03/08/2004 - 00026336CITY OF FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2004
The regular meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Billings,
Councilmember Wolfe, and Councilmember Bolkcom.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
City Manager Burns reviewed the items on the consent agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of February 9, 2004.
APPROVED.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second readinq of an ordinance amendinq Fridley City Code, Chapter 11, Fees.
Mr. Burns stated we have corrected typos identified at the February 23 meeting. We are
also suggesting that the wording on fees for auctions be changed to read $30.00 for one
week or $150.00 for one year. We have also reexamined liquor license costs as
suggested by Councilmember Billings. We recommend that these be left as proposed.
In general, fees have been raised to reflect the cost of providing services and include a
significant increase in many of the city's land use application fees.
• Special Use Permit fees have been raised from $400 to $1,500.
• Vacations are raised from $250 to $1,250.
• Lot splits are raised from $250 to $1,250.
• Zoning text amendments are raised from $300 to $1,500.
The amendments also raise rental property licensing and inspection fees.
• The license for a single unit would be raised from $27.50 to $41.25.
• The license for five or more units would increase from $110 to $165.
• The license for each additional unit above five units would increase from $5.50 to
$8.25.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 2
Staff is recommending Council's approval of the second and final reading of this
ordinance.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE
REGULAR AGENDA.
2. Second readinq of an ordinance amendinq Chapter 402, Water and Sewer
Administration of the Fridley City Code.
Mr. Burns stated the typos identified at the last meeting have been corrected. The
amendments include three main changes.
• It establishes that the property owner is responsible for repairs to the portion of
the water and sewer services that lie between the property lines and the main in
the street.
• It replaces water meter purchases by new customers with a new customer set-up
fee.
• It establishes that the city would install an automated meter reading device for
customers who have not returned their meter readings for four consecutive
quarters. Additionally, we would charge a$50 a month penalty until such time as
the customer allows us entry to install the new meter.
Staff recommends approval of the second and final reading of this ordinance.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE
REGULAR AGENDA.
3. Ordinance No. 1190 amendinq Chapter 206, Buildinq Code, adoptinq the 2001
Minnesota State Buildinq Code; and Approve Official Title and Summary
Ordinance.
Mr. Burns stated this ordinance adopts the new state building code that was adopted by
the legislature in 2003. The state code adopts the International Building Code and the
National Electric Code and numerous other state code items. The ordinance includes
both the new code and the new fee structure. The corrections suggested at the last
meeting have been made.
Staff recommends approval of the second and final reading of this ordinance.
WAIVED THE READING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND ADOPTED
ORDINANCE NO. 1190 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION.
NEW BUSINESS:
4. Receive the minutes of the Planninq Commission meetinq of February 18, 2004.
RECEIVED.
5. Receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meetinq of February 25, 2004.
RECEIVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 3
6. Resolution No. 2004-20 schedulinq a Public Hearinq for March 29, 2004, to
amend Section 7.02 of the Fridley City Charter by Ordinance as recommended
by the Charter Commission.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained on March 1, 2004, the Fridley Charter Commission
approved the amendment to the Fridley City Charter that removes utility and recycling
fees from the list of items subject to indexing. (Tied to the consumer price index.)
Reasons for the proposed change: many of these costs are passed through by outside
agencies. Those who were responsible for the Charter amendment in 2000 did not
intend to include pass-through charges. The Charter restrictions have created a very
cumbersome and expensive process. Not only are we subject to pass-through costs,
many costs are dictated by federal and state mandate. The resolution establishes
March 29 as the public hearing date on the proposed amendment. The first reading on
the ordinance would be April 12.
Staff is recommending approval of the establishment of the hearing.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-20.
7. Resolution No. 2004-21 in SuppOrt of an application for a Minnesota Lawful
Gamblinq Premise Permit Renewal Application for the Italian American Club
Foundation located at Main Event, 7820 University Avenue NE (Ward 3).
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated the renewal will run from July 1, 2004, through June 30,
2006.
Staff is recommending Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-21.
8. Resolution No. 2004-22 in SuppOrt of an application for a Minnesota Lawful
Gamblinq Premise Permit for Kniqhts of Columbus, 6831 Hiqhway 65 NE (Ward
1
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained the permit will allow the sale of pull-tabs, the
operation of bingo, and other gambling activities allowed by law for clubs in Minnesota.
The renewal period runs from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2006.
Staff is recommending Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-22.
9. Resolution No. 2004-23 in SuppOrt of an application for a Minnesota Lawful
Gamblinq Premises permit for Fridley VFW, Post 363, 1040 Osborne Road NE
Ward 2 .
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated the permit will allow charitable gambling activities at this
facility. The new permit will run from March 1, 2004 to February 28, 2006.
Staff is recommending Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-23.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 4
10
11.
Resolution No. 2004-24 supportinq leqislation to provide improved fundinq
options for city street improvements.
Mr. Burns, City Manger, explained the legislation enabled cities to adopt small annual
fees that will be paid by property owners to support the upgrading of City streets.
Staff is recommending Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-24.
Approve dedication of street easement for 69t" Avenue NE.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained we discovered that the city never dedicated an
easement for the loop-back portion of 69th Avenue. This is being done in conjunction
with some signal improvements on 69th and University. This dedication allows us to
move forward with signal improvements at the intersection of 69th Avenue and
University.
Staff is recommending Council's approval.
APPROVED.
12. Resolution No. 2004-25 authorizinq Aqreement No. 86310R with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for the replacement of the Traffic Control Svstem
on T.H. 47 (University Avenue) at 69t" Avenue.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, said the agreement defines the scope of work and identifies
the Fridley share of the cost at $18,846. The amount for upgrading these signals will
include new emergency vehicle preemption equipment, a signal inter-connect, and
internal illuminated street name signs. State aid money will be used to cover our share
of these costs.
Staff is recommending Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-25.
13. Approve Chanqe Order No. 3 to 2003 Street Improvement Project No. ST.2003-1.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated the change order is for $5,492.42 which covers the
following: 1. Repair deteriorated sewer structures; 2. Grind roots; 3. Adjust and sawcut
manholes; 4. Special concrete catch basin structure on Fillmore Street; and 5. Street
patched on Fillmore Street.
Staff is recommending Council's approval.
APPROVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 5
14. Receive bids and award contract for the sanitary and storm sewer lininq project
No. 354.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that bids for this work were received on February 18,
2004, from five vendors. The work includes lining the last section of corrugated sanitary
sewer that runs from Hwy. 65 along West Moore Lake Drive to Marigold Terrace,
Monroe Street, across the southern portion of the little league fields to 58th Avenue. The
storm sewer portion of the project involves lining and joint-sealing the portion of 36 inch
storm sewer along 75th Avenue between Hayes and Arthur Streets. The cost of the
sanitary sewer work is $62,645. The cost for the storm sewer work is $39,933. The low
bidder is Michels Pipeline Construction of Burnsville in the amount of $102,578.
Staff recommends Council award the bid to Michel's Pipeline Construction.
AWARDED BID TO MICHELS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$102,578.
15. Appointment of Utility Billinq Clerk.
Staff recommends the appointment of Sandra Hara as Utility Billing Clerk.
APPOINTED SANDI HARA AS UTILITY BILLING CLERK.
16. Claims.
APPROVED CLAIM NOS. 115490 THROUGH 115692.
17. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA:
Mr. Burns, City Manger, recommended approval of the consent agenda.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe to remove Items 1
and 2 from the agenda.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt the
consent agenda with the removal of Items 1 and 2 to the regular agenda.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt the agenda
with the addition of Items 1 and 2.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 6
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of items not on the agenda.
Hearing none, Mayor Lund introduced the new recording secretary, Rebecca Brazys.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
18. Special Use Permit Request, SP #04-02, by Kevin and Paulette Holman to
construct a detached qaraqe in the rear yard which is located in a Flood Frinqe
District, qenerally located at 571 — 79t" Way NE (Ward 3).
19. Variance Request, VAR #04-01, by Kevin and Paulette Holman, to increase the
Maximum Size of a First Accessory Structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,168
square feet, and to allow the accessory structure to exceed 100% of the first
floor area of a dwellinq unit, to allow the construction of a 1,168 square foot
detached qaraqe in the rear yard, qenerally located at 571 — 79t" Way NE
Ward 3 .
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, reviewed the above petitions explaining
they were seeking a special use permit to build a detached garage in a flood fringe
district. No structures can be constructed in this district without a Special Use Permit.
The garage will be constructed in the northeast corner of the lot. Planning Commission
reviewed and recommended approval of SP #04-02 with stipulations. The Appeals
Commission recommended approval to increase the size of the detached garage with
stipulations. However, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the second
variance as no similar variances have been granted in the past and there's no undue
hardship that would warrant that additional 50 square feet. That is staff's
recommendation as well, to approve the special use permit and to approve the first of
the two variances, but to deny the variance that would allow the garage to be 50 square
feet larger than the first floor living area of the home.
Paulette Holman, 571 — 79th Way N.E., explained they are requesting the additional 50
feet on the garage so they can get rid of a storage shed on their property. The increase
in size will allow enough room for lawn equipment that is currently being stored outside
and will allow them to store items that cannot be stored in their basement due to the
flooding concerns. This will be a two-car garage and the additional section will be for all
their storage.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the boat that is currently sitting on the property will be
stored in the new garage.
Ms. Holman responded that it will still be stored along side the house.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if anything has changed in the past couple of years as
to how the City is handling the flooding issue.
Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, explained there are better controls in place; a
higher road was installed, storm water ponding was created, a flood gate was put in and
we have a grant for a higher volume pump. We feel this does provide adequate capacity
to prevent serious damage to the homes in the area, but they cannot guarantee there
will be no flooding.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 7
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there could be flooding in the area of the proposed
garage.
Mr. Haukaas stated if the water came up that high it could affect the garage. But there
are requirements for flood-proofing of the structure and the elevation of the garage
would be much higher than the basement floor elevation.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated approving the second variance is a concern because it
could set a precedent and the City would be faced with other such variance requests.
The fact that the boat would continue to be stored outside is also a concern.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that the fact that the petitioner is unable to store
personal items in the basement because of the flooding hazards creates a hardship.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if staff has heard from any of the neighbors regarding
this matter.
Mr. Hickok replied staff heard from one neighbor who is afraid the garage will become
the site of a home occupation. The petitioner has assured the City that it will not be put
to such use.
Ms. Holman explained they do own a business but it is operated out of an office on
University Avenue.
Councilmember Barnette pointed out a letter from neighbors Patty and Jake Bozony
supporting this proposal.
Mayor Lund questioned if the petitioners had taken into account the available storage
space in the garage attic.
Ms. Holman responded they are aware they can store in the rafters and in the eaves, but
that area is difficult to get to.
Mayor Lund asked if the 50 foot addition is important.
Ms. Holman replied that they will still build the garage, but will also have to build another
shed. They would prefer to have all the storage in one area. She added they have been
in this house for 16 years and have been flooded twice. The flooding remains a problem
even after the work done by the City.
Mr. Hickok explained that the petitioner could still build a good size storage shed in
addition to the garage and remain within the requirements of the ordinance.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Council could stipulate that no additional sheds be
built on the property if the second variance is approved.
Attorney Knaak stated Council could impose that as a part of the approval. He
recommended Council state the specific details of the hardship to avoid setting a
precedent.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 8
Councilmember Barnette asked if the petitioner would agree with limiting additional
sheds.
Ms. Holman replied she would prefer to discuss this with her husband and would have to
reach him by phone.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette to table
Special Use Permit Request, SP #04-02.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette to table
Variance Request, VAR #04-01.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
20. Special Use Permit Request, SP #04-01, by Sprinq Lake Park School District, to
use the property as a classroom for the Life Skills Proqram, qenerally located at
7517 Fourth Street NE (Ward 1).
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the property is zoned single family
residential. Private schools are permitted in this district with a special use permit. Public
schools are permitted by right. Spring Lake Park School District committed to going
through with the special use permit process so it can ensure neighborhood compatibility.
A private party owns the party and the school district will rent the property from those
owners. At the February 18 Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held
and after a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
Special Use Permit SP #04-01 with stipulations. The motion failed to carry on a 4— 3
vote. The Planning Commission then moved to recommend denial and the motion was
approved on a 4— 3 vote. The staff recommends approval of this petition with twelve
stipulations.
Councilmember Billings asked if it is correct that the school district does not have to go
through this process.
Mr. Hickok explained that public schools, by virtue of being there, make the property
public and could be there by right.
Councilmember Billings asked if there are other facilities similar to this in the City and
whether there have been any complaints.
Mr. Hickok stated Fridley School District does have a similar facility near I-694 off
Seventh Street. There have been no complaints in the two years it has been operating.
Frank Herman, director of the Learning Alternative Program for the Spring Lake Park
School District, explained this property will be used by young adults, ages 18 to 21, to
transition them into independent living.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 9
Karen Schaab, representing Spring Lake Park Schools, stated these students will be
good neighbors. There will be no overnight use of the house, and the school year is only
170 days of the year.
Mr. Herman added that the students will be on the property from 7:30 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.
Most students will ride a school bus to and from the site and a few students are
transported by their parents. He also stated that many students are in the work program
and will be transported to their job by the school. Those students who drive will park at
the school and then be transported to this property by bus. He explained it is difficult to
teach living skills in a school classroom. They want the students to learn how to function
in a community.
Ms. Schaab explained there may be an occasional evening open house on this site.
Mayor Lund asked if the students are being transported by an adult or staff inember
because of their vulnerability and that there are fewer problems with these students than
with normal teenagers.
Mr. Herman agreed.
Gregory Zelenak, 7526 Fourth Street N.E., stated there are inconsistencies with this
special use permit. He also stated the property will be owned by the spouse of one of
the Spring Lake Park teachers and questioned if this is a conflict of interest. He also
questioned why a school classroom cannot be used for this program.
Ken Christiansen, 7525 Fourth Street N.E., stated these children are considered to be
alternative students and questioned why they cannot stay where they are. The district
has not furnished these students with what they need. It is the district's responsibility
based on a law called IDEA that they teach these kids through age 21. The state has
stated that these students should stay mainstreamed. It is not the choice of some
educators at the school to leave the school building and start a school in a separate
area. He asked if the home meets fire code and safety requirements. This house does
not have the same fire protection as a school does. He asked who is responsible for the
insurance on this home. None of the neighbors he contacted were in favor of this
proposal.
Karen Evans, 7558 Fourth Street N.E., stated a women's half-way house and a
transitional home were in their small neighborhood. She stated she has lived there
many years and it feels like the City thinks it's OK to put anything in this area. She
added she is not opposed to these children having an education, but we do have a
school with all the facilities they need.
Don Anderson, 7304 West Circle N.E., explained that he had been a student in this
program and he thinks it is good for these students to have an opportunity to learn in an
actual home. He also stated he has many friends currently in the program and there
have been no problems.
Flo Jackson, a teacher for the transitional program, stated her students have already
been through the high school program. They need a different type of setting to learn
skills where they are going to use them. She stated that federal law mandates that
school districts provide transitional students with this training. They are trying to move
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 10
the students into the community. Home living skills are difficult to teach when you are
not in a home. This property will not be a separate school as it will be a part of the
Spring Lake Park schools. These students are young adults with disabilities who have
faced more adversities and personal struggles than most people, but they still have
dreams.
Pat Johnson, teacher for the Fridley Transitional Program, stated they have had a similar
program in a home in Fridley for two years. They have seen great gains among their
students in home living and being a part of the community.
Mayor Lund asked Ms. Johnson to clarify the difference between transitional students
and alternative students.
Ms. Johnson explained that transitional students have a lower IQ. Alternative students
generally have a typical intelligence but have behavior issues that are interfering with
their school accomplishment. She added that the ratio of students to staff is
considerably higher with transitional students than in the alternative program.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if one of the reasons for using an actual home is that
these students will eventually be living in a group home.
Ms. Johnson replied that this type of program enables transition students to learn the
skills necessary to eventually live either in a group home or possibly on their own after
they are 21. These students need to be trained to do things most of us take for granted.
Councilmember Barnette asked if there have been any complaints from the neighbors
around the home currently used by Ms. Johnson's program.
Ms. Johnson stated there have been no complaints. In fact, the neighbors wave and
greet the students. She added her students are good neighbors and even take walks to
pick up litter in the neighborhood.
Councilmember Wolfe asked if this home will be an added expense to the Spring Lake
Park schools.
Ms. Johnson replied that the district is required to provide free public education for these
students until they reach the age of 21.
Councilmember Billings asked Ms. Johnson to address what appears to be the
neighbors' fearfulness of these students.
Ms. Johnson stated these students are considered vulnerable and would be more likely
to be taken advantage of.
John Kvidera, 11475 Kenyon Court, explained that he had the opportunity to work in a
building that housed special needs students and had approached the job with some
concern. But he was immediately approached by one of the students who gave him a
hug. He also stated these students will take better care of the property than anyone
else because that is what they are learning to do.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 11
Mark Mattison stated he has also worked with special needs students in the past. He
stated these students should not be feared as they are loving people. He also stated he
hoped the Council would approve this request.
Virgil Okeson, 1423 — 64th Avenue N.E., stated that we need to support this program
because the young people need this. He does not think we can provide this type of
education from a school setting. The students need to be given the opportunity to
function as normal adults as soon as they can.
Leslie Coyle, 6271 Sixth Street N.E., stated he has a granddaughter who has Down's
syndrome, and has met a lot of the students in this program. He stated the teachers are
very good and the students are great kids. He also stated when the neighbors get to
know the students; they will love having them in the neighborhood.
Jean Coyle, 6271
granddaughter has
program.
Sixth Street N.E., spoke in support of this proposal stating her
had positive experiences with the transitional teachers and the work
Mr. Christiansen wanted to make it clear he is not speaking against the kids but that he
does have some concerns about the proposal.
Mayor Lund stated it is important to have these kids transition from academics so they
can mainstream into a neighborhood.
Mr. Hickok said the proposed special use permit request has been reviewed by the fire
marshal and the building official. This home does not require sprinkling. He added there
is a stipulation about fire protection and the fire marshal asked for a fire alert indicator in
the security system in the house to ensure an emergency response for those hours
when the house is unoccupied. Other than that, this will be treated as a single family
house and the proposed occupancy does not warrant modifications.
Mr. Christiansen said this matter should be brought before the people of School District
16.
Councilmember Barnette commented there are all sorts of school programs that are
conducted outside of school buildings and those costs are built into the school budget.
He stated the transitional program is essential.
City Attorney Knaak responded to the comments about a conflict of interest stating he is
not aware of the terms of the lease and added that this is not an area of concern for the
City Council. He stated there is nothing to suggest any exceptions of the fire code for
this proposal, the owner and School District will have to work out the insurance for the
home, and the School District is responsible for the staff and students. The landlord will
have responsibilities as well.
Councilmember Bolkcom pointed out that Stipulation #4 restricts the activities on this
property to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
There was some discussion about the fact that staff may be working as late as 5:00 p.m.
and that there will be an occasional open house in the evening.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 12
Councilmember Billings asked if the Spring Lake Park School Superintendent is aware
of this proposal.
Mr. Herman responded that the Superintendent and the School Board are aware.
Councilmember Billings questioned if it would be a problem to limit the number of
students enrolled in this program to 12 students.
Ms. Jackson explained that there should never be more than 10 to 12 students in the
house at any one time. The district cannot predict, however, how many students may be
in the program in the future so limiting the number would be a problem.
Mr. Hickok said that as long as the students will not be living on the property, we cannot
limit the number.
Tom Myhra, 6360 Able Street N.E., asked if this program will be for Spring Lake Park
students only.
Ms. Schaab responded that only students registered with Spring Lake Park schools can
participate.
Councilmember Billings asked if the open enrollment regulations apply to this program.
Ms. Schaab stated it probably would but most transitional students stay with the program
they started with rather than transfer into a new program.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to approve
SP #04-01 with the following twelve stipulations:
1. Petitioner shall meet all building code and accessibility code requirements prior
to the house being used for the Life Skills program.
2. Parking shall be limited to staff only, no students shall be allowed to drive to the
property.
3. School district policies and procedures for loitering, smoking, etc., shall be
enforced on the property and adjacent right-of-ways.
4. Use of the property for school activities will be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
5. Use of the property for school activities will follow the District 16 calendar for the
days classes will be in session.
6. Property shall be property maintained.
7. A security system with an automatic fire detection system shall be installed in the
home to reduce the risk of trespassers or catastrophe.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom to amend
Stipulation No. 4 to strike the word "school" and insert "students' instruction" and add
that the use of the property for non-student activities, such as conferences, be limited
from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 13
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
AMENDMENT TO STIPULATION NO. 4 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Billings thanked everyone who appeared and stated that he wanted it
clearly understood that the school could have started these activities without Council
approval. He said it is important for these students to be trained in the ways of life and
he is confident that the neighbors will find the school and the students to be very good
neighbors.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE SP #04-01 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18. Special Use Permit Request, SP #04-02, by Kevin and Paulette Holman to
construct a detached qaraqe in the rear yard which is located in a Flood Frinqe
District, qenerally located at 571 — 79t" Way NE (Ward 3).
19 Variance Request, VAR #04-01, by Kevin and Paulette Holman, to increase the
Maximum Size of a First Accessory Structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,168
square feet, and to allow the accessory structure to exceed 100% of the first floor
area of a dwellinq unit, to allow the construction of a 1,168 square foot detached
qaraqe in the rear yard, qenerally located at 571 — 79t" Way NE (Ward 3).
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to remove
Special Use Permit Request, SP #04-02 and Variance Request, VAR #04-01, from the
table.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the petitioners agree with the proposed stipulations
that no other shed shall be built on the property, that the current shed shall be removed,
and that no storage shall be non-home business related or for commercial business.
Kevin and Paulette Holman stated they agreed with the restrictions.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
Special Use Permit Request, SP #04-02 with the following stipulations:
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area.
3. Total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square
feet.
4. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing home
and finished with complementary siding, color scheme, roof pitch, and roofing
materials.
5. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as part of a verifying survey
prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the minimum garage
floor elevation is 821 feet.
6. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with current Federal
and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood
elevation.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 14
7. Retaining wall needs to be approved by the City's engineering staff prior to
construction and will require a separate building permit.
8. Driveway shall meet code requirements and be 3 feet from all property lines or
written approval from neighboring property owners must be filed with the City.
9. No other shed or other accessory structure other then the proposed garage shall
be permitted or constructed on the property.
10. There shall be no storage of the non-home business-related purposes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
Variance Request, VAR #04-01, with the following stipulations:
1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction.
2. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area.
3. Total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square
feet.
4. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing home
and finished with complementary siding, color scheme, roof pitch, and roofing
materials.
5. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City.
6. Driveway shall meet the code requirements and be 3 feet from all property lines
or written approval from neighboring property owners must be filed with the City
7. No other shed or other accessory structure other than the proposed garage shall
be permitted or constructed on the property.
8. There shall be no storage of non-home business-related purposes.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to add
two stipulations that no other shed or other accessory structure other than the proposed
garage shall be permitted or constructed on the property and that there shall be no
storage of non-home business-related purposes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #04-01 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING
21. Consideration of a Rezoninq Request, ZOA #04-01, by John DeMello, Profitmax,
Inc., to rezone multiple properties from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General
Business, and R-1, Sinqle Family Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, for
the purpose of redevelopment to allow for a senior housinq development and a
retail complex, qenerally located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, 642 and 6401
Central Avenue, 1341 and 1357 64 Avenue, and two vacant lots, Lots 17 and 18,
Block 1, Sprinq Valley Addition (Ward 2).
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the
reading and open the public hearing.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 15
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioner is requesting
rezoning to S-2 in order to develop senior owner-occupied condominiums and a retail
area on the southeast corner of Old Central and Mississippi Street. A 13,420 square
foot retail complex will occupy the northern parcel and the southern parcel will be used
for the construction of 71 senior condominiums. The retail area will take access both
from Old Central and Mississippi Street. The 71 unit condominium building will take up
approximately two-thirds of the site down to 64th Avenue on the south. This property
currently has a mixture of zoning; starting at Mississippi and Old Central there are two
parcels that are zoned C-2, General Business. Just to the east of that is a property
labeled 1340 Mississippi zoned R-1, Single Family. South of those commercial and
single-family sites, there is two properties, 6441 and 6421 Old Central zoned C-1 and
R-1. 6401 is C-1 also and the properties to the east are R-1. Rezoning to S-2 states
that the site be developed in accordance with a master plan for the site. Once approved,
any modifications of the site plan will require Council approval. In order for a rezoning to
be viewed favorably, it must be in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This
proposal meets several of the requirements identified in the Comprehensive Plan. This
property is approximately 2.68 acres in size. The preliminary plat meets all of the plat
requirements and the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority reviewed and
concurred with the master plan as submitted at their March 4 meeting. Early discussions
with Anoka County indicated that additional right-of-way on Old Central and Mississippi
Street would be required in order to obtain a 120 foot wide right-of-way for future
expansion. Based on the preliminary Anoka County Highway Department comments,
the petitioner has done the following: they have shown the right-of-way dedication
needed and moved access points to line up with the development across Old Central.
The City sent a copy of the plans to Anoka County Highway Department on January 20.
Late last Friday, the City received their comments which include the request to have all
access to this development placed on 64th Avenue. They would like to remove access
from the retail portion from Old Central. At this time, these are recommendations from
Anoka County and not requirements. Staff recommends access remains on Old Central
and not on 64th Avenue to minimize traffic impact to the surrounding residential
neighborhood. On February 18 the Planning Commission approved both requests on a
6 to 1 vote. Staff recommends that Rezoning Request, ZOA #04-01, and the
accompanying site plan for the senior building and retail complex be approved with the
stipulations as stated. This proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, provides housing opportunities for seniors, provides new retail opportunities in
Fridley, and provides additional job opportunities in Fridley. Staff also recommends
approval of Preliminary Plat, PS #04-01, with the outlined stipulations. This plat does
meet or exceed all plat requirements for the City of Fridley.
Councilmember Wolfe questioned if the Comprehensive Plan states that the City will not
drastically change the character of a neighborhood.
Mr. Hickok, said in so many words, it did. It talks about keeping neighborhoods in tact
and preserving the housing stock in neighborhoods. It recognized that we have a good
housing stock in Fridley and suggested that we work to preserve that stock. What the
Comprehensive Plan does is suggest that the modifications be integrated so that the
neighborhood and a new development can coexist.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 16
Councilmember Wolfe questioned if the association of this proposed development can
change association fees without Council's approval. He was concerned that the fees
would be raised if the units do not sell or possibly the unsold units would be rented
rather than sold.
City Attorney Knaak said that is possible, but usually you need the unanimous consent
of all the mortgage holders for all the parcels. He said that is extremely difficult and
nearly impossible to do.
Councilmember Barnette asked if the master plan is not met and the development does
not occur, would the zoning revert to the current zoning.
Mr. Hickok replied that Council is rezoning to S-2 with a master plan as presented. The
zoning would be S-2 at that point. If another developer became involved, the property
retains the S-2 zoning. Any other master plan proposed for this site would have to come
back before the Council for approval.
Councilmember Billings stated that no matter who builds on this site, it has to look
exactly like the master plan presented and approved by the Council.
Mr. Hickok stated that is correct.
Councilmember Billings stated he received several phone calls about this proposal and
he wants it clear that he has not made any decision on this project. Another caller
questioned the number of senior housing units the City is mandated to have.
Mr. Hickok explained the City is not mandated to have a certain number of senior
housing. Their recommendation is based on a need for senior housing, not an imposed
number. The developer of this property and the property across the street did an
independent analysis of what kind of market there is for senior housing and it was
determined that the number of units proposed for this property and the development
across the street do not meet that number.
Councilmember Billings asked if there are height restrictions in an R-3 district.
Mr. Hickok responded that there are. He pointed out that the height is determined by
setback. Generally the front yard on a corner lot is the narrowest lot dimension. The
residential lot front yard would be considered 64th Avenue, regardless of how the
building is situated. 64th meets the front setbacks for an R-3 district in that it is over 35
feet back. This is important because Councilmember Billings' question about height has
a caveat that says that if a building is going to be 45 feet or less there are no additional
setbacks from the property line. At mid-span, the building is 45 feet high. This is an
area where some folks have expressed concern, but we have taken this through all the
formulas and it is within the qualifying measurements.
Councilmember Billings asked if the ground along 64th is relatively the same in height in
comparison to the first floor.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 17
Mr. Hickok stated there is some grading and ponding south of the building along 64tn
Avenue, then the earth is bermed up to hold the edge of the pond between the building
and the pond and there are contours going down to the base of the building.
Councilmember Billings asked if this were in an R-3 district would the setbacks be the
same as what they are for the residential structure in the S-2.
Mr. Hickok replied yes, with one exception. The side yard on the east side of the
building is 18 feet and it could be 15 feet. Also the building pulls away to create a much
greater distance between the adjoining properties. The S-2 district allows latitude and
flexibility to make variations in the development. It comes closer to its own commercial
building than R-3 would typically allow, but all other setbacks are the same as R-3
requirements.
Councilmember Billings asked if the developer is unable to finish the project, what
financial obligation does the City have to complete the project.
Mr. Hickok stated the City would have no obligation. The future developer or the bank
would have interest in this property because there has been a master plan approved and
the expectation is that the buildings would be built to that master plan.
Councilmember Billings asked how the setback requirements on this site compare to the
setback requirements on the property immediately west across Old Central. He aside if
they were concerned about litigation from that project because something different was
being done.
Mr. Hickok explained the S-2 zoning on both sides of the road has its own built-in
flexibilities.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if any reports had been received from the Rice Creek
Watershed District regarding this development.
Mr. Hickok said it was determined that this is a wetland site that is less than the
minimum threshold necessary for mitigation. What that means is that when a wetland is
below a square foot dimension it does not require protection. This site is eligible for an
exemption letter based on the wetland that was determined there. We do not yet have
the letter of exemption from the State. We have a verbal statement from the consultant
and the Rice Creek Watershed District, but not the actual letter of exemption. Based on
that determination, no changes will be required in the site plan.
Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, explained that the Rice Creek Watershed District
has jurisdiction. Because of the size of this development, they are required to submit
storm water calculations to the Rice Creek Watershed for their approval for storm water
management. Rice Creek Watershed District is probably one of the strictest districts in
the metro area and he is very comfortable with what they have done. He is still awaiting
their final approval, but it does take into account the change in land use. They do deal
with the amount of impervious surface, the amount of run-off, and the speed of the run-
off. The drainage across the site had to be developed in such a way as to meet those
rules and not impact downstream.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 18
Councilmember Bolkcom stated drainage concerns came up at the Planning
Commission meeting. She asked if Mr. Haukaas is concerned about the drainage on
this site.
Mr. Haukaas said there are drainage issues to the south of 64th Avenue. Other storm
water issues in the area would not be related to this site because all the drainage for this
site must be dealt with on this site.
Mayor Lund asked if soil correction on the site would displace any ground water.
Mr. Haukaas responded that should not be an issue. They are looking at doing some
soil corrections. The area around this in general is either peat or sandy clay and is not
the type that will confine a lot of water.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it is Council's responsibility to consider the financial
stability of the petitioner.
City Attorney Knaak responded that the City does not have an obligation to go into the
developer's financial stability in a rezoning case.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned what would prevent someone from going into any
area of the City and proposing a redevelopment such as this.
Mr. Hickok suggested that if an area is zoned residential and has not been identified by
the Comprehensive Plan as a redevelopment area, the likelihood of such a proposal is
not as great. The property in this petition was identified as a redevelopment area. One
of the first tests we put rezonings through is what is the surrounding zoning and is the
proposed zoning compatible with the surrounding zoning. If it cannot pass that test, it is
considered spot zoning and would not likely be approved.
Councilmember Billings stated it is the responsibility of the petitioner to demonstrate that
a rezoning is in the best interests of the City and that it is not contrary to the health,
safety and general welfare of the City. The City is not under any obligation to accept any
proposal that comes along if it is not in the best interests of the City.
Mr. Hickok concurred.
Councilmember Billings questioned that just because the Comprehensive Plan has
identified the property in this petition as a redevelopment area, can Council not approve
the S-2 zoning if it is not in the best interests of the City.
Mr. Hickok stated the objectives that would be met by the proposal are what should be
evaluated by the City. We would need to be able to substantiate that this is indeed in
the City's best interest or is not based on the objectives spelled out. However, it is
incumbent upon the City to articulate how this petition falls short, as the City evaluates
whether or not something else would be more appropriate.
Councilmember Billings asked if the City Attorney concurs with this discussion.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 19
Attorney Knaak stated that a rezoning is a legislative act. As a City Council, there are
very few areas where they would have more discretion than the area of rezoning. This is
like any other ordinance and the Council is under no obligation to pass or enact it.
Councilmember Billings asked if the mere fact that a majority of the neighborhood
residents are opposed to such a development is sufficient cause for the Council to deny
the matter.
Attorney Knaak responded that there is clear case law that neighborhood opposition by
itself could not be the basis for an adverse decision by a city council. There would have
to be other articulable reasons that relate to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens
in a demonstrable way.
Councilmember Wolfe said if staff determines that a specific neighborhood is a
redevelopment area as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, then such a development
could go in that area.
Mr. Hickok stated that the staff works for the City Council and such changes would need
to be endorsed by the City Council through a public hearing process.
Mayor Lund explained that after the Planning Commission meeting, he contacted the
petitioner, John DeMello, and discussed the possibility of making changes to lessen the
impact and address the concerns of the neighbors.
Councilmember Billings asked if the Mayor and the petitioner had reached any
conclusions as to changes that should be made that would cause the City Council to
endorse the project.
Mayor Lund said they did not.
Mr. Hickok presented for the record a letter from Jane K. Rose, Traffic Engineering
Manager, Anoka County Highway Department, January 27, 2004, and was received by
the staff on March 5, 2004.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to receive
the letter from Ms. Jane Rose.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette to recess
for five minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THERE WAS A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS.
John DeMello, President of Profitmax, Inc., explained that Profitmax is in the business of
enhancing communities with redevelopment. Redevelopment, he stated, is the future
paradigm of development because more of the community profits. The residents who
live closest to this development will profit with the most significant appreciation in real
estate gain. There are four reasons why this project is good for the City. This site has
not been developed due to challenges such as combining eight lots, correcting poor
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 20
soils, streamlining inconsistent zoning, removing existing housing and correcting survey
information on each of the lots. The demand in this area supports only senior housing
and retail which they may patronize. Communities that have implemented similar plans
have experienced tremendous revitalization and growth. Finally, the most compelling
reason is that senior citizens in Fridley deserve to own a state of the art building that
enables them to be able to reduce the burden of home ownership at a competitive price.
Seniors will benefit by having the flexibility to leave for months at a time without worrying
about their home, not having any of the labor associated with snow shoveling or lawn
mowing, enjoying the security that this building will provide, reducing the high cost of
maintenance, insurance, heating and cooling with the more efficient structure, not
needing a car, and having a community of seniors who have fun and take care of each
other. He commissioned a"dream team" whose members are the best in the industry.
Rick Harrison is respected globally for his innovative site design to maximize efficiency
while preserving the natural surroundings with a park-like setting. Tom Sezur has a
tremendous amount of experience in all engineering aspects on projects such as Spring
Valley Estates which is especially important to this project given the high water table in
the area. Michael Spack, a nationally acclaimed traffic engineer and vice president of
Traffic Data, Inc., has analyzed the traffic impact for both this project and the Town
Center project combined. Paco and Humberto Cabello created the presentation of the
building. Peter Villard, of Architectural Works/Villard, has over 25 years of experience as
an architect and handles all aspects of building design and implementation.
Peter Villard explained the only change made since the Planning Commission meeting is
the walking path on the east side. One of the concerns expressed was that the path be
extended to Mississippi Street, which has been done. Also, with the permission of City
staff, the path has been moved onto the City right-of-way to create a direct path from
64th Avenue up to Mississippi Street. That path will be designed to allow fire trucks
access to the east side of the building and the west side of the neighboring building.
Parking has been added to the retail area and meets the zoning requirements. The
residential parking exceeds the requirements. He then presented a video showing the
exterior of the building and the grounds. The exterior of the building is proposed to be
40% face brick, accented areas, the background material of the building will be a fiber
cement panel with direct applied stucco. The roof will be shingles and on the east side
facing of the building they propose rock face concrete block accents, horizontal strips as
well. As to the height of the building, they have the grade around the entire building is all
up at the first floor elevation so the height of the building is actually 44 feet 6 inches at
the center line, which is 4 feet higher than the building across the street. On the south
side of the property the building does appear to be higher because of the location of the
building in relationship to the height of 64th Avenue. They plan to create retaining walls
on that side so that no parking garage wall will be seen.
Rick Harrison stated that he works in 35 states, has done about 420 communities in the
last 8 years, and he did 11,000 approved units in the state. He works for over 200
developers and one of the reasons he took on this project was because of personal
experience with the need for senior housing. Mr. Harrison also explained that he was
impressed with the petitioner, John DeMello. Mr. DeMello has paid his bills on time and
has gone out of his way to do everything first class on this development. With 10% of
the population over age 65, that's approximately 3,000 seniors in Fridley. As far as the
entrances to this site, there are two separate entrances, one for the commercial and one
for the residential area. From a planning and livability perspective, he recommended the
entrances not be changed per Anoka County's request. It is critical to think about what
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 21
the seniors will be seeing out their window; they are going to be looking at height and a
sense of space. He explained his contribution to the commercial area is a new type of
commercial building which dresses up the back of the commercial building to
architecturally blend with the courtyard so that loading docks were not seen. Also, the
commercial building has been angled to create some interest in the views to and from
the senior building. The parking spaces meet or exceed the zoning requirements. He
presented photos of other senior developments in the area and pointed out how few
vehicles are actually parked on the site. Mr. Harrison added that developments he has
been involved with today include senior housing because that was a critical component.
He reviewed the existing buildings on this property that would be torn down or moved
from the site. He said they were trying to provide senior housing at prices they could
afford.
Peter Villard stated each individual unit in the residential building will have many
upgrade options for the buyers. There will be one, two and three bedroom units
available ranging in size from 825 square feet to 1,600 square feet.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the developer has seen the letter from Anoka County.
Michael Spack, Traffic Data, Inc., stated he has briefly scanned the letter and they will
work with the County and the City to come to a common ground.
Yoava Klucsues, 1420 Silver Lake Road, stated he is 85 years old and he would not
want to live in this building and have to leave his car outside. He also stated he doesn't
want these buildings or all the additional traffic and would not want to have to climb
steps to a fourth floor level.
Bernard Marihart, 1373 64th Avenue NE, stated his property is on the boundary of this
project. He has owned his property since 1993 and is opposed to high density housing
in his neighborhood. He believes the residents deserve more substantial benefits than
this project is offering.
Mark Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue NE, presented a petition with 330 signatures of
Fridley residents opposed to this proposal based on the removal of six houses, the
rezoning of single family property, the size and scale of the development, the double-
sided retail complex with outdoor eating area, the volume of traffic it would produce, the
drainage issues and the decrease in property values in the surrounding area. He also
presented a map that shows where each of the signers resides.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom to accept the
petition and map into record.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Schwartz added that he was not opposed to redevelopment in the area but this
proposal is not consistent with the neighborhood. There has been an overwhelming
response in favor of single family homes rather than this project. He also stated they are
opposed to the retail area being proposed because there is already so much vacancy in
the City. He commented that the Rice Creek Watershed District told him today that the
engineer's report has not yet been received on this proposal and no permit has yet been
issued. He did not think the project should be approved before that permit is secured.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 22
Mr. Haukaas stated he has not yet received anything from the Rice Creek Watershed
District but those items will be required as a part of the stipulations.
Mr. Schwartz stated the Metropolitan Council told him that the Comprehensive Plan is
not actually a law, but the law requires the City to have one. He referred to Section 5 of
our Comprehensive Plan which states that the majority of the housing in Fridley is small
ramblers. He added that it is very suitable for older people to stay in their home. He
questioned how much senior housing is really needed in Fridley.
Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Schwartz what kind of development would be
acceptable on this site.
Mr. Schwartz said single family.
Councilmember Barnette asked if this is a piece of land that could be developed as R-1
housing and be sold at a reasonable price.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe to accept
into the record the letters from Joe Nelson, Mark and Jean Schwartz, Barbara and
Dennis Edwards, Tim Burns and the petition from Mr. and Mrs. Herman.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Wally Squier, 6701 Channel Rd., stated he thinks this proposal is a good idea as there
are a lot of seniors in the area who would benefit from this type of housing. Also, the
homes sold by the seniors will be good starter homes for younger residents. This
proposal will offer a lot of jobs, dress up the area, will bring in additional tax dollars, and
will keep seniors in Fridley.
Marvel McNaughton, 6300 Pierce Street, stated they have been through this before with
the property across the street. The neighbors have been telling the Council this type of
proposal does not belong in their neighborhood. We elected Council to do the best for
them. She also suggested the City get rid of the Comprehensive Plan.
Don Anderson, 7304 West Circle N.E., stated he believes this is a good proposal
because the bus goes right down Old Central.
Donna Reisner, 6424 Pierce Street, stated she has a lot of health problems and would
not be able to handle the steps in the proposed four-story building. She also stated the
proposal should be styled for the area.
Mark Mattison, 6421 Central Avenue, stated he bought his property in 1996 with the
knowledge that the area would be redeveloped. He is aware that the property in
question has been a problem and there is now an opportunity to do something about it.
There will be trees and setback requirements protecting the neighbors. He added this
property is not in the middle of a residential area and it was a good location for senior
housing.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 23
Joe Nelson, 1357 64th Avenue, stated his home is in the redevelopment area. He
commented that he respects those residents who signed the petition, but that signing
was based on information they had at the time. He hopes that it was also based on
correct information. The Comprehensive Plan identified this property as a
redevelopment area. That Comprehensive Plan was developed through a series of
public forums and those who have voiced objections to the plan did not take the time to
participate in the development of the plan. In the 30 years he has lived in this
neighborhood, change has come slowly. This proposal is neither low income nor rental.
It is affordable, attractive senior housing and he asked Council to approve this request.
This proposal will allow seniors the opportunity to move from their home which opens up
housing for families. He believed this to be a project that is long overdue for the area.
Tom Myhra, 6360 Able Street, stated the elected council members should do what
needs to be done.
Beverly Prior, 1340 Mississippi Street, stated she is a 38-year resident and believes this
senior housing would be wonderful and would be a wonderful place to live.
Kurt Olson, 1385 64th Avenue, stated he lives two lots away from this proposal. He has
seen "For Lease" signs on commercial property all over the City. Moore Lake Commons
has never been fully occupied. He questioned the need for more retail. If this is passed,
it will be punishing the people who live in the neighborhood. He was concerned about
parking issues and questioned would happen to the proposed green areas when the
County widens Mississippi Street and Old Central.
Barb Edwards, 1403 64th Avenue, stated this is a well established neighborhood with a
lot of people living there for 25 to 30 years. The homes are kept up and it is a nice area.
She expressed concern about the height of the senior building being as much as 64 feet
above the level of 64th Avenue. She is also worried about the change in the walking
path which will now be wide enough to allow fire trucks to drive on.
Linda Nelson, 1357 64th Avenue, questioned how long the Fridley school system can go
on without additional tax dollars. This project and the one across the street will allow
single family homes to free up so young people can move into the area. She added that
they do stand to benefit from the sale of their property, but it is their property and could
be sold to anybody. She believes this proposal is a good asset for the City.
Frank DeMello stated he has lived in Fridley for 30 years and has owned this property
for 25 years. All the previous ideas for this site were rejected by the City. He stated he
could collect signatures from each senior who said this type of housing is needed.
Seniors now living alone will be able to move into this proposed building and live in a
community where they look after each other. He believes this proposal will be an asset
to the City.
Sue Row, 1341 64th Avenue, stated this is a nice neighborhood to live in and she has
been there 29 years. The property in questioned is currently zoned so that any kind of
business could go in there and pointed out there is commercial in the area now. We will
lose 5 homes, but gain 71 single family units. Part of the Council's job, she stated, is to
make the best decision for the City. She believes this is a good development with good
backing and a great team.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 24
Virgil Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue, stated he lives four properties from the east side of this
property and that he can see all the way up to the intersection from his home. He will
be looking at the back of the proposed commercial building. He was concerned about
the path being large enough for a fire truck and suggested that pylons be installed on the
north and south end of the path to prevent it from becoming a thoroughfare for other
vehicles. He also referred to Chapter 205, Section 11 of the Fridley code as it pertains
to the height of buildings. He was also concerned about how the widening of Old
Central and Mississippi will affect the proposed parking in this development. He
questioned the impact on traffic and the possible increase in traffic accidents as a result
of more senior citizens living in the area. He sited national studies regarding the
accident record for drivers 65 and older. He was also concerned about the increase in
pedestrian traffic along the walking paths on the other side of Old Central. Pedestrian
traffic is a part of traffic flow and should be considered. He stated he would like to go on
record that he would also sign the letter from Mark and Jean Schwartz.
Dennis Edwards, 1403 64th Avenue, stated he has a problem with the size of the project
as it seems to dwarf the surrounding buildings. Parking is a huge issue. He would like
to see something on this property that would fit in with the area with a lower height.
Mary Vaseca, 6909 Hickory Drive, stated she signed the petition to oppose this project
as a fully informed citizen. She favors redevelopment in the City, but believes the
majority of the citizens would prefer this to be single family dwellings. The
Comprehensive Plan has been under attack. She considers herself to be active in the
community and had she known that housing would be changed, she would have been at
the hearings for the Comprehensive Plan. She recommended this request be tabled
until issues such as the Anoka County Highway recommended changes are resolved
and the Rice Creek Watershed District issues have been addressed. She asked staff to
clarify the questions regarding finished grade and the height of the building. She stated
her strong opposition to this project and that it is time for the citizens of Fridley to be
heard.
Joanne Zmuda, 6051 Fourth Street, opposed this project. She stated between the two
developments proposed for this intersection, there will be 165 additional cars. She
questioned the traffic study recommending a stop sign rather than a signal. She
believes a stop sign would be riskier for seniors trying to cross the intersection on foot.
She asked if a stipulation could be added that the developer pay for a stoplight if
warranted. It seems the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to quietly rezone R-1
neighborhoods to allow for more high density housing of all types. She suggested this
matter be tabled until such a time that the developer can come to the Council with
definite answers to the questions presented here and at the Planning Commission. She
added that it is her understanding that Profitmax was only incorporated a few months
ago so there is no track record to refer to.
Susan Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue, stated this proposal is different from the Town Center
Development project across the street. That property was already zoned commercial
and light industrial and there were no single family homes on that property. Half of the
land on this proposal is zoned residential single family. The neighborhood, she stated, is
not opposed to redevelopment but believes there is enough high density housing in the
area. She added that seniors should live in something other than high rises, such as
cottage style homes. She believes this project is not compatible with the area and that
Council should wait for a more appropriate proposal in the future.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 25
Jean Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, commented on the height of the building. At the
Planning Commission the petitioner admitted that the building would be at least 6 to 8
feet higher on 64th Avenue. She stated she has concerns and issues with many of the
setbacks on this site. She suggested that staff look at the height requirements under
R-3 which states a maximum of 6 stories but not exceeding 65 feet provided that no
building shall be erected to a height exceeding 45 feet within 50 feet of any R-1 or R-2
district without one additional foot of space between the main building and the R-1 or
R-2 district for every one foot or portion of building height over 45 feet. With 53 feet in
the front, the setback would have to be 58 feet, not 18. Also, the parking is short 36
spaces for the residential building. She added that she has not seen Council approve a
development in recent history that was short 36 spaces. The R-3 parking setbacks
should be no closer than 20 feet from the right-of-way. This will become an issue when
Old Central is expanded. The comment was made that residential overflow parking can
use the retail parking, but she did not believe that was an allowable practice. An outdoor
eating area is a permitted use with a special use permit. The rear yard setback is very
clear for C-2 stating it shall be no closer to the boundary line of any adjacent residential
district than 50 feet. This proposal is at 35 feet. Also on the retail, the parking
requirements go up if there is a restaurant and this proposal includes an outdoor eating
area.
Mr. Hickok explained that the outdoor eating area may simply be an area for employees.
Ms. Schwartz commented that if there is a restaurant, the parking ratio goes up to one
off-street parking space for every 150 square feet of building area. Also all parking and
hard surface areas can be no closer than 20 feet from any street right-of-way. In the
retail area, the parking along Mississippi and Old Central is not 20 feet away. The
driveway for the commercial area appears to be about 5 feet from the rear lot line which
does not meet zoning requirements. Where any commercial is close to any public right-
of-way, there are requirements that need to be met for parking, a five-foot sidewalk
easement along the property line and a fifteen-foot planting strip located behind the
required sidewalk that is substantial enough to create a physical separation between the
public right-of-way and the commercial property. If Mississippi and Old Central are
widened, you would have none of that. As far as S-2 zoning, a special district is a
zoning district that is designated on the zoning map created through specific regulations
changes necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the public within the
designated district. She doesn't believe this project is necessary to protect the people of
this area. She didn't think the city should "throw everything away because it's an S-2".
Developers should be held to firm standards. As to spot zoning, she checked the zoning
in this area before they bought. Rezoning this property would constitute spot zoning.
Town Center had to have the 50 foot setback from the residential area. She said the
town houses by Medtronic were approved as owner-occupied and they turned into rental
shortly after they were approved. She is concerned that Mr. DeMello could back out of
or sell the project. This proposal changes the character of the neighborhood. The
Comprehensive Plan is not a law but is merely a suggestion and the City has previously
deviated from this plan. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan actually calls for a
decrease in multi-family residential housing in the city. She stated she is not opposed to
senior housing or redevelopment as long as it is appropriate for the area.
Andrea Olson, 1385 64th Avenue, presented a drawing showing the significant difference
in height between the existing housing and the proposed residential building. The
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 26
owners have the right to develop their property, but there are serious concerns related to
this proposal. As far as barriers between the residential area and this development, it
would be impossible to build anything tall enough to provide adequate screening. She is
concerned about how the back of the retail will impact her property immediately east.
Turning the walking path into a road in the easement area would increase the footprint of
this project and would not be good for the neighborhood. She asked for a copy of the
Anoka County Highway Department letter recently received. It did not make sense to
move the access to 64th Avenue. She recommended that something more appropriate
to the neighborhood be built on this property. There were over 300 signatures on the
petition opposed to this project. She asked how many citizens actually participated in
the hearings for the Comprehensive Plan.
Tom Mhyra, 6360 Able Street N.E., asked if the developer has already purchased the
homes on this site. Several of the people who spoke in favor of this proposal have a
vested interest in that their homes will be bought by the developer.
John DeMello stated he has surrounded himself with a team of experts who have plenty
of experience. As to the financial, he has over 8 investment groups interested in backing
this project once it is approved by the City. He explained that he shared all the details
about this proposal with the community and he pointed out they meet or exceed
specifications with only a couple of exceptions.
Peter Villard explained that they are proposing 73 underground parking spaces and
there will be an elevator in the residential building. The traffic study determined this
project will have a minor impact. Single family homes would not work on this site
because of the cost of the property and the investment required. He believes the
location for the retail building is better than other areas of the City. There will be
approximately five renters in the retail space and it will not be built until it is completely
leased out. The investment in the commercial site will dictate that the tenants be
upscale. This is not a high rise building, but based on the height is considered a midsize
building. They do not have five stories anywhere except at the garage doors where they
enter the building and the retaining walls hide the whole garage level. The market study
was an independent study used as a roadmap. They do not have a loading dock in the
commercial area. There will be a fence on the east side to help block some of the views
of trucks loading and unloading. The trash will be enclosed and not visible. There will
be retaining walls constructed on the south and the setback requirements have been
met. The path is only 8 feet wide which will allow the fire department to get one side of
their truck. He agreed that the driveways should not go out onto 64th and will have
discussions with Anoka County on this matter. He stated that as far as the lot coverage,
the maximum increases to 30% if there is underground parking provided. This proposal
is below that requirement with only 25.4% coverage. The setbacks on this site are
predicated on the underlying zoning districts and meet or exceed all the requirements.
They have almost doubled the required enclosed parking spaces plus an additional 32
surface spaces for a total of 103 parking spaces. The retail site data: 40% maximum lot
coverage, they have 20%; minimum lot area 20,000 square feet, they have 67,000
square feet; front yard setback, 35 foot required they have 75 feet provided; side yard
south, 15 feet required, they have 50 feet provided; side yard at Mississippi Street, 35
feet required they have 65 feet provided; rear yard — east, 25 feet required they have 35
feet provided. Retail parking data: the parking data was developed based on the
speculative requirement of the code — one space required for every 200 feet of building
which equals 68 parking stalls and they have 69 provided.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 27
Mike Spack, TDI, Inc., stated there are 8 warrants under the state statutes regarding
traffic signals. If one of those warrants is met, then a signal should be considered. They
determined that the traffic generated from this project and the project across the street
does not come close to meeting any of the 8 warrants. Safety of a 4 way stop versus a
traffic signal is debatable. The stop sign is the safest way for the seniors to use the
streets because by law, once they step into the crosswalk, traffic has to stop. Their
determinations are based on national statistics that are very well documented, up to
date, and published in 2003. He also explained that they actually counted the traffic on
this intersection during the peak hours of the day and then added on the traffic they
anticipate will be added by this development as well as the Town Center development.
Mr. Harrison responded to concerns about the height of the building. He explained that
the front of the building is at the front setback, not at the curb, and they meet the height
requirements. He stated this is a good development with no municipal dollars involved.
Cottage homes on this site would have to be sold for $700,000 to make it possible.
Mr. Hickok explained that the market study found that Fridley could support 189 senior
units based on an analysis of what the market could absorb.
Councilmember Barnette stated Mr. Edwards' concern about the shortage of parking is
correct. He asked Mr. Hickok if the proposed parking is adequate.
Mr. Hickok responded that the code was revised to anticipate this type of development
and this proposal meets those requirements. The formula for parking requirements on
this development is the same that was used for Town Center.
Mr. Villard stated the parking designed was based on the ordinance that said one car
stall per unit. They over-designed this project for more than that. To add more parking
would result in more hard surface and require more ponding. Also, the history of such
facilities is that the parking lots are not being used.
Mr. Hickok stated this project does meet the requirements for an independent living
facility.
Ms. Schwartz again expressed her concern that the underlying zoning is not being
utilized to determine setback requirements.
Mr. Hickok responded that this proposal is based on a master plan. Trying to put S-2 in
context, it really is a blend and is meant to allow a master plan that is acceptable to the
City. We need to focus on the master plan and the setbacks in that plan.
Ms. Schwartz stated the ordinance states that S-2 must meet the performance standards
of compatible zoning codes.
Mayor Lund stated that appears to be somewhat objective.
Ms. Schwartz again questioned the building height.
Councilmember Billings stated they are following the guidelines to determine the building
height.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 28
Mr. Harrison commented that the building is not square but curves away to exceed the
setback. He stated they're adding character and a gazebo to improve the quality of
living for the residents. It boils down to whether not this proposal is good for the
character of the city and as a focal point as to how Fridley should be redeveloped. He
stated he is very proud to be a part of this development.
Councilmember Billings stated it is a beautiful project, but it is too much for the space.
There are too many parking stalls too close to the right-of-way, and the elevation from
the driving surface of 64th Avenue is too high. He would prefer to table this and ask staff
to prepare materials for consideration by Council to reject this.
Tom Myhra asked if the developer has the deed for this property.
Mr. DeMello stated he owns one of the properties, his father owns one of the properties,
and he has purchase agreements on all the rest.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette to close the
public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
22. First readinq of an ordinance to amend the city code of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota by makinq a chanqe in zoninq districts (rezoninq request ZOA #04-01,
by John DeMello, Profitmax, Inc.) (Ward 2).
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to table this
matter until March 29 and to direct staff to prepare the necessary documentation for
consideration by Council with a view towards rejecting this proposal.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette to table
consideration of this item in order to ascertain the necessary information to fully examine
and study the request and to extend the review period for City Council an additional 60
days and to notify the petitioner in writing of the 60-day extension as soon as possible.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
23. Preliminary Plat Request PS #04-01, by John DeMello, Profitmax, Inc. to replat six
parcels into two parcels, for the purpose of constructinq a senior housinq
development and a retail complex, qenerally located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi
Street, 6421 and 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 and 1357 64t" Avenue, and two vacant
lots, Lots 17 & 18, Block 1, Sprinq Valley Addition (Ward 2).
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to table
this matter until March 29.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2004 PAGE 29
2.
24.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe to table
consideration of this item in order to ascertain the necessary information to fully examine
and study the request and to extend the review period for City Council an additional 60
days and to notify the petitioner in writing of the 60-day extension as soon as possible.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Second readinq of an ordinance amendinq Fridley City Code, Chapter 11, Fees.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to table the
second reading of an ordinance amending Fridley City Code, Chapter 11, Fees.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Second readinq of an ordinance amendinq Chapter 402, Water and Sewer
Administration of the Fridley City Code.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to table the
second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 402, Water and Sewer
Administration of the Fridley City Code.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Informal Status Reports.
There were no informal status reports.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn the City
Council meeting at 3:00 a.m.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Brazys
Recording Secretary
������
Scott J. Lund
Mayor