Loading...
07/28/2003 - 00026166MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF JULY 28, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:34 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 Billings, Councilmember Wolfe and Councilmember Bolkcom. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: William W. Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director/Treasurer Frederic Knaak, City Attorney John Baker, Attorney, LMC Insurance Trust PRESENTATION BY FRIDLEY ROYALTY Fridley royalty introduced themselves and talked about their positions. PROCLAMATION: National Night Out — August 5, 2003 Mayor Lund read and presented a plaque declaring National Night Out. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND MICHAEL JUAIRE FOR THE PLATS OF LAND LOCATED AT 1163 NORTON AVENUE N.E. AND 1175 NORTON AVENUE N.E. (WARD 2). APPROVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 2 2. RESOLUTION NO. 32-2003 APPROVING A PLAT, PS #03-04, NORTON MANOR THIRD ADDITION, BY MICHAEL JUAIRE, PMJ GROUP, INC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A 6-UNIT TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1163 NORTON AVENUE AND 1175 NORTON AVENUE (WARD 2). ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 32-2003. 3. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #03-11, BY MICHAEL AND DENISE CORBETT, FOR A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE), GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1601 RICE CREEK ROAD (WARD 2). Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the proposed accessory structure was 552 square feet and within the Code requirements for such structures. The Planning Commission approved the request by unanimous vote at their July 16 meeting. Staff recommended Council's approval with seven stipulations. APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #03-11 BY MICHAEL AND DENISE CORBETT, WITH SEVEN STIPULATIONS: 1. THE PETITIONER SHALL INSTALL CODE-REQUIRED HARD SURFACE EXTENSION OF DRIVEWAY WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT; 2. PETITIONER SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION; 3. THE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR A HOME OCCUPATION OR LIVING AREA; 4. ALL VEHICLES SHALL BE STORED ON A HARD SURFACE AS APPROVED BY THE CITY; 5. TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MUST NOT EXCEED 1,400 SQUARE FEET; 6. GARAGE SHALL BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING HOME AND FINISHED WITH COMPLEMENTARY SIDING AND COLOR SCHEME; AND 7. A FIREWALL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE WEST WALL OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE. 4. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO PROJECT NO. ST. 2003-1. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the consultants who had been studying the City's wastewater system recommended that the City construct a 12-inch water line along Skywood Lane as part of the 2003 street reconstruction project. While the construction of the water line would delay the reconstruction of Skywood Lane by two to three weeks, staff recommended that the change be made now rather than after the street had been resurfaced. The estimated cost for the change order to the City's contract with Hardrives, Inc., was $64,632. This would greatly improve the water distribution for people both north and south of the interstate. Staff recommended Council's approval. APPROVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 3 5. CLAIMS. AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 112437 THROUGH 112654. 6. LICENSES. APPROVED LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. No one in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive information for Item No. 4, Change Order No. 1 to Project No. ST. 2003-1. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the proposed consent agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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: Mr. Doyle Mullin, 6801 Hickory Street N.E., Vice Chairman of the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation, thanked Council for meeting with the Springbrook Foundation to discuss the Nature Center. It was his understanding from the meeting that there would be a referendum. He asked if there was a resolution on the agenda. Mayor Lund said it was Item 15. Ms. Mary Ellen Vetter, a resident of Brooklyn Park, stated she was at the meeting on behalf of the Board of Directors of Audubon Minnesota in regard to the proposed closing of Springbrook Nature Center. She said they urged Council to reconsider their proposal to close the Nature Center. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 4 Dr. Catherine Gray, 7091 Highway 65 N.E., Suite 101, approached and stated she was the current chair of the Board of Directors for the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce which represents the cities of Fridley, Spring Lake Park, Moundsview, New Brighton, Columbia Heights, and Hilltop. A member-wide survey was conducted asking for input from the members on the operation and funding of Springbrook Nature Center and whether it should continue to be maintained as a nature center or turned into a golf course. The Board of Directors for the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce voted in favor of supporting the efforts to preserve the Nature Center. The Board also requested that members of the Fridley City Council vote to keep Springbrook Nature Center open in full capacity as a nature center. Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street N.E., asked about the work session Council had with Mr. George Shortridge and when the information would be available to the public. Councilmember Billings stated Mr. Shortridge was asked to provide some broad financial numbers. The City was not soliciting proposals for golf courses. He said any documents that were City documents were public documents. Ms. Jorgenson asked if Council would make the information available during one of their public meetings. Mayor Lund said he provided his copy to the Springbrook Foundation. Councilmember Billings stated that staff handed out the information they received from Mr. Shortridge. The report was finished. Mayor Lund stated they would not discuss anything on this subject unless they posted it for a public meeting. Mr. Roger Avery, 600 Glencoe, asked if any other endeavors had been discussed or considered with respect to the Nature Center. Mayor Lund stated it had been brought up, but they would have to ask permission for a land use change. Councilmember Barnette said they asked Mr. Shortridge to prepare some information on what a golf course might cost. He said the issue was funding. The City was in a budget crunch created by the state legislature. One of the proposals to save money was to eliminate the staffing and close the building at the Nature Center. They never said the Nature Center would be closed. The land would still be there. Ms. Kristen Lennox, Fridley Middle School student, approached and stated that she and her friends were asking them not to shut down the Springbrook Nature Center. Ms. Aura Peabody, 608 Cheryl Street, stated she was very much in favor of the Springbrook Nature Center. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARING: 7. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO DECLARE A CERTAIN PARCEL OF CITY-OWNED REAL ESTATE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE THE SALE THEREOF, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5541 FIFTH STREET N.E. (WARD 1). MOTION by Councilmember Billings to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:08 P.M. Mr. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this was a request to consider some land located at 5541 Fifth Street N.E. excess and to sell it. He said Tradition Homes was the new owner, and they were seeking to obtain an unused portion of the City right-of-way located immediately south of the property. The 3,385-square foot parcel was originally taken by the State as right-of-way for I-694 but was turned back to the City in 1979. The City would retain a 10-foot boulevard between the edge of the property and the existing bituminous roadway, which was consistent with the properties to the west. The parcel in question was buildable as a stand- alone parcel, and the City had no plans for future use of the property. Tradition Homes has agreed to the conditions placed on the sale of the property. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: • Purchaser cover all filing fees associated with this transaction. • Purchaser provide a guaranty of clean title. • Parcel be combined with Purchaser's existing property. • Purchaser prepare a quit claim deed. • Purchaser provide the new legal description of the property to the City. • City must approve architectural elevations of any buildings to be constructed on the combination of lots prior to issuance of any building permits. • The sale shall be effective by December 1, 2003. Councilmember Billings stated that the City had a public hearing on this same piece of property and passed an ordinance to sell it to Sylvester Builders. He said that Sylvester Builders did not meet the requirements. He asked if the City declared it excess by motion. Mr. Hickok said the City did. Mr. Jay Windschitl, owner of Tradition Homes, said Mr. Sylvester sold the property to him. He said he would like to pursue the option on the property. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:13 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 6 OLD BUSINESS: 8. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST, PS #02-03 BY BRANDES PLACE LP, TO REPLAT PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6160 FIFTH STREET N.E. (WARD 1). Council asked for a brief overview of Items 8, 9, and 10. Mr. Frederic Knaak, City Attorney, stated the three items were action items related to a settlement agreement passed at a previous meeting. The items were the approval of a preliminary plat request, a comprehensive plan amendment, and the first reading of an ordinance to amend the City Code by making a change in zoning districts. He said the City was sued by the developer in this matter. After considerable analysis, it was the opinion of legal counsel that the City's legal position was weak and that the potential for a very significant liability existed. As part of the litigation process, the City entered into mediation and reached an agreement that limited the City's liability. The settlement agreement, which they approved at the last City Council meeting, avoided potential liability exposure for the City. The City did not formally admit to any wrongdoing or to any procedural defects in its review of the requests. They did agree, under the terms of the settlement, to approve these three items. As part of the mediation process, the City was able to obtain a number of additional conditions and protections over what had been initially proposed. He said the approval of this agreement tonight did not preclude any of the normal and usual things that must occur for these items such as final plat approval. It also did not address any issue or potential dispute related to underlying ownership or control. Mr. Knaak stated that in real estate development proposals, fee ownership was not required of developers until the final approval and construction phase of the project. The City could rely on the representations of the developer. The question of the approval and support of the owners of this parcel was expressly excluded by settlement agreement. The City took no position on the issue. The obligation remains with the developer to secure the necessary ownership interest, and the City was expressly released under the terms of this agreement from liability even if there was an adverse determination of the ownership question for the developer. Mr. Knaak stated the recommendation at this meeting was to approve the three requests as required by the terms of the settlement agreement. In addition, it was recommended that they provide any additional directions that may be needed for staff on the remaining discretionary matters. Finally, they could anticipate additional recommended procedures to assure avoidance of these types of technical issues that created these difficulties in the future. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the change in Stipulation No. 3. Mr. Hickok stated the same stipulation applied to all three items. Language was added and they would answer any questions Council had. Staff agreed with the suggested language. Mr. John Baker, Attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, stated the particular language modified proposed Stipulation No. 3. The current language began with "Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water runoff and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 7 management." Rather then ending the sentence there, they proposed there be a comma and the following language be added: "if necessary to manage adequately drainage and storm water on the property." This language would clarify the stipulation. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what Mr. Baker meant by Brandes Place. Mr. Baker replied Brandes Place Limited Partnership, the plaintiff in the case and the current applicant. Mayor Lund asked who the parties were in Brandes Place Limited Partnership. Mr. Baker stated he did not have the information before him. Mayor Lund replied he thought it was Community Housing Development and Catholic Charities. Mr. Hickok said that was correct. Councilmember Barnette asked who owned the property they were talking about. Mr. Hickok replied in the presentation given in October and the information provided, the land was going to be provided by St. Williams Church to the developer. Councilmember Barnette asked who owned the property right now. Mr. Hickok said there was an agreement between the Church and the Partnership. He believed the Church still held the property, and pending approval of the plat request, the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning request, the change was to occur. Councilmember Barnette stated that was not what he heard at the last meeting. He asked what the intent was of the current owner of the property. He realized that their mediation agreement did not take that into account, but he was uncomfortable dealing with requests on property that someone did not own. Councilmember Bolkcom stated legal counsel said that it was not for them to determine. Councilmember Barnette stated he did not think he could go and make a request to put a new building on her property if it was her property. Dr. Burns said he could if he was a developer and he had the cooperation of the property owner. Mr. Hickok said it was not unusual at all for them to have a landowner and a developer enter into an agreement whereby the developer would take possession of the property once the necessary approvals had been granted. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 8 Councilmember Barnette mentioned the letter dated July 14 signed by Reverend Joseph Whalen in which he indicated that the parish did not participate in the mediation session and had not been provided with details of the agreement. Mayor Lund stated they were not a party to the lawsuit. Mr. Knaak stated this was not the City's issue or concern. It was not uncommon to have a purchase agreement between a developer and a property owner. This was a private matter between the developer and the landowner. Mr. Barney Buss, 6050 Fifth Street N.E., approached and stated he was totally confused on this whole issue. He said suppose he wanted to put an apartment in someone's back yard. So, he would go to the Planning Commission and they would tell him that he could not do that because he did not even own the property. So, how could Brandes Place Limited Partnership initiate their request since they did not own the property? He believed the answer to this question was they thought the transfer of the property to Catholic Charities appeared to have taken place when in fact it had not. Due to this technicality, the City should not be held responsible and decisions related to these proceedings should be held null and void. He asked how Brandes Place Limited Partnership initiated their request to the Planning Commission since they did not own the property. Mr. Knaak said that the apparent factual dispute was not a part of the agreement before the Council and he did not think that it was appropriate to address it. He explained that if there was a purchase agreement and the homeowner changed his/her mind and breached the agreement, the homeowner would be liable. If the City were to breach the settlement agreement, the liability would be the City's. The ownership of the property has nothing to do with this. Mayor Lund stated that what was before them was whether they were going to grant the requests per the agreement. It did not mean that conveyance of the property had to occur before they asked. The City still maintained the stipulations to the land use requests. Councilmember Billings stated employees of St. William's Church came to the meeting and spoke on behalf of the project and indicated that the property was going to be conveyed to the partnership. St. William's led the Council to believe that they were going to convey the property. They made no objections at the time of the public hearings on any of the issues. There was no mention at any of the public hearings that St. William's Church was not going to be transferring the property. He asked Mr. Knaak if it was his understanding that the lawsuit and subsequent settlement were relative to the information that was provided to the City Council and the Planning Commission at the public hearings. Mr. Knaak said based on the agreement and the information provided to him, yes, Councilmember Billings said that in the agreement where they were trying to limit the liability of the City there were specific provisions that indicated that any action by the City of Fridley was not dependent on the sale or transfer of the property. That was a separate transaction between the current owner of the property and the developers. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 9 Mr. Knaak said that was accurate. Councilmember Barnette said he may have made some assumptions according to what was said. He said he realized if they pursued this in Court, it was going to cost the citizens of Fridley a great deal of money and they were not going to win. He said he was uncomfortable with the whole situation. Ms. Joanne Zmuda, 6051 Fourth Street N.E., said she did some research and found the lawsuit they based this on. Mr. Baker said there was one case that was cited in the complaint entitled, D.L. S. v. City of Duluth. It was a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision from 2000, which the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to review or to overturn. Ms. Zmuda said it was for a special use permit, not a zoning and replatting request. She said the purpose of the zoning code in the City Code was to ensure sound land management and orderly development in the City. It regulated the types of uses which could occur in each zoning district as well as the minimum standards for development. She did not think this was good use of the land. No one in the area wanted high density housing. She asked about the technicalities. Mayor Lund asked legal counsel to reply. Mr. Baker replied that part of the case was based on a statute which Minnesota legislature adopted in 1995 called the Automatic Approval Statute. This was a statute which applied to any written request related to zoning plus a few other things and required that it be denied within a particular period of time. In the Duluth case, there was a request for a special use permit and the motion to approve failed. The Court of Appeals said that the failure of a motion to approve a request was not the same as a denial of a request. The 60-day clock continued and once the 60tn day or 120th day was hit, that meant the application had to be automatically approved because it had not been formally denied. That court went on and said, even if the failure of the motion was treated as a denial, there was another problem. There were no written findings that accompanied the action of the City Council, which they stated was something that was also required by the Automatic Approval Statute. What happened back on October 14, 2002, was that there were three written requests related to zoning that were considered by the City Council. In each case there was a motion to approve those requests which failed by a 2-3 vote. The story ended there. No motion to deny was made, and unless you knew the Duluth case very well, common sense would not suggest you needed to take that ne�t step. Mr. Baker stated that under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, certain kinds of discrimination are prohibited, and the plaintiffs believed that disparate impact discrimination on the basis of race or welfare status was made. If successful, this claim would have entitled plaintiffs to recover damages, attorneys' fees plus a potential civil penalty against the City. He said they wanted to resolve this case at a time before the damages were incurred. Mr. Buss asked why they did not respond within the 60-day period. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 10 Mayor Lund said they felt the failed motion made at the Council meeting was sufficient. They did not know that under the law, they should have made a motion to deny. They would also have had to put it in writing within 60 days and include sound legal reasons for denying the requests. Ms. Zmuda said the main thing they did not like about the project was the high density in that area. Ms. Carolyn Granger, 621 - 58th Avenue NE, said she agreed with Mr. Barnette. She said she would like to know each of the council member's backgrounds and their feelings on this development. She asked where they grew up and if they were a resident of Fridley. Councilmember Wolfe said they had to be a resident of Fridley to be elected to the City Council. Ms. Granger said she wanted to know their true feelings on Brandes Place. Mayor Lund said she could review the minutes from the Council meeting which are on the City's web site. There were also videotapes available and she could get copies of minutes from City Hall. Mr. Dan Hetman, 230 Craigbrook Way, stated he worked for Catholic Charities. He said that although it may be legally correct; he thought it was morally wrong. He said what citizens could do was to contact their local state representatives. Mr. Leslie Coyle, 6271 Si�th Street N.E., asked what the duty was of the councilmember for his ward if not to vote as a great majority of his ward would have him vote. Mr. John Kirkham, 430 — 67th Avenue N.E., said he spoke as an individual who was horrified at the actions of Brandes Place Limited Partnership. To accuse the City of discrimination when there was none just because there was a law on the books that allowed a simple no to be characterized as discriminatory was despicable. That law had since been repealed. It infuriated him, because during the whole debate around this issue the Council to a person was e�tremely sensitive to any expressions of discrimination. The Mayor was especially careful to ensure that everyone was heard, even alternating pro and con speakers. There was a time when plaintiffs had the burden of proving their allegations or had the case thrown out. Not only was that not the case here, guilt was presumed totally on the face of a simple "no" regardless of the circumstances. If that was not enough, Brandes Place resorted to what he would characterize as legalized blackmail, threatening the City with outrageously large punitive damages. He said he thought it was strange behavior for any entity that wanted to be a good neighbor. He was also astonished that the Archdiocese was willing to participate in this matter. He was grateful that Father Whalen and the church council had chosen not to participate in the effort. He urged the Archdiocese to follow their lead and disassociate from the Brandes Place project. He urged citizens to call the Archdiocese. He said to also call Father Whalen and let him know that you appreciated the courageous stand taken by him and the church council and call the Mayor and councilmembers and let them know how you feel. He asked if there was any way to postpone the vote on the zoning request to allow the citizens to voice their concerns. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 11 Mayor Lund stated to Mr. Kirkham that his comments were noted. He said they signed an agreement, brought the resolution at the last Council meeting, and published it to let people know. He said this did not mean the deal was done. The issues, however, would appear to be with the Church, the Archdiocese and Brandes Place Limited Partnership. He said they did the best they could at mediation. To protect the City, he felt he had to proceed with what was before them right now. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve Plat Request, PS #02-03 to comply with the terms of the Brandes Place Partnership settlement agreement with the following stipulations: 1. Petitioner to dedicate street ROW as indicated on Preliminary Plat drawing. 2. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 3. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for stormwater run-off and management. 4. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and N URP ponding for entire site. 6. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Code required refuse and recycling enclosures must be installed. 8. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permit. 9. Petitioner to pay any required Park dedication fees. 10. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are property capped or removed. 11. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay required park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 12 MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Stipulation No. 3 to replace the period with a comma, and add the verbiage suggested by the attorney. "if necessary to manage adequately drainage and storm water on the property." Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA, #02-01, BY BRANDES PLACE LP, TO CHANGE A PORTION OF THE CITY' S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAT IN ORDER TO ALLOW HIGHER DENSITY ON THE PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6160 FIFTH STREET N.E. (WARD 1). MOTION by Councilmember Billings to adopt Resolution No. 34-3003. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS, AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Stipulation No. 3 to replace the period with a comma, and add the verbiage suggested by the attorney. "if necessary to manage adequately drainage and storm water on the property." Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS (REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #02-01, BY BRANDES PLACE LP, TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND C-3, GENERALY SHOPPING, TO R-3, GENERAL MULTIPLE UNITS- RESIDENTIAL, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE 16 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6160 FIFTH STREET N.E.) (WARD 1). MOTION by Councilmember Billings to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS, AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 13 MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Stipulation No. 3 to replace the period with a comma, and add the verbiage suggested by the attorney. "if necessary to manage adequately drainage and storm water on the property." Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 11. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.06 OF THE CITY CHARTER REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1175 DECLARING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TO BE EXCESS AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE THEREOF (GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5541 FIFTH STREET N.E. (WARD 1). Mr. Hickok stated a public hearing was held on this item earlier in the meeting. The difference between this ordinance and the ne�t item on the agenda was this action repealed Ordinance No. 1175. Staff recommended Council's approval. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.06 OF THE CITY CHARTER DECLARING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE THEREOF (GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5541 FIFTH STREET N.E.) (WARD 1). Mr. Hickok stated this ordinance declared the real estate excess and allowed the sale of the land to Tradition Homes. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #03-012, BY JESSE COLLARD, FOR A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE), GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1426 — 64TH AVENUE N.E. (WARD 2). Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this special use permit would allow the construction of a 994-square foot accessory structure in the side yard of the residence at 1426 — 64th Avenue N.E. The building would be used to store recreational vehicles and lawn equipment. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 14 There was an attached garage. What would be discussed would be an additional detached, 994 square foot garage. Mr. Hickok stated the City Code required a special use permit to allow accessory buildings, other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet. The total square footage of the accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. The total square footage of the existing garage is 245 square feet. The total square footage of the proposed accessory structure is 994 square feet. The total of the two structures would be 1,239 square feet, which was 161 square feet less than the Code allowed. Petitioner has a small storage shed in the rear yard of his property which would be removed upon completion of the proposed accessory structure. The proposed garage location meets all setback and lot coverage requirements. Petitioner has asked if they can move the structure back roughly 10 feet. He said they could move it back as close as three feet to the rear lot line according to the City Code. Two neighboring property owners had concerns about the placement, size, and use of the structure. It was suggested that Mr. Collard move the proposed structure further back in his rear yard to provide landscaping between the proposed structure and the property line. The petitioner stated he planned to move the structure an additional 10 feet to the south. Staff visited the site and saw no problems with the structure being moved back an additional 10 feet. Mr. Hickok said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with seven stipulations. Second accessory buildings over 200 square feet are permitted special uses in the R-1 District. Staff recommended Council's approval with seven stipulations. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to receive two letters sent to the City regarding this matter, one dated July 22, 2003, from Pat Mulroy at 1384 — 64th Avenue N.E., and the other dated July 23, 2003, from Judy and Mike Zerby, 1400 — 64th Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wolfe asked if this was meant to be storage for recreational vehicles. Mr. Hickok said it was. Councilmember Wolfe stated he found out it was going to be a garage with no hard surface going to it. Mr. Hickok said the building was intended for accessory uses, boats on trailers not in use, lawn mowers, that type of thing. The representation was made that a driveway would not be necessary because they would not be utilizing the course back and forth between the garage and the roadway enough to wear any sort of path. In similar situations in the past, the Planning Commission and staff have recommended in some circumstances that a driveway not be placed. Councilmember Wolfe asked if he knew it was going to be a garage would the decision have been different. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 15 Mr. Hickok said if the intent was to use the building as a garage, a driveway would be required. He said it was a public nuisance not to have a hard surface driveway, and petitioner was aware of that. If the intent changed and they decided to use the building as a principal garage, then the original stipulation should stand that a hard surface drive must be installed within 12 months of the approval. Councilmember Wolfe stated if it was going to be used for storage, it could be put further back on the property. Mr. Hickok stated the City Code would not mandate where it needed to go. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the difference between an accessory storage building and detached garage. She asked what would have happened if it was attached. Mr. Hickok stated one difference was based on the size. On a single-family residential site you cannot exceed the first floor area of the home with a first accessory structure. They are very careful to note that. In this particular case, the principal structure was 1,007 square feet. The attached garage was relatively small. The second accessory structure was going to be 994 square feet. In this case, no accessory structure was exceeding the first floor area of the home. The combination of the two cannot exceed 1,400 square feet and they are below that. Regarding the term "accessory structure," all of the things mentioned are under the umbrella of the accessory structure in the Code. They are not treated any different. An accessory structure may not have an overhead garage door or gate doors. Even an attached garage was an accessory to the principal use of that lot, which was the single-family home. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what would happen if a garage was turned into living space. Mr. Hickok said that happened quite often. If the detached garage became living space that would be a problem. Only one principal structure was allowed on a single-family residential site. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if her attached garage became her living space and her accessory structure became her garage, would it change where it was placed? Mr. Hickok stated if that happened, it would allow more living space to compare against the garage. In no case can a single garage exceed 1,000 square feet. It could free up what was considered an accessory structure, make it a principal structure, and instead of 994 square feet, they could take that up to 1,400 square feet. Mr. Jesse Collard, 1426 — 64th Avenue N.E., said the garage would primarily be used for a second storage building. In the future, he would like to utilize the garage he had and convert it into living space at which time he would reroute the driveway to the new garage. Mr. Mike Zerby, 1400 — 64th Avenue N.E., said there was a lot of building there already and if there was a driveway that went back they were looking at a lot of square footage of wood. It would have a huge impact. Petitioner suggested to him that he put up a fence. He said he was FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 16 looking at 100 feet of driveway that was going to run off into his yard and basement. The house was currently 1,006 square feet and the garage/accessory structure would be 994 square feet. That was 12 square feet within Code. Councilmember Wolfe asked if Stipulation 1 would apply only if it was turned into a garage. Mr. Hickok said it would. Councilmember Wolfe asked if it caused runoff to go on the neighbors' properties, would the plan take care of that. Mr. Hickok said every plan had to include grading and drainage provisions. Councilmember Wolfe asked how they would control it. Mr. Hickok said in the design and final grade process. Mayor Lund asked if it was possible to add a stipulation saying that the drainage would not negatively impact the adjacent property owners. Mr. Hickok replied it was good request and if they chose to add it that was okay. They did not recommended it because it was already built in as a protection. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it might be beneficial to the neighbors if there was a review of the special use permit when this building became a garage. Mr. Hickok stated the trigger for the special use permit to come back would be when the petitioner expanded the garage in the back If the property owner ever chose to convert the garage to living space, that would not trigger review of the special use permit. It would, however, necessitate that they put in a driveway at such time as the accessory building became a garage. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City looked at the whole property when the permit was pulled. Mr. Hickok said it was. Councilmember Billings asked if a building permit was required to put in a driveway. Mr. Hickok said it was not. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they had allowed this in the past. Mr. Hickok said it was a standard request. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 17 Mr. Zerby asked if there was a possibility of asking for any type of shrubbery or trees to soften the impact of the building. Mr. Hickok replied that was something they would leave to the property owners to work out. It was not a standard practice. Councilmember Billings said if this item was approved, the structure could be place anywhere on the lot as long as long as it met with the setbacks. Mr. Hickok agreed. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve Special Use Permit Request, SP #03-12, by Jesse Collard, with the following stipulations: 1. Staff shall conduct regular inspections of the site. If at any time a trail simulating a driveway is present, a hard surface driveway, as approved by the City, will need to be installed within 90 days. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City. 5. Total square footage of all accessory structure must not exceed 1,400 square feet. 6. Garage shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with complementary siding and color scheme. 7. Petitioner shall remove storage shed in the rear yard of the property upon completion of the proposed accessory structure. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Collard to try and get some shrubbery to lessen the impact. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was sure City staff would have some ideas. 14. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #03-14, BY PARIDON COLSTROM, TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK ON A DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT FROM 34 FEET TO 7 FEET TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5750 MADISON STREET N.E. (WARD 1). FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 18 Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the recognition of this non-conformity would allow an existing shed in the rear yard to remain at its location. He staid the property was zoned R-1, Single-Family residential, as were the surrounding properties. The home faced Madison Street, and Jefferson Way bordered the property on the west side. Therefore, the property was considered to have double frontage. The City Code required that properties with frontages on both sides of their lot meet front yard setback requirements for garages and accessory structures located in the rear yard. The petitioners are applying for a variance to recognize the location of the existing shed located in their rear yard. The location of the structure was 7 feet from the west property line instead of the required 34 feet determined by setback averaging requirements. Setback averaging applies when the setback of the neighboring home was greater than the minimum front setback In that case, the setback of the new structure can be 6 feet more or less of the average depth of the adjacent structures. The minimum setback was 25 feet by Code. The subject property was 40 feet, and the adjacent garage on the north itself was also 40 feet back In other words all three were currently positioned 40 feet back. When you added or subtracted 6 feet, the setback options were to go to 34 feet from the right-of- way or to stay back 46 from the right-of-way. Based on the City Code requirements, the 34 foot minimum setback was determined. The petitioner was seeking a variance to reduce the rear yard from 34 feet to 7 feet. Mr. Hickok stated City staff has heard comments from neighboring property owners who have had concerns about parking on the grass in the rear yard and the lack of screening along Jefferson. Staff has also heard from those neighboring property owners that the petitioner is running a home occupation from his residence and shed. They stated there are electrical trucks pulling up to the shed and load/unload materials at all times of the day. Staff added stipulations to the variance request, which should alleviate the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Hickok stated the Appeals Commission recommended denial of this variance request due to neighboring concerns and lack of hardship. The Appeals Commission recommended that if the variance was granted, Stipulation No. 2, the screening fence, be changed from 12 months to 6 months. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner's fence had an opening near the southern garage wall, and that was where the neighbors saw trucks pulling in and parking where there was no hard surface. He said this was a fairly recent structure. When the petitioner received the building permit to build this in 2002, the survey did not show a street behind. Later inspection revealed that there was a double frontage, and by then they had the slab poured and the structure basically up. Staff recommended approval with five stipulations. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how come they did not know the street was there. Mr. Hickok said a number of different building permits come in and they have to use the information provided on the survey. Most of the time it was correct. In this case it was not. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she drove by petitioner's home and saw two vehicles parked ne�t to the garage. It was totally packed with stuff and there was more in the backyard. Her concern was that it looked like a warehouse and that there was a home occupation going on. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 19 Mr. Paridon Colstrom, 5750 Madison Street NE, approached and stated when he moved to that house there was no street behind him. The stipulations called for him to clean that stuff up. He stated the reason Councilmember Bolkcom saw the two vehicles back there was he had coated the front driveway with sealcoat and he did not want to park on it for 24 hours. He said he asked the neighbors if they had any objections. A few were not home, a few did not speak English and four said they had no obj ection. Mayor Lund said he looked at it too. Historically Mr. Colstrom's home has had some code violations, to the point where the City had to abate his property on two occasions. He said he was reluctant to grant the request when there was a long history on that property which cost the taxpayers a significant amount of money. The yard was not maintained very well. It looked like he was using the back yard by the fence all the time for vehicles because there was very little grass. He thought this needed to be addressed. He said he had received complaints from people as far away as three blocks about the unsightliness of his home. Mr. Colstrom stated he had been a procrastinator and he worked long hours. He has hired neighbors who are not working to help. Mayor Lund asked if he owned the business, Wire Rite Electric? Mr. Colstrom said he and his son did. Mayor Lund asked about any other domicile for his business other than his house. Mr. Colstrom said he did. He said that generally they asked the supplier to deliver the items to the job site. Mayor Lund stated this brought to light other possible code violations and enforcement actions with respect to running a home occupation or business out of a home. It was also a disturbance to the residential neighborhood. Mr. Colstrom said it was mentioned in the stipulations. Mayor Lund said the shed had already been put up and there was not any improvement that he could see. Mr. Colstrom said it was because the City called and told them to stop construction. He pointed out that he did put a new roof on the garage that matched the house and the roof on the shed matched also. Mayor Lund asked him if he replaced the garage door. Mr. Colstrom replied there were two new garage doors one brown and one white. A wildlife scene will be painted on the white door. He said the solar cell would probably be up and in use before winter. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 20 Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the items stored there and whether it would all be going away. Mr. Colstrom said there was a big television set there, an air compressor and air tanks, several computers, several monitors, and fishing and camping equipment. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there was stuff that looked like it was electrical. Mr. Colstrom said there was some of that, too. Councilmember Bolkcom asked him if there were any things in there that he used when he went out and worked on a job site. She asked if people came to the house and delivered things. Mr. Colstrom said they came to get their paychecks. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok about the stipulations. Mr. Hickok stated stipulations were put on the variance request. This was a contract. If he did not live by those conditions, the garage would go away and so would the other stuff on the property and they would not be an issue for them anymore. Mr. Daniel Babor, 5730 Jefferson Street N.E., said he lived on the other side of Mr. Colstrom. He submitted a letter recommending the variance not be granted. Not because of the shed itself, but the use of the shed. Jefferson Street was really not a street. It was narrower than a street. They have ten children in their house. They do foster care for the County of Anoka including high risk/high needs foster children. They chose that street because it was the ne�t best thing to a cul de sac and there would not be as much traffic. Mr. Colstrom did run a home-operated business. He did have two vehicles parked in the back often. He said he did not want his residence to a be a business place. It was not designed for that and was not safe. He said the variance should be granted and the stipulations enforced. Councilmember Billings asked if other properties in Fridley had double frontages. Mr. Hickok said there were. Councilmember Billings asked if variances were granted. Mr. Hickok said there were. Councilmember Billings asked to what e�tent the variances were issued. Mr. Hickok said they have come as close as 9 feet. Councilmember Billings asked if a property with double frontages was a normal property in the City of Fridley. The Planning Commission did mention that there was no hardship. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 21 Mr. Knaak said he could not speak on how common of an occurrence it was, but hardship had to relate to the actual configuration of the property. If there was something about the way the property was configured that made it necessary to do, that was a hardship. Councilmember Billings asked if it was possible that because it had double frontages that qualified as a hardship under state law. Mr. Knaak said that was possible. He said they needed to understand that in making that decision, similar hardships would have to be treated the same. Councilmember Billings asked if they had an obligation to approve this request, if they had approved similar requests in the past. Mr. Knaak replied the closer it was to the circumstances the greater the requirement that they would have to approve it. Mayor Lund stated they have been granted in the past on double frontages, but he thought there should be an exception in this case because of the condition of the property in general and the past history. Councilmember Bolkcom said they could hold the petitioner to the stipulations and if they were not upheld, he would have to take the shed down. Mr. Knaak said the City could enforce it, but it would not be free. There would be costs involved. It would be discretionary, but the City would have the authority to do it. Dr. Burns asked if the costs could be assigned to the property. Mr. Knaak said they could. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Knaak whether it was a hardship that the City did not realize there was not a double front footage there when they approved the shed. Mr. Knaak said there was a hardship if they found one. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve Variance Request, VAR #03-14, with the following five stipulations: 1. The existing shed shall not be used as living area or a home occupation. 2. The gap in the screening fence along Jefferson Street shall be filled in using a matching board-on-board fencing material consistent with the existing fence within 6 months of approval of this variance request. 3. No parking shall occur off Jefferson Street unless a hard surface driveway and parking area is first installed. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 22 4. Total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. 5. The storage pod, cabinet and any other miscellaneous outdoor storage items shall be removed within 30 days of approval of this variance request. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DELCARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NECESSITY TO LEVY A TAX WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE INFLATIONARY INDEX FOR TAX LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2004 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA FOR COLLECTION. Mr. Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, stated the resolution would allow the process to begin to levy an increase beyond the inflationary index provided for in the City Charter. The intent of this would be to bring a question of additional levy to the ballot this fall related to the programming for the Springbrook Nature Center. The first step in the process would be to define need. The need outlined in the resolution was because the state legislature cut the City's state aid for 2003 and beyond. The total reduction in state aid for 2004 as measured from the certified amount from 2003 will be $1,103,605. Dramatic budget reduction measures were required to provide a draft budget for 2004 and one was to eliminate the naturalist programming at the Springbrook Nature Center. It appeared from public opinion that the City has received thus far that a number of people would like to see the City levy the additional $275,000 in taxes that it would take to support the programming, maintenance, and administration of the naturalist programming. In order to provide for the possibility of levying the additional $275,000 which will exceed the charter-imposed limit on property taxes, they were presenting the attached resolution declaring the necessity to levy the tax for the sole purpose of supporting the naturalist programming. The resolution did not commit the City to the levy but started the process required by charter. If the resolution is passed, a public hearing notice would be published three times. The public hearing would then be held on August 25. The truth in taxation process required that they pass a preliminary tax levy resolution and certify it to the county prior to September 15. This would allow the preliminary resolution to include the $275,000. If the levy question failed in the election, they would pass the final budget resolution levying taxes without the $275,000. Councilmember Barnette said stated the City Council met with the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation and agreed that the supporters of the Springbrook Nature Center would get signatures on a petition and this would be placed on the ballot in November. It was his understanding that that was not possible and asked why. Mr. Pribyl said as far as an initiative being done via the petitioner, the only thing that they could do was modify the charter. They cannot force a question to the ballot related to a tax levy. Only the City Council has the ability to do that in relation to the current charter language. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 23 Councilmember Barnette stated if it went to a referendum and 51 percent of the people voted in favor of the referendum, it would then appear as a line item on residents' property tax statements together with a dollar amount based on the value of the property. Mr. Pribyl stated they had not actually gone through the mechanics, but he thought it would just be an additional amount they would place on the City levy. It would just be added to the amount that they would be levying. He did not think it would be a separate line item. He said he was in the process of checking with the County. Councilmember Barnette asked how they would earmark it for the Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Pribyl stated that was what they were checking on. He apologized for not having a clear answer, but it would be the first time they have dealt with a market value referendum on a city level. Councilmember Wolfe asked if the City could also initiate another tax to get a new fire truck. Mr. Pribyl said we could take it to the voters. Councilmember Wolfe stated that could be done on everything the City needs, even though the City Charter said we could only do so much. Mr. Pribyl said you could take the capital items such as fire trucks and Public Works equipment to a ballot. Councilmember Bolkcom said when they talked to the Foundation, they talked about actually going out and doing a petition. She asked why that was not happening. Mr. Pribyl said state law created the ability to create the city charter. The city charter then actually stipulated referendum and recall. In referendum, it only allows the charter commission to initiate changes to the city charter. Mr. Knaak agreed. Councilmember Wolfe stated he was under the impression that this could not go on the ballot until the Foundation had signatures of 15 percent of the registered voters. Councilmember Billings stated it was his understanding when they left the meeting there would be a two-fold effort. The Springbrook Foundation would in fact start the initiative process which they have now been told was not a viable process but at the same time that the City would start this process. At this point in time, even though they had been having lengthy discussion, the only action before the City Council was to determine there was a need to possibly do this and to schedule a public hearing on August 25 to answer all the questions. Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street N.E., Vice Chair of the Charter Commission, said that after the meeting she check the Charter to see if the citizens had the right to actually start a levy referendum and she found that Chapter 5 did not allow them to do that. She confirmed that with FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 24 Deb Skogen, the City Clerk They also had legal counsel who told them the same thing. The Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Board was still going to be petitioning the people of Fridley to support the City Council on this levy referendum and other possible referendums that might come up. Councilmember Wolfe asked if the person doing the petition had to be a Fridley resident. Ms. Jorgenson replied if they were going to propose an amendment to the city charter or propose a new ordinance to the City Council, yes, the person circulating the petition would need to be a Fridley resident. Councilmember Wolfe stated but it did not affect it if they wanted to raise new taxes. Ms. Jorgenson replied, no, because they were just going to gather community support to assist in the process. Councilmember Bolkcom said that the money used for bumper stickers and signs did not come out of the City budget. It was actually from donations they are received. Ms. Jorgenson agreed and explained how they raised the money and what it was used for. Dr. Burns asked about the $56,000 raised by the Nature Center. Ms. Jorgenson stated it was coming in through the programs and some of the work the Foundation was doing. Councilmember Billings asked if that would show up recreation fees. Mr. Pribyl said it would. Councilmember Billings stated the $56,000 the Nature Center was contributing to the City was actually the recreation fees that the parents are paying to the City of Fridley for certain programs, just as they pay fees for summer camp and after school activities and such. He said the $56,000 did not reduce the amount paid by every household to operate Springbrook Nature Center. The Nature Center was funded by state aid received by the City. Mr. Lenny Brandt, 190 Craigbrook Way, stated he has heard many misleading statements from the supporters of the Nature Center. He said it seemed to him that there were just as many people from outside the City who wanted to keep the Nature Center but did not want to fund it. They wanted to use the park for free. Ms. Jean Rosebrock, 5610 West Bavarian Pass, approached and stated she lived in Fridley for 17 years. In the 1950's she belonged to the League of Women Voters and she had to go to Council meetings. She also represented the League at the Metro Council. Her forte was transportation. It had taken a long time to get transportation. She said they had a jewel here. This park could not be put back if something was put in place of it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2003 PAGE 25 Ms. Jorgenson said if they started to charge fees, it would also have to be put on as a referendum issue according to the Charter amendment to Chapter 7. If they were going to issue any new fees, it had to be approved by the voters. Mr. Brandt said the park was not going to close. It was going to be a park, just like any park in Fridley. It would be a nature park. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to adopt Resolution No. 33-2003. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to receive the Policy Position from the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS. Mayor Lund he would be presenting a State of the City address on August 21, at 7 p.m., at the Fridley Senior High School auditorium. Mayor Lund said there would be a second 911 tribute on September 11, at 8:00 p.m. at the Fridley High School football stadium. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE JULY 28, 2003, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Letendre Recording Secretary ������ Scott J. Lund Mayor