08/08/2005 - 00001149 W -
ri
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF AUGUST 8, 2005
7:30 P.m. - City Council Chambers
Attendance Sheet
PLEASE AR/NT NAME, ADDRFSS AND /TEM NUMBER YQU ARF WERESTEV /N
Print Name (Clearly) Address Item No.
7' vc- M- �/(
r� -
OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 8, 2005
�
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or
treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public
assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to
participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an
interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at
572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of July 25, 2005
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of July 6, 2005 ....................................................................................... 1- 12
2. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of July 20, 2005 ................................................................................... 13 - 18
3. Variance Extension Request, VAR #03-17, by Jim
Kiewel, for an Extension of One Year to
Increase the Maximum Size of a First Accessory
Structure from 1,000 Square Feet to 1,390
Square Feet, and to Allow the Construction of a
22 Foot by 37 Foot Addition to the Existing Garage,
Generally Located at 1631 Rice Creek Road N. E.
(Ward 2) ....................................................................................................... 19
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 2
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
4. Claims ....................................................................................................... 20
5. Licenses ....................................................................................................... 21 - 22
6. Estimates ....................................................................................................... 23
ADOPTION OF AGENDA.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS):
Consideration of Items not on Agenda — 15 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. Consideration of the Proposed Transfer of
Control of the City of Fridley's Cable Television
Franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, and to Determine Whether
the Proposed Transfer may have an Adverse Effect
on Cable Television Subscribers ..................................................................... 24
8. Consideration of the Construction of Certain
Improvements: Neighborhood Street Improvement
Project No. ST. 2005 — 3: 73'/ Avenue Extension ......................................... 25
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED):
9. Consideration of Modifications to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing
Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts
Nos. 1-3, 6-7 and 9-17, Creation of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 18 and
Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan
RelatingThereto ................................................................................................. 26
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Resolution Modifying the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the
Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax
Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-3, 6-7
and 9-17 to Reflect Increased Project Costs
and Increased Bonding Authority within
Redevelopment Project No. 1, Creating Tax
Increment Financing District No. 18 and Adopting
a Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating Thereto ............................................. 27 - 36
11. Informal Status Reports ..................................................................................... 37
ADJOURN.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
J U LY 25, 2005
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley 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.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Billings
Councilmember Wolfe
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director
Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director
Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary
PROCLAMATION:
• National Night Out — Tuesday August 2, 2005
Mayor Lund presented the proclamation to Myra Harris from the Fridley Police
Department.
`49ER DAYS ROYALTY:
Peter Borman, `49er Days President, introduced the royalty for `49er Days.
PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
• City Council meeting of June 27, 2005 — APPROVED.
• City Council meeting of July 11, 2005 — APPROVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 2
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code by
Amending Appendix F to Provide for the Adjustment of Salaries for the
Mayor and Councilmembers in Accordance with Section 2.07 of the Charter
of the City of Fridley.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained the ordinance increases the Mayor's and Council's
salaries by 3% beginning January 1, 2006. Staff recommends Council's approval.
WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO.
1205 ON SECOND READING.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 6, 2005.
RECEIVED.
3. Special Use Permit Request, SP #05-02, by Amtech Lighting for Holiday
Companies to Allow a Changeable Electronic Sign Pursuant to Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code, Generally Located at 200 - 57t" Avenue NE
(Ward 3).
Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained this sign meets all City size and setback
requirements. There have been no comments from the public on this proposed change.
The Planning Commission approved the permit by unanimous vote at their July 6
meeting. Staff recommends Council's approval subject to three stipulations.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
4. Resolution Approving a Plat, P.S. #04-05, Klucsar Addition, by Yoava
Klucsar for the Purpose of Creating Two Single Family Lots, Generally
Located at 1420 Rice Creek Road NE (Ward 2).
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this resolution provides for the creation of two single
family lots. Staff recommends Council's approval subject to the following eight
stipulations:
1. Property owner of record shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay required
$1,500 park fee prior to issuance of building permits.
3. 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.
4. Petitioner to properly maintain Lot #2 until sale occurs.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 3
5. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems
located on the site are property capped or removed.
6. Petitioner shall provide easements as shown on preliminary plat drawing.
7. The garage on Lot 2 shall remain for a maximum of one year. If the new
residential home is not constructed within that one year time frame, the garage
shall be demolished as garages are accessory uses in a single family zoning
district.
8. The garage on Lot 2 shall be made compatible with the future residential
structure on this site, through the addition of a residential roof design and siding.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-33.
5. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-06, by the City of Fridley to Correct Right-
of-Way Boundaries for Street Reconstruction, Generally Located at Glen
Creek Road and Logan Parkway (Ward 3).
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the City of Fridley is the petitioner in this matter. The
City wants to replat the properties located at 151 Glen Creek Road and a City-owned lot
directly south of Glen Creek Road to correct right-of-way boundaries in conjunction with
the 2005 street reconstruction project. The property owner of 151 Glen Creek Road is
in agreement. The Planning Commission approved the replat at their July 6 meeting.
Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED.
6. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-07, by the City of Fridley, to Correct
Right-of-Way Boundaries for Street Reconstruction, Generally Located at
Ely Street and Liberty Street (Ward 3).
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the City is seeking to clarify and widen right-of-way
boundaries along a railway service drive located between Ely and Liberty Streets. All of
the impacted property is already City-owned right-of-way. The owner of both abutting
properties at 160 Ely Street and 160 Liberty Street agrees to the change with the
exception that the City will do a future land swap with him. One letter of opposition was
received from the resident at 176 Ely Street. But that letter appeared to focus on
removal of trees that were scheduled to be cut as part of the street reconstruction
project. There were no objections raised at the public hearing before the Planning
Commission. Staff recommends Council's concurrence with the Planning Commission
approval.
APPROVED.
7. Resolution Receiving the Preliminary Report and Calling for a Public
Hearing on the Matter of Construction of Certain Improvements;
Neighborhood Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2005-3.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 4
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this legislation establishes the public hearing for the
assessment of certain costs associated with the extension of 73 '/ Street. Mr. Van
Auken is to bear full responsibility for the creation of a new cul-de-sac on his property.
Four abutting property owners would be responsible for assessments associated with
the installation of concrete curb and gutter along that portion of the street where the
existing cul-de-sac is being replaced (a distance of approximately 120 feet). Staff
recommends setting the public hearing for August 8, 2005.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-34.
8. Appointment — City Employees.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff is recommending the appointment of Randi
Schanus and Ryan George to fill positions vacated by the resignation of Nathaniel
Behlen and the retirement of Skip Standahl. Randi Schanus has an Associate of Arts
degree from North Hennepin Community College in Law Enforcement and has been
employed as a Detention Deputy by the Hennepin County Sheriff since April 2002.
Ryan George earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminology from the University of
Minnesota at Duluth and has worked more than 300 hours with the Duluth Police
Department Detective Unit. Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF RANDI SCHANUS AND RYAN GEORGE AS
PATROL OFFICERS.
9. Claims: 122447 — 122623.
APPROVED.
10. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
Councilmember Billings requested that Item 3 be removed from the consent agenda
and placed on the regular agenda.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the consent agenda with the removal of Item 3.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRI ED.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to
approve the agenda with the addition of Item 3.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 5
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRI ED.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS):
Jean Schwartz, 1372 64t" Avenue NE, expressed concern about the actions of
Community Development staff inembers in relation to new development.
Councilmember Billings reminded Ms. Schwartz of the purpose of Open Forum and
suggested that if she has a complaint about staff inembers, she should bring that to the
City Manager.
Councilmember Wolfe took issue with Councilmember Billings's statement and said he
believed that Open Forum is an opportunity for all comments.
Ms. Schwartz pointed out errors in the planning packet for the recently approved
DeMello project. She specifically referred to the master utility and grading plan for the
DeMello project which states that Stillwater inspectors have to be on site. Also an
existing house was left off the plans for this project. She stated it is staff's job to review
development plans and catch such mistakes. She also questioned whether the
corrected master plan will have to go back for Council action. There are a record
number of homes for sale in Fridley and the City is driving business and residents out of
the area.
Mayor Lund asked Ms. Schwartz to share the errors she found in the DeMello plat with
Council members via email.
Don Anderson, 7304 West Circle, stated he believes Council has done a wonderful
job.
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, commented that the Planning Commission considered a
petition for rezoning at their last meeting where there was no site plan submitted and no
specific use for the property. She wondered if we are going to get to the point where
the process required in the City ordinance is short-circuited.
Joann Zmuda, 6051 64t" Avenue NE, spoke in opposition to the high density housing
the City is allowing to be built in single family neighborhoods. High density alters the
character of the neighborhood. Council seems to pick and choose which part of the
Comprehensive Plan they wish to follow and which lawsuits they wish to pursue. Many
residents spoke in opposition to the DeMello proposal yet Council approved the project.
OLD BUSINESS:
11. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Fridley City Charter,
Chapter 7, Taxes, Section 7.03.A, Pertaining to Utility Fees.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 6
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated at their June 13 meeting, Council approved the first
reading of an ordinance to initiate the action of bringing to the voters on November 2 a
question regarding the water, sewer and storm water operations. This matter was then
forwarded to the City's Charter Commission for their review. The Charter Commission
met July 8 and after extensive discussion, recommended approval of the proposed
amendment. State law requires that Charter amendments to be placed on the ballot for
a general election be forwarded to the county twelve weeks before the general election.
This would require the City to notify Anoka County by August 16.
Mr. Pribyl reviewed the background of this issue explaining that in 2000 an initiative
petition amended the City Charter. In 2000/2001 an ad hoc work group met to remedy
confusing language and recommended an amendment to the Charter Commission to
review. In 2001, the Charter was amended by Ordinance 1152. The Charter
amendment placed a cap on the amount the City could charge for utility fees which
resulted in an unintended consequence which caused the City the inability to recover
the full cost of providing water, sewer and storm water services. In 2004, the Charter
was amended by ordinance and a successful referendum petition was circulated
resulting in the defeat of the amendment at the general election. During the 2006
budget preparation and planning it was again determined that the City would continue to
be unable to recover its full cost to provide water, sanitary and storm sewer services
due to the language in the Charter, continuing the loss the City has been incurring. This
proposed amendment would help eliminate the continuing losses and the continuing
subsidies from utility improvement funds and other future dedicated sources. The end
result is the following ballot question: "Shall the Fridley City Charter be amended so as
to permit water, sewer and storm water utility charges above the rate of inflation without
the passage of a referendum for such increase? Yes / No" This is what would appear
on the ballot this fall. If this second reading is approved, the special election will be held
Tuesday, November 8, 2005, in conjunction with the school district elections.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive
the reading of the ordinance and adopt the ordinance on first reading.
Councilmember Billings asked for discussion on the revised amendment language
presented by staff.
Mr. Knaak stated Council has the duty to put any Charter amendment before the
citizens of the City in as clear and succinct language as possible. This would be the last
time the Council would be able to look at the language and decide whether or not it is
clear enough. The question has arisen as to whether or not the language before
Council at the time of the first reading could be made clearer. The draft presented this
evening succinctly summarizes the proposed amendment. Under the provisions of the
statutes Council is allowed to do that.
Councilmember Billings asked if there is any precedence for the ballot question being
a summary of the amendment.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 7
Mr. Knaak responded there were a number of Attorney General's opinions dealing with
specific ballot questions that related to this. Council has a great deal of discretion as to
the form and language of the ballot. The Attorney General, however, has outlined that
Council is allowed to summarize lengthy changes and provisions as part of the ballot
question in an effort to make sure that it is clearly stated.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Knaak if it is his opinion that the language on
version 3 is a fair statement of the intended change: "Shall the Fridley Charter be
amended so as to permit water, sewer and storm water charges above the rate of
inflation without the passage of a referendum for each such increase?"
Mr. Knaak responded that it is.
Mayor Lund commented that the current Charter language states the rate of inflation or
5%, whichever is less, but the proposed language refers only to the rate of inflation and
excludes reference to the 5%.
Mr. Knaak explained the language being excluded does allow for the rate of inflation
and does not allow for the 5%.
Councilmember Barnette stated the concern of the people when they changed the
referendum was very clearly that 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is greater, be in
the ordinance and would remain in there with the exception of this particular item. It
would continue to apply to all other things, except the utility services.
Mr. Knaak responded the 5% would continue to apply to other items, but not this. The
5% cap is designed for situations where there is a rate of inflation that is in excess of
5%. The language is correct.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that the three rates involved in this amendment are
not rates that are set by the City.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated that a portion of the sewer rate is set the Metropolitan
Environmental Services of the Metropolitan Council and many of the utility-related
expenses the City incurs are a result of Federal and State mandates.
Mayor Lund commented that 73% of the current sanitary sewer bill covers outside fees.
The mandates Dr. Burns referred to are unfunded mandates.
Mr. Haukaas explained that some of the upgrades to the Commons Filter Plant are a
result of increased restrictions on what can be found in City water.
Dr. Burns asked Mr. Knaak if he had a concern about changing the wording after the
Charter Commission had already considered the matter.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 8
Mr. Knaak responded that it is his interpretation of the City Charter and state law that
this procedure is appropriate. He stated if there was a substantive change in the
language, there might be a problem, but this has been a change in form as to the
language on the ballot, not the amendment itself.
Councilmember Billings questioned if Mr.
the City Charter does not need to be on
thereof.
Mr. Knaak stated that is correct.
Knaak is stating that the actual language in
the ballot, but an informative description
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to amend
the language of the ordinance by striking everything after the words "the following
question:" and inserting in lieu thereof, the following language: "Shall the Fridley
Charter be amended so as to permit water, sewer and storm water changes above the
rate of inflation without the passage of a referendum for each such increase? Yes / No."
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, Charter Commission member, stated when the Charter
Commission met on this matter, they took action based on the full language and that is
what was recommended to the Council per Minnesota Chapter 410. She questioned if
this now needs to go back to the Charter Commission since the language has been
changed. She also believed that the City Charter 3.09 requires that the full language for
such an amendment be on the ballot.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that several members of the Charter
Commission participated in a recent joint meeting with the Council and other City
commissions and they were concerned that the ballot question at the last election was
too long and confusing.
Mr. Knaak stated after reviewing the City Charter, he believes that because the
ordinance amendment itself has the full text as approved on first reading, Council is
meeting the Charter requirements. This is not a situation where the Charter
Commission has requested an amendment, but Council is initiating the action. Council
has the right to amend ordinances and present such amendments to the Charter
Commission for review. The descriptive language on the ballot is entirely up to
Council's discretion.
Bill Holm, 7424 Melody Drive, Charter Commission member, stated this was discussed
at length and the Charter Commission approved the proposed Charter language without
any changes. In terms of what is being presented to the voters, he is very comfortable
keeping the language brief and clear. He did not see a need for this to go back to the
Charter Commission because of the changes in the wording for the ballot question itself.
The concept is sound; the utilities should be a self-sustaining function.
Mayor Lund suggested that the complete amendment be included in information to
Fridley residents.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 9
Peter Borman, 120 River Edge Way, Charter Commission member, asked why the
Council is not considering the second option presented for the ballot question.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated in her opinion, the second option, which referred to
the rate of inflation and 5%, is more confusing than the third option which is stated more
simply.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE, ALL
VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
3. Special Use Permit Request, SP #05-02, by Amtech Lighting for Holiday
Companies, to Allow a Changeable Electronic Sign Pursuant to Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code, Generally Located at 200 — 57t" Avenue NE
(Ward 3).
Councilmember Billings explained that he does not have any problem with this
proposal but does have a question about the second stipulation. If the City ordinance
is changed in the future to reduce the amount of time between message changes on
such a sign, this stipulation would take precedence over the new ordinance. He
recommended Stipulation 2 be revised.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to approve
Special Use Permit, SP #05-02, with three stipulations.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to amend
Stipulation 2, striking the words "once every 45 seconds" and inserting the words
"provided by Fridley ordinance".
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND
DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #05-02 WITH
THE FOLLOWING THREE STIPULATIONS, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1) Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to
installing any signage on site.
2) Message on LED section of sign cannot change more often than provided by
Fridley ordinance.
3) Message on LED section of sign can never flash or have motion that may
distract vehicular traffic in the area.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 10
NEW BUSINESS:
12. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-05, by BAE Systems (formerly United
Defense) to Replat their Property, Generally Located at 4800 East River
Road NE (Ward 3).
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated petitioner is requesting that the
property at 4800 East River Road be replatted into three parcels. The subject property
is zoned M-2, heavy industrial and no zoning change is proposed. The property is
surrounded by M-2 to the north, south and east and park property to the west. The
subject property has been developed since 1940 and has had different owners and
several alterations. There is one access point on the north side on 51 St Way and two on
East River Road. The United States Navy used to own the northern portion of this
property and the southern portion of the subject parcel is sealed as a contaminated
area. The company wants to clarify future liability for past ownership boundaries. The
lot line between Lots 1 and 2 runs through the existing building. State building code
does not permit zero lot lines without closed separations. The plat continues the
building's legal, non-conforming status. The uses cannot change from M-2. If Lots 1
and 2 are sold separately, the building openings would need to be separated.
Mr. Hickok further stated that the petitioner has requested waiving of the park
dedication fees for this plat. City staff and the City attorney are recommending that the
fees be waived due to the fact that United Defense has met an option in the City Code
of giving park land. Council will need to make that decision. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing on this proposal on July 6 and unanimously voted to approve the
preliminary plat with two stipulations. The petitioner has since requested that the first
stipulation be reworded and the second be eliminated. Staff concurs with the Planning
Commission recommendation and finds the petitioner's revised language for Stipulation
#1 acceptable. Staff agrees with the petitioner that the second stipulation is redundant.
Staff's recommendation for stipulations to this proposal has now been revised to the
following:
1) Petitioner may not sell Lot 1 or Lot 2 independently without meeting the
requirements of the State Building Code, reference section 1305.0507.4.1,
Property Lines.
Mr. Hickok further explained that the second stipulation originally recommended by
staff is "stating the obvious" and for that reason staff is fine with this stipulation being
eliminated. He then reviewed the plot plan for this site explaining that the petitioner
plans to maintain the space that they are in and provide the opportunity for other
development to occur within the large complex. They have asked to divide off a parcel
at the southern end where there is soil contamination and in reference to their earlier
agreements to maintain liability and clarify ownership of that land. They wish to
establish separate legal descriptions so future developers will be able to take Parcels 1
and 2 to develop as necessary. Staff recommends approval of this plat.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 11
Councilmember Billings asked for clarification of the existing lot lines.
Mr. Hickok replied that Lots 1 and 2 are already divided with the actual change being
the creation of Lot 3.
Councilmember Billings stated he has had no concerns with the petitioner, but land
use decisions have long-term results. He was concerned about future owners of this
property and how Lot 3, the contaminated site, will be handled. Particularly, if it
becomes a tax forfeiture property which then becomes the responsibility of Anoka
County.
Jeff Van Keuren, Public Affairs Manager for BAE (formerly United Defense), stated the
reason for requesting this new property division is part of their long history on this site.
There have been different owners over the years but there has always been a strong
commitment to be good neighbors and good citizens. By dividing off the contaminated
site and allowing them to continue the ownership of that site no matter what, they will
take care of the site. It is not an attempt to subdivide it so they can get rid of it but is an
attempt to subdivide it so they can take care of it into the future.
Mayor Lund commented that the City believes the petitioner has been a good neighbor.
He asked if petitioner intends to sell Lot 1 and/or Lot 2.
Mr. Van Keuren responded that they are not fully utilizing the existing building. They
are looking for options to bring in additional companies and additional workers into that
facility which would get rid of any piece of the building that is not being used and brings
in more employees and better utilization of the property. This potentially could include
the sale of the property except for the contaminated site.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the petitioner is under any federal contractual
obligation for the contaminated site.
Mr. Van Keuren responded there are limitations but he was not aware of any
contractual obligations.
Mayor Lund suggested this matter be continued until such a time that the Council has
some assurance that the contaminated site will be taken care of.
Mr. Van Keuren stated petitioner is open to working with the Council to reach
resolution.
Councilmember Billings stated he is very excited about the prospect of developing
this site. He does have concerns that if this property goes to tax forfeiture, it would
become Anoka County's responsibility. He would be more comfortable voting on this
matter after Anoka County has had an opportunity to review it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 12
Mr. Van Keuren commented that as a Superfund site, petitioner is tied to the property
for the remediation of that site through the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency under an agreement they have made with them.
Mr. Knaak, responding to a written question from Councilmember Barnette, stated the
fact that this is a Superfund site brings with it a number of responsibilities and an
identified responsible party.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to table
consideration of Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-05, in order to obtain the necessary
information, fully examine and study the request, extend the review period for the City
Council action an additional 60 days and to notify 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.
13. Master Plan Amendment Request, MP #05-01, by Yale Place Associates to
Increase the Number of SurFace Parking Spaces and Permit the
Construction of a Raised Parking Structure, Generally Located at 6499
University Avenue NE (Ward 1).
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated Yale Place Associates, the
petitioner, asked that he inform Council that there will be a partnership known as 6499
Partners who will own and operate the existing building. The petitioner is hoping to
purchase the former Target Northern Operations Center at 6499 University Avenue.
They are requesting the master plan amendment to allow smaller width parking stalls
(8.5 to 9.5 feet wide) and a different location for a parking ramp. The parking stalls
closest to the building will have the largest dimension. Columbia Park previously
requested and received approval for a similar change to increase parking spaces. The
accessible stalls will remain the standard 10 feet in width. The narrower stall widths will
allow the addition of 32 at grade parking stalls. The petitioner has determined that
future tenants for this building will need a higher parking to square footage ratio than
currently exists. As for the parking deck, petitioner has submitted two separate plans;
one for 104 and another for 148 stalls. The determinant will be a result of the tenant
who ultimately utilizes the building. The master plan being considered should be based
on the largest ramp at 148 stalls.
Mr. Hickok said since the HRA reviews master plan amendments in redevelopment
districts, this matter was reviewed at the July 7 HRA meeting. They did express
concerns over the parking stall width reduction. Another issue discussed, which is
strictly an HRA issue, is the actual buy-out of the land by the petitioner. The HRA has
an agreement with Target Corporation, the current property owner, for a buy-out in 2014
at a pre-determined amount of $300,000. This will be evaluated by the HRA.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 13
Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 6 and there
were concerns about parking stall width reduction, landscaping loss, and traffic impact if
a retail use were to go into this site. After some discussion, the Planning Commission
approved the amendment with four stipulations. Staff concurs with the Planning
Commission's recommendation for approval with an additional two stipulations in
response to the landscaping concerns of the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what reassurances the City has that visitors to the
petitioner's site will not be utilizing City parking space.
Mr. Hickok stated the stipulations to the Master Plan should address this concern. Per
a recent parking study, City Hall does not currently have a parking problem, but staff
does not want to see city staff or Columbia Park employees displaced. The master plan
requires that they plan ahead to avoid off-site parking during construction.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, asked how Stipulation #4 will be enforced.
Mr. Hickok responded the master plan would come back to Council for any violation of
the stipulations. Essentially the master plan is a contract that the petitioner must abide
by. A parking analysis of the entire quadrant commissioned by the HRA revealed that
City Hall does not need additional parking but does need parking management. As to
the petitioner's site, the market for that building is large tenants who want more parking
spaces per square feet than is currently provided.
Mark McCary, Yale Place Associates, explained that in their effort to get a plan before
the City, they failed to spend much time on the actual landscaping plan. They have
since reviewed the landscaping with their architects and submitted a revised plan with
landscaping. The amount of permeable area currently on their site is approximately
2,000 square feet. This proposed plan increases that to 3,000 square feet. The layout
is configured differently and provides an opportunity for low-profile landscaping and
mulching to soften in a more uniform way. In addition, they are committing to an
extensive landscaping addition to the east side of the building. The overall plan is to try
to reintroduce this building to Fridley as a new, renovated project and fill it up again.
The bottom line is that today employers looking at buildings with 25,000 foot floor plates
want 4 to 6 parking stalls per thousand square feet of floor area. Currently there are 3.4
spaces per square foot. By re-striping the lot, they gain 32 stalls. Stipulation 5 would
account for 35% of the net parking space, which he is concerned about, but they are
willing to work with City staff to come up with a plan that works well for everyone. Step
one will be to re-stripe the current surface. The odds are slim that that increase alone
would be enough to satisfy a new user. Step two would be the construction of the
parking deck. They anticipate users who are good employers and good tenants. They
currently have the right to build structured parking now with no height limitations, so
they are not introducing something they do not have the right to do. They are simply
reconfiguring it.
Councilmember Billings questioned the number of 8.5 foot stalls.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 14
Mr. McCary responded that in Phase one there will be 253 8.5 foot stalls, 25 9 foot, 34
9.5 foot and 8 handicapped accessible stalls. The norm is 8.5 foot wide stalls in most
municipalities where parking is an issue.
Mr. Hickok commented that staff conducted a parking study at the time of Medtronic's
similar request and found that it is not uncommon to find 8 foot stalls downtown and
even 7.5 foot stalls in the University of Minnesota parking areas.
Mr. McCary commented that one concern at the Planning Commission meeting
regarded the impact of a retail use. It is not their intention to bring in retail on this site.
They are looking for a corporate or regional headquarters with all day employee parking
and very low parking turnover. The visitor parking will be up front where the larger stalls
will be located.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the petitioner is questioning Stipulation 5.
Mr. McCary stated he would like to propose the following language for Stipulation 5:
"Petitioner shall obtain staff approval of a revised landscape plan that will provide
ground cover shrubbery in the median areas. Petitioner shall also provide plans for
additional landscaping on the eastern side of the building near the parking area."
Mr. Hickok said if Council is comfortable with this language, staff would be happy to
work with the petitioner.
Mr. McCary further stated that they would like to clarify Stipulation #3 that the re-
striping of the parking lot can occur at any time following acquisition of the property by
the petitioner.
Mr. Hickok had no objections to this change.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that he would like to see the petitioner have the
flexibility provided in the amendment suggested for Stipulation 5.
Mayor Lund asked if the petitioner will maintain the reduced width stalls even with the
installation of the parking ramp. He added he wants to see the building on this property
utilized but is concerned about reducing so many of the parking stall widths.
Mr. McCary stated they want to keep the reduced width even with the parking ramp
construction. The economics of constructing structured parking are huge. They are not
asking for significant contributions from the City to help fix existing problems, but there
are limitations on what the market will allow.
Dr. Burns asked what will trigger the construction of the ramp and what happens if the
ramp is never built and the building maxes out with employees.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 15
Mr. Hickok stated that is the purpose of the stipulation. The intent is that their parking
lot be self-sustaining; that they do not displace vehicles at any point to adjacent parking
areas or streets. Also, staff is working on signage for the municipal ramp to better
manage the City's parking area.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to approve
Master Plan Amendment Request, MP #05-01, by Yale Place Associates with
stipulations.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to delete
Stipulation 5 as presented and replace it with "Petitioner shall obtain staff approval of a
revised landscape plan that will provide ground cover shrubbery in the median areas.
Petitioner shall also provide plans for additional landscaping on the eastern side of the
building near the parking area."
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION ON
THE AMENDMENT CARRIED.
Councilmember Billings questioned if the petitioner is requesting additional language
in Stipulation 3. As he reads that stipulation, it states that the petitioner shall stripe the
lot.
Mr. McCary explained that the concern was basically the time line as to when the
striping can be done. Considering Councilmember Billings' interpretation, a change to
the wording is not essential.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hickok if it is staff's intent to preclude the petitioner
from doing the striping immediately upon receiving title to the property.
Mr. Hickok responded they were not even that specific.
Mr. McCary indicated that he is fine with Stipulation 3 as presented by staff.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT #05-01 WITH THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1) Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction.
2) The proposed parking structure additions shall be architecturally
compatible with the existing building and finished with complementary
building materials (as shown in petitioner's plan entitled Parking Structure
Elevation — South).
3) Parking stalls to be reduced to 9.5 feet. 9.0 feet, and 8.5 feet in width
respectively shall be striped as identified in proposed plan and remain
striped as such unless further modifications are made to the Master Plan
after appropriate Commission / Council action has been taken.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 16
4) No off-site parking will be permitted during construction of the parking
deck. All necessary precautions and logistics planning must be done to
assure public safety and to assure demands will not be placed on adjacent
parking facilities, or streets, as a result of the parking deck construction.
5) Petitioner shall obtain staff approval of a revised landscape plan that will
provide ground cover shrubbery in the median areas. Petitioner shall also
provide plans for additional landscaping on the eastern side of the building
near the parking area.
6) Petitioner shall work with a landscape architect to find a means to soften
the appearance of the parking structure with landscaping.
14. Approve Change Order No. 1 for the 2005 Neighborhood Street
Improvement Project No. 2005-1.
Mr. Hausas, Public Works Director, explained there has been a lot of discussion on this
project. Dr. Burns had expressed some concern that the costs were a little high for the
additional work. Mr. Haukaas had always thought that the structural storm water
treatment devices, which are a big part of this cost, would be above the original cost.
This change order includes some items on the first two phases of the project including
the removal and replacement of a storm sewer crossing that was deteriorating and
collapsing, as well as a couple areas of soil corrections. The change in storm sewer
design is a little longer and deeper resulting in more costs and the infiltration area is an
added cost. There is a net cost to the change order of $91,790.20. Since this change
order was put together, two additional items were found to be unnecessary resulting in a
savings of $10,000. If anything, the Council can call this a negotiated agreement with
the Watershed District to come up with storm water additions to meet their rules. It has
been discussed with the neighborhood several times and they are in favor of it. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
Change Order No. 1 for the 2005 Neighborhood Street Improvement Project No. 2005-1
in the amount of $91,790.20.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. Informal Status Reports:
Mayor Lund announced the Historical Society's 12t" annual August Fest will be held
August 1.
Councilmember Barnette reminded everyone of National Night Out on August 2.
Dr. Burns stated the City newsletter will be going out the first week of August.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2005 PAGE 17
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 10:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted by,
Rebecca Brazys Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
J U LY 6, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Kondrick called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present:
Members absent:
Others present:
Barbara Johns
Larry Kuechle
David Kondrick
Dean Saba
Diane Savage
Leroy Oquist
Brad Dunham
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — June 15, 2005
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle to approve the
minutes of the June 15t" meeting as presented.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration of a Special Use Permit SP #05-02 by Amtech Lighting for
Holiday Companies to allow a changeable electronic sign per Section
214.07 of the City Code, generally located at 200 57t" Av. NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to open the
public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 PM.
Ms. Jones stated the petitioner would like to erect an automatic changeable sign for the
gasoline pricing portion of an existing free standing sign at the Holiday Store at 220 57t"
Av. NE. For clarification, this application is for only this location, not all the Holiday
stores in Fridley. The sign will be an LED type sign. This property is zoned C3,
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 2 of 12
General Shopping, so the commercial sign code applies. This station store was built in
1999 which is also the year they obtained a permit for the existing free standing sign.
The petitioner states that this type of LED sign is the new industry standard for gas
pricing. She reviewed a photo of the existing sign and explained the center portion will
be changed to an LED gas pricing sign. In staff's analysis, Ms. Jones stated they have
noted that an automatic changeable sign is permitted in the sign code with a special use
permit. There is a requirement that the sign message cannot change more often than
every 45 seconds. The existing sign is 77.5 square feet in size which complies with the
sign ordinance and it also meets the requirement that it can't be any closer than 50 feet
to a residential district. Staff recommends approval of SP #05-02 as it meets the
requirements of the sign code. Staff also recommends the following stipulations be
attached:
1) Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to
installing any signage on site.
2) Message on LED section of sign cannot change more often than once every
45 seconds.
3) Message on LED section of sign can never flash or have motion that may
distract vehicular traffic in area.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if the message on the sign can be changed from gas
pricing to other promotions.
Scott Meister, Amtech Lighting representing Holiday Companies, responded the only
change on the new sign would be the actual gas pricing with no other messages
possible.
Commissioner Johns asked if Mr. Meister has any objections to the stipulations.
Mr. Meister responded he does not.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to close the
public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:41 PM.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to recommend
approval of SP #05-02 with the stipulations recommended by staff.
1) Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to
installing any signage on site.
2) Message on LED section of sign cannot change more often than once every 45
seconds.
3) Message on LED section of sign can never flash or have motion that may distract
vehicular traffic in area.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 3 of 12
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Consideration of a Master Plan Amendment, MP #05-01, by Yale Place
Associates, LLC, to increase the number of surFace parking spaces and
permit the construction of a raised parking structure, generally located
at 6499 University Avenue NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to open the
public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:43 PM.
Ms. Jones stated the petitioner is requesting an amendment to its master plan to allow
for smaller, yet a greater number of parking spaces as well as a parking deck
expansion. Yale Place is proposing to buy the building next to City Hall, the former
Target Operations Center. The Target Operations Center property, City Hall and the
two medical buildings to the south are all part of a tax increment district which is why a
master plan was established for the entire area when it was originally developed. This
amendment would allow a smaller dimension but greater number of parking stalls
ranging from 8.5 to 9.5 feet in width rather than the 10 foot width required by code. The
second part of their request is to be permitted to build a parking deck on this site this
fall. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority will review this proposed amendment
at their July 7t" meeting. The reason for the various sizes is that the stalls closest to the
building will be the largest due to the anticipated greater turn-over of those stalls
throughout the day. Those stalls to be used by the employees, further away from the
building, will be 8.5 feet wide. The accessible stalls will not be reduced in size as
dictated by code. The narrow stall widths would allow for an additional 47 at-grade
parking stalls. In addition they're hoping to build a parking deck. There are two
different proposed plans, but they're looking for approval on the largest of the two
proposals. The final determination will depend upon the user of the building. One of
the proposed plans shows 104 additional stalls and the other shows 148 additional
stalls. The master plan amendment will show the largest option in case a new tenant
warrants the larger number of parking stalls.
Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following
stipulations:
1) Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction.
2) The proposed parking structure additions shall be architecturally compatible
with the existing building and finished with complementary building materials
(as shown in petitioner's plan entitled Parking Structure Elevation — South).
3) Parking stalls to be reduced to 9.5 feet, 9.0 feet, and 8.5 feet in width
respectively , shall be striped as identified in proposed plan and remain
striped as such unless further modifications are made to the Master Plan after
appropriate Commission / Council action has been taken.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 4 of 12
4) No off-site parking will be permitted during construction of parking deck. All
necessary precautions and logistics planning must be done to assure public
safety and to assure demands will not be placed on adjacent parking facilities
or streets as a result of the parking deck construction.
Ms. Jones reviewed pictures of the property in question and the proposed lay-out and
explained there will be 34 - 9.5 foot wide parking stalls, 8 accessible parking stalls, 9
foot wide stalls along Mississippi and the remainder will be 8.5 feet wide.
Chairperson Kondrick questioned the difference in the two different parking ramp
proposals.
Ms. Jones stated one will contain 104 parking stalls and the other will have 148 stalls.
Commissioner Saba was concerned that the Planning Commission may be setting a
precedent for parking stall width if this request is approved.
Ms. Jones responded that this proposal is a little different than a variance request
typically submitted because it is a part of a master plan for the whole area. She
believed it would be difficult to argue that this would set a precedent for someone
coming in requesting a typical variance request. The projects with master plans are
always unique since the project is being reviewed as a whole.
Commissioner Saba explained he's concerned because the City has been very strict in
the past about issuing any kind of exception as the Appeals Commission has also been.
Ms. Jones explained there has been smaller width parking stalls approved, such as the
employee parking area for Medtronic.
Commissioner Kuechle asked if this would remain with the property and if there is a
tenant for the building requesting this much parking. He was concerned about "giving
something away we may not have to give away."
Ms. Jones stated it is her understanding that the master plan stays with the property
even if the property is sold. The petitioner has indicated they do have a possible lease
agreement with a tenant for a portion of the building which is why they have submitted
two different proposals. The final determination will depend upon what tenant or
tenants they end up with. They're in a difficult situation in that they feel they need the
additional parking to attract a tenant. The parking on site now was designed in a
customary fashion for Target and the way they used the building.
Commissioner Kuechle questioned the width of the drive aisle.
Ms. Jones offered to investigate this and respond.
Commissioner Johns asked if there's any way a retail use would go into this space.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 5 of 12
Ms. Jones stated it is her understanding that only an office use would be allowed on
this site.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if there should be an additional stipulation that if a retail
use does go into this site, the parking stalls should be of an adequate size.
Ms. Jones stated the issue of permitted uses should have already been addressed in
the master plan.
Commissioner Johns questioned if there will be any green space added since some
will be lost with the construction of the parking ramp.
Ms. Jones responded that to her knowledge there are no landscaping plans for this
location and any removed trees will not be replaced.
Commissioner Saba questioned how many parking spaces would be required if this
were a normal business office location.
Ms. Jones stated she would have to investigate that issue, but the Target operation did
not meet the parking stall requirements from the beginning.
Chairperson Kondrick questioned who will dictate the need for the ramp, the petitioner
or the City.
Ms. Jones stated the petitioner is initiating the request for additional parking; the City is
not requiring specific parking because we do not know who the tenant will be at this
point. The petitioner believes they need the additional parking to get a tenant into the
building.
Commissioner Johns questioned if all the stalls were 9.5 feet wide and there was only
the single surface, could the petitioner meet the parking requirements and she
questioned if the parking requirement is based on the square footage of the building.
Commissioner Kuechle commented they probably could, but another factor is the
number of employees on this site.
Commissioner Saba questioned if the impact of traffic on Mississippi has been
considered by staff.
Ms. Jones responded that she is not aware of any traffic concerns since it is a right in
right out only access onto Mississippi. When Target was using this site, most of the
people used the 5t" Street access rather than Mississippi.
Commissioner Kondrick commented that traffic leaving the site at quitting time could
be a concern on Mississippi and he believed staff should take a look at this.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 6 of 12
Mark McCary, president of Yale Place Associates (petitioner), stated he is aware of and
has no objections to the stipulations recommended by staff.
Commissioner Kuechle asked if the petitioner has had experience with the 8.5 foot
wide parking spaces. That is something the City doesn't normally have.
Mr. McCary responded as they have worked with parking lot consultants and looked at
the Metro wide community by community approach to parking widths, the standard now
is about an 8.5 parking stall. In municipalities where there is an extremely high demand
for parking, parking spaces actually get smaller. It's quite unusual to see 10 foot
parking stall widths even in retail areas in the Metro. The building on this property has
been for sale for over four years and over that time there have been a number of
potential users, but they could not get beyond a preliminary analysis of the site
because, he believed, the principal "deal killer" has been the fact that the property is
under-parked by any measure of parking standards for conventional office use. This is a
very solid and well built office building, but nobody who would value this type of a
building design can make sense out of committing to it because of the under-parking
situation. A building with a 25,000 foot floor plate, and there's three of them, appeals to
large multi-floor users typically larger corporations that specifically need larger floor
areas; they pack in the work environments and that drives the parking requirements to
new levels. Fridley's current code for parking is four per thousand which would equal
about 300 parking stalls required. At a 10 foot width, the current parking allows about
240 which is well below what would be required. What they want to do is refurbish this
site and fix the parking problem so they can attract the kind of users described with a
building they believe will be competitively unique. The market is very sophisticated
when it comes to leasing or buying space and it is the rare deal that doesn't mandate
the number of parking spaces required in a lease from a company renting space in a
building. In other words, he could not lease the building to a company that needs 400
parking spaces and deliver only 230, nor would they enter into a lease without
stipulating there be sufficient parking. If they don't have to build a parking ramp, single
story structure, they would prefer not to. There's a 10 to 15% chance that simply by
approving the reduction in stall width on grade they could find a full building user for
which the 320 parking stalls would be adequate. Conceivably that fit could exist, but
based on the building's inherent design, its power capacity and its heating and cooling
capacity which are all attractive to high density users, his instinct and experience tells
him that more often than not they would be looking at users who need five or six parking
stalls per thousand square feet. Also, because of the restriction of no off-road parking
and the fact that a tenant typically wants to move into a building within 90 to 120 days,
the parking structure must be ready.
Commissioner Kuechle asked if the petitioner is the current owner of the building.
Mr. McCary responded that Yale Place Associates is under contract to purchase the
building. They have a binding contract with Target with contingencies, one of which is
solving the parking problem. He pointed out that in the HRA agreement, they have the
right to build as much parking structure as they want without any additional approvals.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 7 of 12
From what he can tell reading the document, there's no limitation on the number of
levels the parking structure can have. So, he didn't believe they're asking for anything
more than they already have the right to do and, in fact, they're trying to clean it up a
little. As far as the aisle width, Mr. McCary stated it is the standard width.
MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to close the
public hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 PM.
Commissioner Kuechle stated he is not concerned about the proposed ramp, but was
concerned about the 8.5 foot wide parking spaces.
Commissioner Saba also expressed concern about the narrower parking spaces and
the possibility of setting a precedent, but he believed this was something the Council
could address.
MOTION by Commissioner Johns, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to recommend
approval of MP #05-01 with the stipulations as stated.
1) Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction.
2) The proposed parking structure additions shall be architecturally compatible with
the existing building and finished with complementary building materials (as
shown in petitioner's plan entitled Parking Structure Elevation — South).
3) Parking stalls to be reduced to 9.5 feet, 9.0 feet, and 8.5 feet in width
respectively , shall be striped as identified in proposed plan and remain striped
as such unless further modifications are made to the Master Plan after
appropriate Commission / Council action has been taken.
4) No off-site parking will be permitted during construction of parking deck. All
necessary precautions and logistics planning must be done to assure public
safety and to assure demands will not be placed on adjacent parking facilities or
streets as a result of the parking deck construction.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
3. Consideration of a preliminary plat, PS #05-05, by United Defense, L.P.
to replat their property to create a fourth parcel out of one of the
existing three parcels, generally located at 4800 East River Road NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to open the
public hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:22 PM.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 8 of 12
Ms. Jones explained that the petitioner, United Defense, was recently acquired by a
company called BAE Systems. The subject property is zoned M2, Heavy Industrial and
no change is proposed in the zoning. This site is surrounded by M2 zoning to the north,
south and east and park land to the west. The property has been developed since 1940
and has had various owners and alterations. There is one access point on the north
side on 51 St Way, and two East River Road access points. The United States Navy
used to own the northern portion of the property and the southern part of this site is
sealed as a contaminated superfund site area and its part of their goal to keep that as a
separate parcel. The petitioner wants to clarify through this plat any future liability
related to past ownership boundaries because of some of the history on the site. They
want to make sure they keep the boundaries set according to who used to own certain
sections of the property. She reviewed the existing lot lines between Lots 1 and 2 run
through an existing building. State building code does not permit zero lot lines through
a building like this without clear separation between the buildings. This plat will
continue what is deemed a legal non-conforming status of the building. These two lots
into the future cannot be sold separately unless the building connections were closed off
to meet the code.
Ms. Jones further explained that the petitioner has requested to be exempt from the
park dedication fees typically associated with a plat. Staff and the City Attorney have
determined that in this case the fees should be waived because United Defense sold at
a discounted price property for park land to Anoka County. The City Code allows
donation of land in lieu of the park dedication fee, so the petitioner has met that
requirement. However, the waiving of the fee will be handled by the City Council so the
Planning Commission does not have to address that issue.
Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval of this plat with the following stipulations:
1) Petitioner may not sell Lot 1 or Lot 2 independently without meeting all of the
requirements of the State Building Code.
2) Petitioner cannot geographically expand the legal nonconforming use building
complex on Lots 1 and 2 without requiring that remaining building be modified
to comply with all elements of the State Building Code. (Ms. Jones added for
clarification that this stipulation was typed incorrectly in the packet. She a/so
clari�ed that BAE Systems is allowed to do work inside the building but
cannot expand the footprint of the building without meeting all the building
code requirements.)
Commissioner Kuechle questioned if the petitioner will be the owner of all three lots.
He also questioned the narrow strip of land associated with Lot 2 that runs along the
perimeter of Lot 1 and which requires access across Lot 2 to reach Lot 1.
Ms. Jones responded the petitioner does own all three lots. As to the question
regarding access to Lot 1, Ms. Jones explained that code requires 25 feet of road
frontage which Lot 1 does have as well as an access point on 51 '/ Way.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 9 of 12
Chairperson Kondrick stated the concern would be if Lot 2 were sold, how that would
impact access to Lot 1, but his understanding of Ms. Jones' presentation is that the lots
cannot be sold separately.
Jeff VanKeuren, Public Affairs Manager for BAE Systems (the petitioner), explained
that they wish to keep the property lines the way they were when the Navy owned the
property for reasons of identifying if contamination were found in the former Navy
property in the future. It would be significantly easier to address such an issue with the
Navy if the property lines remain the same. As far as the park dedication fees, United
Defense has provided significant support to make improvements to the park land they
sold to Anoka County in 1982 at a considerable discount, greater than $1 million than
any estimate. They have also made significant contributions to the Anoka County park
system every year for at least the last eight years that he's been involved. They put in
$5,000 to $10,000 each year which Anoka County parks matches. In the last five years
alone, they have contributed in excess of $40,000. They have set a goal for continued
improvement of the park. Consequently they do not believe they should be subject to
the park dedication fee.
Mr. VanKeuren stated they do have reservations regarding the second stipulation as
they have not had ample time to study it. They want to understand more completely the
wording and have not had time to study it from the perspective of a future owner of the
property. They'll have to look at the stipulation more carefully.
Ms. Jones explained that it is her understanding the way the property exists today with
the lot line dividing the building, the building is currently legal nonconforming with the
state building code. So this stipulation simply reiterates the existing condition and limits
what can be done to the existing footprint of the building.
Mr. VanKeuren stated he understands the stipulation and thanked Ms. Jones for her
assistance, but they still need time to evaluate it.
Chairperson Kondrick commented that the petitioner will have the opportunity to
review the stipulation prior to the City Council meeting and action on this matter.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to close the
public hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DELCARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:40 PM.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he is chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission
for the City and is aware of the petitioner's past performance and dedication to the
county park system. Even thought the City typically does not waive park dedication
fees, in this case the petitioner's past performance warrants the waiving.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 10 of 12
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to recommend
approval of preliminary plat PS #05-05 with the two stipulations presented and corrected
by staff.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
4. Consideration of a preliminary plat, PS #05-06, by the City of Fridley to
correct right-of-way boundaries for street reconstruction, legally
described as Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 1, Oak Creek Addition, generally
located at Glen Creek Road and Logan Parkway.
MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to open the
public hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:43 PM.
Ms. Jones stated the replat of right-of-way and residential lots is being requested to
create an orderly public record and to allow for future land swaps. The City of Fridley
seeks to replat the properties located at 151 Glen Creek Road and the City-owned lot
directly south of Glen Creek Road for the purpose of defining right-of-way and excess
property ownership. The registered land survey plat was prompted by City street
reconstruction work in the area. Glen Creek Road does not have sufficient right-of-way
in certain areas to construct the proposed typical street section. As part of the 2005
street reconstruction project in this neighborhood, curb and gutter are being installed on
Glen Creek Road and the road is being slightly widened. Because of the street
construction project, the City is cleaning up improper lot lines. The current right-of-way
map does not match the existing location of the road. This plat will not impact access to
any of the adjoining private properties. Ms. Jones then reviewed the sizes of the tracts
involved as follows: Tract A— 180 square feet or .004 acres; Tract B 24,372 square feet
or .0560 acres; Tract C 4,665 square feet or .107 acres and Tract D 3,961 square feet
or .091 acres. Tract D is the tract that is intended to be traded as excess right-of-way.
Part of Tract C already exists as right-of-way. Tracts A and C become part of the
widened right-of-way. In a later action, the City expects to trade excess right-of-way
with adjacent property owners for right-of-way that is needed for the widening of the
service road. Adjacent property owners are supportive of the land swap proposed. She
stated staff recommends approval of this plat as an orderly public record will be created.
Staff does not recommend any stipulations as this land is already under City control.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to close the
public hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:46 PM.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 11 of 12
MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Saba to recommend
approval of PS #05-07.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Consideration of a preliminary plat, PS #0507, by the City of Fridley, to
correct right-of-way boundaries for street reconstruction, legally
described as Lots 12, 13 and 36, Block 12, Spring Brook Park, generally
located at Ely Street and Liberty Street.
MOTION by Commissioner Johns, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to open the
public hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:47 PM.
Ms. Jones explained that the City is seeking to replat the right-of-way and industrial lots
to create an orderly public record and to allow for future land swaps. Replatting the
properties will better define right-of-way boundaries. The registered land survey plat is
being prompted by City street reconstruction work in the area. As part of the 2005
street reconstruction project, curb and gutter are being installed on the service drive
between Ely Street and Liberty Street. In addition, the service drive is being slightly
widened. In a later action, the City expects to trade excess right-of-way with adjacent
property owners for right-of-way that is needed for the widening of the service road.
Adjacent property owners are supportive of the land swap proposed. It will allow
owners to expand property square footage and, as a result, the owners may be able to
expand the building square footage in the way they wanted. The City proposes no
changes to the existing building. The current zoning is M1 and no changes are
proposed to the current zoning. The plat will not impact access to either of the adjoining
private properties. Tract A and C are the two tracts that are intended to be traded as
excess right-of-way. Sizes of the proposed tracts after the replat will be as follows:
Tract A(facing Ely Street) 1,173 square feet or 0.027 acres; Tract B(facing Ely Street)
5,778 square feet or .133 acres; Tract C(facing Liberty Street) 3,386 square feet or
.078 acres; Tract D(facing Liberty Street) 6,539 square feet or .150 acres. Staff
recommends approval of this plat request as an orderly public record will be created.
Staff does not recommend any stipulations as this land is already under City control.
She stated one letter was received from a property owner in the area, M.J. Fluten, but
believed the writer seems confused about the issue.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to enter the
correspondence from M.J. Fluten into the record.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 6, 2005 Page 12 of 12
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Johns to close the public
hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:53 PM.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to recommend
approval of PS #05-07 as presented.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
6. Receive the minutes of the June 8, 2005 Appeals Commission meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to accept the
minutes as presented.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURN
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to adjourn.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted by,
Rebecca Brazys
Recording Secretary
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 20, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Kuechle called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present:
Members absent:
Barbara Johns, Leroy Oquist, Brad Dunham, and Larry Kuechle
David Kondrick, Diane Savage, Dean Saba
Others present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary
Jay Lindgren, Dorsey and Whitney
Joe Meyer, JLT Group
Joseph Finley, Leonard, Street and Deinard
Jerry Cormier, Longview Fibre Company
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — July 6, 2005
Chairperson Kuechle announced that the July 6th minutes were not yet completed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Consideration of a rezoning, ZOA #05-03, by JLT East River Road, LLC, to
rezone the property from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-3, General Shopping,
generally located at 5601 East River Road NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 PM.
Ms. Stromberg explained that Joe Meyer of JLT Group, Inc., is requesting to rezone the
property located at 5601 East River Road from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-3, General Shopping
to market the site to potential commercial buyers. The petitioner, who is also the owner of the
subject property, would like to actively seek commercial and retail users for this site. In order for
that to be accomplished, the site needs to be zoned appropriately for those types of uses.
Ms. Stromberg stated that it is the petitioner's intention to ask for the rezoning at this time and
once a specific user or users have been identified for the site, they would come back for second
reading of the rezoning ordinance at the City Council level with detailed site plan information
and any other city requirements. The petitioner, at their request, has asked for ample time
between first and second reading to negotiate with potential end users and develop site plans
based on known user(s). Petitioner has also waived requirements of State Statutes 15.99 to
allow them time as they have requested.
Ms. Stromberg reviewed the site description and history stating the property has been zoned
M2, Heavy Industrial, since the late 1950's. The property was developed in 1969 when an
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 20, 2005 Page 2 of 6
office/warehouse building was constructed and served as the headquarters, research and
production facility for LaMaur, Inc. Since 1969, several additions have been added to the
original 200,000 square foot building. As a result of those additions, the existing building is
approximately 450,000 square feet. In 1999, Tiro Industries, Inc., purchased the property from
LaMaur, Inc. and were in business at this location until May 2005. Since the time it was known
that Tiro Industries would be vacating the site, the owners have had no success in attracting
industrial tenants to occupy the building and believe that, with industrial trends changing and
manufacturing users few, the property would be more attractive to tenants as a commercial
property. The building was constructed so industry specific (packaging of shampoo and similar
products) that only a like industry would be able to make reuse of the building, thus the rezoning
request.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is seeking the rezoning despite the fact that they don't
have a potential user for the site. The petitioner's intention is that once the property is rezoned
to commercial, it will make it more appealing on the market. The petitioner has submitted a
"concept plan" outlining what the site plan may look like with a commercial development. The
"concept plan" shows a single tenant building of 200,000 square feet and a multi-tenant building
of 73,600 square feet. This plan is just a"concept plan" to show what the City might expect to
see if the existing building is demolished and the property is rezoned to commercial.
Ms. Stromberg further explained that in 1999, the City approved a rezoning request by Home
Depot for the property located at 5650 Main Street. The Home Depot site was rezoned from
M2, Heavy Industrial and C2, General Business to C3, General Shopping. The Home Depot
property is located directly east of the subject property beyond the railroad tracks. Rezoning the
subject property would be an extension of the existing C3, General Shopping zoning along the
Interstate 694 corridor between University Avenue and East River Road.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the City's zoning ordinance and official zoning map are the
mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The law
gives the City the authority to rezone property from one designated use to another so long as
the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's 2020
future land use map designates this area as "Redevelopment." Redevelopment is described in
the Comprehensive Plan as a form of community revitalization that transforms undesirable
elements into desirable elements that reflect the community collective vision. The purposes of
redevelopment are to remove older blighted structures and provide an opportunity to build new
facilities that meet current market demands and desires of the City. Redevelopment can also
provide an opportunity to create additional job opportunities and create new tax base. All of the
above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the rezoning of this
property.
Ms. Stromberg added that this request may seem a little awkward compared to the normal
rezoning process, due to the fact that the petitioner does not have a tenant identified for the site.
However, a commercial zoning for this property would be the highest and best use of the site.
The property is highly visible and easily accessible from Interstate 694, which would be
attractive to commercial and retail users. Rezoning this property is also compatible with
surrounding development as it is an extension of the C3, General Shopping zoning along the
north corridor of Interstate 694 and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Once the
petitioner has identified a user or users for the site, the rezoning request would come back to
City Council for second reading. At the time of second reading an additional public hearing will
be held which will allow for further review of the development.
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 20, 2005 Page 3 of 6
Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of this request as the proposed rezoning is
an extension of the existing C3 zoning along the Interstate 694 corridor and the proposed
rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If approved, staff recommends the
following stipulations be attached:
1. Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2. Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage and
landscaping details, prior to the second reading of the rezoning ordinance (petitioner
has waived 15.99 rights in order to comply with this stipulation).
Commissioner Oquist referred to the letter submitted immediately prior to this meeting from
Longview Fiber Company which raised several questions regarding this proposal.
Chairperson Kuechle questioned if a property must be considered blighted before it can be
redeveloped and whether or not the petitioner's property is blighted.
Ms. Stromberg responded this property does not meet the definition of "blighted" but that is not
a necessary condition for redevelopment. She added that the petitioner's property does meet
other criteria for redevelopment.
Jay Lindgren, land use attorney for the petitioner, stated they are in agreement with the staff's
recommendations. He also received the correspondence from Longview Fiber Company right
before the meeting and has not had the opportunity to review it carefully. As indicated in the
staff report the petitioner requested the rezoning because the building on this site is very limited
and in order to remarket the property, they would like to have an indication that the City is
supportive of the rezoning so commercial users can be considered. Once a potential client has
been identified the petitioner will come back with a site plan that addresses the questions
presented in Longview's letter. He added they petitioner is in kind of a"catch 22" position; the
market wants to know that the City is supportive of this rezoning yet they have to give the City a
specific tenant so they can address the rezoning. Each of the areas of concern raised in the
Longview letter are ones that the petitioner is more than willing to address through the site plan
review process.
Commissioner Dunham asked if the petitioner believes he can satisfy the concerns raised in
the Longview letter.
Mr. Lindgren stated he would have to further review the letter and would like time to meet with
the Longview representatives to discuss their concerns in detail and believed they could come
to an appropriate resolution.
Ms. Stromberg informed the Commission that staff received a call from Anoka County this
week regarding this matter and they want to be kept informed about any issues regarding this
development because they do have concerns regarding the traffic signal and access to the site.
Joseph Finley, land use attorney representing Longview Fiber Company, believed that this
rezoning petition is premature. In a normal rezoning process it would be the Planning
Commission who would review the physical aspects of what was going to happen on the site
before it recommended approval to the Council. If the Commission votes to recommend
approval on this proposal as presented and the item moves on to first reading before the
Council, it will be very difficult to "unwind" at that point if there are site plan concerns.
Rezonings are discretionary. What he didn't like about this particular rezoning petition is that
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 20, 2005 Page 4 of 6
the Planning Commission will not have the opportunity to look at a real site plan, a real tenant
and review issues like access, buffering, and other issues of concern. He explained that the
Longview Fiber plant adjacent to the petitioner's property has been there almost 40 years and
employs 150 people and pays just under $200,000 in property taxes. It is a 24 hour a day
operation sometimes running up to seven days a week. There are 20 to 30 trucks going into the
Longview location on a daily basis. The traffic to Longview shares the ingress / egress point
with the petitioner's property to gain street access. He was concerned about the impact a retail
use would have on the traffic to this site. He added, however, that he believed there could be a
successful dialogue with Mr. Lindgren to address the issues raised in the Longview letter. He
then asked that the Longview letter be entered into the record.
Chairperson Kuechle questioned if the access to these two sites is a public street.
Mr. Finley explained he contacted the Fridley Public Works department this morning and this is
not a public street. The street enters on property owned by the petitioner and Longview has an
easement across it for access. He'd like to see some traffic studies done and some civil
engineering work done as to access improvements.
Jerry Cormier, Longview Plant Manager, explained there are 20 to 30 tractor-trailers coming
into their facility on a daily basis anywhere from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The first and third shifts
have 30 to 35 employees each and the second shift has 10 to 15 employees. There are also 40
salaried employees on the day shift. The first shift starts at 7:00 and, depending upon
production needs, can end anywhere from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Dunham, to enter into the
record the letter from Joseph Finley of Leonard, Street and Deinhard, on behalf of Longview
Fiber Company.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Lindgren stated they would be agreeable to hold an additional review by the Planning
Commission between the first and second reading to address the concerns expressed by Mr.
Finley.
After some discussion, it was decided that this matter should be continued to the next regular
meeting so that Mr. Lindgren and Mr. Finley have an opportunity to attempt to resolve the points
of concern raised on behalf of Longview Fiber Company.
MOTION by Commissioner Johns, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8:19 PM.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Dunham, to table Rezoning
ZOA #05-03 until the August 3�d Planning Commission meeting.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED,
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 20, 2005 Page 5 of 6
MINUTES:
2. Receive the minutes of the June 22, 2005 Appeals Commission meting
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to accept the minutes as
presented.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
3. Receive the minutes of the June 2, 2005 Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to accept the minutes as
presented.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
4. Receive the minutes of the May 17, Environmental Quality & Energy
Commission meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Johns, seconded by Commissioner Dunham, to accept the minutes
as presented.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
5. Receive the minutes of the June 6, 2005 Parks & Recreation Commission
meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Johns, seconded by Commissioner Dunham, to accept the minutes
as presented.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Dunham, to adjourn
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted by,
CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 20, 2005 Page 6 of 6
Rebecca Brazys
Recording Secretary
�
�
CffY OF
FRIQLEY
Date
To:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005
August 4, 2005
William Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Variance Extension Request, VAR #03-17, Jim Kiewel
M-05-80
INTRODUCTION
Jim Kiewel, property owner of 1631 Rice Creek Road was granted a variance on August
14, 2003, to increase the maximum size of a first accessory structure from 1,000 square
feet to 1,390 square feet to allow the construction of a 22 ft. by 37 ft. addition to his
existing garage. As with all variances granted, the petitioner has one year from the date
of approval to initiate construction.
On June 14, 2004, staff received a letter from Mr. Kiewel requesting a 1-year extension
as he has had a number of projects come up this year that has left him with insufficient
time to complete his garage addition.
On July 25, 2005, staff received another letter from Mr. Kiewel requesting an additional
one-year extension. According to his letter, he is on the verge of submitting his building
plans to the City.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends approval of the 1-year extension ensuring that the garage
addition is complete by August 14, 2006.
� AGENDA ITEM
� COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
CLAIMS
122624 - 122807
�
�
C,fTY OF
FRIDLEY
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005
LICENSES
IVEIN L/CENSES '
Type of License By Approved by:
FOOD, TOBACCO, RETAIL GAS SALES
East River Road Spur Youssef Rmayti Public Safety Director
6485 East River Rd. Community Development Director
Fridley, MN 55432 Fire Inspector
TEMPORARY 3.2% MALT LIQUOR
Fridley & Columbia Heights Craig Malm
Rotary Club
5805 Arthur Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
MASSEUR / MASSEUSE CERTIFICATE
Colleen Roskowiak
10633 Sumter Av.
Brooklyn Park, MN
(Northwest Athletic Club)
TREE REMOVAL
All Tree Service &
Landscaping
PO Box 21121
Minneapolis, MN 55421
Mohamed Helal
Public Safety Director
Public Safety Director
Public Works Superintendent
Legacy Tree Care John Wilson Public Works Superintendent
21315 Valleyview Terrace
Maple Grove, MN 55311
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
�T�" °F AUGUST 8, 2005
FRIDLEY
Contractor T e A licant A roved B
Advance Home Products Residential Mark Silverstein State of MN
Alliant Mechanical Heating Jeffrey Zimmerman Ron Julkowski
Arrow Signs Sign Erector Tricia Ringler Ron Julkowski
Ashton Construction Inc Residential Rick Ashton State of MN
Bredahl Plumbing Inc Plumbing Larry Bredahl State of MN
Brooklyn Aire Heating & Cooling Heating Michael Glynn Ron Julkowski, CBO
Brooklyn Aire Heating & Cooling Gas Services Michael Glynn Ron Julkowski, CBO
Brothers Electric Electrical Michael Letson State of MN
Budget Exteriors Inc Residential Kenneth Thompson State of MN
Century Plumbing Inc Plumbing James Blasena State of MN
Fairwa Exteriors Residential Todd Fisher State of MN
Gabes On Time Plumbin Plumbin Gabe Herrman State of MN
Glynn's North East Electric Electrical State of MN
Global Health Ministries Commercial Lynn Butler Ron Julkowski, CBO
Gopher Company The Residential Jeff Kieper State of MN
Hastings Richard Co Residential Richard Hastings State of MN
J Becher & Assoc., Inc Electrical Bob Walle State of MN
JGF Remodeling Residential Jamie Farness State of MN
Joel Smith Heating & AC Inc Heating Candi Smith Ron Julkowski, CBO
Joel Smith Heatin & AC Inc Gas Services Candi Smith Ron Julkowski, CBO
JTR Roofin Residential Jeffre T Rechtiene State of MN
Kevin Johnson Brick & Stone Mason Kevin Johnson Ron Julkowski, CBO
Metro Sheet Metal Inc Heating Tom Couch Ron Julkowski, CBO
Mortenson Eric Construction Residential Eric Mortenson State of MN
Nash Electric Electrical Peter Nash State of MN
Northwest Electrical S stems Inc Electrical Mark Ha emann State of MN
Nygard Plumbing Plumbing Nils Nygard State of MN
Pride Heating & Air Cond Inc Heating James McFarland Ron Julkowski, CBO
Pride Heating & Air Cond Inc Gas Services James McFarland Ron Julkowski, CBO
Ray of Light Electric Electrical Adam Workman State of MN
Task Masters Hand man Services Residential Scott Widstrom State of MN
Temo Sunrooms of Minnesota Residential John Michael Griep State of MN
Twin Cities Remodeling Inc Residential Dawn Childs State of MN
Zahorski Construction Residential James Zahorski State of MN
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005
� °F ESTI MATES
FRIDLEY
Palda & Sons, Inc.
1462 Dayton Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
2005 Neighborhood Street Improvement
ProjectNo. ST. 2005 — 1
Estimate No. 3 ....................................................................................... $507,085.53
Pearson Brothers, Inc.
240 St. Johns Street
Loretto, MN 55357
2005 Street Improvement (Sealcoat)
ProjectNo. ST. 2005 - 10
Estimate No. 1 ......................................................................................... $105,571.52
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager
FROM: Frederic W. Knaak, City Attorney
DATE: August 5, 2005
RE: Hearing on Franchise Transfer
At the July 11, 2005, City Council meeting, a public hearing was set for August 8, 2005, on
the question of the transfer of the City's current cable television system and franchise from
the current cable-provider, Time Warner, to Comcast.
Both the City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and Minnesota state law require
the City to give advance, written approval for the sale and transfer of this franchise. Under
state and federal law, as well as the City's franchise ordinance, the City may review the
qualifications of the prospective controlling party. These qualifications fall into three
categories: legal, technical and financial.
The City received from Time Warner FCC Form 394, which provides information regarding
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC's legal, technical and financial qualifications. The
City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance requires that the City reply in writing
within thirty (30) days of Time Warner's request, indicating its approval or its determination
that a public hearing is necessary. The City has determined that since the transfer could have
an adverse effect on cable television subscribers within the City, a public hearing would
provide the City Council with necessary input from its citizens as well as the interested parties
to assure that high quality cable services will be provided to subscribers in the City of Fridley,
notwithstanding the transfer of ownership.
Other Time Warner franchising cities have been reviewing this information with the City's
outside legal counsel, Moss and Barnett, to review those qualifications and to provide
recommendations how best to process the requested transfer. The City staff has engaged in its
own general review of the materials.
One question that will need to be addressed before Council will be the legal status of the
current franchise in light of its technical expiration during the period of negotiations and
formal renewal efforts.
After allowing for any and all interested parties to comment at the public hearing regarding
the proposed transfer, the City will then have 30 days within which to take action on a
resolution either approving or denying the transfer request.
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
T�:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager
Jon Fi. Fiaukaas, Public Works Director
August 4, 2005
Public Fiearing for Project ST. 2005 - 3: 73-1/2 Avenue Extension
PW05-045
The City Council, at its July 25, 2005 meeting, called for a public hearing on a proposal to
reconstruct and extend 73-1/2 Avenue as a result of the Van Auken plat and development.
The notices were published in the newspaper as required. Fiowever, the letters to the individual
property owners to be assessed did not get sent out in the time frame required by the Chapter
429 Assessment process.
Recommend the City Council open the public hearing and then continue it until the August 22,
2005 meeting. Staff will send a letter to the affected properties explaining what happened and
that they will still be allowed a chance to comment on this proposed project at the continued
public hearing on August 22, 2005.
Jtiti:cz
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
Date
To
From
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 8, 2005
August 5, 2005
William Burns, City Manager
Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Subject: Public Hearing to Create TIF District #18 (Gateway West) M-05-78
At the City Council's June 13t" meeting, a resolution was passed that set August
8tn as the date for the Council to hold the public hearing necessary for the
creation of TIF District #18. TIF District #18 is being created to fund the
redevelopment activities for the Gateway West project in the Hyde Park
neighborhood. The creation of this district will allow for the construction of 14-16
new single family homes in the Hyde Park neighborhood, along 3rd Street.
Staff has been working diligently with legal counsel to ensure all of the proper
steps towards the creation of TIF District #18 have been taken. A notice of intent
to create the district has been provided to Commissioner Kordiak, a draft TIF
Plan was provided to Anoka County and ISD #14, and Monday night's hearing
has been advertised in the Fridley Focus.
The HRA, on August 4t", adopted a resolution that modified the redevelopment
plan for redevelopment project #1 and the TIF Plans for Districts #1-3, 6, 7, and
9-17 to reflect increased project costs and increased bonding authority within
redevelopment project #1. The resolution also gives authorization for the
creation of TIF District #18 and adopts the TIF Plan for District #18.
Staff recommends that Council hold the public hearing for the creation of TIF
District #18, which is necessary to proceed with the Gateway West project.
H:\My Documents\Paperless Agenda\2005 Council Dates\8-8-05\TIFHEARINGDist#18Memo.doc
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 8, 2005
August 5, 2005
William Burns, City Manager
Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Resolution to Create TIF District #18 (Gateway West) M-05-79
In addition to holding a public hearing on the creation of TIF District #18, the
Council is required to adopt a resolution authorizing the creation of the District.
Adopting the resolution will allow staff to move forward with demolition of the
blighted properties that have recently been subject to a number of break-ins and
vandalism.
The removal of the blighted properties and addition of 14-16 new single-family
homes will be a welcome addition to the Hyde Park neighborhood. The
additional investment is likely to spur private reinvestment in the neighborhood.
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution allowing for the
creation of TIF District #18.
H:\My Documents\Paperless Agenda\2005 Council Dates\8-8-05\ResolutionMemoDist#18Memo.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1-3, 6-7, AND 9-17 TO
REFLECT INCREASED PROJECT COSTS AND INCREASED
BONDING AUTHORITY WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1, CREATING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 18 AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority")
that the Council approve and adopt the proposed modifications to its Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1(the "Project Area") reflecting increased project costs and
increased bonding authority, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended and supplemented from time to time.
1.02. It has been further proposed by the Authority that the Council approve and adopt the
proposed modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans (the "Existing TIF Plans") for
Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-3, 6-7, and 9-17 (the "Existing TIF Districts")
reflecting increased project costs and increased bonding authority within the Project Area,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 through 469.1791, inclusive, as amended
and supplemented from time to time.
1.03. It has been further proposed by the Authority that the Council approve the creation of
proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 18 (the "Proposed TIF District") and adopt a
proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Proposed TIF Plan") relating thereto, pursuant
to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.174 to 469.1791, inclusive, as
amended and supplemented from time to time.
1.04. The Authority has caused to be prepared, and this Council has investigated the facts
with respect thereto, a modified Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area and modified
Existing TIF Plans for the Existing TIF Districts reflecting increased project costs and
increased bonding authority within the Project Area and a Proposed TIF Plan for the
Proposed TIF District, defining more preciselythe propertyto be included, the public costs
to be incurred, and other matters relating thereto.
1.05. The Council has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
approval and adoption of the modifications to the Redevelopment Plan and Existing TIF
Plans and the approval and adoption of the Proposed TIF Plan.
Page 2 - Resolution No.
1.06. The Council hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interests of the
City and the Authority at this time to approve and adopt the modifications to the
Redevelopment Plan and Existing TIF Plans reflecting increased project costs and
increased bonding authority within the Project Area, to create the Proposed TIF District and
to approve and adopt the Proposed TIF Plan relating thereto.
Section 2. Findinqs.
2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the assistance to be
provided through the adoption and implementation of the modified Redevelopment Plan,
modified Existing TIF Plans and Proposed TIF Plan (collectively, the "Plans") are necessary
to assure the development and redevelopment of the Project Area.
2.02. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the Plans conform to the
general plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole in that they are
consistent with the City's comprehensive plan.
2.03. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the Plans afford maximum
opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development
and redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise and it is contemplated that the
development and redevelopment thereof will be carried out pursuant to redevelopment
contracts with private developers.
2.04. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification, approval
and adoption of the Plans is intended and, in the judgement of this Council, its effect will be
to promote the purposes and objectives specified in this Section 2 and otherwise promote
certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans.
2.05. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the Proposed TIF District
constitutes a"tax increment financing district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 9, and further constitutes a type of "redevelopment district" as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10.
2.06. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the proposed development
or redevelopment in the Proposed TIF District, in the opinion of this Council, would not
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and,
therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
2.07. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in the Plans and Exhibit A of this Resolution.
Page 3 - Resolution No.
Section 3. Approvals and Adoptions.
3.01. The modifications to the Redevelopment Plan reflecting increased project costs and
increased bonding authoritywithin the ProjectArea are herebyapproved and adopted bythe
Council of the City.
3.02. The modifications to the Existing TIF Plans reflecting increased project costs and
increased bonding authority within the Project Area are hereby approved and adopted bythe
Council of the City. �
3.03. The creation of the Proposed TIF District within the Project Area and the adoption of
the Proposed TIF Plan relating thereto are hereby approved and adopted by the Council of
the City.
Section 4. Filing of Plans.
4.01. Upon approval and adoption of the Plans, the Council shall cause said Plans to be
filed with the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor. The
Council shall also cause said Plans to be provided to Anoka County along with a request
for certification of the original tax capacity of the Proposed TIF District and of the original
local tax rate applicable to the Proposed TIF District.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY THIS DAY OF
. 2005.
ATTEST:
DEBRA SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
SCOTT LUND - MAYOR
CERTIFICATION
I, Debra Skogen, the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council on the day of , 2005.
DEBRA SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
Page 4 - Resolution No.
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings forthe Proposed TIF Plan forthe Proposed
TIF District as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3,
are as follows:
1. Finding that the assistance to be provided through the adoption and
implementation of the Plans is necessary to assure the development and
redevelopment of the Project Area.
The tax increment assistance that will result due to the implementation of the Plans is
necessary for the proposed project to proceed. Please refer to Exhibit XIX-D of the
Proposed TIF Plan.
2. Finding that the Proposed TIF Plan conforms to the general plan for the
development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Authority and Council have reviewed the Proposed TIF Plan and determined
that it conforms to the comprehensive plan of the City.
3. Finding that the Plans afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development and redevelopment of the Project
Area by private enterprise, and it is contemplated that the development or
redevelopment thereof will be carried out pursuant to development contracts with
private developers.
Please refer to Exhibit XIX-D of the Proposed TIF Plan for specific information relating
to the Proposed TIF District.
4. Finding that the approval and adoption of the Plans is intended and, in the
judgment of this Council, its effect will be to promote the public purposes and
accomplish the objectives specified in the modified Redevelopment Plan and
Proposed TIF Plan.
The tax increment that will be generated due to the approval and adoption of the
modified Redevelopment Plan and Proposed TIF Plan and the approval and creation of the
Proposed TIF District will assist in financing the public improvements and eligible expenses
as detailed in the modified Redevelopment Plan and Proposed TIF Plan.
5. Finding that the Proposed TIF District is a"redevelopment district" as defined
in Minnesota Statutes.
The Proposed TIF District consists of two separate, but adjacent sites referred to as the
Page 5 - Resolution No.
North Site and the South Site. The North Site consists of seven parcels totaling
approximately 56,712 square feet. It has been determined that five of the seven parcels
totaling approximately 41,232 are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel
parking lots or similar structures. This 72.7% area coverage exceeds the 70% coverage test
required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(1). Additionally, all five of
the existing buildings have been determined to be "structurally substandard" because they
contain defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities
and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and
condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient
total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. This 100% satisfies the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(1) which requires that
over 50% of buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found "structurally substandard." It
has further been determined that these conditions are reasonably distributed throughout the
North Site.
The South Site consists of eight parcels totaling approximately 78,992 square feet. It has
been determined that five of the eight parcels totaling approximately 53,447 are occupied by
buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or similar structures. This 78.99%
area coverage exceeds the 70% coverage test required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(1). Additionally, all three of the existing buildings have been
determined to be "structurally substandard" because they contain defects in structural
elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to
justify substantial renovation or clearance. This 100% satisfies the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(1) which requires that over 50% of
buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found "structurally substandard." It has further
been determined that these conditions are reasonably distributed throughout the South Site.
These findings and conclusions that the North Site and South Site independently qualify
under the statutory criteria and formulas for a redevelopment tax increment financing district
are further described in a Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment dated January 6, 2005 and
a Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment Supplemental Report dated July 12, 2005, both
prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (collectively; the "SEH Report").
6. Finding that the proposed development within the Proposed TIF District, in the
opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is
deemed necessary.
Redevelopment activities proposed to occur in the Proposed TIF District include the
construction of approximately 16 owner-occupied, residential housing units in 2005 and
Page 6 - Resolution No.
2006. Upon completion of this redevelopment, the City's tax base will increase by
approximately $2,624,500.
City staff has reviewed the estimated redevelopment costs including land and building
acquisition, relocation of existing property owners and tenants, demolition of existing
structures, site preparation and installation of public improvements as well as the available
methods of financing. The estimated redevelopment costs are approximately $2.1 million
and the market value of the land for the proposed project is approximately $800,000. It has
been determined that this difference of approximately $1.3 million requires tax increment
assistance as well as assistance from any available grants.
7. Finding that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the
increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after
subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum
duration of the district permitted by the Proposed TIF Plan.
The original market value of the Proposed TIF District is $1,295,500. City staff has
determined that without tax increment assistance it may be possible for three single family
homes to be constructed, one on the North Site and finro on the South Site. It is estimated
that the market value of each home would be $225,000 for a total of $675,000 for the three
additional single family homes. This increase added to the original market value would
provide an estimated market value for the Proposed TIF District of $ 1,970,500.
After deducting the original market value of $1,295,500 from this estimated market value of
$1,970,500, City staff has determined that the increased market value that could reasonably
be expected to occurfrom a project receiving no tax increment assistance would approximate
$675,000.
City staff has further determined that with tax increment assistance the redevelopment
activities described in Item 6 above could be achieved with an estimated market value of
approximately $3,920,000. After deducting the original market value of $1,295,500 from this
estimated market value of $3,920,000, City staff has further determined that the increased
market value that could reasonably be expected to occur from a project receiving tax
increment assistance would approximate $2,624,500.
City staff has also determined that the total amount of tax increment generated from
the project using tax increment assistance over the 25 year term of the Proposed TIF District
approximates $1,919,781. Assuming the same 25 year term and a present value rate of
5.0%, which for financial analysis is assumed to be the bond rate, the present value of
$1,919,781 approximates $800,389. After deducting the present value of the tax increment
($800,389) from the increase in estimated market value occurring as a result of utilizing tax
Page 7 - Resolution No.
increment assistance $2,624,500), the net increase in estimated market values approximates
$1,824,111.
City staff has further determined that the increased market value of the site that could
reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing ($675,000) is
less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan ($2,624,500 -$800,389 =
$1,824,111). Further information supporting this Finding is attached as Exhibit 1.
8. Finding that the expenditure of tax increment serves a primarily public purpose.
The expenditure of tax increment is not intended as a private benefit, and any such
benefit is incidental. The principal intent for the tax increment expenditures includes the
removal of impediments to the development described in the Redevelopment Plan and
Proposed TIF Plan. These activities include the (i) elimination of blight as described in Item 1
of this Exhibit and further described in the SEH Report on file at the City; (ii) demolition and
removal of existing structures; (iii) relocation of existing tenants; and (iv) replacement of
substandard or insufficient infrastructure. Among the public benefits are (i) the elimination of
blight; (ii) the development of new housing units for the City; (iii) the utilization of existing
infrastructure including sanitary sewer, water, and roads; (iv) the utilization of existing capital
improvements including schools, parks, the community center;; and (v) the approximate 3
times increase in the Proposed TIF District's tax base.
Page 8 - Resolution No.
�
�
SCHEDULE 1 TO EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
REDEVELOPMENT WITHOUT TIF ASSISTANCE
It is possible that without TIF assistance, three single family homes could be
constructed on vacant property located within the Proposed TIF District..
Estimated Market Value
Original Market Value
Increased Market Value
REDEVELOPMENT WITH TIF ASSISTANCE
$1,970,500
$1,295,500
$ 675,000
It is anticipated that with TI F assistance, redevelopment activities within the Proposed
TIF District would include the construction of approximately 16 owner-occupied,
residential housing units in 2005 and 2006.
Estimated Market Value
Original Market Value
Increased Market Value
Less the present value of the tax
increment generated at 5.0% for
the term of the Proposed TIF District
(See attached Exhibit 1)
Net Increased Market Value
G:\WPDATA\F\FRIDLEY\61\TIF\COUNCIL RESOLUTION.DOC
$3,920,000
$1,295,500
$2,624,500
'� :11 :•
$1,824,111
Date
��6i�?1 i��4
' 12/01 /04
' 06/01 /05
' 12/01 /05
06/01 /06
12/01 /06
1 06/01 /07
12/01 /07
2 06/01 /08
12/01 /OS
3 06/01 /09
12/01 /09
4 06/01 /10
12/01 /10
5 06/01 /11
12/01 /11
6 06/01/12
12/01 /12
7 06/01 /13
12/01 /13
8 06/01 /14
12/01 /14
9 06/01 /15
12/01 /15
10 06/01 /16
12/01 /16
11 06/01/17
12/01/17
12 06/01 /18
12/01 /18
13 06/01 /19
12/01 /19
14 06/01 /20
12/01 /20
15 06/01 /21
12/01 /21
16 06/01 /22
12/01 /22
17 06/01 /23
12/01 /23
18 06/01l24
12/01 /24
19 06/01 /25
12/01 /25
20 06/01 /26
12/01 /26
21 06/01 /27
12/01 /27
22 06/01 /28
1 01/28
23 06/01 /29
12/01 /29
24 06/01 /30
12/01 /30
25 06/01 /31
12/01 /31
26 06/01 /32
12/01 /32
(b)
riginal
Tax
,�� ;.._
..., � E$HIBIT.._1....
.................................................
Gateway West (TIF #18)
CASH FLOW AND PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
ANNUAL-------------> <-------------- ------------ - SEMI - ANNUAL - -- ----------------- ---------------->'•:
(�) (d) (e) (f) (9) (h) (�) G)
Estimated Captured Est. T.I. Less: Available Cumulative <------ Present Value ------> :
Tax Tax (d) x Admin Tax Avail. Tax Semi Annual Cumulative :
Capacity Capacity 0.96386 Fees Increment Increment Balance Balance
nptions) (c) -(b) St. Aud. Fe (e) x (e) -(f) Total of (g) P.V. of (g) Total of (i) ;.
7.5°/a Inflation (prev. year) 0.000% 0.00% 5.00% 12/01/05
12, 955 12, 955 0 0 0 0 0 0:
12,955 12,955 0 0 0 0 0 0:
12,955 12,955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s
12,955 12,955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�
12,955 1�; %��0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:
12,955 14,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s
12,955 39;2GC 1,745 841 0 841 841 781 781 's
12, 955
12,955
12, 955
12, 955
12, 955
12, 955
12, 955
12,955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12, 955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12,955
12,955
12,955
12,955
12, 955
12, 955
12,955
39,200 1,745 841 0 841 1,682 762 1,543 ;
3�.2��0 26,245 12,648 0 12,648 14,330 11,179 12,722:
39,200 26,245 12,648 0 12,648 26,978 10,907 23,629 ;
39,200 26,245 12,648 0 12,648 39,627 10,641 34,269 >
39, 200 26, 245 12, 648 0 12, 648 52, 275 10, 381 44, 650 ;.
42,140 26, 245 12, 648 0 12, 648 64, 923 10,128 54, 778 :
42,140 26, 245 12, 648 0 12, 648 77, 571 9, 881 64, 659 :
45,301 29,185 14,065 0 14,065 91,637 10,720 75,378 ;
45,301 29,185 14,065 0 14,065 105,702 10,458 85,837 ;
48,698 32,346 15,588 0 15,588 121,290 11,308 97,145 r
48, 698 32, 346 15, 588 0 15, 588 136, 878 11, 032 108,177 :
52, 350 35, 743 17, 226 0 17, 226 154,104 11, 894 120, 071 :
52,350 35,743 17,226 0 17,226 171,330 11,604 131,674:
56, 277 39, 395 18, 986 0 18, 986 190, 315 12, 477 144,152 :
56,277 39,395 18,986 0 18,986 209,301 12,173 156,325:
60,497 43,322 20,878 0 20,878 230,179 13,060 169,384 ;
60, 497 43, 322 20, 878 0 20, 878 251, 057 12, 741 182,126 ;
65,035 47,542 22,912 0 22,912 273,969 13,642 195,767:
65,035 47,542 22,912 0 22,912 296,881 13,309 209,076:'
69, 912 52, 080 25, 099 0 25, 099 321, 980 14, 223 223, 299 ;
69,912 52,080 25,099 0 25,099 347,079 13,876 237,176 ;
75,156 56,957 27,449 0 27,449 374,528 14,806 251,982':
75,156 56,957 27,449 0 27,449 401,978 14,445 266,427:
80,792 62,201 29,976 0 29,976 431,954 15,390 281,817 s
80,792 62,201 29,976 0 29,976 461,931 15,015 296,831 `.
86, 852 67, 837 32, 693 0 32, 693 494, 624 15, 976 312, 807 :
86,852 67,837 32,693 0 32,693 527,316 15,586 328,393 ;
93,366 73,897 35,613 0 35,613 562,930 16,564 344,957 ;
93,366 73,897 35,613 0 35,613 598,543 16,160 361,117:
100,368 80,411 38,752 0 38,752 637,295 17,156 378,273:
100,368 80,411 38,752 0 38,752 676,047 16,737 395,011 :
107, 896 87, 413 42,127 0 42,127 718,174 17, 751 412, 762 s
107,896 87,413 42,127 0 42,127 760,302 17,318 430,080:
115,988 94,941 45,755 0 45,755 806,056 18,351 448,431 :
115,988 94,941 45,755 0 45,755 851,811 17,903 466,334 ;
124,687 103,033 49,655 0 49,655 901,466 18,955 485,289:.
124,687 103,033 49,655 0 49,655 951,121 18,493 503,782 ;
134,039 111,732 53,847 0 53,847 1,004,968 19,565 523,347 ;
134, 039 111, 732 53, 847 0 53, 847 1, 058, 815 19, 088 542, 435 :
144, 092 121, 084 58, 354 0 58, 354 1,117,168 20,181 562, 616 :.
144,092 121,084 58,354 0 58,354 1,175,522 19,689 582,305 ;
154, 898 131,137 63,199 0 63,199 1, 238, 721 20, 803 603,108 :
154, 898 131,137 63,199 0 63,199 1, 301, 920 20, 296 623, 404 :
166, 516 141, 943 68, 407 0 68, 407 1, 370, 326 21, 433 644, 837 :
166,516 141,943 68,407 0 68,407 1,438,733 20,910 665,747 ;
179,004 153,561 74,006 0 74,006 1,512,739 22,070 687,817:
179,004 153,561 74,006 0 74,006 1,586,744 21,531 709,348 �
192,430 166,049 80,024 0 80,024 1,666,768 22,715 732,062:
192,430 166,049 80,024 0 80,024 1,746,793 22,161 754,223 ;
206, 862 179, 475 86, 494 0 86, 494 1, 833, 287 23, 368 777, 591 ':
206,862 179,475 86,494 0 86,494 1,919,781 22,798 800,389:
1 919 781 0 1 919 781 1 919 781 800 389 800 389 t.
Gateway West 04-TIF PLAN.xIs Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 8/1/2005
�
� AGENDA ITEM
��F CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005
FRIDLEY
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS