Loading...
12/16/2002 - 29217MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:33 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Bolkcom, Councilmember Billings MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: William W. Burns, City Manager Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director Richard D. Prybl, Finance Director/Treasurer Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Fritz Knaak, City Attorney APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1169 AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE REPEALING THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this ordinance would remove references to the Human Resources Commission from Chapter 6 of the Fridley City Code. The first reading of the ordinance was approved at the December 9 meeting. He said Council would like to thank the members of the commission, LeRoy Oquist, Terry Mau, and Ellen Raeker their years of service to Fridley. Staff recommended Council's approval of the second and final reading. WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1169 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2002. RECEIVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 2 3. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE FRIDLEY SENIOR PROGRAM TO APPLY FOR CDBG FUNDING FOR THE YEAR 2003. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this is a joint application with the City of Coon Rapids. The amount requested was $11,000. If successful, the proceeds would be divided equally between the two cities and used for their senior companion programs. This was the continuation of an effort made last year. Staff recommended Council's approval. APPROVED. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 72-2002 AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN COMPENSA- TION AND CHANGES IN CERTAIN BENEFITS FOR THE 2003 CALENDAR YEAR. Dr. Burns, City Manager, said the resolution authorized a two percent cost of living adjustment for non-bargaining unit employees. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 72-2002. 5. CLAIMS. APPROVED CLAIM NOS. 109053 THROUGH 109187. 6. LICENSES. APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED. 7. ESTIMATES. APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES: CM Construction Company Inc. 12215 Nicollet Avenue South Burnsville, NIN 55337 Municipal Garage Expansion Project No. 343 Estimate No. 1 $57,916.75 MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 3 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the Agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. OLD BUSINESS: 8. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 205, SECTIONS 205.17, 205.18, 205.19, 205.20 AND 205.25 RELATED TO OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS (TABLED OCTOBER 28, 2002). MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to remove this item from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, said staff requested consideration of Zoning Te�t Amendment No. 02-01 which related to outdoor storage in Fridley's industrial districts. Current outdoor storage regulations did not allow outdoor storage unless the property was in a M-3 district or the property had been issued a special use permit for incidental storage. The current ordinance dated back to 1992. Systematic code enforcement in late 2001 revealed that a number of industrial properties were storing goods in trailers and other places outdoors. Staff determined that the city ordinance should be reviewed. He said that the council/commission survey results showed overwhelming support for new legislation that would allow some outdoor storage with screening requirements. Those survey responses were verified at a joint meeting held between the commissions and Council on April 15. Mr. Hickok said that when preparing the proposed ordinance, staff examined several different options based on how other cities in the metro area regulated outdoor storage. Outdoor storage was currently allowed in the M-1, M-2, and M-4, and S-3 districts, through a special use process, if the items being stored were incidental to the business. Incidental storage had been interpreted to mean the storage was temporary in nature and the short-term storage was not required as an ongoing part of the business. The confusion was in defining "temporary" and determining whether it was required as part of the business. Public hearings were held before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Hickok said that without spending a lot of time going through the ordinance itself, the language was very consistent in that different sections of the code were being repealed. He said FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 4 that in the M-3 district the code would allow up to 15 feet in height in the screened/storage areas. In the other districts it would 12 feet in height, which would mean some of the semi/enclosed trailers could not be part of the enclosed storage area. There was a hearing before the Planning Commission on July 17. On August 12, it went before the City Council and a motion was made to continue the public hearing until September 9. The City held a public hearing on September 9 at which time they tabled the hearing and held a Council work session to discuss issues raised at the public hearings. The first reading was held on October 24. Mr. Hickok indicated that staff inet with the Onaway District property owners in two meetings on November 13 and December 4. One of the most frequent comments related to the unique characteristics of that district and that the alleys did define the rear part of the properties. Storm water was an issue. The idea of having storage pods rather than semi-trailers for storage in the Onaway District was offered as a solution to a couple of people who had semi-trailers who wanted to use them for warehouse and storage. Dumpsters were discussed at length. He said staff would be recommending that the code regarding dumpster requirements in the Onaway District be reviewed. Several other unique characteristics were identified in the Onaway District. He said that snow plowing equipment must be stored and kept within a screened area. Dumpsters and other enclosures were discussed. He said they also spoke with United Defense, and who indicated that they were comfortable with the amendment as discussed. All Temp Storage expressed some concerns and indicated that their operation was approved as a distribution center. Mr. Hickok said that Mr. Richard Harris, resident and owner of numerous buildings in Fridley, requested a definition of heavy equipment. For purposes of this ordinance, heavy equipment was described as that which was an on-highway vehicle. An on-highway vehicle is over 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. That would be over the largest one-ton truck Staff recommended approval of the first reading of the ordinance. Further, staff recommended that Council authorize staff to work on a separate te�t amendment regarding Chapter 113, Solid Waste and the Onaway Industrial Plan. This would be a separate process and would come before the Council in 2003. Mayor Lund stated he had two questions. One was regarding the gross vehicle weight of 26,000. He said that was for licensed or registered vehicles. A semi-truck or something of that size by itself weighs less than 26,000 pounds. He said semi trucks weigh between 17,000 to 18,000. He said that with respect to Section 4, no stipulations were listed for heavy industrial storage. Dr. Burns, City Manager, asked if they wanted to add that as an amendment tonight. Mr. Hickok said it was fine. Councilmember Billings asked if it would be easier to renumber the sections. Mr. Paul Welna approached the Council. He said he was a representative of Murphy Warehouse Company which had several buildings in the area. He said he attended the October meeting and he knew there was going to be more discussion of the ordinance. He said he never received any notification of any further hearings. He accidentally found out about this one. He was interested in where this was going. He said he was concerned with the word "storage." He thought FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 5 storage did not necessarily mean parking a trailer in a building for a few hours. He understood their terminology would mean having a trailer sit for long periods in the same spot. Mr. Hickok stated that every district had trucks that are moving in and out. Mr. Welna replied they do not allow trucks to stay for long periods of time on their property. Mayor Lund stated thanked him for speaking. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hickok if it would be fair to say that this was a relaxation of what was already in the ordinance, and if someone was meeting the ordinance today, it was highly likely that they would be meeting the ordinance in the future. Mr. Hickok agreed. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, asked for a definition of construction equipment. Mayor Lund referred to Section 3, line (� of the ordinance which stated that a special use permit for limited outdoor storage shall not permit the outside storage of semi trucks or trailers or heavy construction equipment. Mr. Harris referred to the part the mentioned "off-highway" construction equipment. He said he understood it to mean everything. Mr. Hickok replied that the term "off-highway" in the statutes talked about track vehicles and about small, hard-tired vehicles. Vehicles that could not travel on the highway. Dr. Burns asked about a crane for lifting light loads. It would not ordinarily be seen on the highway, but it could go on the highway. Mr. Hickok stated if it is a mounted truck, it would need to go by the gross vehicle weight. He said that for a multitude of construction purposes, the trailer in and of itself is not an on-highway vehicle. Mayor Lund asked if a bobcat would be allowed. Mr. Hickok replied the trailer itself, yes. The bobcat would fall into the category of off-highway equipment storage. Mayor Lund stated that the commercial company should unload the trailer and put the bobcat inside. Mr. Harris stated that he has seen rubber-tired rollers on the highway. Mayor Lund commented that the City has those and uses them on the shoulder but they are not able to maintain highway speed and they would not generally have license plates. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 6 Mr. Hickok stated a highway vehicle had to have a gross vehicle weight of less than 26,000 pounds. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Harris if he had some ideas in mind about his vehicles. Mr. Harris stated that he did not have a lot of problems with the ordinance except for Section 3(�. He thought there was some way to better define the difference between parking and outdoor storage. He asked if they were talking about just the Onaway District. Mayor Lund replied they were not just talking about the Onaway District. Mr. Harris stated he would like to see them move ahead with the Onaway tonight. He said they owe it to the property owners in M-2 to give them a chance to review this. He said he did not think people realized what this really meant. He said he had a problem with the definitions. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Harris if he had a problem with Section (� as it referred to the Onaway District. Mr. Harris stated it boiled down to the definition of heavy construction. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Mr. Harris asked a lot of questions, and she thought Mr. Hickok should have the opportunity to answer them. Mr. Hickok replied that they had involved the public in this matter. They had an open house for industrial business owners before they started the commercial and industrial code enforcement. He said that shortly after they started the systematic code enforcement process, it became evident that barbed wire fences were going to be an issue. He said they made an ordinance amendment that reflected what they had observed. He said that they followed that a short time later with the outdoor storage ordinance. He stated that he thought it was important that they had several meetings on this. He said they sent out two mailings to the industrial property owners. They also held public hearings. He said the meetings were well attended. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if people were going to be impacted more than they already had. Mr. Hickok replied that they would. He said they just passed the 50 percent mark on inspecting the industrial properties and they did find that there were a number of properties that have outdoor storage issues. Many of the issues have been taken care of and people were very good to work with. In many cases they just needed a clarification about what the ordinance did and did not allow them to store on their industrial properties. He said they will work with them and try to help them better understand the ordinance. Mr. Harris stated he still had a problem with "heavy construction." If they did something with Section 3(�, it would solve a lot of problems. He said if you looked around the City, you would notice that there is snow plow/construction equipment parked at almost every major parking area. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 7 Mayor Lund replied that he did not recall seeing any equipment at Target and Home Depot. He said it was usually contracted out. Mr. Harris said what they did was move the equipment there. He said there is equipment at Home Depot. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the equipment was there all the time. Mr. Harris stated that the argument could be made that it would be parked there until it was needed but it could also be said that it was stored there. Mayor Lund asked what districts the stores were in. Mr. Hickok replied they are commercial entities. He said all the companies mentioned have special permits that depend on them not storing outside. Mr. Harris stated he did not want to make any trouble for them. Mayor Lund stated as they heard earlier, they just started doing commercial and industrial enforcement. Mr. Harris said that prior to 1992 it was allowed. He said lumber yards and all kinds of things were allowed in the M Districts. Mayor Lund stated that his points were noted. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 9. RESOLUTION NO. 73-2002 CERTIFYING THE FINAL TAX LEVY REQUIRE- MENTS FOR 2003 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated this resolution certified the tax levy to Anoka County. He said the levy was broken up into the following components: General Fund, $5,716,590; Capital Improvement Fund, $94,165; Six Cities Watershed Management Organization, $6,200; and Stonybrook Creek Sub-Watershed District at $8,900 for a total being certified to Anoka County in the amount of $5,825,855. He said the resolution and levy were in compliance with the required truth in taxation process. Staff recommended approval of the resolution. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt Resolution No. 73-2002. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 8 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 74-2002 ADOPTING A FINAL BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003. Mr. Pribyl stated this resolution adopted the fiscal year 2003 budget. On December 9 the City Council conducted a public hearing outlining the elements of the City budget for 2003. He said all elements of the budget complied with both Minnesota State Statutes and the City Code. The key elements talked about at the public hearing were: the total General Fund appropriations or expenditures of $12,883,911; the total Special Revenue Fund appropriations of $1,236,096; the total Capital Projects Fund appropriations of $450,100; and the total Agency Fund appropriations of $6,200. The total of all funds was $14,576,307. He said the overall tax levy increased by 3.8 percent. Staff recommended approval of the resolution. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution 74-2002. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 603, INTOXICATING LIQUOR, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE PERTAINING TO FOOD TO LIQUOR SALES RATIO. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that staff prepared the first reading of this ordinance to determine if there was support to amend the food-to-liquor ratio. The current minimum ratio of food sales to liquor sales of 40 percent was established in 1975. There have been requests over the years to reduce the minimum food requirement to something less than the current 40 percent. The ordinance proposed to reduce the minimum food percentage to 35 percent. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the food percentages for businesses. Mr. Pribyl stated the food percentages had been maintained over a period of years and had been prepared from the CPA certifications provided by the establishments during renewal. He said over the years there have been a few locations that hovered around the 40 percent mark. Councilmember Bolkcom stated part of the reason for the proposed ordinance was because of non-compliance by one establishment. She could not justify changing the ordinance when previous councils had all been pretty adamant about this. She asked if public notice was necessary to change the ordinance. Mr. Pribyl replied that a public hearing was not needed. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 9 Councilmember Wolfe commented the proposed ordinance was before them due to the request of AlVg' Bowling Centers. He said people do not go to bowling alleys for supper, however, they might go to the Mermaid for supper because it has a full-size restaurant. Councilmember Billings commented that the issue had been discussed in a conference session due to AMF's request to change the ordinance. He said it was being presented to see if there was any desire on behalf of the City Council to change it. It was his understanding that only one Council member was in favor of making some kind of change. He believed language should be brought forward that adequately defined the bowling alley. Councilmember Wolfe recalled that he actually did state a bowling alley should be treated differently. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Pribyl if a liquor-food establishment in Fridley had ever lost a liquor license because of non-compliance with the food to liquor sales ratio. Mr. Pribyl replied that no establishment had. He said some licensees were put on probation but the City Council had never actually refused to renew a liquor license. Councilmember Barnette asked how long Maple Lanes had been in operation. Mr. Pribyl replied for a long time. Councilmember Barnette asked if they have had a bar from the time they opened up. Dr. Burns, City Manager, believed they had. Councilmember Barnette asked if Maple Lanes had met the ratio until recently. Mr. Pribyl replied they had. He said staff had reviewed Council meeting minutes and found references to this site in 1975 when much of this ordinance was adopted. At that time, the owners of Maple Lanes indicated they were concerned about meeting the ratio. Councilmember Barnette said he did not know what changed, but the bowling alley had been in Fridley for at least 30 years or longer and had always been able to meet the ratio. He said they had new ownership, but the new owners bought the establishment knowing what the requirements were. Councilmember Wolfe commented it was kind of like the businesses in Fridley that knew about the ordinance relating to storage. He asked why they were not shut down. Councilmember Barnette commented they worked with them. Councilmember Wolfe commented they have made it easier. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 10 Mayor Lund stated there were two reasons why he supported the ordinance. He said looking at the chart presented earlier, there were a few establishments getting dangerously close to the 40/60 rule. He said it appeared it might be increasingly difficult to achieve that goal and there were some valid arguments. He said it was tough to regulate the exceptions and create the exception for one, but he felt they could compromise. Councilmember Bolkcom said the ordinance was originally adopted because the City Council wanted restaurants not liquor establishments in Fridley. She asked if other businesses were going to want the ratio lowered if they could not meet the 35 percent ratio. Mayor Lund commented he did not think it had happened overnight. He said the ordinance had been around for a long time. Councilmember Billings stated Councilmember Bolkcom was right that the intent of their predecessors in 1975 was to establish the fact that the City of Fridley wanted to have quality, on- sale liquor establishments that were predominantly restaurants. He said Sha� came onto the scene in 1991 with a food ratio of 16 percent. At that time the City Council was firm about the minimum 40 percent food ratio. Sha� had to make adjustments to strongly emphasize food sales in their operation and were just barely making their quota now. He said he felt the City wanted to hold establishments to a higher standard. He said he understood the Mayor's pursuit of trying to relax the standards for the bowling alley in particular to retain the business in the community. He said they had to remember the reason for the ordinance and he could not support the proposed change. If someone were to present an ordinance that specifically spelled out "bowling alleys" and set up a different criteria for them within the ordinance, he would evaluate it and vote based on the logic of the ordinance presented. MOTION by Mayor Lund to waive the first reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, WOLFE, BOLKCOM AND BILLINGS VOTING NAY, THE MOTION FAILED ON A 1 TO 4 VOTE. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 75-2002 APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2002 (TOTINO-GRACE HGH SCHOOL PROJECT) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATIONG THERETO. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated a public hearing was held on this matter on December 9. He said the City was provided with information stating the debt would be in the amount of $4 million and was for improvements on the property, construction of a new heating and electrical plant, and construction of a 60-space hard-surface parking lot. He said they would also be refinancing some existing debt used to build a library, science lab, office and stadium. Totino- Grace advised that conventional market rate financing would limit the feasibility of this project FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 11 and they probably would not be able to construct some of the elements. The debt in this particular case would be repaid from the revenues of the borrower and not the City. Councilmember Barnette said he wanted to confirm that there was no obligation to the City or City residents. Mr. Pribyl stated that this particular bond issue was allowed by Minnesota State Statutes. He said it was conduit financing and restated the fact that there was no pledge of City resources and it would be fully and completely paid for by Totino-Grace. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve Resolution No. 75-2002. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 76-2002 DIRECTING THE DESIGN FOR THE EXTENSION OF 62ND WAY WEST OF RIVERVIEW TERRACE. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, pointed out that it was incorrectly listed on the agenda as Riverview "Heights." It should say Riverview "Terrace." He stated that after the discussion at the December 9 council meeting, staff prepared resolutions so that a construction project could be initiated in accordance with the statute. He said the first resolution recognized the proposed design width for the e�tension of 62"d Way, which was less than the accepted standards. Building to the accepted standards that were recommended by the engineering staff, would create significant issues with the adjacent properties, specifically acquisition of rights-of-way and the possible need to replat these properties to recognize some non-conformities of lot size. Nevertheless the City Council directed the engineering staff to design this roadway to the lesser width. This type of resolution was last used for the design of Riverview Terrace, north of 79tn Avenue in Riverview Heights. Councilmember Billings stated that last week an attorney for one or more of the property owners indicated that the City may in fact already own or have the right to utilize that property because of eminent domain. He said it was his understanding that from time to time, both the property owner north of 62"d Way and the City of Fridley have plowed snow in this area. He asked if that would preclude adverse possession from taking place. Attorney Knaak, City Attorney, replied that with respect to roadways, there had to be continuous possession. Dr. Burns, City Manager, inquired if adverse possession could be voluntary. Attorney Knaak replied that adverse possession generally required action of ascertaining the right. It was not something that happened automatically. He said in this instance it would be problematic since the property involved was being maintained by the property owner. He said it would be a fact question. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 12 Councilmember Billings asked if it was reasonable for the City to attempt to claim that the property immediately north of 62"d Way was now part of the public street right-of-way. He said unless the property owner was willing to deed or grant an easement or allow the City to use the property, it was highly likely this would end up in some sort of a court setting to make a determination about adverse possession, thus increasing the cost of the project. Attorney Knaak replied that was not an unlikely scenario. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the width of the road was not something totally unheard of. It had been done in the recent past in Riverview Heights Mr. Haukaas replied that it was not unusual to have the road less than 30 feet wide. It was because of the excessive difference from the accepted standard that they had to bring this before Council. Mr. Greg Potasek, 310 — 62"d Way N.E., stated he had not seen the plan that was being described. He said 62"d Way was west of Riverview Terrace. It was 18 feet of pavement on 25 feet right-of-way and he did not believe the resolution was necessary. He said he was not opposing or consenting to the resolution. He stated if Council wished to go forward with the resolution, he requested that they use the same process for a 25-foot radius cul-de-sac centered on the present 62"d Way street. He said he had previously made this request. City policy itself recognized that the standard for local residential streets would normally be a 30 foot wide, 50 foot in diameter (25-foot radius) cul-de-sac. He asked Mr. Harris if he had any objections. Councilmember Billings stated said that the resolution before Council directed City staff to do this. The reason for the resolution was because the city engineer needed to sign the plans even though they are contrary to the accepted standards. The resolution would hold him harmless from liability and from accusations of drafting substandard plans. When the ne�t resolution directing them to actually prepare plans was presented, it might be time for Mr. Potasek to talk about what he was discussing right now. He said there was only 25 feet of right-of-way. He stated that in order to create a driving surface with a 50-foot radius, a 60 to 65 foot right-of-way would be needed. Mr. Potasek stated Fridley's policy indicated a 50-foot diameter cul-de-sac. It said nothing about the right-of-way. He said he received no objections from Mr. Harris regarding the right-of-way question. He said that none of the plans were presented to the residents and, in fact, they were not notified of the hearing. He requested notification of any further plans or proceedings. Mayor Lund stated that they would be notified. Mr. Potasek requested authorization of a second set of plans. Mr. Haukaas said they had prepared several layouts. The current proposal was sent to Mr. Potasek's attorney one week ago. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 13 Mr. Potasek replied he had spoken with Mr. Haukaas and Mr. Burns in October and requested consideration of a 25-foot radius cul-de-sac. Mr. Haukaas stated that the copy of the street policies that Mr. Potasek had was a draft copy. It had not been approved by Council. Mr. Potasek stated he received a copy of the street policies on August 12. Nothing was said about this being a draft copy. He said they have not received any proposal that met the policy. He stated they had not received a response from the City since August. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Knaak if he had any discussions with Mr. Neilson Mr. Knaack stated he did not hear from Mr. Neilson, although they did send a copy of the draft. He pointed out that the exchanges were really for discussion purposes. The resolution was something different. It would authorize the City Engineer to proceed with this matter. He emphasized that this was not a decision as to the configuration, it simply authorized the City Engineering staff to prepare more formal plans that would serve as a basis for further discussions. Councilmember Bolkcom said that the City often did some type of preliminary plans. Mr. Haukaas agreed. Mr. Potasek said he was requesting that a second option be addressed and presented to the neighborhood, a cost contract be presented, and neighbors notified of any meetings. Attorney Knaak said this was a preliminary part of the process, and under Chapter 429 there were requirements for providing notice. Council could not make any decisions without notice Mayor Lund asked Mr. Potasek if he had an interest in any of the two options. Mr. Potasek said he was not opposing or consenting to either one. Dr. Burns said they were being accused of not being responsive and he thought that was untrue. He said Mr. Haukaas submitted five or six different plans. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve Resolution No. 76-2002. Seconded by Mr. Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, WOLFE, BOLKCOM, AND BILLINGS VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ON A 4-1 VOTE. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 77-2002 ORDERING PRELIMINARY PLANS, SPECIFICA- TIONS AND ESTIMATES OF THE COSTS THEREOF: 62ND WAY EXTENSION PROJECT NO. ST. 2003-2. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 14 Mr. Haukaas stated this resolution ordered plans and specifications and estimates of costs thereof for the 62"d Way e�tension project. They would return at a future Council meeting with a report of the findings, including a proposal for assessment costs. Councilmember Barnette asked if this was only applicable to the street or did it include the cul- de-sac. Mr. Haukaas replied the resolution ordered plans for the 62"d Way e�tension project. If so directed, they could put together alternatives. Councilmember Billings asked what time was involved in preparing a set of plans. Mr. Haukaas replied that it would require several hours. He thought it would take a minimum of 20 to 40 hours to put a basic preliminary plan together, do cost estimates, and prepare the report. Councilmember Billings stated it seemed that when this came before them in August, it was tabled so the property owners and the City would have an opportunity to come up with some kind of alternative. He said there has not been anything from the property owners indicating that they wanted to give the City additional right-of-way. He said he hesitated to ask staff to put in a considerable amount of time on Option A, Option B, Option C, or Option D, when in fact all of those options were presented in rough draft form to almost everyone involved. He said the City was in the business of plowing snow. He said they are primarily equipped to push snow. They are not equipped to go in with buckets and scoop snow. He said they needed to come up with a design for the roadway that was something that could easily be accessed by the City's equipment. A 25-foot right-of-way did not allow enough room to build any kind of a cul-de-sac that met the current standards. Even a 50-foot right-of-way did not allow the City to build a cul- de-sac that would allow enough room for City equipment to get in and turn around. They would need considerably more right-of-way. He said he did not know if any of the property owners were interested in giving up part of their front yards in order to install a street that was wider than 13 feet. Mr. Potasek stated the street had been plowed since 1956 or 1957. As Mr. Harris stated earlier, one of the most efficient ways of moving snow is with a front-end loader. A front-end loader is used in other areas of Fridley. With respect to notification from the City regarding options, he received a fax from Mr. Haukaas on December 6. It was noted that the subject matter of the fax was brought up in a meeting by Councilmember Billings and was dated November 25. It was sent to the City Council members on November 26. He stated they did not receive it until December 6. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace N.E., approached with photographs of the street. He stated he took the photographs after the last meeting and painted a yellow line so they knew what they are talking about. He said the strip was pretty close to the street line property line, between 62"d and his property. He said he would consider Mr. Potasek's request. He said he would like to measure it and put stakes up to see how it would look. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 15 Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she agreed that after months of discussion, it was time to proceed. Mayor Lund stated that he voted against the previous resolution because there did not appear to be a viable alternative. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve Resolution 77-2002. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. Councilmember Billings asked what radius a current design required. Mr. Haukaas replied the design standard would be a 50-foot radius right-of-way. For a neighborhood street it would be a 40-foot radius curb line. Councilmember Billings said in order to meet the current design standards of the City, that was what it would take and the property owners indicated that that was not something they wanted. Mr. Potasek said it did not meet the policy for city streets. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Haukaas to explain what the current design policy was for a cul-de-sac. Mr. Haukaas replied that they have not approved a city policy on cul-de-sacs. Their administrative policy was, as he explained earlier, the same as the design standard. Councilmember Billings stated and the City Council had not approved a policy. Mr. Haukaas agreed. Mr. Potasek stated at the request of Councilmember Ann Bolkcom, he received a copy of "Snow Removal Operations Policies and Procedures." It did not say "draft" on it anywhere. He asked how old the policy was that was sent to him. Mr. Haukaas replied that was something that had been in the development stages. As previously stated, it had never been approved nor was it official City policy. Mr. Potasek said it was dated July, 1996. Councilmember Bolkcom said it was an administrative policy. It was not necessarily a policy that was adopted by the City Council. Mr. Potasek said it was sent to him. Councilmember Bolkcom replied it was done at his request. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2002 PAGE 16 Councilmember Billings stated it was the only thing they had at that time that was even close to a policy. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, WOLFE, BOLKCOM, AND BILLINGS VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ON A 4-1 VOTE. 15. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated they requested that the Council meet with Housing and Redevelopment Authority on Thursday, January 9, to discuss the Gateway West project. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if City offices would be closed at 2 p.m. on Christmas Eve and New Years Eve. Dr. Burns replied that they would. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE DECEMBER 16, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Letendre Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor