances. Staff is proposing allowing signs with each outdoor display as long as they conform to the temporary sign definition and are only displayed during the ten-day event. The temporary sign definition is: Any sign fabricated of paper, plywood, fabric, or other light, impermanent materials intended to be displayed unchanged for a period of 14 days. The proposal would simply change the 14-day time period to 10 days. Businesses would still be allowed the two 14-day periods for temporary signs apart from these events. There are several advantages to amending the ordinance to allow temporary displays: • An ordinance would provide for easier and consistent enforcement of these sales. • Provides up to 30 days �for businesses to conduct special outdoor promotions with each event limited to 10 days. • Strikes a beneficial balance between the extremes of not allowing them or permitting them continuously. • Three events per year fall in between the "extremes" of other cities. 92 Outdoor Storage Memo March 15, 2000 Page two The Commission requested that staff re-examine the second proposal, eliminating permanent outdoor storage possibilities at service stations. It was suggested that some amount of outdoor display might be needed. Therefore, staff has created four (4) options concerning this amendment proposal (matrix attached). Business Concerns/Questions At meetings with the business community via the Chamber of Commerce and at the Planning Commission meeting of November 3, 1999, area businesses expressed concern about permanent outdoor storage issues and the proposed elimination of outdoor storage opportunities at service stations. Permanent outdoor storage in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 districts is currently allowed through the special use permit process, which will not be affected by the proposed amendment. What the temporary storage amendment would allow is additional outdoor display opportunities on a limited basis. For businesses that already possess special use permits for outdoor sales such as Menards, Home Depot, and Wa1-Mart, this proposed amendment would mean that Home Depot, for instance, would be allowed their current 28,000 square foot garden center plus up to three promotional tent sales per year. All businesses in the C-1, C-2, C-3, and CR-1 districts would be allowed to conduct these temporary displays and sales. Fuel dispensing and service stations would be allowed the same opportuniry. Shopping centers and other multi-tenant buildings would also be allowed to conduct these promotions, however, they would be allowed a total of six (6) events as mentioned, rather than three (3) per business. This would eliminate the potential of constant outdoor sales and would require coordination between the businesses and building owner. The proposed ordinance amendment would regulate the following: • Outdoor sales, display, or promotion of inerchandise as an accessory use • Number of events per year • Length of each event • Location of inerchandise • The use of tents � Fees The proposed ordinance amendment for permanent outdoor display at service stations would affect the C-1,,C-2 and C-3 districts and would regulate permanent outdoor display and location of inerchandise. Some businesses have expressed concern that limiting them to the four (4) foot area directly adjacent to the main building is not adequate. 93 Outdoor Storage Memo March 15, 2000 Page three PlanninE Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed ordinance amendment for temporary sales and displays (Attachment #1) and a majority approved Option 3 on Attachment #2 concerning the temporary display at service stations with the added words "No storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front or side yard setback or parking area." Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approving Attachment #l, the proposed temporary outdoor display ordinance and approving Option 1, in the matrix on Attachment #2, concerning the amendment for permanent outdoor storage at service stations. Should the Council decide to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, the ordinance would be changed to reflect the wording on Attachment #3. . , Attachment #1 Proposed Ordinance Language 205.13 G1 LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses (5). Temporary Outdoor Display, Sales, or Promotion of Merchandise subject to the following conditions: a. The property owner shall obtain a Temporary Outdoor Display License from the City at least one week prior to starting the event. The property owner shall submit the information required on the license application. The City shall approve the license prior to commencement of the event. b. A Temporary Outdoor Display License is required whether merchandise is sold for profit or given away as part of a promotion. c. Only items associated with the principal use may be displayed. d. Three events per year are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 days apart. e. Six events per year for multi-tenant developments are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 days apart. f. The duration of each event shall be no longer than 10 consecutive days. g. The merchandise shall be displayed in a manner that does not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic or otherwise cause unsafe traffic conditions h The merchandise shall not be displayed in the boulevard or on any landscaped area. 95 Attachment # 1 Page two If a tent is to be used, the property owner shall obtain a building permit and comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code related to tents. Fees for tents shall be as established by the Uniform Building Code. j. The property owner shall pay the fees as established in Chapter 11 of the City Code. � k. Si��na�e for temnorarv��romotions niust meet the temporarv si,�n I detlnitioii �vith th.e exception that th�v niav be dist�laved onlv dt�rin�7 theten-davevent. (214.023O I 11.10 Fees License fee shall be as follows: CODE SUBJECT FEE 205.30 Temporary Outdoor Display License $75.00 � Attachment #2 Current ordinance language for service stations in C-1, C-2 and C-3: The display of petroleum products between pumps; or the temporary display of merchandise within foz�r (4) feet of the station building is permitted. Four Options OPTION: ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: 1. Delete the provision in the Enforcement is streamlined. Would take away the outdoor above ordinance language storage opportunity stations permitting outdoor display of have under the cunent petroleum or other products ordinance. associated with service stations. 2. Delete the above language Still allows service stations Negative impacts to aesthetics. and add, "Merchandise outdoor display, eliminates the Difficult to measure and offered for sale may be unenforceable word enforce a square foot amount displayed outdoors provided temporary, and creates a of space. the display area does not defined amount of space to exceed a greater na�mber of allow the displays. square feet than ten (10) percent of the ground floor area of the building housing the princfple use. No storage of any type shall be permitted within the required front or side yard setback or parking area." 3. Delete the word temporary Allows stations their current Negative impacts to aesthetics. from the current ordinance and displays within four feet of the delete the allowance far building and deletes the word dis la between the um s. temporary. 4. Do not delete any current Does not change the Negative impact to aesthetics. language. Leave the ordinance. The word temporary is still ordinance as is. unenforceable. 97 Attachment # 3 Proposed Amendment to Ordinance Language Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel and Oil Dispensing Service Stations in the Commercial Zoning Districts C-1, C-2, and C-3. 205.13. C-1 LOCAL BUSIN�SS DISTRICT REGULATIONS USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit. (7) Motor veliicle fuel and oil dispensing service as an accessory use to a convenience store. If a Special Use Permit is granted, the following minimum conditions must be met in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Because of traffic hazards, noise, light glare at night, outdoor storage of inerchandise, indiscriminate advertising and other characteristics of this type of business which are potentially detrimental to the community, these minimum standards shall be considered, along with any other recommendations the City may determine necessary to eliminate the particular problems in achieving compatibility with abutting and adjacent land uses. (a) The use shall not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits; or the outdoor display of merchandise. The display of inerchandise within four (4) feet of the station building is permitted. No storage of any type shall be permitted unless it is within four (4) feet in front of the station building. . • •� � � GTY OF FRIDLEY DATE: TO: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 March 14, 2000 William Burns, City Manager f��i� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Missy Daniels, Planner SUBJECT: First Reading of ZTA #99-02, Temporary Outdoor Sales and Display of Merchandise Ordinance. Earlier in the agenda for Monday, March 20, 2000, was a public hearing concerning a proposed ordinance amendment to allow temporary outdoor sales and promotions in all commercial districts. The proposed ordinance is attached. M-00-46 .. ORDINANCE NO. AN OR.DINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 205.13, 205.14, 205.15, AND SECTION 205.16 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE PERTAINiNG TO ACCESSORY USES AND SECTION 11.10 PERTAINING TO FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 Section 205.13 C-1 LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS is hereby amended by adding the following language: 205.13 C-1 LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses (5) Temporarv Outdoor Displav Sales or Promotion of Merchandise subiect to the followin� conditions: (a) The propertv owner shall obtain a Temporarv Outdoor Displav License from the City at least one week prior to startin� the event. The prouertv owner shall submit the information required on the license application. The Citv shall approve the license prior to commencement of the event. (b) A Temuorarv Outdoor Display License is required whether merchandise is sold for profit or Qiven awav as part of a promotion. (c) Onlv items associated with the principal use mav be displayed. (d) Three events per vear are permitted and shall occur no closer than 20 davs apart• (e) Six events per vear for are permitted for multi-tenant developments, and shall occur no closer than 20 davs apart. ( fl The duration of each event shall be no lon�er than 10 consecutive davs. (g) The merchandise shall be displaved in a manner that does not impede vehicular traffic or otherwise cause unsafe traffic conditions. (h) The merchandise shall not be displaved in the boulevazd or on anv landscaned area. (i) If a tent is to be used the property owner shall obtain a buildin� permit and complv with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code related to tents. Fees for tents shall be as established bv the Uniform Buildin� Code. (j) The propertv owner shall pav �e fees as established in Chapter 11 of the Citv Code. (k) Si�nage for temUorary Uromotions must meet the temporarv sign definition with the exception that thev mav be displaved onlv during the ten-dav event 214.02.36 . Section 205.13 C-1 LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS is hereby amended by repealing the following language: 100 Ordinance No. 205.13. G1 LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit. Page 2 (7) Motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing service as an accessory use to a convenience store. If a Special Use Permit is granted, the following minimum conditions must be met in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Because of traffic hazards, noise, light glare at night, outdoor storage of inerchandise, indiscriminate advertising and other characteristics of this type of business which aze potentially detrimental to the community, these minimum standards shall be considered, along with any other recommendations the City may determine necessary to eliminate the particular problems in achieving compatibility with abutting and adjacent land uses. (a) The use shall not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor display of inerchandise. , .. . . � �� . . SECTION 2 Sectiori 205.14 G2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS are hereby amended by adding the following Language: 1. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses �9). Temporary Outdoor Display, Sales, ar Promotion of Merchandise subiect to the followin� conditions: (a) The propertv owner shall obtain a Temporarv Outdoor Displav License from the Citv at least one week prior to startin� the event. The propertv owner shall submit the information required on the license anplication. The Citv shall approve the license urior to commencement of the event. (b) A Temvorarv Outdoor Displav License is required whether merchandise is sold for profit or �iven awav as vart of a promotion. . �c) Only items associated with the principal use may be displaved. (d) Three events ner year are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 davs apart• (e) Six events per vear for are permitted for multi-tenant developments, and shall occur no closer than 20 davs apart. (fl The duration of each event shall be no lon�er than 10 consecutive days. 101 Ordinance No. Page 3 �¢) The merchandise shall be displaved in a manner that does not impede vehicular traffic or othenvise cause unsafe traffic conditions. (h) The merchandise shall not be displaved in the boulevard or on anv landscaped area. (i) If a tent is to be used, the propertv owner shall obtain a buildin� permit and comply with the requirements of the Uniform Buildin� Code related to tents. Fees for tents shall be as established bv the Uniform Buildin� Code. (j) The propertv owner shall pav the fees as established in Chapter 11 of the City Code. (k) Si�na�e for temporarv promotions must meet the temporarv si�n definition with the exception that thev mav be displaved onlv durin� the ten-dav event (214.0236). Section 205.14 C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS is hereby amended by repealing the following language: 205.14. G2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit. (5) Automobile service stations and motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing services. If a Special Use Permit is granted, the following minimum conditions must be met in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Because of traffic hazards, noise, light glare at night; outdoor storage of inerchandise, indiscriminate advertising and other characteristics of this type of business which are potentially detrimental to the community, these minimum standards shall be considered, along with any other recommendations the City may determine necessary to eliminate the particular problems in achieving compatibility with abutting and adjacent land uses. (a) The Special Use Permit for an automobile service station is only for uses noted in the definition. (�}The use shall not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor display of merchandise. , w.,:�a�.,,.: ,:,��_ b ' SECTION 3 Section 205.15 C-3 GENERAL SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT REGULATIONS are hereby amended by adding the following language: E[�� Ordinance No. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses Page 4 �8). Temporarv Outdoor Display, Sales, ar Promotion of Merchandise subiect to the followin� conditions: (a) The propertv owner shall obtain a Temporarv Outdoor Displav License from the City at least one week prior to startin� the event. The propertv owner shall submit the information required on the license application. The Citv shall approve the license prior to commencement of the event. (b) A Temporarv Outdoor Displav License is required whether merchandise is sold for profit or �iven awav as part of a promotion. (c) Onlv items associated with the principal use mav be displaved. (d) Three events per vear are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 davs apart• (e) Six events per year for are permitted for multi-tenant developments, and shall occur no closer than 20 davs apart. (fl The duration of each event shall be no lon�er than 10 consecutive davs. (,�) The merchandise shall be displayed in a manner that does not impede vehicular traffic or otherwise cause unsafe traffic conditions. (h) The merchandise shall not be displayed in the boulevard or on anv landscaped area. (i) If a tent is to be used, the propertv owner shall obtain a building permit and comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code related to tents. Fees for tents shall be as established bv the Uniform Buildin� Code. (j) The propertv owner shall pav the fees as established in Chapter t 1 of the City Code. (k) Si�naQe for temporarv promotions must meet the temporarv si�n definition with the exception that thev mav be displayed only during the ten-dav event (214.0236). Section 205.14 C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS is hereby amended by repealing the following language: 205.15. C-3 GENERAL SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT REGULATIONS USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses C. Uses Permitted with a Special Use Permit (5) Automobile service stations and motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing services. If a Special Use Permit is granted, the following minimum conditions must be met in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Because of traffic hazards, noise, light glare at night, outdoor 103 Ordinance No. storage or merchandise, indiscriminate advertising and other characteristics of this type of business which are potentially detrimental to the community, these minimum standards shall be considered, along with any other recommendations the City may deternune necessary to eliminate the particular problems in achieving compatibility with abutting and adjacent land uses. Page 5 �a}The use shall not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, � hydraulic lifts or service pits or the outdoor display of inerchandise. b ' �'�� SECTION 4 Section 205.16 CR-1 GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT REGULATIONS are hereby amended by adding the following language: 1. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses B. Accessory Uses (6) Temporarv Outdoor Display, Sales, or Promotion of Merchandise subiect to the following conditions: (a) The propertv owner shall obtain a Temnorarv Outdoor Disvlav License from the Citv at (east one week prior to startin� the event. The property owner shall submit the information required on the license application. The Citv shall approve the license prior to commencement of the event. (b) A Temporarv Outdoor Displav License is required whether merchandise is sold for profit or �iven away as part of a promotion. (c) Only items associated with the principal use mav be displaved. � Three events per vear are permitted, and shall occur no closer than 20 days apart• (e) Six events per year for are permitted for multi-tenant developments, and shall occur no closer than 20 davs apart. (� The duration of each event shall be no lon�er than 10 consecurive davs. (g) The merchandise shall be displaved in a manner that does not impede vehicular traffic or otherwise cause unsafe traffic conditions. (h) The merchandise shall not be displaved in the boulevard or on anv landscaped area. (i) If a tent is to be used, the property owner shall obtain a building permit and comvlv with the requirements of the Uniform Buildin� Code related to tents. Fees for tents shall be as established bv the Uniform Buildin� Code. (j) The propertv owner shall pav the fees as established in Chapter 11 of the Citv Code. (k) Si�na�e for temporarv promotions must meet the temporary siQn definition with the exception that thev mav be displaved onlv durinQ the ten-day event (214.02.36). 104 Ordinance No. SECTION 5 SECTION 11.10. License Fees shall be amended as follows: 11.10 FEES Chapter 11.10, "Fees is amended to include the following temporary display license fees: CODE 205.30 SUBJECT Temporary Outdoor Display License FEE $75.00 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY T,HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 2000. ATTEST: DEB SKOGEN — CITY CLERK Public Hearing: Mazch 20, 2000 First Reading: March 20, 2000 Second Reading: Publication: 105 Page 6 NANCY JORGENSON — MAYOR ` AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 CffY OF FRIDLEY Date: 3/16/00 i^/ � f. To: William W. Burns, City Manager �� From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director RE: Appoint City Council Member to Joint Task Force JOINT TASK FORCE At the February 29, 2000 joint City Council meeting between Fridley and Columbia Heights, direction was given to staff of each community to establish a joint Task Force of the cities. The purpose of the Task Force is to make recommendations as to how best to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the Medtronic Corporate Campus. The Task Force is to be made up of a Council member, a HRA/EDA member, a Planning Commission member and a business representative from each City. The purpose of the Council's action on Monday night is to appoint the City Council representative. Staff will be asking for volunteers from the Planning Commission and HRA at their meetings in the first week of April. The search for a business representative is still underway. The Chairperson of the Task Force will also need to be agreed upon by both Cities. These appointments will be scheduled for Council action on April 10, 2000. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council appoint its representative to the Task Force. The dates, times, and location of the Task Force meetings will be iinalized in the upcoming weeks (hopefully by April 10, 2000). M-00-48 106 CITY OF FRIDLEY COMMISSION TERMS THAT WILL EXPIRE IN 2000 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Term Present Members Expires Appointee PLANNING COMMISSION (Chapter 6) (7 Members - 3 Year Term) GENERAL Diane Savage 4-1-00 CHAIR - VICE-CHAIR CHAIR David Kondrick. 4-1-00 PARKS � REC. CHAIR Bradley Sielaff 4-1-00 ENVIRON. QUALITY CHAIR Larry Kuechle 4-1-02 APPEALS COMM. . CHAIR LeRoy Oquist 4-1-01 HUMAN RES. AT Dean Saba 4-1-01 LARGE AT Connie Modig 4-1-02 LARGE APPEALS COMMISSION (Chapter 6)(5 Members - 3 Year Term) CHAIR Larry Kuechle 4-1-02 VICE- Carol Beaulieu 4-1-00 CHAIR Jon Tynjala 4-1-00 Blaine Jones 4-1-01 Kenneth Vos 4-1-02 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION (Chapter 6) (7 Members - 3 Year Term) CHAIR Bradley Sielaff 4-1-00 VICE- Richard Svanda 4-1-00 CHAIR John Velin 4-1-02 Rosalie Landt 4-1-01 Peter Panchyshyn 4-1-02 Michelle McCulloch Maher 4-1-01 Barbara Johns 4-1-01 �� Term Present Members Expires HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION (Chapter 6) (5 Members - 3 Year Term) CHAIR LeRoy Oquist 4-1-01 J. Raffesberger 4-1-00 Satveer Chaudhary 4-1-01 Terrie Mau 4-1-02 Annette E. Mitchell 4-1-02 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (Chapter 6) (5 Members-3 Yr. Term) CHAIR David Kondrick 4-1-00 VICE- Richard Young 4-1-01 CHAIR Susan Price 4-1-02 Marcy Sibell 4-1-00 Tim Solberg 4-1-01 CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION (Sec. 405.28)(5 Members-3 Yr. Term) CHAIR Ralph Stouffer _ 4-1-02 VICE- Robert Scott 4-1-00 CHAIR Burt Weaver 4-1-02 Gen Peterson 4-1-01 Dianne McKusick 4-1-00 POLICE COMMISSION (Chapter 102)(3 Members - 3 Year Term) CHAIR John Hinsverk 4-1-00 Mavis Hauge 4-1-01 John Burton 4-1-99 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (5 Members - 5 Year Term) CHAIR Larry Commers 6-9-04 VICE- Virginia Schnabel 6-9-00 CHAIR J. R. McFarland 6-9-02 John E. Meyer 6-9-01 Pat Gabel 6-9-03 ,' O$ = AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2000 GTY OF FRIDLEY INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS 109