The URL can be used to link to this page

05/08/2006 - 6099-� - � � f CffY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers Attendance Sheet � ALFASF AR/NT NAMF, AflflRFSS AN'D /TFM NUMBFR YaU ARF /Ni�R�ST�'D /M. Print' Nam�e (C1earlyj Address ' �'t+�� l'v� , „ � ji �' � . 1`�� i I, � 291 n(.a� (l�,r� .� .� �---�� , Q G✓� � �� 4� � ' �.. � 3 � � ✓ � , ,�� w�✓ G��,E l E � �� FRIDL�Y�CI�1( COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 �� - 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 senrices, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, re{igion, nationa{ 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. (TTDl572-3534) �� i�� ,- �� 32 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATIONS: Peace Officers Memorial Day: May 15, 2006 Poppy Days: May 19 - 20, 2006 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 3. Preliminary Plat Extension, PS #05-08, by Blue Print Homes, to Replat to Create 16 New Single Family Lots for the Gateway West Redevelopment Project Generally Located at 271 and 281 — 57�' Place 5740 University Avenue and 5917 through 5955 3`� Street (1Nard 3) ............................. 7 Public Works Week: May 21 — 27, 2006 PRESENTATtON: }�.jB, �4„ Approve 2006 SCORE Grant Agreement for David Piggott fro . noka County Partners 1,�2�� Recycling Progra ............................ 8-14 �� - A-� / � � APPR VAL OF ROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: Ft- � z u �(01 > > > > > P t a,e,e � APP VAL OF MtNUTES: �� ,. t'-� � �� '5� Receive Bids and Award the 2006 Street Improvement Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 24, 2006 Project No. ST. 2 06 —1 ................... 15 - 17 City Council Meeting of April 24, 2006 `,� �(��i��ft�' � OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4, Absentee Ballot Precinct Elections, of the Fridley City Code ..................... 1- 3 Ord 1�3I NEW BUSINESS: �� Rr. Resolution of the City of Fridley Terminating ICMA as the Administrator of the City of Fridley Deferred Compensation Plan and Authorizing the City of Fridley, Through its City Manager, to Enter into Necessary Agreements to Hire Wells Fargo, N.A., to Administer the Plan.................................. 4 - 6 �cJ-�°�- �/ ��- ��,f� 1 � IL10' $�- Award Construction Survey Contract for the 2006 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Project................................. 18 - 20 �� A�� l �� - �9�, Approve Contract Amendment with SEH, Inc, for Contract Administration and Inspection Services on t 2005 Street Reconstruction Project • ......... �� .............. 21 �� l ��1. l�i F' �,�, Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project .. ..........:................... 22 - 23 �� l �-�-1 � �� FRiDLEY CITY COUNCiL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PA�E 2�" APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI: 14. Approve Roadway Major Maintenance Financing Poli y .. ........ 57 - 60 9. Claims 24 ��-� �-�" � �� ................................... � �-� � �/A� fk- � ,�� 10. Licenses 11. Estimates ............................. 25 - 27 ................................... 28 ADOPTION OF AGENDA. OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of Items not on Agenda —15 Minutes _ ,�•. s 1 p ..� C��` -g�/�`�-/a�a- PUBLIC HEARING: 12. Consideratio� of a Text Amendment, TA #06-01, by the Ciry of Fridley, to Amend the Sign Code, Chapter 214 .............. 29 - 51 @`'d � �t;�-� �/�� NEW BUSINESS: 13. Variance Request, VAR #06-04, by Michael McPhillips, to Reduce the Side Yard Setback on a Corner Lot from 17.5 Feet to 6 Feet to AIlow a Garage Addition, Generally Located at 291 S Ivan Lane N.E. (VVard 3) ........ 52 - 56 �;� �%�/� � �� P� 15� Informal Status Reports ..................... 61 ADJOURN. �� ' � � ,/�� iGGc�/ ��` (r��j—eR-' � s. �.� ��/��- � �'"� �� C�tL,C.o�Ce.�. � `�'� @� . � � v " /I _ �y�,�i� l'4 �" �" i �v "-- � � j — � �}-� �d---f�'C� � �..� � � --- � � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 CffY OF FRIDLEI' 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. PROCLAMATIONS: Peace Officers Memorial Day: May 15, 2006 Poppy Days: May 19 - 20, 2006 Public Works Week: May 21 — 27, 2006 PRESENTATION: David Piggott from Anoka County Partners APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 24, 2006 City Council Meeting of April 24, 2006 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4, Absentee Ballot Precinct Elections, of the Fridley City Code ..................................................................................... 1- 3 NEW BUSINESS: 2. Resolution of the City of Fridley Terminating ICMA as the Administrator of the City of Fridley Deferred Compensation Plan and Authorizing the City of Fridley, Through its City Manager, to Enter into Necessary Agreements to Hire Wells Fargo, N.A., to Administer the Plan ......................................................... 4- 6 3. Preliminary Plat Extension, PS #05-08, by Blue Print Homes, to Replat to Create 16 New Single Family Lots for the Gateway West Redevelopment Project Generally Located at 271 and 281 — 57t" Place, 5740 University Avenue and 5917 through 5955 3rdStreet (Ward 3) ............................................................................................. 7 4. Approve 2006 SCORE Grant Agreement for RecyclingProgram ............................................................................................ 8 - 14 5. Receive Bids and Award the 2006 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2006 — 1 ................................................................................... 15 - 17 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 6. Award Construction Survey Contract for the 2006 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Project .................................................... 18 - 20 7. Approve Contract Amendment with SEH, Inc. for Contract Administration and Inspection Services on the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project ........................................................ 21 8. Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project ................................................... 22 - 23 9. Claims ....................................................................................................... 24 10. Licenses ....................................................................................................... 25 - 27 11. Estimates ....................................................................................................... 28 ADOPTION OF AGENDA. OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of Items not on Agenda — 15 Minutes FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 4 PUBLIC HEARING: 12. Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA #06-01, by the City of Fridley, to Amend the Sign Code, Chapter 214 .............................................................................. 29 - 51 NEW BUSINESS: 13. Variance Request, VAR #06-04, by Michael McPhillips, to Reduce the Side Yard Setback on a Corner Lot from 17.5 Feet to 6 Feet to Allow a Garage Addition, Generally Located at 291 Sylvan Lane N. E. (Ward 3) ........................................................................ 52 - 56 14. Approve Roadway Major Maintenance Financing Policy....................................................................................................... 57 - 60 15. Informal Status Reports ..................................................................................... 61 ADJOURN. I� �� PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY May is, �006 WHEREAS, this proclamation is issued to commemorate and acknowledge the dedication and sacrifzce made by the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers; and WHEREAS, the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced as a direct result of the vigilance and dedication of law enforcement personnel; and WHEREAS, nationally more than 700, 000 men and women, more than 9, 000 Minnesota peace officers, and 39 Fridley police officers, at great risk to their personal safety, serve their fellow citizens as guardians ofpeace; and WHEREAS, Minnesota has lost 232 law enforcement officers in the line of duty since 1874; and WHEREAS, two Minnesota offzcers, Wadena Police Offzcer Peter Resch and Lino Lakes Police Officer Shawn Silvera, died in the line of duty in the past twelve months; and WHEREAS, 1 SS peace officers across the Nation were killed in the line of duty during 2005; and WHEREAS, every year; 1 out of every 9 peace officers is assaulted, 1 out of every 25 peace officers is injured, and 1 out of every 4, 400 peace officers is killed in the line of duty; and WHEREAS, on average, over 56, 000 offzcers are assaulted, resulting in over 16, 000 injuries nationally; and WHEREAS, on May IS, 2006, Fridley police officers will join all U.S. peace offzcers and the families of their recently fallen comrades to honor those officers and all others who went before them. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of the City of Fridley, hereby proclaim May 1 S, 2006, as: PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY in the City of Fridley, and call upon the citizens of Fridley to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and respect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Fridley to be affixed this 8"' day ofMay, 2006. Scott J. Lund, Mayor � � � �� i ( �� i POPPY DAYS May �q - �o, �006 WHEREAS, the annual sale of poppies has been officially recognized and endorsed by governmental leaders; and WHEREAS, the poppies are assembled by hospitalized veterans; and WHERAS, the proceeds from the sale of the poppies are used exclusively to assist and support veterans and their families; and WHEREAS, the poppy has become a nationally known and recognized symbol and is worn to honor the men and women who served and died for their country in all wars; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of the City of Fridley, do hereby proclaim May 19 - 20, 2006, as POPPY DAYS in the City of Fridley, and urge the residents of Fridley to recognize the merits of this cause by contributing generously to its support by purchasing poppies on the day set aside for the distribution of these symbols of appreciation. I urge all citizens to wear a T�eterans' Poppy as mute evidence of our gratitude to the men and women of this country who risked their lives in defense of the freedoms we continue to enjoy as American citizens. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Fridley to be affixed this 8`h day of May, 2006. Scott J. Lund Mayor � � � \' � �� PUBLIC WORKS WEEK May �� - �7, �006 , , WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integr�al part of the every day lives of our citizens; and, WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the e�cient operation of public works systems and progr�ams such as water; sewers, streets and highways, public buildings, and snow removal; and WHEREAS, the health, safety and comfort of this community gr�eatly depends on these facilities and services; and, WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design, maintenance, and construction are vitally dependent upon the efforts and skills of Public Works personnel; and WHEREAS, the e�ciency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public works departments is materially infZuenced by the people 's attitude and understanding of the importance of the work they perform. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of the City of Fridley, hereby proclaim May 21 through 27, 2006, as: PUBLIC WORKS WEEK in the City of Fridley, and call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the problems involved in providing public works services, and to recognize the contributions the City's Public Works Department personnel make every day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Fridley to be affixed this 8`h day ofMay, 2006. Scott J. Lund Mayor BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION CITY OF FRIDLEY APRIL 24, 2006 The Board of Appeal and Equalization for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:08 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember Barnette Councilmember Billings Councilmember Wolfe Councilmember Bolkcom William Burns, City Manager Mary Smith, City Assessor Lynn Krachmer, City Appraiser Fritz Knaak, City Attorney MOTION by Councilmember Billings to continue the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Lynn Krachmer, City Appraiser, introduced Mary Smith, City Assessor, and Mary Boyle from Anoka County. He said this is a continuation of the local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting held on April 10, 2006. The purpose of this meeting is to present information to support and/or establish a 2006 estimated market value for three properties whose owners appeared at the first meeting. As the Board, the City Council has the ability to change values or classifications in accordance with State law. The Board has three possible courses of action that can be taken on each case. They can affirm, reduce or increase the current value based on the information presented. If upon reaching a decision the property owner feels that the Board did not resolve their concerns, they may bring their case to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization which is on June 19. The three properties to be reviewed are as follows: (1) 7701 Main Street NE (industrial property); (2) 148 River Edge Way (single-family residential); and (3) 1567 Ferndale Avenue (single-family residential). BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 2 Mary Smith, City Assessor, gave a presentation on the first property, 7701 Main Street NE. She stated this property is a 19,200 square foot industrial property that is currently being leased. The 2006 estimated market value is $892,400 or $46.48 per square foot. It sold on January 3, 2006, for $735,000 which equates to $38.28 per square foot. The land size of this property is 61,518 square feet. This property sits on the corner of Main Street and 77th Avenue. In verifying the sale in March, she was told by the buyer that the appraisal came in at more and that the seller and buyer agreed on $40.00 a square foot minus the deferred maintenance that needed to be taken care of. She explained to the owner at the time that since values had already been set she would like to see the appraisal and income and expense information and would be able to make an adjustment to the value. To date, staff has not received the requested information. Staff did put together a sales comparison using properties that have sold in this area of the city. After adjustments were made to make them comparable to the subject property, the value was determined at $966,000, or $50.29 a square foot. Also using the average rent per square foot that Mr. Stock told her in March and applying the income approach, the value was determined to be $979,800 or $51.00 a square foot. It is staff's recommendation at this time to affirm the 2006 estimated market value of $892,400 or $46.48 a square foot. This would give the property owner the opportunity to take his grievance to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. Warren Stock, owner, approached and stated the $40.00 a square foot was what Mr. Harris was asking for the property, not what was agreed upon. The price they had agreed again was the $735,000. Mr. Harris was present if there was an issue on the value of the property. The real concern is this is a 40-year old building, and the maintenance cost on a 40-year old building is substantially more than a new building, which makes its value as far as income vs. maintenance costs considerably less. The other part is a$700,000 investment on his income level and for what he will spend on maintenance will not equal any of the numbers Ms. Smith came up with. Mayor Lund stated based on Ms. Smith's presentation, it looked like the value was $51 per square foot. Mr. Stock stated he has not done those calculations. His calculated that after taxes, insurance, interest on the loan, and the maintenance costs, there is around $2201eft for major improvements on the building. Mayor Lund stated staff inentioned that to date, Mr. Stock had not yet supplied them with any additional information. He asked what additional information was needed. Ms. Smith stated in March, she asked Mr. Stock for the appraisal and income and expense information on the property. She also called Mr. Stock on April 11, after the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting and told him what she needed to get this resolved. Mayor Lund stated if Mr. Stock would like to refute staff's valuation, they need some information from him. He asked Mr. Stock if he was renting this with a net lease. Mr. Stock said taxes are included in the square foot price. Mayor Lund asked if he was doing a net lease. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 3 Mr. Stock stated, no. They have leases, and water and sewer are included. Richard Harris (previous owner of subj ect property), 6200 Riverview Terrace, stated the property has been for sale for four years. He had a little trouble selling it. They had it priced at $40 a square foot. They had several people try to put a deal together. They could not do it at $40 a square foot. Finally, Mr. Stock put it together and the way he did it was by putting a lot of cash into the deal. The sale price was $735,000. He talked to several banking institutions on the other loans. He has been in the business for many years. He has built buildings and still runs the business. The building is worth $735,000, and that is what they got for it. He talked to several banking institutions and they would not go a nickel more than $500,000, which is around 80 percent of the value. That does not even come close to $735,000. That is why they were having trouble with it. They had four different people look at it but could not do it because the banking institutions did not feel the building was worth $40 a foot. As far as the rents go, it does not compute. It does not work out to be $51 a square foot. Mayor Lund asked Ms. Smith how she came up with the calculations of $50.29. Ms. Smith stated when she talked to Mr. Stock in March, she asked him what kind of rents he was getting on the place and he said on average it was $6.25. Mr. Harris stated that includes sewer, water, maintenance, grass cutting, and taxes. If you take all the taxes and everything else out, it is down around $4.80. It also includes the building insurance. So $6.25 per square foot is the total rent they pay. They do not pay anything extra for grass cutting or taxes. Councilmember Billings asked Ms. Smith if the numbers she arrived at were based on a telephone conversation in March. Ms. Smith replied for the income approach, yes. Councilmember Billings asked if she requested information from Mr. Stock after the last meeting. Ms. Smith said she did. Councilmember Billings asked if he had provided the information since the last meeting. Ms. Smith said he did not. Councilmember Billings stated to Mr. Stock the problem here is they have the Assessor coming up with one value. When he was at the meeting they asked him to provide information so they could take a look at it. Mr. Stock did not come through for them to be able to look at. He suggested to Mr. Stock that he provide the County with information so they can do an analysis of their own. He does know that on the County Board of Appeal and Equalization there have always been four or five real estate sales people and real estate appraisers and they go out and analyze the property themselves. He can either bring it with him to the County Board of BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 4 Equalization meeting or, if he can get the information to Ms. Smith ahead of time so she can present it to the County, they can actually do an analysis and, if the County staff agrees with his numbers, he may be able to get it taken care of at the first meeting. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to affirm the estimated market value of $892,400 for 7701 Main Street N.E. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Krachmer stated the next property is 148 River Edge Way. The 2006 estimated market value was established at $337,500. It consists of a 1,008 square foot rambler with a full walkout basement. This property was last viewed by staff on April 13, 2006. It is in fair condition with deferred maintenance being observed. The property has a lot size of 76 x 454 on the Mississippi River. The following properties have been chosen as comparables to the subject property, are riverfront sales, and have been adjusted for differences: (1) 169 Hartman Circle, sold for $376,000 in October 2004. This property is a rambler on full basement, consisting of 1,530 square feet. This property was last seen by staff in June 2005; (2) 173 Hartman Circle, sold for $405,000 in May 2005. This property is a rambler on full basement, consisting of 1,486 square feet. This property was last seen by staff in June 2005; and (3) 165 Hartman Circle, sold for $375,000 in June 2005. This property is a rambler on full basement, consisting of 1,395 square feet. Staff was unable to view this property during the last reassessment. The average value after adjustments were made to the comparables is $337,500. It is the recommendation of staff that after review of similar properties and applying the sales comparison approach to value, that the 2006 estimated market value for PIN 15-30-24-43-0057, 148 River Edge Way, remain the same at the established value of $337,500. Tim Hoglund, owner, approached and stated he bought this house in 2002 for $230,000 because it is close to his mother's house. He could afford the taxes on that. Mr. Krachmer had stopped out at his house twice and was open to very little compromise, and he thought he should state his case. He showed a photograph of the house and stated it does not have a lot of curb appeal. He said the neighborhood, although nice, is not comparable to the Hartman Circle neighborhood. He compared the properties, pointing out one of them was 500 square feet larger than his. The smallest property of the three is still close to 400 square feet larger than his property. If you went to his neighborhood you would see that three of six houses along the river there, three of them have single-car garages. They are just not comparable to Hartman Circle. He compared the property at 301 Rice Creek Terrace. It had a big backyard, it has a two-car garage, and four bedrooms. That is all he knows about it, but it was below $250,000 as he recalled. He bought a home last year in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood. For some reason they adjusted it to $310,000 this year so it went down $25,000. In the meantime, his house on River Edge Way that was worth $266,000 is now worth $337,000. That is $66,000 plus and the burden of proof is all on him. He is supposed to go out and get appraisals and lose $350. He thinks it is very difficult for ordinary citizens to defend themselves against professionals. He thinks the value is at about $300,000. He would ask for $310,000. That is still $50,000 higher than last year. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 5 Mr. Krachmer stated he called Mr. Hoglund the morning after the Board meeting. Mr. Hoglund came in and they made an appointment for him to go out the next day and look at the house again. He said he made a$35,000 adjustment. The comparables are in average condition, no updating, and all original kitchens. Dr. Burns stated he believed he heard Mr. Hoglund say his basement ceiling heights are only 6 feet. Mr. Krachmer replied as you go down the stairs, it probably juts out but he did not have to duck his head or anything. Mr. Hoglund stated it is 5 or 6 feet. Mayor Lund asked about the other comparables such as having a two-car garage. Mr. Hoglund stated they all have two-car garages. His is a large single. Mr. Krachmer stated his is a deep single. Mayor Lund said he would agree with the analysis of the exterior pictures that the other homes on Hartman do seem to have more curb appeal and fresher landscaping. Mr. Krachmer stated their backyards go for about 20 feet and then go down. Mr. Hoglund's goes for 300 yards. The land value is the same on all of them. If you are on the river, all the land is the same no matter how deep. They have not gotten down to the specifics. They are still working out those differences. Mayor Lund stated on the comparables Mr. Krachmer showed the conditions a minus $35,000, probably because they have not had updating. Mr. Krachmer replied the $35,000 would be the house in his estimate to average, not good, but at least to the average where the other sales were. Mayor Lund stated so he did have the subj ect property as average whereas the other comparables are average good. Mr. Krachmer replied that is because they are bigger. The size has all been adjusted for. The $35,000 would be a house in pretty good shape actually. Mayor Lund stated his thought, too, is that okay the averages of these others, Mr. Krachmer is already devaluing his about $40,000. Mr. Hoglund replied $40,000 does not buy much building now. Mayor Lund stated but a lot of updating. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 6 Mr. Hoglund stated he believed when people drive up to his house they are not going to see a house worth $337,000. He knows this house had a history of hard sale. It was on the market for a while, but his mom was right there and he wanted to move back to Fridley. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Krachmer if he had a lesser amount on this because it is an average condition house and the other comparables were average good. Is that where he sees that $40,000 differentiation? Mr. Krachmer stated he took 5 percent. Mayor Lund stated that brings up $35,000 on all the comparables. He saw that all of the comparables are considerably larger properties as well. Mr. Krachmer stated they are also adjusted for size. Councilmember Billings stated the $35,000 is a reduction that Mr. Krachmer is placing on comparables 1, 2, and 3 to bring them down to the level of the subj ect property. Mr. Krachmer stated that was for condition only. Councilmember Billings stated, in other words, because the subject property is in a less than good condition, he has reduced, in order to come up with a comparison, he is saying it would take $35,000 to bring the subject property up to an average to good condition so he is subtracting that from the three comparables. The second adjustment above the totals, the size dollars, they have subtracted $29,000 from the one, $27,000 from the one, $22,000 for the other. That is to adjust for the square footage. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to affirm the estimated market value of $337,500 for 148 River Edge Way N.E. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Krachmer presented the third case regarding 1567 Ferndale Avenue N.E. The 2006 estimated market value was established at $190,300. This property consists of a 960 square foot split foyer with a lower level approximately 90 percent finished. It was last viewed by staff in Apri12005. It is in fair condition with deferred maintenance being observed. This property has a lot size of 72 x 133. Ferndale Avenue is 1.5 blocks north of Gardena. This property was sold in January, 2005, for $168,000. After review of the property at that time staff reduced the value, due to deferred maintenance beyond the normal wear and tear on a home. This reduction is still currently on the property. The following properties have been chosen as comparable to the subject property and have been adjusted for differences: (1) 1413 Meadowmoor Drive sold for $200,000 in November 2004. This property is a split foyer consisting of 768 square feet with the lower level finishing of 385 square feet. Staff was unable to view this property during the last reassessment. (2) 5775 Washington Street sold for $219,900 in September 2005. This property is a split foyer consisting of 1,157 square feet with the lower level finishing of 560 square feet. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 7 Staff last viewed this property in 2002. (3) 6627 Anoka Street sold for $217,000 in January 2005. This property is a split foyer consisting of 1,004 square feet with lower level finishing of 732 square feet. Staff last viewed this property in 2001. The average value determined after adjustments were made to the comparables is $192,600. It is the recommendation of staff that, after reviewing the sales of similar properties and finding sales comparisons approach to value, that the 2006 estimated market value for PIN 24-30-24-11-0085, 1567 Ferndale Avenue N.E., remain at the same established value of $190,300. Mark Sims, owner, stated he asked that they look at the documentation he provided them on the April 10. Councilmember Billings stated on Mr. Sims' comparable, as an example on 5775 Washington Street, he comes up with $61,500 worth of adjustments. Mr. Sims replied those are based on what a fee appraiser suggested. Councilmember Billings stated staff has given them a comparison to the same property, and they come up with $30,000 worth of adjustments. Mr. Sims stated his second question would be he would like to see what they have before them, the adjustments that were made and the values that were made to different things. Mayor Lund stated his is in condition of fair where the comparables were average. Mr. Sims stated he just wanted the information for what he assumes would be the next step. He is not able to analyze this at the moment. He wanted to state that they purchased this house on December 30, 2004, for $168,000. That was 98 point something of the listed asking price. At that time the estimated market value was $188,600. Four months after their purchase, the assessment went up to $196,500. When he questioned that they lowered it to $178,000 which he agreed to. He assumed though that the taxable market value would be decreased an equal percentage and it was not. They adjusted it downward to $178,000. He agreed so he did not have to come here and see them last year. This year they have assessed at an estimated market value of $190,000 plus. He has made no improvements to the property. It is still in the same condition. As he told them last time, they spent a period of ownership so far to date cleaning up the property which was he considers poor condition. They hauled away over 30 square yards of debris that was left on the property. All the interior doors have holes in them. There was no floor covering on the two bedrooms that they have. It is in poor condition and what they were able to do to the property was negated by the storm. On April 10, he asked them to lower the market value to $168,000. He would like to do that again today. Mayor Lund clarified they had readjusted it to $178,500 for last year and this year he would like itto go down another $10,000. Mr. Sims replied, yes, because he believed it went up an inappropriate amount last year. Mayor Lund stated very few properties ever devalue but just about all properties go up in value. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 8 Mr. Krachmer stated he found about nine sales and he took the three very lowest of all the sales and did his adjustments to the very lowest. He considers those in average condition. He has not seen them. They could be in lower condition, but he still did a healthy adjustment he thought would bring this home up to an average condition. Mr. Sims asked what adjustment he would consider fair. Mr. Krachmer replied, $35,000 is more than adequate. Mr. Sims stated all of the properties all look average; the interior of his property is not average or fair. It is poor. They are working to clean it up and intend to improve it. He thinks they should lower the value because it has been artificially raised too much. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to affirm the estimated market value of $190,300 for 1567 Ferndale Avenue N.E. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor CITY OF COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY APRIL 24, 2006 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 8:14 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Billings MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Bolkcom Councilmember Wolfe OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 10, 2006 City Council Meeting of April 10, 2006 APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4, Absentee Ballot Precinct Elections of the Fridley City Code. William Burns, City Manager, stated this legislation seeks to bring the language in the Fridley City Code on absentee ballots into conformity with legislation passed last year by the State legislature. Rather than relying on precinct officials to count absentee ballots, the new language assigns this to a committee that is comprised of representatives from the various jurisdictions in the County. These judges/city staff inembers will function as an absentee ballot board. Their role will be to examine absentee ballots for procedural correctness and forward them to the correct precincts for counting. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 2 2. Appointment — City Employees. William Burns, City Manager, stated staff recommends the appointment of Sandy Stanger to the position of Building Permit Technician. Sandy is currently serving at the front counter as an Accounting and Data Processing Clerk Staff also recommends the appointment of Jeannie Benson to the position of Administrative Assistant in the Engineering Division of Public Works. This is a new position created by the consolidation of two positions recently vacated by retirees Char Zimmerman, Secretary to the Public Works Director, and Bob Nordahl, Operations Analyst. APPROVED APPOINTMENTS. 3. Claims (126241 - 126420). APPROVED. 4. Licenses. William Burns, City Manager, stated the licenses include 90-day extensions of current licenses for Sam's Auto Parts, Central Auto Parts, A-Abco Auto Parts, Auto Body Shop, and Fridley Amstar Autocare. The first three are junkyard licenses, and in each case, the business owner has not complied with terms of their special permit or has not obtained a special use permit for their operation. The fourth license is a motor vehicle body repair license for an owner, Auto Body Shop, who does not have a required SUP for outside storage. The last company, Fridley Amstar Autocare, requires food, tobacco, and gasoline sales licenses. Their licenses are being held up because of their installation of a wall sign without a permit. Staff recommends Council's approval of the licenses with the understanding the above licenses are 90-day extensions of existing licenses and not 1-year licenses beginning on May 1, 2006. APPROVED. ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 3 OPEN FORM (VISITORS): No items were presented. PUBLIC HEARING: 5. Consideration of the On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Subordinate Licenses for R.D. Properties, Inc., dba Sharx Sports Bar and Nightclub, Located at 3720 East River Road N.E. (Continued April 10, 2006) (Ward 3) Councilmember Billings stated at the original hearing, the owner from Sha� indicated they would be closing and would not be applying for renewal of their liquor license. He asked if they had closed their business. William Burns, City Manager, replied that is correct. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to continue the public hearing on the consideration of the on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Sha� Sports Bar and Nightclub. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:18 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: 6. First Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 105 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Landscape Maintenance. Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated this is a first reading of an ordinance related to Text Amendment, TA #OS-08. This is one they started last year and evolves from repealing the existing Chapter 105 which is entitled, "Weeds" and creating a new Chapter 105 that they are proposing be entitled, "Landscape Maintenance." One of the reasons to change the Code at this time is that over the years, Planning staff has had to deal with property owners who want to do native landscaping and they have always had an internal policy they have followed as to how to manage that even though it is not specifically addressed in the weed ordinance that exists. As with any policy they abide by and follow internally, the City Attorney has always recommended that they put that policy in the City Code when possible. We need to demonstrate that the City has looked at all of the codes pertaining to storm water runoff and protecting the water resources in the community. This is something the City committed to do in the Springbrook Watershed FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 4 project. As far as the process they have gone through to come up with this language, there has been an information and education subcommittee involved with the Springbrook Watershed Project for a number of years. The members met a number of times over a number of years to assess this and other educational aspects of that project. The committee is made up of people from the four different cities involved in the project and from private businesses. Two representatives are Fridley staf£ The Fridley planning and engineering staff drafted code language and brought it before the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission for review and then onto the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Jones stated the primary change repeals the entire existing Chapter 105 and then creates definitions. They are maintaining, not proposing to change, the lawn or grass height limitation in the City Code to 10 inches. They have added a definition of natural landscaping and how those areas can be constructed and maintained and allowed for an exemption for certain areas that would not require edging on natural areas like road ditches. One of the new proposals leaves and grass clippings would not be allowed to be placed any closer than 25 feet within a waterway or bluff line. They have changed the language a bit from when Council last saw this at a public hearing in December so that it aligns with language that is existing in Chapter 113, Solid Waste and Recycling. They have also added some language requiring that granular fertilizer and other lawn chemicals be required to be swept from paved surfaces. This is a requirement that is actually in State Statutes but similar to a requirement they recently dealt with in a text amendment to the public nuisance code. If they get complaints on this, they would like to be able to deal with it on a local level. Ms. Jones stated they are also proposing that any new gutters installed on residential property be directed onto landscaped areas. They have changed this from the language of the previous draft. It was not clear in the original public hearing that they intended this to be addressed towards residential properties only because commercial industrial properties will be addressed as far as new construction in the new Chapter 208, Soil Erosion and Storm Water Maintenance. They also wanted to make it clear they would allow rain barrels stored in rear yards. Ms. Jones stated the most controversial proposed change is language that would require landscape buffers on shoreline property throughout the City. This would also include not mowing or fertilizing any closer than 20 feet to a waterway edge. They did add some language since the public hearing to make it clear that in public parkland they would allow for vistas, private property would be allowed to have a walkway to a dock or an access or some width and this needed to be 10-feet wide, allowing property owners access to the shoreline on their property. They have expanded that to be 25-feet wide on parkland properties. Staff is recommending that that they keep this addition to the text amendment, but phase it in over time or have it take effect at a later time, such as five years from now, or on June 1, 2011. This would give staff time to educate the public. It would also give residents an opportunity to seek out grant opportunities or cost share opportunities that might be available. Staff felt it was important to keep the clause because the City has spent about $1 million over the past ten years, $271,000 of which was spent on the Springbrook stream bank restoration project alone. Ms. Jones stated the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission reviewed the proposed language in June, 2004. There was no formal motion by the Commission on the language but FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 5 there was general agreement on the core language proposed. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 2, 2005, on this item and unanimously recommended that the text amendment language be forwarded onto the City Council for approval. The City Council held a public hearing on this text amendment on December 12. The City Council indicated that they wanted additional time to discuss portions of the amendment further. Unfortunately, the Springbrook Watershed Project is set to conclude here at the end of May. They need to prepare the final report and this is something they need to include. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends conducting a first reading of this text amendment ordinance. The second reading would be scheduled for the May 8 City Council meeting. Councilmember Billings stated he thinks staff has done a reasonable job of bringing this into a little bit better shape than it was in before. Unfortunately, he did not think it was in any shape that is get a majority vote of the City Council, based on the past discussions. Councilmembers Wolfe and Bolkcom are not here tonight, but he would venture to say that at least one of them, if not both, would be opposed to the ordinance in its current form. He knows that he is. He asked if it would be best to table this indefinitely or to move it for approval. Attorney Knaak replied the appropriate action would be an affirmative vote of the ordinance and absent that it would fail. Councilmember Barnette asked about the item that says no person shall mow vegetation or apply fertilizer within 20 feet. To him that is almost an unenforceable situation. A number of years ago they did a nice restoration of the banks along Rice Creek From what he can see, almost all of the homes mow down to that rocky area. It is part of their landscaping; part of the beauty of their yard. It is going to be hard to tell these people come back 10 feet or 20 feet, do not fertilize and let the vegetation grow. It takes away from the aesthetics of the creek itself. He feels Councilmember Bolkcom would feel the same way about Locke Park. He knows they always run into problems with code enforcement when you cannot see something from the right- of-way. He would guess that most of these homes that are on the waterway, you cannot see the backyard. So how do you get in there and say you are in violation of this ordinance unless a neighbor complains. Ms. Jones stated there are a lot of areas in the City where they could see that situation from a public right-of-way. The river would be a difficult one, but they could go to the other side. Councilmember Barnette stated he thinks if they have an ordinance that cannot be overly enforced, it should not be there. It makes it too tough on code enforcement. Mayor Lund stated in the form that it is in, he also suspected it would be turned down. It does not help their situation with the requirements of the Springbrook Watershed Proj ect. He thinks that some of this is acceptable. He also has a problem with Item E. He understands the benefits of having this buffer, but it is contradictory to him because it has to be free of noxious weeds, but if you cannot mow the yard within 20 feet of any waterway, it is going to turn to weeds. People take pride in their yards. He does not see the benefits. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 6 Mayor Lund asked if the gutters section was for newly-installed gutters. He asked if they require a permit for people to install gutters on their home. If not, he asked how they would enforce it. He also asked if people would only be allowed to use the 20-foot wide path at Moore Lake. The beach is a lot longer than 20 feet. He said he thought something should be done with this ordinance other than just saying no. He asked staff about the timing. Ms. Jones replied they have the final report for the proj ect drafted. They do have two other pieces of the project that need to be finished in addition to this. They need to have the final report printed before the proj ect end date because they need to use the grant money to pay for the printing of the report. So they need to wrap up within the next few weeks and desire to have the second reading of this ordinance at the May 8 Council meeting. They committed to review the City's codes to see where they could be improved. There are pieces of this text amendment that that could still be helpful. All of the requirements do not have to be approved to meet the requirements of the grant. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated he understands that "buffer" is not a popular thing. To answer the Mayor's questions about weeds, you would plant the area with preferable root systems that would eventually then outlive and outgrow the other undesirables. You would selectively take out the weeds that you do not want along the shore, and ultimately you would end up with a nice buffer. If they do not like the buffer or fertilizer sections, they throw those out, but do not throw out the entire ordinance. Give staff the opportunity to address some of these things like sweeping waste into the street and down the catch basins and defining areas of the weed section of the Code that make it enforceable for them. Mayor Lund stated he is looking at voting in the affirmative with the understanding that staff is going to come back at the second reading with some changes yet again or he is going to turn it down. Staff does have some elements worthwhile in there. He asked about the reference to the exception for putting leaves out. Ms. Jones replied in Section 105.05(1)(b) is the sentence that they are talking about. They added in "except as permitted in Chapter 113." Councilmember Barnette stated he assumed this is a requirement that has to be met by all cities in the State. Ms. Jones replied, no, this all relates to the Springbrook Watershed Project with Fridley serving as the lead city of the four coming up with the text language and then they are sharing that with the other three cities. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace N.E., stated the river is a major waterway and if they are going to tweak the ordinance, he suggested that they take out the storage of leaves and grass clippings on the bluff line. He can understand it down next to the river, but on the bluff lines, some of them are about 300 feet and that is ridiculous. The trees down there are going to drop a lot more leaves than anyone is ever going to be able to pile up there. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 7 Ms. Jones replied this clause is very important to code enforcement. This addition and recommendation stems from code enforcement problems that staff has had for a number of years on the Mississippi River. There are a lot of people on the river who intentionally rake their yard waste over the bluff line, and that is why this language is in here the way it is. It had originally stated 25 feet back from the waterway but they realized they had some issues with bluff lines on the river and some areas on Rice Creek and added the language. This specifically refers to persons depositing these, not about the leaves that naturally fall off the trees. There is no language in the City Code to address that and make it a violation. Mr. Harris asked why it was a problem. Ms. Jones said studies have been done at the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin about the sources of phosphorus in waterways and most studies determine that leaves are the number one source of phosphorus going into our waterways. When we did the Springbrook Watershed Project and the analysis of the water quality coming into Springbrook Nature Center in 1998 and 1999, it was determined that phosphorus was the number one chemical concern. That is why they have focused on that in that proj ect. Councilmember Barnette said he did not know how they are ever going to get people to comply with that section of the ordinance. William Burns, City Manager, stated they briefly discussed this in a conference session last week, and he also discussed this on the telephone with Councilmember Bolkcom. He believed the understanding was that because of the general lack of support for particularly the buffer section of this ordinance, they would bring this up tonight and vote it down with the understanding that, in doing so, they were accommodating Ms. Jones in her effort to conclude the water quality grant. It was his understanding that they did not have much time to conclude that grant so it was preferable to at least vote it down with the understanding they would come back with fresh legislation at a later point in time. They could bring it back in a conference session and discuss it informally. Councilmember Barnette stated he thinks it is an ideal subj ect for a conference meeting. Mayor Lund asked if they vote this down tonight would it satisfy staff's need for the Springbrook grant proj ect process. He thinks there are worthy elements, but he does not want to rush into this just to meet some deadline. Ms. Jones said preferably she needs some finished language to forward onto other cities to share. She asked if they wanted to discuss this at a conference meeting before the second reading or if they wanted to start all over. Mayor Lund said they would like to start all over. Mr. Hickok stated there has been a lot of staff and commission involvement with this. He said there are things in it Council does not like but there are things that make sense and he is not hearing a lot of argument about. He would urge Council them not to throw those out. He would FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 8 urge them at least between the first and second reading, to think about what makes sense in the ordinance before they make a decision. Councilmember Billings stated what he thinks is going to happen if it comes back on second reading is they are going to be at a City Council meeting, having other things on the agenda, dragging out a meeting, while they write an ordinance. He does not think that is fair to the audience or to anyone else. He is not going to sit and write an ordinance at their next meeting if he does not like what staff brings back So, he is going to vote in opposition to it. As a matter of fact it was his understanding that they told staff they did not want to see this again. They were told at the Council work session that in order for Ms. Jones to finish her report, she needed to have some sort of closure on this element. So they agreed to allow staff to bring it back so they could get closure to do their report. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE AND COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION DENIED. 7. Special Use Permit Request, SP #06-03, by Greg Asproth, Two Stooges Bar and Grill, to Allow an Electronic Changeable Message Sign to be Located on the Building at 7178 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3). Greg Asproth, current owner of 2 Stooges Bar and Grill, approached and stated he did read and agreed with the stipulations. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve Special Use Permit Request, SP #06-03, by Greg Asproth, Two Stooges Bar and Grill, with the following four stipulations: 1. Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to installing any signage on site. 2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code. 3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular traffic in the area. 4. Signage on east elevation to comply with code requirements for wall signage allotment. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2006 PAGE 9 8. Resolution Authorizing Application for the Tax Base Revitalization Account. Councilmember Billings stated this is an item that came before them in the past and they approved the resolution in the past. He would point out a typographical error in the first line, "WHEREAS the City of Fridley in a participant" should be "is a participant." Jay Lundgren, counsel for JLT Group, approached and introduced himself. Councilmember Billings asked him whether he has made an application to the Metropolitan Council once before. Attorney Lundgren stated the City did in the fall of 2005. They are asking them to do that again for the May 1 deadline. Councilmember Billings asked why they thought they would get it this time. Attorney Lundgren replied there are a number of things they think they can prove in the application. Some of the work has been started and because of that, they think it is reasonable to put an application in for a significantly lower amount--about half of what was applied for before. They also met with the Met Council staff and looked at the site plan and the concept plan that they have at this point. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to adopt Resolution No. 2006-25 with the correction of the typographical error. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Informal Status Reports None given. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor � � CffY OF FRIDLEY To: From Date: Re: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 William W. Burns, City Manager Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk May 2, 2006 Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Absentee Ballot Boards During the 2005 Legislative Session, the Minnesota Legislature established post-election random recount/audits in the state. The main reason for conducting these mandatory recounts/audits is in response to a growing concern about the security of our voting systems. Several organizations have expressed concerns on the reliability and security of our voting systems, including optical scan. To respond to those concerns, the idea is to restore the public faith on the reliability of our voting equipment by requiring the mandatory recount/audit. It is expected that about three precincts per county will be selected at random at the County Board Canvassing meeting after the election in November. Those three precincts will then be recounted/audited at the County. To establish a county-wide process for the accepting and rejecting of absentee ballots, Anoka County Elections is recommending they facilitate a county-wide absentee ballot board made up of election judges or trained city employees. The plan would be that 4 days prior to the election, each city would be responsible for recruiting and identifying individuals to conduct the responsibilities of the board. In reviewing the City Code, staff found that the current language of the City Code identifies an absentee ballot precinct that would review and tally the results of all absentee ballots. That language is not consistent with the intent of what the County is establishing in order to comply with State Statutes and the need to standardize a process for absentee ballots for the mandatory recount/audit of absentee ballots after the election. Staff has amended the language and recommends holding the second reading of the ordinance shown in Attachment 1. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4. ABSENTEE BALLOT PRECINCT ELECTIONS, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Fridley hereby finds, after review, examination and recommendation of staff, that the Fridley City Code be hereby amended as follows: FRIDLEY CITY CODE CHAPTER 4. ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD 4.01. ABSENTEE BALLOT DD�r'T,.Tr"T'c BOARD The Council hereby authorizes the establishment of an absentee ballot �eEi-�re� board within the City of Fridley, which �� is authorized to handle all absentee ballots received �g rp ior to any election, primary or general, within the City, as allowed by Minnesota Statutes 203B.13. 4.02. DUTIES The Absentee Ballot � Board shall: 1. Receive all absentee ballots for a primary or general election held within the municipality at anytime durin� the 30 davs before the election. 2. �;°*r^*;^r �';'°. Mav work in conjunction with the Countv during any state primary or �eneral election to provide election jud�es to the Countv who will facilitate the absentee ballot board to process the City's absentee ballots; 3. . Examine the absentee ballot return envelope and mark it accepted or re_iected in the manner provided in Minnesota Statutes 203B.12, Subd. 2. If an envelope has been reiected at least five davs before the election, the ballots in the envelope must be considered spoiled ballots and the official in char�e of the absentee ballot board shall provide the voter with a replacement absentee ballot and return envelope in place of the spoiled ballot. . Forward all absentee ballots to the correct precinct in the Citv for completion of the absentee ballot process. . Ordinance No. .� • 4.03. MEMBERS Page 2 The Council is authorized to appoint the number of persons, which it deems necessary to carry out the duties of the absentee ballot �� board. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS _ DAY OF 2006. Scott J. Lund, Mayor Attest: Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk First Reading: Apri124, 2006 Second Reading: Publication: � � CffY OF FRIDLEY T0: FROM: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF May 8, 2006 WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR RE: RESOLUTION OF CITY OF FRIDLEY TERMINATING ICMA AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, THORUGH ITS CITY MANAGER, TO ENTER INTO NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO HIRE WELLS FARGO, N.A. TO ADMINISTER THE PLAN DATE: MAY 4, 2006 The attached resolution effectively terminates the long standing relationship that the City of Fridley has had with the ICMA Retirement Corporation in regard to the City's employees and the administration of a 457 Deferred Compensation plan for those employees. This termination is part of the change that was reviewed with the City Council during the Conference Meeting of April 17, 2006. Staff had recommended to the City Council that after interviewing 3 different providers of similar type plans, Wells Fargo N.A. be approved as the new provider of the administration and the Trust related services associated with the continuation of the deferred compensation plan for the City of Fridley. Financial Concepts Incorporated will be working along with Wells Fargo to assist in providing direction for the City in conjunction with its 457 plan. Financial Concepts will also assist the City in regard to the work of the investment committee and also assist the employees in making investment choices within each employee's portfolio of investments. The resolution will provide for the following actions: 1. To terminate the relationship with ICMA Retirement Corporation and to initiate a new relationship with both Wells Fargo and Financial Concepts, Inc. in conjunction with the continuation of the City's 457 deferred compensation plan. 2. To approve the establishment of a new internal investment committee for the purpose of providing oversight of the plan. 3. To provide the City Manager with authority to sign the restated 457 plan documents. Prior to the next Council meeting, staff will be working with Wells Fargo and Financial Concepts to develop a new trust agreement for presentation and approval at the next meeting. Staff is recommending the approval of the attached resolution. RDP/me Attachment(s) RESOLUTION NO. , 2006 RESOLUTION OF CITY OF FRIDLEY TERMINATING ICMA AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANAND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, THROUGH ITS CITY MANAGER, TO ENTER INTO NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO HIRE WELLS FARGO, N.A. TO ADMINISTER THE PLAN Whereas, the City of Fridley (the "City") has, for over thirty years, sponsored and maintained a deferred compensation plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of certain employees of the City; and Whereas, the Plan has been administered by International City Management Association (ICMA) and ICMA has served as the trustee with respect to the Plan; and Whereas, the City has determined that the Plan has not performed at a level adequate and appropriate for the benefit of all of its affected employees; and Whereas, the City has undertaken an active examination of alternative service providers for the purpose of continuing its practice of providing a deferred compensation plan for the benefit of certain employees of the City; and Whereas, the City has determined that it is in its best interest, and in the interest of at least a maj ority of the aforesaid affected employees, to terminate ICMA's services and to replace ICMA with Wells Fargo, N.A.; and Whereas, the replacement of ICMA with Wells Fargo, N.A. will require amendment and restatement of the Plan document and trust agreement; and Whereas, Wells Fargo N.A. will be submitting to the City of Fridley a proposed trust agreement for the purpose of administering the Plan for the City, which will be reviewed by the City's staff and recommended for approval at the next meeting of the City Council; and Whereas, Wells Fargo N.A. is preparing a proposed restated and amended Plan document; and Whereas the City wishes to encourage a more active supervision of the Plan by the creation of an "Internal Investment Committee" that will include representation from the management and affected employees of the City, as well as the City Council; and Whereas, the City wishes to engage the services of Financial Concepts, Inc., as the Registered Investment Advisor and education consultant for the Plan. NOW BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the City of Fridley shall remove ICMA as a trustee with respect to the Plan and will cease to use ICMA services with respect to the Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to take any and all steps necessary to effect the termination of ICMA's services on behalf of the City; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Fridley approves appointing Wells Fargo, N.A. as a trustee with respect to the Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized, on behalf of the City of Fridley, to execute any and all necessary documents to implement an amended and restated Plan, including, but not limited to, the amended and restated Plan document when it is completed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Financial Concepts, Inc., is hereby approved as the City's consultant and financial advisor with respect to the Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City shall establish an "Internal Investment Committee" for the purpose of overseeing the Plan, the membership of which shall be as subsequently established by appointment by the City Manager. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF MAY, 2006. SCOTT J. LUND — MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN — CITY CLERK � � CffY OF FRIDLEY Date: To: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 May 2, 2006 William Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Preliminary Plat Extension Request, PS #05-08, Blue Print Homes M-06-55 INTRODUCTION Blue Print Homes received preliminary plat approval from the City Council on November 21, 2005 to replat portions of Block 2, City View Addition and portions of Blocks 12 and 28, Hyde Park Addition, generally located between 57t" Place and 61 St Avenue and 3rd Street and University Avenue. The purpose of this preliminary plat approval is to create 16 new single family lots for the Gateway West redevelopment project. Since the time of preliminary plat approval, a number of minor title issues have been discovered. Fortunately, the bulk of the title problems are with the "Franks Used Cars" property. A vacancy in the County's Title Examiner office has caused a great deal of delay in allowing the HRA to resolve these title issues. As a result of the delays, the HRA is seeking an extension from the City Council to file their final plat. The HRA expects that the final plat will come back before the City Council in two separate plats. It is anticipated that the title/platting issues can all be resolved quickly and that the first plat will go before the Council in May and the second plat would go before the City Council by the end of July. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends approval of the 6-month extension to November 21, 2006. � � CffY OF FRIDLEY Date: To: From: Subject: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 May 1, 2006 Wlliam Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Rachel Harris, Environmental Planner 2006 SCORE Grant Agreement for Recycling Program BACKGROUND Staff received the 2006 Anoka County Residential Recycling Agreement. This agreement allows Fridley to receive up to $ 63,241.60 in state SCORE funds on a reimbursement basis from Anoka County. The funds are to be used to subsidize the cost of Fridley's 2006 residential recycling expenses. The 2006 SCORE grant allocates a base of $10,000 and $ 4.70 per household for each municipality. This represents a funding increase of $ 2,520.50 from the previous year. In 2005, the SCORE grant allocated a base of $10,000 and $4.45 per household for each municipality. As household numbers in all Anoka County municipalities fluctuate, so does the "per household" amount. Staff has reviewed the 2006 agreement attached and finds no noticeable language changes from previous agreements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached agreement at its May 8, 2006 meeting. Staff further recommends that the City Manager and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract. M 06-35 Anoka County Contract # 2005-0296 AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 13th day of December, 2005, notwithstanding the date of the signatures of the parties, between the COLJNTY OF ANOKA, State of Minnesota, hereinafter refened to as the "COLTNTY", and the CITY OF FRIDLEY, hereinafter referred to as the "MLJNICIPALITY". , WITNESSETH: _ WHEREAS, Anoka County has received $355,100 in funding from the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board and the State of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115A.557 (hereinafter "SCORE funds"); and WHEREAS, Anoka County anticipates receiving an additional $355,100 in SCORE funds in the spring of 2006; and WHEREAS, the County wishes to assist the Municipality in meeting recycling goals established by the Anoka County Board of Commissioners by providing said SCORE funds to cities and townships in the County for solid waste recycling programs. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation between the County and the Municipality to implement ,solid waste recycling prograzns in the Municipality. 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, unless eazlier terminated as provided herein. 3. DEFIN�ITIONS. a. "Problem material" shall have the meaning set forth in Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subdivision 24a. � b. "Multi-unit households" means households within apartment complexes, condominiums, townhomes, mobile homes and senior housing complexes. - c. "Opportunity to recycle" means providing recycling and curbside pickup or collection centers for recyclable materials as required by Minn. Stat. § 115A.552. d. "Recycling" means the process of collecxing and preparing recyclable materials and reusing the materials in their original form or using them in manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction of recyclable materials in a manner that precludes further use. � e. "Recyclable materials" means materials that are separated from mixed municipal solid waste for the purpose of recycling, including paper, glass, plastics, metals, fluorescent lamps, major appliances and vehicle batteries. � f. Refuse derived fuel recyclable material. g. "Yard waste" sha11 subdivision 38. or other material that is destroyed by incineration is not a have the meaning set forth in Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, 4. PROGRAM. The Municipaliry shall develop and implement a residential solid waste recycling program adequate to meet the Municipality's annual recycling goal of 2,370 tons of recyclable materials as established by the County. The Municipality shall ensure that the recyclable materials collected are delivered to processors or end markets for recycling. a. The Municipal recycling program shall include the following components: i. Each household (including multi-unit households) in the Municipality sha11 have the opportuniry to recycle at least four broad types of materials, such as paper, glass, plastic, metal and textiles. ii. The recycling program shall be operated in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. iii. The Municipality shall implement a public information program that contains at least the following components: (1) One promotion is to be mailed to each household focused exclusively on the Municipaliry's recycling program; (2) One promotion advertising recycling opportunities available for residents is to be included in the Municipality's newsletter or local newspaper; and (3) Two community presentations are to be given on recycling. The public information components listed above must promote the focused recyclable material of the year as specified by the County. The County will provide the Municipality with background material on the focused recyclable material of the year. iv. The Municipality, on an ongoing basis, shall identify new residents and provide detailed information on the recycling opportunities available to these new residents. b. If the Municipality's recycling program did not achieve the Municipaliry's recycling goals as established by the County for the prior calendaz year, the Municipality shall prepare and submit to the County by March 31, 2006, a plan acceptable to County that is designed to achieve the recycling goals set forth in this Agreement. 5. REPORTING. The Municipality shall submit the following reports semiannually to the County no later than July 20, 2006 and January 19, 2007: a. An accounting of the amount of waste which has been recycled as a result of the Municipality's activities and the efforts of other community programs, redemption centers and drop-off centers. For recycling programs, the Municipality shall certify the number of tons of each recyclable material wluch has been collected and the number of tons of each recyclable material which has been marketed. For recycling programs run by other persons or entities, the Municipality shall also 2 10 provide documentation on forms provided by the County showing the tons of materials that were recycled by the Municipaliry's residents through these other programs. The Municipality shall keep detailed records documenting the disposition of all recyclable materials callected pursuant to this agreement. The Municipality shall also report the number of cubic yards or tons of yard waste collected for composting or landspreading, together with a description of the methodology used for calculations. Any other material removed from the waste stream by the Municipality, i.e. tires and used oil, shall also be reported separately. b. Information regarding any revenue received from sowces other than the Counry for the Municipality's recycling programs. � c. Copies of all promotional materials that have been prepared by the Municipality - during the term of this Agreement to promote its recycling prograzns. The Municipality agrees to furnish the County with additional reports in form and at frequencies requested by the County for financial evaluation, program management purposes, and reporting to the State of Minnesota.. 6. BILLING AND PAYMENT PROCEDURE. The Municipality shall submit itemized invoices semiannually to the County for abatement activities no later than July 20, 20Q6 and January 19, 2007. Costs not billed by January 19, 2007 wil� not be eligible for funding. The invoices shall be paid in accordance with standard Counry procedures, subject to the approval of the Anoka County Board of Commissioners. 7. ELIGIBILII'Y FOR FLTNDS. The Municipality is entitled to receive reimbursement for eligible expenses, less revenues or other reimbursement received, for eligible activities up to the project maximum as computed below, which shall not exceed $63,241.60. The project maximum for eligible expenses shall be computed as follows: a. A base amount of $10,000.00 for recycling activities only; and b. $4.70 per household for recycling activities only. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the County reserves the right to reduce the funding provided hereunder in the event insufficient SCORE funds are available. If the spring SCORE payment of $355,100 is not received or is reduced, the County may reduce the project maximum amount payable to the Municipality. The County will prompdy notify the Municipality in the event that the project maximum will be reduced. 8. RECORDS. The Municipality shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the County and the State of Minnesota. The Municipality shall maintain strict accountability of all funds and maintain records of all receipts and disbursements. Such records and accounts shall be maintained in a form which will permit the tracing of funds and program income to final expenditure. The Municipality shall maintain records sufiicient to reflect that all funds received under this 3 11 Agreement were expended in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 115A.557, subd. 2, for residentia.l solid waste recycling purposes. The Municipality shall also maintain records of the quantities of materials recycled. All records and accounts shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than five years from the last receipt of payment from the County pursuant to this Agreement. 9. AUDIT. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, the Municipality shall a11ow the County or other persons or agencies authori2ed by the County, and the State of Minnesota, including the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor, access to the records of the Municipality at reasonable hours, including all books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Municipaliry relevant to the subject matter of the Agreement, for purposes of audit. In addition, the County shall have access to the project site(s), if any, at reasonable hours. 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS. a. In performing the provisions of this Agreement, both parties agree to comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or standards established by any agency or special governmental unit which are now or hereafter promulgated insofaz as they relate to performance of the provisions of this Agreement. In addition, the Municipality shall comply with all applicable requirements of the State of Minnesota for the use of SCORE funds provided to the Municipality by the County under this Agreement. b. No person shall illegally, on the grounds of race, creed, color, religion, sex, marital status, public assistance status, sexual preference, handicap, age or national origin, be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to unlawful discrimination under any program, service or activity hereunder. The Municipality agrees to take affirmative action so that applicants and employees aze treated equally with respect to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, layoff, termination, selection for training, rates of pay, and other forms of compensation. c. The Municipality shall be responsible for the perfonmance of all subcontracts and shall ensure that the subcontractors perform fully the terms of the subcontract. The Agreement between the Municipality and a subcontractor shall obligate the subcontractor to comply fully with the terms of this Agreement. d. The Municipality agrees that the Municipality's employees and subcontractor's employees who provide services under this agreement and who fall within any job classi�cation established and published by the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry shall be paid, at a minimum, the prevailing wages rates as certified by said Department. 4 12 e. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral and written agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. f. Any amendments, alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing, duly signed by the parties. g. Contracts let and purchases made under this Agreement shall be ma.de by the Municipality in conformance with all laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the Municipality. h. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any pazagraph, section, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be contrary to law, sueh decision shall not affect the remaining portion of this Agreement. i. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating the relationship of co- partners, joint venturers, or an association between the County and Municipality, nor shall the Municipality, its employees, agents or representatives be considered employees, agents, or representatives of the County for any purpose. 11. PUBLICATION. The Municipality shall acknowledge the financial assistance of the County on all promotional materials, reports and publications relating to the activities funded under this Agreement, by including the following acknowledgement: "Funded by the Anoka County Board of Commissioners and State SCORE funds (Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment). 12. INDEMNIFICATION. The County agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the Municipality harmless from all claims, demands, and causes of action of any kind or character, including the cost of defense thereof, resulting from the acts or omissions of its public officials, o�cers, agents, employees, and contractors relating to activities performed by the County under this Agreement. The Municipality agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the County ha.rmless from all claims, demands, and causes of action of any kind or character, including the cost of ' defense thereof, resulting from the acts or omissions of its public officials, o�cers, agents, employees, and contractors relating to activities performed by the Municipality _ under this Agreement. The provisions of this subdivision shall survive the ternunation or expiration of the term of tlus Agreement. 13. TERNIINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written agreement of the �arties or by either party, with or without cause, by giving not less than seven (7) days written notice, delivered by mail or in person to the other party, specifying the date 5 13 of termination. If this Agreement is ternunated, assets acquired in whole or in part with funds provided under this Agreement shall be the property of the Municipality so long as said assets are used by the Municipality for the purpose of a landfill abatement program approved by the County. IN WITNFSS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands as of the dates first written above: CITY OF FRIDLEY � IVame: Title: Date: : Municipality's Clerk Date: Approved as to form and legatity: 6 14 COUNTY OF ANOKA By: Margazet Langfeld, Chair Aaoka County Board of Commissioners Date: ATTEST: John "Jay" McLinden County Admirustrator Date: Approved as to form and legality: Assistant County Attorney � � CffY OF FRIdLEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8TH, 2006 William W. Burns, City Manager Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director Layne Otteson, Assistant Public Works Director May 3, 2006 Award of ST2006 - 1 Street Project PW06-038 On Friday, April 28, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. bids were opened for the 2006 Street Improvement Project. Fifteen sets of plans and specifications were sent out and five bids were received. The low bid was received from Park Construction, Inc. of Hampton, MN in the amount of $3,120, 893.85. Approximately $330,000 will be available from the City's annual State Aid population allocation for off-system use to offset the street improvement costs. Approximately $556,681.07 will be assessed to property owners, plus an additional estimated amount of $333,790.00 for private driveway construction. $584,517.21 will be charged to our various utility funds for sanitary sewer, and storm water improvement. $40,450 will be reimbursed from Centerpoint Energy for the removal of abandoned gas mains. The remaining $1,275,455.57 will be paid for through the 2006 Street Reconstruction General Obligation bonds. Recommend the City Council receive the bids and award the 2006 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2006 - 1, to Park Construction, Inc. of Hampton, MN, in the amount of $3,120,893.85. LO/JHH:,Ig Attachments BID FOR PROPOSALS 2006 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 2006 - 1 May 3, 2005, 10�00 A.M. ��'� PLANHOLQ!ER BfD BOND Bl'�D ��'�ADDENDUM��'� � Park Construction Co. Western $3,120,893.85 Acknowledge 500 73�d Avenue, NE, Suite 123 1&2 Minneapolis Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. Westerly Surely $3,558,581.89 Acknowledge 14777 Lake Drive 1 &2 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Hardrives, Inc. Federal Ins. 3,624,999.07 Acknowledge 14475 Quiram Drive 1 &2 Rogers, MN 55374 Midwest Asphalt, Inc. Travelers $3,666,327.33 Acknowledge 5929 Baker Road, Suite 420 1&2 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Palda & Sons, Inc. Western Acknowledge 1462 Dayton Avenue $3,934,928.45 1 &2 St. Paul, MN 55104 American Cast Iron Pipe Co. NO BID Acknowledge 21695 Highview Avenue 1 &2 Lakeville, MN 55044 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 2825 Cedar Avenue S. 1&2 Minneapolis, MN 55407 Builders Exchange of St. Paul NO BID Acknowledge 445 Farrington 1 &2 St. Paul, MN 55103 C& C Southern Construction, Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 5020B West 210th Street 1&2 Jordan, MN 55352 C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 7865 Jefferson Hwy 1 &2 Maple Grove, MN 55311 Dresel Contracting, Inc.. NO BID Acknowledge 24044 July Avenue 1 &2 Chisago City, MN 55013 F. W. Dodge Corp. NO BID Acknowledge 4530 West 77th Street Ste 350 1&2 Edina, MN 55435 PLANHOLDER BID BOND BID ADDENDUM Geyer Signal of St. Cloud, Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 4205 Roosevelt Road 1 &2 St. Cioud, MN 56301 Halvorson Concrete, Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 1345 157'" Avenue NE Ste C 18�2 Ham Lake, MN 55304 Knife Lake Concrete NO BID Acknowledge 2026 Rowland Road 18�2 Mora, MN 55051 Minneapolis Builders Exchange NO BID Acknowledge 1123 Glenwood Ave. 18�2 Minneapolis, MN 55405 Minnesota Pipe 8� Equipment NO BID Acknowledge 5145 211"' Street West 18�2 Farmington, MN 55024 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 1451 Stagecoach Road 1 &2 Shakopee, MN 55379 No�th Valley Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 4105 85'" Avenue North 18�2 Building B, Suite 203 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Standard Sidewalk, Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 10769 261 � Street 18�2 Chisago City, MN 55013 Thomas 8 Sons Construction, Inc. NO BID Acknowledge 13925 Northdale Blvd. 1 &2 Rogers, MN 55374 United Rentals-Highway Tech #229 NO BID Acknowledge 4700 Lyndale Avenue North 18�2 Minneapolis, MN 55430 17 / � cRr oF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 William W. Burns, City Manager �� Jon H. Hauk s, Public Works Director May 4, 2006 '� 1. 1C' SUBJECT: Award of Construction Surveying Contract for 2006 Street Reconstruction Project The City awarded the design contract for the 2006 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction project to SEH, Inc. SEH has provided us with excellent service this past year through the design process. We have requested a proposal from SEH for construction survey services associated with the 2006 street project. They are proposing to provide all construction survey services similar to the 2005 project through as-builts for a not-to-exceed fee of $94,396.21. Recommend the City Council award the construction survey contract for the 2006 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Project to SEH, Inc. for a not-to-exceed fee of $94,396.21. JHH : May 4, 2006 RE: Fridley, Minnesota 2006 Neighborhood Street Improvement Project Construction Phase Services City Project No. ST 2006-1 SEH No. A-FRIDL0503.00 10.00 Mr. Jon H. Haukaas, PE Public Works Director and City Engineer City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Jon: Thank you for the opportunity to again provide construction phase services to the City of Fridley (City) for its neighborhood street improvement project. We will provide the services to the City as outlined in the enclosed Task Hour Budget (THB) within the project area for a not-to-exceed fee of $94,396. Our not-to-exceed fee includes reimbursable expenses. We will bill you monthly on an hourly basis for services, expenses, and equipment. This letter agreement and the THB represent the entire understanding between the City of Fridley and the SEH in respect to the project and may only be modified in writing if signed by both parties. If this letter satisfactorily sets forth the City's understanding of this project, please sign and date both letters and return one to me at the address shown on this letterhead. In the meantime, please contact me at 952.9122611 or ppasko(a�sehinc.com with questions or comments. Sincerely, Paul J. Pasko III, PE/Associate Project Manager Enclosure Accepted on this day of , 2006 City of Fridley, Minnesota : Name Title: c: Jason Sprague, SEH (with enclosure) Chad Millner, SEH (without enclosure) A1 Horge, SEH (without enclosure) P:\FJ�F\Fridl\050300\1-Genl\10\5 3 06 construction phase proposal.doc �� Task Hour Budget Fridley, Minnesota Construction Phase Services (1) 2006 Neighborhood Street Improvement Project 5/4/2006 ESTIMATED HOURS ESTIMATED CLIENT pgOJECT PROJECT SURVEY SURVEY CREW SURVEY COST SERVICE yy�NAGER ENGINEER TECHNICAN COORDINATOR CHIEF INSTRUMENT ADMINTECH PROJECT TASKS rvwxwcEx orExwxox 1.0 Construction Staking i.i consnu�c�on sc�k�ng (s) (a) (s) (6) (�) (s) (9� a a za i6 azi azi io 2.0 Construction Administration 2.1 Construction Administration (2) (10) 4 4 16 24 6 CLIENT pgOJECT PROJECT SURVEY SURVEY CREW SURVEY ESTIMATED SERVICE yy�NAGER ENGINEER TECHNICAN COORDINATOR CHIEF INSTRUMENT ADMINTECH MANAGER OPERATOR COST PROJECT COST SUMMARY Subtotal Hours 8 8 16 48 16 421 421 16 954 Subtotal Labor Cost $1,096.16 $1,081.28 $1,430.96 $3,742.32 $1,731.04 $41,502.18 $30,213.07 $1,299.52 $82,096.53 Subtotal Expenses (11) $ 12,299.68 Subtota12006 Neighborhood Street Improvement Project $94,396.21 TOTAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL: $94,396.21 P:\FJ\F\Fridl\050300\i-Genl\10\[Fridley THB Constr Phase 4 25 O6.xls]Hours-Costs NOTES 1 Assumed construction schedule is between and including May15, 2006 to November 3, 2006. Z Task includes receiving as-built redlines from City of Fridley, drafting City as-built redlines and survey redlines into as-built drawing and submitting one (1) set of hard copy as-built drawings on 22 x 34 inch paper and one (1) CD containing PDF's of the as-built planset. 3 Task includes checking the horizontal and vertical control set within the proj ect limits in 2005. ° Task includes staking storm sewer, site grading on baseball fields 5 and 6 in Community Park, site grading and realignment of portions of the trail in Meadowlands Park, and curb and gutter as they appear in the bidding documents dated 4/7/06. 5 Labor and expenses related to re-staking will be billed hourly to the City. 6 Task includes collecting horizontal and vertical as-built storm sewer measurements. ' Task does not include setting out any blue top stakes. $ Task does not include setting out stakes for any work on private property or work on the existing water main and sanitary sewer networks. 9 Task does not include marking the limits of any removals. 'o Task includes answering minor questions via the telephone. " Includes survey equipment, mileage, and auto allowances. Page 1 of 1 � � CffY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 William W. Burns, City Manager Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director May 8, 2006 Contract Amendment with SEH to Close out ST2005-1 PW06-037 The 2005 Street Reconstruction Project had a number of delays late in the summer due to our problems getting final approval on stormwater related issues with the Rice Creek Watershed District. This caused us additional expenses with our contractor for the change to design and build the pond on Jay Park and it also prevented them from putting down the final wear course of asphalt until 2006. The city's consulting engineer, SEH, is providing the construction administration services for the project. These delays also caused them to go over their projected budget. Their presence was required on site late last summer when small items were being worked on and no major progress was made by the contractor. SEH is requesting a contract amendment for services provided during this time and for the period after original scheduled completion date in the amount of $21,883.00. They also estimate that their time needed to finalize the job now extended into 2006 will cost approximately $10,650.00. During our negotiations, SEH also agreed to contribute $1,000.00 toward the repairing of a driveway that no longer drains due to a mistake on the design. have reviewed these requests with SEH in detail and believe it is an accurate representation of their services. I recommend the city council approve a contract amendment with SEH, Inc. for contract administration and inspection services on the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project on the amount of $31, 533. 00. �� CffY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 William W. Burns, City Manager Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director May 8, 2006 Change Order No. 1— Commons WTP Upgrade Project PW06-035 During the process of installing the new valving and monitoring equipment at the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant, it was determined that replacement of the old pressure transmitters and associated wiring was not included on the original bid schedule. These are essential to controlling the filter operations and backwash. There are seven filters with two transmitters each forming a total of 14. We have received a price from your general contractor, Shank Contractor, Inc. to add this to our project in the amount of $30,855.00. We have reviewed the cost with out consulting engineers Bonestroo & Associates and have determined the price is reasonable. We are recommending approval. The second change we have determined as necessary is the replacement of the chemical feed pump and valving for the Fluoride Feed System and the Potassium Permanganate Feed Systems. This system is over 18 years old and near failure. The new system will allow us to pace the chem ical feed based on actual pumping rates for each well rather than using an average rate. This provides us with better and more consistent water quality. The cost associated with this change is $18,753.00. We have reviewed the basis of these costs and agree it is reasonable. We are recommending approval. Recommend the City Council approve Change Order No. 1 to the Commons Park WTP Upgrade project in the amount of $49,608.00 to Shank Contractors, Inc. for final revised contract price of $1,138, 308. 00. JHH CITY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Shank Contractors, Inc. 3501 85th Ave. N Minneapolis MN 55443 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1— Commons Park WTP Upgrade Project Gentlemen: You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Improvements by adding the following work: Addition: Work Item No. Item Additional Fees 1 Replace Pressure Transmitters $ 30,855.00 2 Replace Chemical Feed Pump & Valving for Fluoride & � 18,753.00 Potassium Permanganate Feed Systems 3 $ 4 $ TOTAL $ 49,608.00 Submitted and approved by Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director, on the 8th day of May, 2006. Jon H. Haukaas, P.E. Director of Public Works Approved and accepted this day of , 2006_by Shank Construction, Inc. Approved and accepted this day of , 2006 by CITY OF FRIDLEY Scott J. Lund, Mayor � AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 CffY OF FRIDLEI' CLAIMS 126421 - 126604 � � CffY QF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 LICENSES FOOD ESTABL/SHMENTS Wendy's Daniel Opitz 7601 Hwy 65 N E Fridley, MN 55432 FOOD, TOBACCO & GASOL/NE SALES Fridley Amstar Autocare Susan Nelson 7680 Hwy 65 N E Fridley, MN 55432 Sinclair — Fridley 6071 University Av NE Fridley, MN 55432 Abraham Ahmed TREE REMOVAL SERV/CE Annatone Tree Service Anthony Annatone 7929 Zane Av N Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 �49ER DA YS STREET VEND/NG Matt Milner Sales 1298 52nd Av N E Fridley, MN 55432 The Balloon Bunch 1193 Grand Av. St. Paul, MN 55105 Gerald Johnson Gary Roberto Public Safety Director Fire Inspector Community Development Public Safety Director Fire Inspector Community Development m Public Works Director Public Safety Director Parks Director City Clerk m REFUSE HA ULERS Waste Technology, Inc. David Hayes Public Safety Director 8424 Noble Av N Recycling Coordinator Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 City Clerk LICENSES (CONTINUED) TEMPOR.4RY 3.2% L/QUOR SALES Lion's Club of Fridley Bud Dauphin 7418 West Circle NE Fridley, MN 55432 TREE REMOVAL SERV/CE Berry's Tree & Lawn Service Gayle Berry 6289 Florida Av N Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Public Safety Director Public Works Director Gosiak Tree Service Robert Gosiak " " 9578 110t" St Little Falls, MN 56345 � AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF �" �F MAY 8, 2006 FRIDLEI' Contractor T e A licant A roved B Berwald Roofin Co., Inc. Commercial/S ecialit Eu ene Berwald Ron Julkowski, CBO Black Forest Cond. Assn. Pool Mark Anderson Ron Julkowski, CBO Cente oint Ener Heatin JoAnn Zinken Ron Julkowski, CBO Cente oint Ener Gas Services JoAnn Zinken Ron Julkowski, CBO Dave's Heating & Air Heating Ellen Hale Ron Julkowski, CBO Energy Mechanical Heating John Harvey Ron Julkowski, CBO Knott Mechanical Inc Heatin Deb Knott Ron Julkowski, CBO LBP Mechanical Inc Heatin Timoth Ha es Ron Julkowski, CBO McGough Construction Commerical/Specialty Richard Opitz Ron Julkowski, CBO Rayco Construction Inc. Roofing Ray Ellis Ron Julkowski, CBO St. Paul Plumbing & Heating Heating Tamera Mathews Ron Julkowski, CBO Su erior Construction Services Commercial/S ecial Randall Hedden Ron Julkowski, CBO United Properties LLC CommerciaUSpecialty Bruce Palmer Ron Julkowski, CBO Veit & Company Inc Heating Stacy Meyers Ron Julkowski, CBO � � CffY OF FRIDLEI' AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 ESTI MATES Maertens-Brenny Construction Company 8251 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Locke Park Water Treatment Plant Improvements EstimateNo. 2 ........................................................ Concrete Idea, Inc. 13961 — 44th Lane N.E. St. Michael, MN 55376 ............................ $ 54,756.10 2006 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No. 365 EstimateNo. 2 ....................................................................................... $ 9,788.80 � � CffY OF FRIDLEY Date To: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 May 2, 2006 Wlliam Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Public Hearing for Sign Code Text Amendment, TA #06-01 M-06-54 INTRODUCTION Over the course of the last year, City staff has had discussions with the City Council as well as property owners in the City related to the amount of signage allowed for churches and those properties located along Interstate 694. After much discussion and research, City staff is requesting consideration of several text amendments and additions to the City sign code. The proposed modifications will include the following sections: Definitions, Institutional Signs (Churches and Schools), Political Signs, Temporary Sign requirements, Signage requirements for R-1 and R-2 properties separate from R-3 properties, Signage for Industries and Businesses along Interstate 694, and other general housekeeping. Please see attached staff report to the Planning Commission for complete details on the proposed sign code changes. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the City sign code. These changes will not only provide bene�ts to institutions and business along Interstate 694, but they will help clean up some of the minor imperfections found in the code language. The proposed changes and additions to the sign code language are attached in your packet for your review. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the April 5, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for TA #06-01. The text amendment requests for church signage and Interstate 694 corridor signage were unanimously denied by the Planning Commission. The text amendment related to all the other sign code modifications was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. The reason for denial of both the institutional and I-694 sign text amendments was because the proposed changes allowed too much signage. The consensus from the Planning Commissioners is that the current 32 square foot allotment for churches is sufficient because most churches in Fridley are located in a residential district. Some felt, however that if the sign was un-lit; they would be agreeable to an increase in signage. The Planning Commissioners also agreed that the text amendment for the Interstate 694 corridor allowed too much signage. They didn't think that the amount of signage allowed should be based on the size of a lot, but possibly based on a combination of lot size and the amount of frontage a particular property has along the Interstate. They also felt that our City would be allowing much more signage on the Interstate corridor when compared to neighboring cities. Staff has done some additional research since the Planning Commission meeting and has found little consistency with interstate sign limits in other communities. For example, Brooklyn Park has a highway overlay district, which affects properties along portions of Hwy 610 and 169. This overlay district only allows monument signs with a maximum of 220 sq. ft. in area. Other industrial districts, however, allow free-standing signage up to 320 sq. ft. Therefore, Brooklyn Park is more restrictive when it comes to their highway overlay. Maple Grove has special requirements for properties along a highway, but only allows a free- standing sign up to 50 sq. ft., and New Brighton allows free-way signs to go up to 170 sq. ft. Signs on freeways in Shoreview could potentially go up to 300 sq. ft with a conditional use permit, and freeway signs in Vadnais Heights could go up to 340 sq. ft with the conditional use permit. On the other hand, Arden Hills, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Little Canada, and Plymouth don't have any special signage requirements for properties along highways. As stated above, the research done of other cities found that each city is really different in what they allow or do not allow for properties along Interstates or Highways. Half of the cities surveyed have special requirements for properties along highways, while the other half doesn't. Please see attached for a complete list. Ordinance No. 3. �a�s�g�r�� u u„+ ., � �'iio,a i..,ii,,,,r� „ ,,.i.,-oii.,�� , o,a � ,- .,,a. o,-�;�;r,. n. 36. Temporary Sign. Page 2 Any sign fabricated of paper, plywood, fabric, or other light, impermanent materiaL Includin� but not limited to: A. A si�n with wheels removed. B. A si�n with chassis or su�port constructed without wheels. C. A or T frame si�ns. D. Si�ns temporarily or permanently attached to the �round, a structure, or other si�ns. E. A si�n mounted on a vehicle for advertisin� purposes, parked, and visible from public ri�ht-of-wa.�pt si�ns identifyin� the business when the vehicle is bein� used for normal day to day business operations. F. Menu and sandwich boards. G. Searchli�ht stands. H. Hot air or �as-filled balloons or umbrella's used for advertisin�. I. Banners SECTION 2: That Section 214.05 be hereby amended as follows: 214.05. SIGNS ALLOWED IN ALL DISTRICTS, WITHOUT A SIGN PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED 6. Institutional Signs. Bv Si�n Permit, ��rovided they meet the following requirements: A. Free standin� si�ns. One (1) per development. �. 1. A ma�mum size of thirty-two (32) square feet in area (except as provided in Code Section 214.05.6.C). 2. A maximum size of ei�ht�80) square feet in area is allowed per development provided the followin� criteria can be met: a. Si�ns over thirty-two (32) square feet shall be placed a minimum of fi (50) feet from any nei�hborin� residentially zoned property (not includin� a residential site an institution is located upon). Ordinance No. Page 3 b. Si�n shall be placed so illuminated si�n face is perpendicular to adjacent roadways. c. Si�n shall not create a�lare that will impact adjacent residential properties. 3. A maximum hei�ht of twenty-five (25) feet above the finished �round �rade. 4. A minimum hei�ht of ten (10) feet from the bottom of the si�n to the finished �round �rade when within twenty-five (25) feet of a driveway or a corner vision safet.� 5. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from an�property line or drivewa (�except as defined in Code Section 214.05.3.C.1). B n,,, ,,, ,a;�+.,,,,.o „�+o„ �� m� o+ �,,,,, ., ro�+. i.ro ...-.a.-:. o-� Any electronic messa�e or reader board si�n shall meet all requirements of the special use permit provisions of this Code (Section 214.07). C n i,,,��;+.,i o 0 o i.o ., „� i nn � o� o+ ; �. walls Si�ns. The total si�n area shall not exceed fifteen (15) times the square root ofthe wall len�th on which the si�n is to be placed. D. Temporary Si�ns. L May be displayed for a period of fourteen (14) days after a permit is issued by the Cit� Such si�ns shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/development at any one time. The number of permits issued per year for a sin�le or multiple use buildin�s/sho�pin� centers shall be based upon the number of businesses within said buildin� as follows: Number of Businesses 1-5 6-10 11-15 16+ Maximum Number of Permits Allowed 2. The use of such si�n by businesses within the buildin� shall be the responsibility of the property owner or desi�nated mana�er. All tempora .r s��n permit a�plications must be si�ned by said property owner or desi�nated mana�er before processin� can be�in. 3. All temporary si�ns shall be located on the property on which the business is located. Such si�ns shall be location a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from an�property line or driveway so as not to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. Prior to the issuance of a permit, a deposit of $200.00 in the form of a certified check or money must be provided to the City. Said deposit will be refunded only if the si�n is removed by noon of the next business day after the permit period expires. E. A hospital emer�ency si�n may be a maximum of 100 square feet in area. SECTION 3: That Section 214.06. be hereby amended as follows: Ordinance No. 214.06. TEMPORARY SIGNS ALLOWED IN ALL DISTRI PERMIT 1. Construction Signs. Page 4 WITHOUT A SIGN A. Multiple Developments. Construction signs may be erected for the purpose of identifying a development of ten (10) or more dwellings, ten (10) or more �� manufactured homes, three (3) or more multiple dwellings, or a building consisting of three (3) or more businesses or industries, with the following restrictions: 2. Real Estate Signs. A. Multiple Developments. Real estate signs may be erected for the purpose promoting development of ten (10) or more dwellings, ten (10) or more homes, three (3) or more multiple dwellings or a building consisting businesses or industries, with the following restrictions: 3. Political Signs. A. A ma�mum size of thirty-two (32) square feet in area. B. To be removed within �3 ten 10 days following the election. _ �� . of selling, leasing or �� manufactured of three (3) ar more D n,,. �;,.,, i.,,-,.o,- +�,.,,, +�„-oo «� �,.,,.,,-o � o+ ;,, �.-o� All political si�ns must be placed a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from a street curb and ten (10) feet from any driveway. �:��•�sReLSesr� . � . . SECTION 4: That Section 214.07. be hereby amended as follows: SECTION 214.07. SIGNS ALLOWED WITH A SPEICAL USE PERMIT 1. ^�� Electronic changeable signs are �� allowed in all districts except residential districts, unless meetin� the requirements for Institutional Si�ns in Section 214.05, and then only after the issuance of a special use permit subject to the following minimum conditions: SECTION 5: That Section 214.08. be hereby amended as follows: 214.08. SPECIFIC DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS Ordinance No. Page 5 In addition to those signs �� allowed in all districts, the following signs are ��allowed in each specific district and shall be regulated as to type, size, and setback according to the following requirements. SECTION 6: That Section 214.09. be hereby amended as follows: 214.09. TYPES, SIZES, AND SETBACKS FOR R-1 AND R-2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, BY SIGN PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED 2. Wall Signs. (No si�n permit required) SECTION 7: That Section 214.10. be added as follows: SECTION 214.10. TYPES_ SIZES_ AND SETBACKS FOR R-3 RESIDENTTAL DISTRICT_ BY SIGN PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED 1. Area Identification Si�ns. A. One (1) si�n per development. B. A maximum size of twenty-four (24) square feet in area. C. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from an�property line or drivewa� D. A maximum hei�ht oftwenty-five (25) feet above the finished �round �rade. E. A minimum hei�ht of ten (10) feet from the bottom of the si�n to the finished �round �rade when within twenty-five (25) feet of a driveway or corner vision safet. z� 2. Wall Si�ns. The total si�n area shall not exceed fifteen (151 times the sauare root of the wall is to be placed. 3. Temporary Si�ns. on which the L May be displayed for a period of fourteen (14) days after a permit is issued by the City. Such si�ns shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/development at any one time. The number of permits issued per year for a sin�le or multiple use buildin�s/sho�pin� centers shall be based upon the number of businesses within said buildin� as follows: Number of Businesses 1-5 6-10 11-15 16+ Maximum Number of Permits Allowed 2 4 6 8 2. The use of such si�n by businesses within the buildin� shall be the responsibility of the property owner or desi�nated mana�er. All tempora .ry si�n permit a�plications must be si�ned b.� property owner or desi�nated mana�er before processin� can be�in. Ordinance No. Page 6 3. All temporary si�ns shall be located on the property on which the business is located. Such si�ns shall be location a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway so as not to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. Prior to the issuance of a permit, a deposit of $200.00 in the form of a certified check or money must be provided to the City. Said deposit will be refunded only if the si�n is removed by noon of the next business day after the permit period expires. SECTION 8: This Section 214.10. be amended as follows: SECTION 214.�9.11. TYPES, SIZES, AND SETBACKS FOR CR-1 DISTRICTS, BY SIGN PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. i n,-o., r,a o„+; �;,..,+;,,,, e; ,.,, � �. . . • . . . � �. 1. Free Standing Signs. �. 2. Roof Signs. 4. 3. Window Signs. (No si�n permit required) �. 4. Wall Signs. b. 5. � Temporar�Signs. (Re£ 913) A. May be displayed for a period of 14 days after a permit is issued by the City. Such signs shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/development at any one time. The number of permits issued per year for single and multiple use buildings/shopping centers shall be based upon the number of businesses within said building as follows: Number of Businesses 1-5 6-10 11-15 16+ Maximum Number of Permits Allowed 2 �4 46 �8 C. All � temporary signs shall be located on the property on which the business is located. Such signs shall be located a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any properiy line or driveway so as not to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. SECTION 9: This Section 214.11. be hereby amended as follows: SECTION 214.�.12. TYPES, SIZE AND SETBACKS FOR G1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, BY SIGN PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED , n,-o., r,aor+;�;,..,+;,,r c;,.r� z. . Ordinance No. . . . , . � ..._.,_ — �. 1. Free Standing Signs. �. 2. Roof Signs. 4. 3. Window Signs. (No si�n permit required) �. 4. Wall Signs. b. 5. � Temporar�Signs. (Re£ 913) Page 7 A. May be displayed for a period of 14 days after a permit is issued by the City. Such signs shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/development at any one time. The number of permits issued per year for single and multiple use buildings/shopping centers shall be based upon the number of businesses within said building as follows: Number of Businesses 1-5 6-10 11-15 16+ Maximum Number of Permits Allowed 2 �4 46 �8 C. All � temporary signs shall be located on the property on which the business is located. Such signs shall be located a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any properiy line or driveway so as not to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. �.6. Billboards. Shall be permitted only in the G3 District within this Section. Specific requirements are listed under Section 214.�.14. SECTION 10: This Section 214.12. be hereby amended as follows: SECTION 214.�.13. TYPES, SIZES AND SETBACKS FOR M-1, �B M-2, AND M-3 DISTRICTS, BY SIGN PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ��.e�s� �r�esn�rss:ree�.rr:ser� . • . . r��.�erszeer.r��esrse�fr��s� eeerse�.s�� . 1. Free Standing Signs. Ordinance No. �. 2. Roof Signs. 4. 3. Window Signs. (No si�n permit required) �. 4. Wall Signs. b. 5. � Temporary Signs. (Ref. 913) Page 8 A. May be displayed for a period of 14 days after a permit is issued by the City. Such signs shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/development at any one time. The number of permits issued per year for single and multiple use buildings/shopping centers shall be based upon the number of businesses within said building as follows: Number of Businesses 1-5 6-10 11-15 16+ Maximum Number of Permits Allowed 2 �4 46 �8 C. All � temporary signs shall be located on the property on which the business is located. Such signs shall be located a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any properiy line or driveway so as not to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. �.6. Billboards. �� \ Y r . � _� . . _• � r - � Y �� \ . \ Y �� r � � -- Y � � '.i�.S'i'1D'�!!!�f!liff!TEl�l.�!!'SR9��5 Y Ordinance No. r �� Page 9 „�r,-„ro,-,,,.,;,,+o,,.,,,,.o ��,.,�� ,o ,. o � ,-,-o. ,,,..,+;,,,, „�+�,o � ,,,,;+ . , � o+ � ,,,,, ., .,;�,-,,.,,� ,. � ;+�,,,,,+ �;,.�,+� .,,,,� �,,,- ., ,..,+o .,,�'„ o,+.. Shall be permitted in the M-1, M-2, and M-3 Districts within this Section. Specific requirements are listed under Section 214.14. SECTION 11: That Section 214.14. be hereby added as follows: 214.14. BILLBOARD REQUIREMENTS Billboards shall be permitted in only C-3, M-1, M-2, and M-3 Districts. The followin� requirements shall be considered as minimum standards when issuin� a special use permit to erect a billboard. The Citv Council ma.�pose additional requirements. A. Billboards shall be restricted to property adjoinin� the ri�ht of ways of Interstate Hi�hwa.� Trunk Hi�hway #47, Trunk Hi�hway #65 and East River Road south of Interstate Hi�hwa. #� B. The ma�mum hei�ht is twenty-five (25) feet above the finished �round �rade, unless the si�n is intended to be viewed from a hi�hway, then the twenty-five (25) foot maximum hei�ht shall be computed from the centerline of the traveled hi�hway, but in no case shall the vertical distance between the bottom of the si�n and the �round be reduced to less than ten (10) feet. C. The maximum si�n area is three hundred (300) square feet per facin� not to exceed two (2) facin�s when erected on East River Road south of Interstate Hi�hway #694, on Trunk Hi�hway #47 and on Trunk Hi�hway #65; and 750 square feet per facin� not to exceed two (2) facin�s when erected on Interstate Hi�hway, #694. Double faced si�ns shall be attached back to back at a horizontal an�le not to exceed forty-five (45) de�rees. D. The minimum distance between billboard si�ns is 1000 feet when erected on the same side of the hi�hwa� E. The minimum setback from the hi�hway ri�ht of way is thirt�30) feet. F. The minimum distance is 500 feet from a billboard si�n to the intersection of any street or where traffic crosses or mer�es at the same elevation. The distance is determined b.� from the intersection of the street and hi�hway centerlines and the si�n. G. The minimum distance to a residential and public district is 500 feet. H. The si�n structure shall be all metal and be either painted or treated to prevent deterioration. Lack of proper maintenance shall be cause for revocation of the si�n permit. L The minimum distance to a railroad crossin� is 350 feet when there are li�hts and a�ate, and 500 feet from a railroad crossin� without li�hts and/or a�ate. Ordinance No. Page 10 J. Any li�htin� will be shielded to not impair the vision of any motor vehicle operator or to create a nuisance on adjoinin� propert� SECTION 12: That Section 214.13. be hereby amended as follows: 214.�3.15 TYPES, SIZED AND SETBACKS FOR Ps �#B PUD, AND S-2 DISTRICTS, BY SIGN PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SECITON 13: That Section 214.14. be hereby amended as follows: 214.�-4.16 SHOPPING CENTERS AND MULTIPLE USE BUILDINGS SECTION 14: That Section 214.17. be hereby added as follows: SECTION 214.17. 1NTERSTATE 694 CORRIDOR SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS 1. All properties zoned CR-1, G1, C-2, C-3, M-1, M-2, M-3, S-2 and located alon� the Interstate 694 corridor shall be allowed one area identification si�n per development, with a maximum square foota�e based upon the acrea�e of the development. The followin� chart determines the size si�n each development shall be allowed: Acrea e Class Si n Size Permitted 35 acres + 500 s uare feet 10-35 acres 240 square feet 1-10 acres 120 square feet Less than 1 acre 80 square feet 2. This free-standin� si�n shall be located between the principal buildin� and the Interstate 694 ri�ht-of-wa� 3. This free-standin� si�n shall be in addition to what the properties zonin� district would allow for free-standin� si��,e 4. The maximum hei�ht of thirty-five (35) feet above the finished �round �rade. 5. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from an�property line or drivewa� 6. All other si�na�e for the properties alon� the I-694 corridor shall refer to the specific zonin� district re�ulations for si�ns provided in this Chapter. SECTION 15: That Section 214.15. and 214.16 be amended as follows: 214.� 18. SIGN PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 214.� 19. SIGN ERECTORS' LICENSE REQUIREMENTS SECTION 16: That Section 214.17. be amended as follows: 214.� 20. EXISTING SIGNS 2. Legal Nonconforming Signs. � O � � � � � � � � � (� �U N Q (/� (� � N � LL � � � 0 O � p >, O � � � (B O � � •� O � � d O � N O � � � .� C� � � � � � � � � � � � O � � (B � � O U Q U °� °ou a�i�' ��°� � °'`��,��u, �'u�.� � ��.� � o � �= o_z � � ��, � o c�a�� o � � � ��- X � � c��l � � � 0 � � a u�i � � ° � v> >, � n � � � � � o � � c� � � � (B � � � (B � � � � � N • � (B � � � � � '� O \ � � � � >, -� O cn N Cfl (a cn U � >, •— N � � � � � � •� � � � >, � � � O d � 'L � Q � � j O N .� � � p `� � ,p� L ,� � � p � O L cn � >+ "� O � � � u � O O'�� N ��'� � � �� N � � �� dj p N N � � �, ?+ � � 0 � � � N •cn � ,� � N � � � "� `N N �� (B O � � � �. � � '� 0 U � � � N 'L � � � � — � N O N � � � � O L � � � �' � "'' O � 'L � p � � �. � (a 0 O � — � o L � � N � N � >, N � L d � O � N p � � �. �. � N O � � � � L C7 N (B (B � \ (B p� � � � a% � � Q) � � � (�,) � � � O i1 � N � � L � N L p � � � N � N � 0 � � �u� ° � Q�� .� � � �� ° a�i � � a� x n� �' �"J �� >,`n � �' � � o � � v�.� o � °� `�� - v�� ,a�� a� ��L�� o� ��-� a��o N v� a� �� n��,��a� ��,��,�,��La� v�—a� v��,� �.� � a��n��v��O�v�°�� =��0._°��a�iaXi��°�� `�� ° � �� n°i � o v�ai�a�o � � o�� o 0 0 � � � Q� � � c� N a� �� c� �n � o a� c� .— °' ��, � o �- O � �, � � � � � .�n o � N ° o�� .�c� � � � >,� �� : � �� c� a�i �.°'� �� ° a�� v� � c� ��; a�—� v� �.°'c� � � o��.�o � v� � a� � �; o � � � v� � � � a� � .� ��n c� � � � � � �n a� o � � �,�.ti�. �� o �� a� �, c� � � . c� � a� � � a� � �, � � � � �. � � o � � �� 'L� ��,o �� o � � � �� o �� ' c� � a� �u� � � � � �- �' � � �' � v� `� � ,� �, � �, � � � �� o� �� o�� a� v�� Q� o � � v' � Q� �n � a� L�Q x u�i o a°�i.� >,� � o� o o� � � � � � O � � � U� Q% L (� L Q � p� L � `� L N � � �O �� N p� X t� �(� Q N �� O ' � � •in � •� � � � � Q O � O — in � U � � � � � O � — O � O O O O � O� � � O� � N Z Z Z Z � Z� � � Z� � � � � � �U � Q � (/� � � � � � � � � � � .� N � � (a O � 0 � � _ (a = � (� � (a � � � � > (a C� ' � � O tA Z � � � � � V � m O a � N � � � m � W N Q � � (� � � 0 ��--' � N � � (/� � a mp m J� Z Z i Ordinance No. Page 11 B. A sign shall immediately lose its "legal nonconforming" designation and be termed illegal nonconforming if: (4) The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than fifty percent (50%) of the value of said sign, and no si n ermit has been applied for within 180 davs of when the si�n is dama�ed at which time all of the sign and its structure must be removed. SECTION 17: That Section 214.18, 214.19, 214Z0, and 214.21 be amended as follows: 214.�-5 21. ENFORCEMENT " 214.�122. VIOLATIONS _ 214.�A 23. PENALTY 214.� 24. APPEALS PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS _ DAY OF 2006. ATTEST: Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk Public Hearing: First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: � 45 Scott J. Lund, Mayor Other Cities Residentiai Signage Requirements �i Re uirements Andover 4.5 square feet of residential signage. Churches -32 square feet in signage. Baxter 12 square feet of signage, including churches; however, they can apply for a CUP to have multiple entrance signage, and in a residential zone for a church or school they can have multi le entrance si ns but the can onl be 50 s uare feet each. Blaine Residential signage allowed is 2.5 square feet, not to exceed 4 feet in height. One monument sign of 36 square feet, sign shall not be more then 10 feet high. A(i Churches involving 3 or more buildings are allowed one monument sign of 36 square feet and 10 feet in height. All churches may have one wall sign with a maximum area of 80 s uare feet non-illuminated block letters . Columbia Heights Free standing signs — 16 sq. ft. for conditional and 40 square feet for Industrial use churches are included in Industrial use . Coon Rapids One ground sign shall be permitted with a maximum of six square feet per lot. Residential developments shall be permitted one wall or ground sign of up to 32 square feet on each frontage. If a ground sign is used, an additional wall sign of not over 20 square feet identifying the name of the building only shall be permitted. Non-residential uses, which includes churches shall be permitted one wall or ground sign of up to 32 square feet on local street frontages. Corcoran Residential signage, which includes churches, are permitted to have one sign not to exceed 32 s uare in size and 6 feet in hei ht. Eden Prairie Free-standing sign in a residential district is allowed 1 sign per street entrance, for a maximum of 3Z square feet. Churches fall under the Public Zoning District and are allowed 1 free-standing sign which is 80 square feet per lot. Also, they are ailowed 1 wall sign of 245 square feet; however, if they have 2 street frontages they would be allowed 2 si ns and the second one can be i8 s uare feet. Fridley Institutional Signs can be a maximum size of 32 square feet in area, a minimum distance of 10 feet from any property line or driveway. Residential signs — One sign per development, for a maximum size of 24 square feet in area, and a minimum distance of 10 feet from any property line or driveway. Forest Lake Residential Signage — 32 square feet is allowed, with no exceptions if the parcel is located on a Coun or State road. Hugo Pylon sign in a residential district — one pylon sign with 2 faces, not exceeding 36 square feet of sign per face, shall be permitted for each lot, a maximum of 40 percent of a pylon sign face may be of changeable copy. Home-based business identification sign not exceeding two square feet, identifying a business or service, and affixed � directly to a building. One monument sign with 2 faces, not exceeding 40 sq. ft. per sign face, shall be permitted for each lot not containing a pylon sign. A maximum of 40 ercent of a face of a monument si n ma be of chan eable co . Lino Lakes � Residentiaf signage allowed 32 square feet, not higher than 8 feet for institutiona! identification. Churches would be included under the residential signage requirements. You could go through a master sign plan approval as part of the planned development for more si na e. Medina Only name plate signs are allowed in a residentiai district. ! �� Ci Re uirements Minnetonka High density residential, one monument at 36 square foot maximum. Churches are allowed one sign not to exceed 30 square feet maximum for copy and graphic would be 75 s uare feet maximum monument area. Mounds View � Free standing signs are not allowed in a residential district, except churches/and recreation. They can have 100 square feet of wall signage and 100 square feet of ground signage with a stipulation of you can't have a sig� greater then 40 feet within 100 feet of nearest resident. New Brighton Churches are limited to 20 square feet for a ground sign. A singfe sign or encased bulletin board is permitted for a church, public facility, or a school. An institutional ground sign shall not exceed twenty square feet in area, not exceed ten feet in height and shall be placed not less than ten feet from any street right-of-way. Electronic readerboard signs may be permitted for schools or public facilities only. A single such sign per lot shall be permitted by special use permit, and is subject to the requirements of institutional si ns. Norwood Young The requirement for Churches would be one sign or bulletin board per street frontage. America Such sign or bulletin boards shall not exceed 32 square feet in area and shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Free standing sign- or+e free standing sign for each building facing each street frontage. Said sign shall not exceed 6 feet in height as measured from the elevation of the adjoining roadway; except at those sites at which the elevation of the abutting property is higher than the centerline of the adjoining roadway, the height of any such sign shali not exceed 6 feet as measured from the elevation from said abutting property at the site of such sign. Such signs shall not exceed lZ s uare feet. Ramsey Signage in a residential district allows only Area Identification Signs which are limited to 32 square feet in size and are also limited to one sign per vehicular access to a develo ment. There are no s ecial rovisions for churches. Shakopee Residential signs include Name plate signs, in single family & two family dwellings not to exceed 2 square feet. Also, area identification sigr►s are allowed which include one monument style sign, shall not exceed 24 square feet copy and graphic area, 6 foot maximum height, shall be located at a primary entrance to the project area, and shall be setback at least 10 feet from any right-of-way line. Free standing pylon signs are prohibited. Institutional signs, which include Churches shall be allowed the following 1 sign or message board per entrance up to a maximum of 4 per structure, shall not exceed 30 square feet in area, shall be setback at least 10 feet from right-of-way line, 8 foot maximum hei ht ma be sin le or double faced. Spring Lake Park No sign shall be erected in a residential district except, flags displayed, sale ' advertisements, traffic signs, in a state general election year, portable and free-standing political signs during a certain duration, and one non-commercial opinion sign not . greater than 6 square feet in surface area. Church signage would faU under the commercial district, on premise signs shall not exceed 30 percent of the square footage of the front of the building. No off-premise sign shal{ exceed 750 square feet. There shall be at least 1,000 feet distance between the location of off-premises signs on the same side of the highway. No free-standing sign shail be higher than 25 feet from the ground level of the land upon which the sign has been erected. An applicant may apply for a variance if there is an extreme hardshi . 47 � � � � � � � C � � �U � � � � � L V... � >+ p — (0 =�- � � .a? � C O N � p � � J � � � t�4 O � � •� O � p � O � � t�C .�CO � � Q� � 'C � �� N"''p� fp �fC � ��V Q� � 0 � -p >' � O � � `� � C � C C � tn � � � L � C � � N � _ • � � Z � � '' � ° .� a � `��' °�' N 3 � " � 3 X � � L +.+ N — C L� L (B 0.✓ � r-p � �� i � � f0 N (B N �' � O (A r.+ � �+ (n � �, .0 o � a��ica c� �U� >. •� �,a �.°�c 3 � °—'•� 3 0� >. � o�°n oa cXo V C Qi L'y,+ C A��+ C �' L� Vi �� 0�.-' O L U) � ��' O�� ; o�$ co�oa�. �c o �._L. oc �•- o caa�a�U... v °c� au�i �*'�°'" `��° � °� u�i i,� Qot�a �' � o � � � � o,� a� —cn�aio°�� .� a� N �' ,� �� "'�' rn o`L°�°n �`—° c��a''°.L o`a'� ° o�-�,: �' a� � ��° o y—° c�n `� 3 m Vi N cV >' � c� � �.. � �� N 0��.., •• � N p ��p �` M N ca c6 �\ N � � C � p � C � � � Gj -� U � C -p :p 0 � � V � el�- +`.� � � � �p O N � � �' V � �p � �� 3�-c�ai��oma�ivv °��m3Q.aXi>,a�°i�a�iE'��ov ��a'i1�o � rn a� �� °� •— cn c w. �, ,� � a� '� � � L a� rn— a� rn c � Q C � L N tn �� O�� 0+L+ � E C 3�� C� X N�� N d' L� f0 N�� N M o � �� omo�'�•�� mo-��—Ea�co �-o� � �a��Nf° N � •� t N � � � N � � � (0 "- .� �'tn � O` ""' O C O ..� � � -p .0 3 � tA c (o 0 o Q � � c c� (a y 'a �` v ui .,,, � ..r c �� C :a a� � ' � ` � O N �� • C C>+ C — L p� E.�(C C � O� N V o "0 p) C � � +,; O � � � � p) ,� f6 � � � N t6 ,� �tn fC � � � .� t� '� "-- � � c n v c n � �' ° "— p� � ( A v� N � � � O �� o m aN � � � � � ��o �s � c � v�i � � c �a o � y ��v�tcn-a E �.L��t �c� 'v� ��co�>, v� c�'u N �� co �,rn c� a� �° �� rnco �.�•— o c�o �� ca � c�, Ew c � �'� �� Q�'�� E��jm.a-�Ma�i rn�O �a�i�a�i�° c°�a a'rn �c"�'n °cv�i� � c°�c�oQc°�im��rn �m�� Q.Eco� � � L � � Q� y � L rt+ X (/i Q ��C �� L Q.i� Q L !A � � � � � � � � u- � � O .�p � X v� C c�G � Q' N � �' p� �, � (0 Q p _ p — � :n O � E 'y w.. ++ � N � U Q C (6 � O � — O � Z Z Z z °� Z°� o � z� ai N �- �- c � �' �' � � �U � � } vJ L � .� L (� Q� � � � Q� � � (� � � O O � � Q� (�_ �V C (� �� p�> t4 Z�� , >' � U� �0 o Q � o c ;'=�m �1 p W � � �? 2 �-� 'a V Q o o � a� c � c� m m �� z z > .�;� b1D C � � �, p.., O r�i� • � N V1 � b1) °� � � C!1 � � 1� G� � � Vl Cy" Cy" 'C�' Cy" � M � � � � � � O O"d O� M � �z '� p � Q �, � �, '—' � N � v� b� °� v • Q" � Q" a °'� � � '.� C � � � •� �.., �� f� f� f� � f� f� �!1 �� f� f� f� O �� V1 � C!1 �, C!1 c� C!1 � N N v� •� �!1 �!1 �!1 M �!1 O �!1 � � 4-' � � � O � � �!1 �!1 � �!1 � W O O O� O�, O �� O�, �� O M.� O•� 00 00 00 N � ¢, 00 Z � � � � � � � � 00 � v� 00 � � • , � � � f� f� f� � �' • � ,�„i C!1 C!1 C!1 � O � a c�,� � N � 00 + � Z � � � � � � � � M =7 U V V � O �� Q� W � � V� i M � � � � � � Ap 00 � N � N � l� � V� 00 l� � � � � � � � � M O 01 � O � 01 � � � M � M N N � � � � � � l� � M � • � � � � � � � � � W � � H o � a O�Q��n � P-'�� W � O � W � W � � Z � Q � � � � W � � H � � WQ Q O � � � � O � � � � �7 '� Q'��Z ��1 �Z[� � ��Oa, �� H� ��W �, �Z � � � � O � � Z O � � ti Q � � x0�� x �a�H � � � � p O U � N M� V'� � l� 00 01 O � N M� V'� � l� � � � � � � � � � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum DATE: April 5, 2006 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner SUBJECT: TA 06-01, Amendments to the City Sign Code, Chapter 214 INTRODUCTION Over the course of the last year, City staff has had discussions with the City Council as well as property owners in the City related to the amount of signage allowed for churches and those properties located along Interstate 694. After much discussion and research, City staff is requesting consideration of several text amendments and additions to the City sign code. The proposed modifications will include the following sections, Definitions, Institutional Signs (Churches and Schools), Political Signs, Temporary Sign requirements, Signage requirements for R-1 and R-2 properties separate from R-3 properties, Signage for Industries and Businesses along Interstate 694, and other general housekeeping. ANALYSIS Church Siqnaqe: After discussions with the City Council at one of their conference meetings, many suggestions came forward as to how we should handle signage for churches. These suggestions included signage sizes that reflect traffic counts on major arterial and secondary roadways, signage that "competes" with surrounding commercial entities and a universal sign amendment that treats all churches the same. After evaluating each alternative, staff believes an amendment that treats all churches and other institutions (schools, hospitals, and medical clinics) the same is the right resolution. The current sign code allows churches and other institutions to have one area identification sign, with a 32 square foot maximum. Over the last few years, several churches and schools have inquired about larger free-standing signs on their properties. Woodcrest Baptist Church and St. Philip's Lutheran Church both requested variances to increase the amount of allowable free-standing signage on their properties from 32 square feet to 70 or 80 square feet. Despite the fact that both of these variances ended up being denied, there is an obvious interest from church and school representatives to allow larger free-standing signage. Churches in Fridley are generally located in a residential district. For understandable reasons signage is limited in residentially zoned districts. The new language that staff is proposing to adopt would allow institutions (schools, churches, hospitals, medical clinics) to have up to an 80 square foot free-standing sign as long as they meet the following requirements: 2. A maximum size of eiqhtv (80) square feet in area is allowed per development provided the followinq criteria can be met: a. Siqns over thirtv-two (32) square feet shall be placed a minimum of fiftv (50) feet from anv neiqhborinq residentiallv zoned propertv (not includinq a residential site an institution is located upon). b. Siqn shall be placed so illuminated siqn face is perpendicular to adiacent roadways. c. Siqn shall not create a qlare that will impact adiacent residential properties. City staff is also proposing to allow institutions to have wall signage and temporary signage in accordance with the standards allowed in commercially and industrially zoned districts. City staff researched several cities in the metro area and found that the majority of cities allow churches or residentially zoned properties to have a maximum of 32 square feet of signage. A few exceptions are in Eden Prairie, where they allow churches to have 80 square feet of signage and Mound View, where they allow up to 100 square feet for ground signs. A complete list of the cities we surveyed is attached in your packet. Interstate 694 Corridor Siqnaqe: Signage related to the Interstate 694 corridor has also been brought to our attention by Medtronic's recent request to install a billboard type sign on the southwest side of their property. On February 15, 2006, the Planning Commission approved their Master Plan Amendment request to allow a 14 ft. by 48 ft. (672) square foot community service sign on their property. This item was approved by the City Council on February 27, 2006. Although Medtronic's billboard matter was resolved through a master plan amendment in the S- 2, Redevelopment district, over the last several years, the Appeals Commission and City Council have seen several variance requests from businesses along Interstate 694 to allow larger signage. In fact, of the 15 properties abutting Interstate 694, 5 of them have received sign variances. Wth the possibility for redevelopment of the JLT Group site (formerly Tiro Industries) and the Cub/Gander/Liquor store site, staff determined it would be better to try and match the signage with the size of the development, rather than allowing a 280 square foot or 500 square foot sign for all properties along 694. Therefore, staff has come up with the following chart which allows properties along 694 to have an additional free-standing sign per development depending upon the overall size of the property. This proposed sign language would require that the sign be located between the principal building and the interstate right-of-way. This sign would be in addition to what the property is already entitled to have based on the zoning of the property. For example, Tiro Industries could 2 have a 240 square foot free-standing sign (based on the size of there property, 21.4 acres) between the interstate right-of-way and the principal building; in addition they could have an 80 square foot sign along East River Road. City staff contacted a variety of communities in the metro area and of the 10 cities we surveyed half of them have special signage requirements for properties along major highways/interstates. Please see your packet for complete list. Other Siqn Code Modifications: Along with the major amendments to the sign code related to institutions and properties along Interstate 694, several minor modifications are also proposed. Those relate to the following: Definitions: The modifications to the definitions are simply adding an Interstate I-694 corridor definition, better defining the word "alteration", and deleting the "portable sign" definition and combining it with the "temporary sign" definition. Requirements for Political Siqns and Banners/Pennants: The changes to the political sign section of the code relate to the $15.00 deposit that we require prior to the erection of any political signs in the City, which is retained until all of the signs are removed. While holding a deposit helps to ensure that the signs are taken down, it has proven that very few candidates for public office even bother to apply for the permit and pay the minimal fee. Our City Clerk has stated that most of the local candidates will fill out the permit and pay the fee, but it is very rare for the state and federal level candidates. Therefore, city staff would recommend that this portion of the code related to political signs be repealed. Under the code section related to "Temporary Signs Permitted in all Districts" there is also a section related to Banners/Pennants. This section allows banners and pennants for business anniversaries, grand openings, or special events not connected with a business. Cities can't regulate "content", meaning the language on the sign. Therefore, staff advises removal this section. Temporary Siqn Requirements: Staff would also like to amend the section of the sign code related to temporary signs. We are seeking to clarify the word "temporary" and delete the word "portable" in order to be consistent with our process. Staff would also like to change the maximum number of sign permits allowed for multiple use buildings or shopping centers. Currently, if a shopping center has 6-10 businesses, they are allowed 3 temporary sign permits per year for those 6-10 businesses. We would like to increase that number to allow temporary sign permits to represent at least half of the businesses within a shopping center. Clarifvinq when Siqn Permits are Needed, and when thev are not: City staff would like each subcategory within the sign code to state whether or not a sign permit is required or not. Now that the sign code is being frequently interpreted by sign contractors on- line via the City website, it is important that we make the permit requirements clear. Addinq a Section for R-3, Multi-Family Siqnaqe separate from R-1 and R-2 Properties: The current sign code puts all residential properties in one category. That category allows one area identification sign at 24 square feet and one wall sign at 3 square feet. It is very common for Multi-Family properties to want additional wall signage beyond the 3 square feet allotment and to want to use temporary signs similar to our commercial and industrial properties. Therefore, staff requests that we adopt a special section for the R-3 properties that would allow 3 them to have one identification sign at 24 square feet, and wall signage and temporary signage similar to our commercial and industrial properties. Relocatinq the Billboard Section: The current billboard section within the sign code is included as part of the Industrial signage requirements. Since, billboards are also allowed in the C-3, General Shopping zoning district, staff would like to create a section specific to billboards, instead of including it with one of the zoning districts. Eliminatinq the Area Identification Siqns in the Commercial and Industrial Districts: The commercial and industrial districts currently allow one area identification sign and one free- standing sign per property. The intention behind this was to allow an area identification sign to identify a particular property or complex, like the "Rice Creek Business Center" and then an additional free-standing sign could then be used to identify the businesses within the complex. City staff would recommend that we remove the area identification sign requirement and simply allow properties to have one free-standing sign on their property. It is rarely seen that properties in Fridley have two free-standing signs anyway. Addinq Reference to the S-2 Redevelopment District Siqnaqe with the Public and PUD Siqnaqe Requirements: The current code doesn't address signage for the S-2, Redevelopment district. Staff recommends that we add it into the section for signs in the P, Public and PUD, Planned Unit Development section. Signage for these districts is controlled by the City Council through language in the project's Master plan. Updatinq the Non-Conforminq Lanquaqe Related to Siqns: As you are aware State Statues recently changed to allow non-conforming uses to continue to exist through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not expanded, if the use is damaged beyond 50%. The new legislation also states that in order for that non- conforming use to continue to exist, a permit needs to be acquired within 180 days of the use being damaged. City staff requests to update the sign code related to non-conforming signs to match the newly passed state legislation. STAFF RECOM M ENDATION City Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the City sign code. These changes will not only provide benefits to institutions and business along Interstate 694, but they will help clean up some of the minor imperfections found in the code language. The proposed changes and additions to the sign code language are attached in your packet for your review. This item will go before the City Council on May 8, 2006. � � N v / ♦"�/ J � � W � .� L` W � � � � � V ! W � � � � Q � J' '�I �a w �.. ,,,� 3,Y, �+' ~ FlILMORE 5T ..� [ ��r �°��7y, .i ,� m. . � ,.� �m i :. �e. �� ,. titiei ,: .. . � w m` 1i:6�i wZ 6 E■�� '� ��'''y�gr " ` �, �, s�a�� + � sv `� 9a 1 q0 �.. .e, _ f0 .�� P,� y� I c �.� .r. - I4 . � p - `. POLKST t °e,A E �',. E $ + �� ❑ � a ..�__ � C �Q � � �P 9 la I� �" e �E_ �1ly �\`> .�\ /� E� � - d � � ` . < \\\� ` �./�� . � �, `� ��o� ti: E ;�:' i I i'. � � `O � � �' JACK50N5T �? •�� s w :��'v w ,�i`� w� i s. t h c : . " $ < . . , W , � 5T _ ,� $ a � a �UIN� � � � � a : .,� '" .. i.. � Y r � , a r � #+`' � � "b ?'� � � �1pNROEST W � w + rK 1� S • i i^�i . a a .o ^ y,.. 0 ° '..`6�9^'�'jw �` e 6 m �1 - � ` MADISON 5T • � ' " ' � .. �EFFERSON ST �EFiER50N5Tk „ 1i:aaa5;1 t5'€'EE� � "` a91=...2§iE'ae:s??i ;€ � ° Y r WASHINGTON ST .. � �l;:eg0i;i��as.: �?a" e � w .,a 'st5at69;5 €�E= e �sk° fH ST � ST l i i i i i 1 ;#: f: s" '€ °• " i i •• °• ' g 1 S 9!: 4 i : e i i o i F d � : t� 3 a 6: i!?! TM ST = 6TM ST f!§a:i! :3ss�,�� ;, e a99#s:l� &#:o 1397it€wiii{9sila�� ° 41$33'eit�`:...:�u �TH ST ¢ � STH 5T ¢ Q. ! t[� 3@ f 9�: i& I>.� :. k� 3 Q 4::; P i A� f y i 1 i i 9 a 1 4 : i 5 i i§: i� s — afi = 7: : F �� n� sT iTM sr 1 1 i: : 8 B: 8 f!@!: a �n�� ,uti i C i; : 1°. . . . � ..j E r P ... � � .. ,.. :Ili �u .1Y'. iEF iSERV�G�O UNIVEftSRV AVE sai:a ISliSi9 �':t�"...7` I��I � osr I—; I ; ., 1 113��loi:i , €. ----- � ! wii�3i i � `! iai i � W = 3 � � " j l2 ST ¢ ¢ a r a .�!}.. ." . x 6 i i°��5': e�:8.%�g , k-�� a 6i9i�i.�-fi:i s� @ , D ST N ..: s � i i :: 9 E€ w- � �—" .1.� E! E a a 4 4 - .. €g w _� � N ST ., �.Q��- �� :�- E � [ �. S. � 153aOW��lj�p� �+ Z. ' ° 8� �° a� o� pf . a� `u;__� s �� ' e � "^6 "s S ' ��,i! Tnnoa sT �� . .` ,s ! d a � 9 - 6� em rt+ ss I� �, � e 9 .',^^` '; 7 3 i � > ! 15 NOSIOtlW � .. i � .. .. � ... � � . � . ¢ �. 'a .. u � � + ,.. ��,. ^ y ,.. ,. .. m eo e �° " was�n+cror�sl u�'4 ° "� o �� .��[!!'i��e . � � ]TH ST �I � ! 3P58ElB8 �-..�;' � � ee�3=38s�: •. � .. W 6TN 97 , = x ' � 9 � s � �S � �;, �E!�� STH ST ,� !!7t 4�S t 3 €9 &:F:n:' G !F4l��S_i 555'@ ��"y a 6TH 51 ��e e�atas�! �SERV�ICE DR Q O �.__ ' I .i � ' UNIYERSRV AVE _�=a § �� W.:;_ : ! Sl_ ' � 9 3RD57Y : 'R P �oa � y & D '�. 9�� = .n .,. � ? °, ° P�j 4�' 11 : 3�' �" � 5'! ! a�� e@� 3 e e a x HORIZON DF � �'s * �� 4, �" �pP � n A 6 ! �d '„ � � = ' ,,., .y' .�A,�NpP�1d' � °' d s ° 6�» �' � v �� V ,.s 1 ^ � 1 6� -, � y "', �., � �~y q o� s. �"a, ,. ! Y l e ��"� o . , u �, '. ,� „ a •. ' � F/, �...�..._� � xm ., a � � e . . :. � . �;�� d 6 \'% �__ . �� °ba3vb3 \ - ----.. O O � ch O O � r O � Qi o� , � V'�/ DUSTRI E � N N N N N N N Z �N LL LL LL. N N N � l0 N N W � cn vai cn '^ � V O N � O OD � N ln W ,�� W U C � .� � i � � / � �� .� Wf^ V! � � .� � W � - - _ M. � _. : 6� dv �i o "" _ ., �; a .. Fi��MOa�.: ;: „� ,r�'�Ob'�,�� ° _ � � � � t1EE91:�5 8 .r �f 'r;� q f � W � �cs� e • se �+`, ✓ S � � �, _ s�� °•o° °�,P r c 5 « .,., �� "�. s '"' rouc sr � 9 E �� H � �� Q a 1 ` - . _,� r� :C P r ee � L � � `� � E F E : 2 �O '. . � i S `S = ` e" i � E 3SEi€;tE � O� � JACKSON 5T ZJ �i`��, � oy` iS's:dl1� Fw �, ,�� `° 6e��l� s . � . . , sT w Q . U - ti i �a� �� roulN �. � � � � �� n � � a y + � W � � � jAONROES� � ' 2 � " 2 s > s fEg��i: p o �•�� k_ � ... '° y � •° y ' MADISON ST � 0 — _��:�Fe: —� JEFFERSONST ,J��pgpNS7 r � o li:ia§t:9 tSt€SEEi � "' � 'al!€iFal=!'atfFEdSFo§ � � s TWA,HINGTONST � �fdSP.s0ii4�eesas�a�- e i�65366i5 t66BE Sfi�- "• H 5T "' 7TH 51 i iliill :t3S; B dF W � il -- °- ! 1 i S 3 f i 1 i E i f a i i i d � — z+ i i i i; i! i i H ST 6TH ST f15ti11 ii=?a�:� � e 9f10§:ir 1190 ! a@ C i i f w6 9 i a§ i i i i� a ° 1 S i 1 1: 1 6�°�y� C s' STN 5T Q � liSPlli11��9?33':S;:k� fili:ilil�Iy i#iilili�Eiiii3Ei � — ii:f:ii�F n+sr �n�sr 3 S 3: E G 8!:! 3 1 f 9 3 1 'u" ""' / 9 3; i 1� ::l r p 1.. � � � �.. n��n � .[e � iSERN�� UNIVERSRYAVE ! e E E i 1 f! 4 f 4 1 S� E e osT " � ! 1i119lii.! '.' �, " e itifiilii�ifw=66t'' w R ST a a �� a �as��>save:s�s..na�_� „ 9 ilf ii �— 19i 1 m�Fm D 5T � s� : — �: � €e aa-.. � n. 9 F 1 i i 3 1 4 _ � gE � ° � IN ST ' • �� 8 � °' S ,� ls 3aowni� � ,•, � � ` � .,. : ' a a � <� _, 0 8 w ! � 9 A'6 5 9 S`.. � U � 6 G $�/ e A1 ��T 0' A � � ' a 6 s e�, � � � : rH ss e a � 9 Q.�'� E ! 0� � 6 ,. � MONROE ST � � a 4,� i 3 d c! C d t is NoYiovw � a $ � i \ � n � > �; _w , � _ < .. U � � r u ^d - .. ,. = 3no s ° r ° w��+crar'sr , ;�y . n .. m . � ,e : 9 1 * M •. �. ]7H ST J ! sl88flg6 � � � ; ioe 4'-34i� � bTH 5T >R.:g_= g < � �g fr4f Larc STH ST � �490lI! io19.=.aas�e r�!!9!S i 6i5"s@e=l6 „ �rr� sr � �!€dE91E8 a e � SERVICE �R UNNERSIiV AVE � 0953 e: s � a m-, 5!: `6 3f2D ST :i°RO }14P3 � � � o o f �; ♦ '`P,e�'S � � 6 8 � 3 � S i 1 i 1 i 6 E€! 4 � A , e eOR120N�R �, �� 3A°��`�• a�` +5��;�;: "° y �� NOPl se'' ' � < °, �'". ., a .. ° " , ,� ' o '' ' i ,. s� �^ � � ai °s y .. o q � � • m, •°+_ " ° o' - `� * °� � � 1 91` ��,. .. o'° ^ u" �,� °c`°� � .. ,.. . � ,. ., � .. W � _ v � � p - MAIN ST � E � 1 � t $ � * j : � s pb, _ ��bd R 0 I � � � e E � .. i HSV + = 3 ❑ ` � �ab3�/y3 t � � @ ii t O 0 � M O O � :•t7 �y �� Z � � c W � � z � c o� � W y J � � CffY OF FRIDLEY Date To: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 May 1, 2006 Wlliam Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #06-04, Michael McPhillips M-06-53 INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Michael McPhillips is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 6 ft. to allow the construction of a 264 square foot addition to the existing attached garage, located at his residence at 291 Sylvan Lane. City Code requires a 17.5 ft. side yard setback for all structures on a corner lot. The existing garage is approximately 18 feet from the side yard property line and meets City code requirements. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 12 ft. by 22 ft. addition to the garage, which will reduce the side yard setback to approximately 6 ft, thus the need for the variance request. The petitioner's property will continue to meet all other setback, lot coverage, and allotment of accessory structure requirements after the proposed garage addition is constructed. The addition to the garage will be used for storage space of vehicles and other garage materials. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff has no recommendation as this variance is within previously granted dimensions. Similar variance granted: ➢ VAR #90-07 6261 Rainbow Drive Variance granted to reduce the required side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 4.5 feet. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the April 26, 2006, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #06-04. The variance was approved by a 3 to 1 vote. Due to there not being a unanimous vote made by the Appeals Commission, this residential variance request is coming before the City Council for final approval. Commissioner Kuechle voted in opposition of the variance request due to lack of hardship. Commissioner Kuechle expressed that the side yard setback variance granted at 6261 Rainbow Drive in 1990 was based on undue hardship related to the installation of the University Avenue Service Drive or due to the expansion of University Avenue. He believes that the petitioners' house was constructed after the installation of the University Avenue Service Road, and therefore undue hardship did not exist on the petitioner's property. After further research staff determined that the house at 6261 Rainbow Drive was constructed in 1953. The University Avenue Service Road was constructed in 1965, and the petitioner's home at 291 Sylvan Lane was constructed in 1969. Therefore, it is very likely that land was taken from the property at 6261 Rainbow Drive when the University Avenue Service Road was constructed, creating a non-conforming side yard setback and undue hardship. However, the property at 291 Sylvan Lane was developed with the Service Road already is place, and therefore the 17.5 corner side yard setback was adhered to. Should the City Council chose to approve the requested variance, staff recommends the following stipulations: STIPULATIONS 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage and finished with complementary siding and color scheme. City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #06-04 April 26, 2006 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Michael McPhillips 291 Sylvan Lane Fridley MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance reducing the side yard setback on a corner lot. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 291 Sylvan Lane Size: 10, 800 sq. ft. .25 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family Home Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 E: University Avenue & ROW S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family & R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: 205.07.3.D.(2).(c)((1))requires a side yard setback of seventeen and one- half (17'/) feet on a corner lot. Zoning History: 1957 — Lot is platted. 1969 — House and garage constructed. 1986 — Accessory structure built. Legal Description of Property: Lot 19, Block 2, Svlvan Hills Plat 4 Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: Sylvan Lane provides access to the property. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban lot and landscapina. SUMMARY OF PROJECT The petitioner, Michael McPhillips is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet 6 feet to allow an addition to his existing garage at 291 Sylvan Lane. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "There is minimal traffic on University Avenue Service Drive north of Sylvan Lane. There is a stop sign on Sylvan Lane before entering the Service Drive eliminating sight problems that could be potentially caused by the new structure." - Michael McPhillips SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff has no recommendation as this variance is within previously granted dimensions. Similar variance granted: ➢ VAR #90-07 6261 Rainbow Drive To reduce the required side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 4.5 feet. CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE City Council — May 8, 2006 60 Day — May 22, 2006 (Proposed Location of Garage Addition) Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg VAR #06-04 REQUEST The petitioner, Michael McPhillips is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 6 ft. to allow the construction of a 264 square foot addition to the existing attached garage, located at his residence at 291 Sylvan Lane. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "There is minimal traffic on University Avenue Service Drive north of Sylvan Lane. There is a stop sign on Sylvan Lane before entering the Service Drive eliminating sight problems that could be potentially caused by the new structure." - Michael McPhillips ANALYSIS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS The property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are all surrounding properties. The property is located on the northwest corner of Sylvan Lane and University Avenue Service Road. The lot is rectangular shaped and fronts on Sylvan Lane. The home and garage were constructed in 1969. In 1986, an accessory structure was built in the rear yard of the property. This accessory structure was approved through a special use permit for a 2nd accessory structure. At the time of its approval, it was stipulated that a driveway didn't need to be installed to the accessory structure so long as the structure is being used for storage. It appears evident to current City staff that this structure is being used for storage and that there is none or minimal access to the structure from vehicles or trailers. Existing Home City Code requires a 17.5 ft. side yard setback for all structures on a corner lot. The existing garage is approximately 18 feet from the side yard property line and meets City code requirements. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 12 ft. by 22 ft. addition to the garage, which will reduce the side yard setback to approximately 6 ft, thus the need for the variance request. The petitioner's property will continue to meet all other setback, lot coverage, and allotment of accessory structure requirements after the proposed garage addition is constructed. The addition to the garage will be used for storage space of vehicles and other garage materials. City staff has received no comments from neighboring property owners. Location of Proposed Addition and Setback Reduction RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff has no recommendation as this variance is within previously granted dimensions. Similar variance granted: ➢ VAR #90-07 6261 Rainbow Drive Variance granted to reduce the required side yard setback on a corner lot from 17.5 feet to 4.5 feet. STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage and finished with complementary siding and color scheme. � � CffY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 William W. Burns, City Manager Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director May 8, 2006 Approval of Assessment Policy PW06-040 The attached policy entitled "Roadway Major Maintenance Financing Policy" outlines the City's basis for assessment of roadway improvements now that we are nearing completion of upgrading all our streets to concrete curb and gutter. The remainder of streets, in that program will continue to be assessed under the current policy. Essentially, future road reconstruction in residential areas will be assessed up to 50% of the total cost on a per lot basis. This works out to 25% to one side of a street, 25% to the other side of the street and the remainder will be funded by the city. The cost for streets wider than our residential standard of 30ft wide will be reduced on a proportional basis with the difference being added to the City's contribution. See section II. A.1. of the policy for a more detailed explanation. This policy includes mill and overlay projects. We are prepared to move forward with our 2006 mill and overlay project and so would like approval of this policy to help fund it. Recommend the City Council approve the attached Roadway Major Maintenance Financing Policy. �� ROADWAY MAJOR MAINTENANCE FINANCING POLICY The following policy sets forth guidelines for the financing of roadway major maintenance projects. (Total reconstruction of streets for the initial upgrade from a bituminous curbed street to a concrete curbed street will continue to be assessed based on the existing policy of calculating the assessment based on the costs to install the concrete curb and gutter.) DEFINITIONS A. Benefited Property: Property with frontage (rear, side, or front) along a roadway wiil be considered to receive benefit from any major maintenance projects. In the low-density residential lots (R1 and R2 Zoning), those properties with frontage and an existing access to the roadway will be considered to receive benefit. B. Major Maintenance; For the purpose of this policy, maj�r maintenance will consist of overiays, partial or total reconstruction together with other associated infrastructure repairs, reconstruction and minor extensions. C. Minor Maintenance: For the purpose of this policy, minor maintenance shall consist of pothole patching, crack sealing, seal coating and minor skin overlays. Funding of these maintenance activities are not addressed as part of this major maintenance policy. D. Project Cost: Included in the improvement cost to be assessed shall be the roadway major maintenance activity construction costs incurred to implement the improvements. E. New Construction: Construction of new streets and utilities through development shall be paid for by the landowner or developer, Costs and payment thereof shall be determined under a Developer's Agreement. F. Land Use Type: The classification of the land use wili be based on the property's current land use — not on what the underlying zoning of the property is. �� II. COST ALLOCATION The total project cost for major maintenance is to be allocated in accordance with the policy, It is the intention of this policy to allocate cost on a project basis rather than on a street-by-street or block-by-block basis, A. All publicly owned and maintained streets under City jurisdiction 1. Urban/Low-Density Residential (R1.and R2 Zoned� Lots For major maintenance reconstruction of standard residential streets, 50% percent of the project cost of a 30 foot wide standard residential street will be assessed to the area benefited on a per residentiai lot basis. Each year we wiil take the actual bid prices and adjust those quantities affected by street width to develop a cost for our "standard" street. For example, only 83.3% of the total cost of asphalt for the reconstruction of a 36 foot wide street will be included in the assessment calculation. (A 30 foot wide standard street divided by a 36 foot wide actual street width equals 83.3%) Other width affected bid items will be adjusted similarly. The difference will be added to the City costs. For purpose of this assessment policy, only those residential lots with frontage or an existing access to the roadway wiil be considered to receive benefit. 2, Commercial, Industrial, Manufacturing, Tax Exempt, Institutionai, and Medium and High-Densitx Residential Commercial, industrial, manufacturing, tax exempt, institutional and medium and high-density multi-residential frontages will be assessed actual project costs based on the lineal footage of streets being maintained adjacent to front, side, or rear lot sides. For individually owned multi-family structures, this cost will be divided equally between the individual units. Unplatted or vacant commercial, industrial, manufacturing, tax exempt, institutional medium and high-density residential properties will be assessed as described above based upon the land use allowed by the ordinance. III. ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, Water main, and Concrete Curb and Gutter; 1. The cost for major extension of storm sewer to new areas under major reconstruction will be assessed on a per lot basis. The current per lot assessment has been set by the City Council as $1000 each. 59 2, The cost of lateral and main storm sewer maintenance and reconstruction within the area where streets are receiving major maintenance will not be included in the project cost to be assessed. 3. The cost of lateral and main sanitary sewer and water main maintenance and reconstruction, and existing concrete curb and gutter repairs within the area where streets are receiving major maintenance will not be included in the project cost to be assessed. IV. FINANCING A. The cost of the roadway major maintenance and related utility improvements will be assessed over a period not to exceed 10 years. B. The project costs not funded by assessments will be funded from any funding sources as specified by the City Council. C. The assessment rate will be based on the project cost including the rate of interest on bonds sold to finance the project plus expenses. ��