01/26/2009 - 29222CITY OF COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
JANUARY 26, 2009
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of January 5, 2009.
Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009.
BOTH MINUTES WERE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Extension of Variance Request, VAR #06-01, for Totino-Grace High School, to
Increase the Height of the School Building from 30 Feet to 48 Feet for the
Renovation of the School Auditorium, Generally Located at 1350 Gardena Avenue
NE (Ward 2).
William Burns, City Manager, stated the height variance for reconstruction of the high school
auditorium was initially approved in January 2006. Council gave them a one-year e�tension in
March 2007. Given the difficulties with fundraising, they are asking for an additional e�tension
of the variance until January 23, 2010. Staff recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 2
2. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other
Local Use (85t'' Avenue Trail Project) (Ward 3).
William Burns, City Manager, stated the MSAS funding will be used to pay for the local match
on this project estimated at $175,000. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2009-06.
3. Resolution Approving and Authorizing Signing an Agreement with Sergeants of the
City of Fridley Police Department for the Years 2008 and 2009.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the City began contract negotiations with the police
sergeants in the fall of 2007. After failure to reach a final agreement on terms during
negotiations and at mediation, the Union filed for arbitration with the Bureau of Mediation
Services. The arbitration hearing was held on November 18, 2008. The arbitrator, Richard J.
Miller, upheld the City's position on nearly all disputed items in the contract. The wage and
benefit terms of the contract are the same as the terms in the current police patrol contract. They
also enable the City to maintain wage and benefit uniformity with other employee groups for
both 2008 and 2009. The cost of the contract for both years is $36,000. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2009-07.
4. Approve Revised Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Joint Powers
Agreement.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council (7LEC)
has been in existence since 1970. The multi-jurisdictional body provides direction and oversight
for a variety of county-wide law enforcement functions that benefit from cooperative action. It
oversees the county-wide provision of dispatching services, joint records management, county-
wide law enforcement training, and emergency management. The amended agreement serves to
combine several separate joint powers agreements into one comprehensive JLEC agreement.
There are no additional Fridley funds or responsibilities associated with these changes. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
3. Claims (140137-140439)
APPROVED.
4. Licenses
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 3
5. Estimates
Shank Constructors, Inc.
3501 — 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Filter Improvements
Project No. 379
Estimate No. 3 ............................................. $49,293.00
Standard Sidewalk
10841 Mankato Street N.E.
Blaine, NIN 55434
2008 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
Project No. 375
Estimate No. 6 ............................................. $ 570.15
APPROVED.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to remove the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of
January 5, 2009; the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009; and Item
Nos. 1 and 4. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of the minutes
and Item Nos. 1 and 4. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
Ryan Pobuda, 144 Satellite Lane NE, stated he is very concerned about speeding traffic on the
road. There are quite a few people who work in the area near Main Street, who tend to fly
through the neighborhood. He has small children and his neighbor has a small dog. They cannot
even be in their front yard. He put out a small "children at play" sign. It does not stop people.
He asked that either a speed bump be placed there or even a police officer watch the area.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 4
Mayor Lund asked if he had spoken with the Police Department.
Mr. Pobuda replied he had not.
Mayor Lund said he would mention it to the Police Department and have the neighborhood
resource officer contact him.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they can put the speed board out there.
Mayor Lund said Mr. Pobuda was not the first one who has complained.
PUBLIC HEARING:
8. Consideration of the 2009 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01.
MOTION by Commissioner Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and
open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:42.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated notice of the meeting was published in the last
two issues of the Sun Focus. The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments from the
affected owners on the project and future special assessments. In 2006, the City Council
approved a major maintenance financing policy for roadways and this guides our establishment
of special assessments for this resurfacing project.
Mr. Kosluchar stated it is the fourth year under the City's assessment policy for our major
maintenance of streets that have concrete curb and gutter. The project area is University Avenue
West Service Drive and local streets in Sylvan Hills. These locations were prioritized in 2008
upon recommendation of Engineering staff. On January 21, 2009, a public workshop was held
and approximately 50 owners were in attendance. The program will continue to maintain our
streets. What we are trying to do by overlaying the streets is maintain them in such a way that
we do not have to reconstruct the base material and not get into a more expensive repair later.
This project has been initiated to rehabilitate the asphalt surface in these two locations. We have
targeted necessary water main repair on University Avenue West Service Drive.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the City inspects pavement quality annually and updates information and
uses this to select projects for major maintenance. The University Avenue West Service Drive
has commercial traffic and is our poorest state aid corridor. We are looking at water main
replacement from 73rd to Osborne Road. We do an open cut and replace cast iron with ductile
iron. We are also looking at alternatives in engineering, including pipe bursting and directional
borings which allow us to replace the main with less surface disruption. There are no special
assessments proposed for the water main work It is paid out of the utility fund.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 5
Mr. Kosluchar stated the feasibility report identified the costs and approximate budget that is
available. It is very close to being wholly funded. The proposed assessment has two different
calculations. One is for non R-1 and non R-2 non-residential. This is for basically
commercial/industrial properties. The assessable footage is measured for each property. The
project non-assessable footage is deducted from the project costs, then all those assessable
footages are added together, and it is divided out. Basically the assessable construction is the
entire portion to center line from the abutting property. The cost per lineal foot for the project is
about $44. Under our policy, we assess 50 percent to the non R-1 and R-2 properties which is
approximately $22.
Mr. Kosluchar stated looking back at historic assessment rates for resurfacing projects, they
range from $20-$30 per lineal per foot. We are on the low end. Part of that is due to the width
of the street. Part of the reason that it is higher proportionately is because of current prices. We
are a little guarded on the estimates right now.
Mr. Kosluchar stated for the residential properties assessment, the project costs are totaled and
there is a deduction for public properties, parks, and those kinds of things. Corner lots are
assessed on one side only. The assessment is calculated dividing the total remaining project
costs by the number of residential property units. Twin homes and double bungalows contribute
the equivalent of two properties even if they only have one PIN.
Mr. Kosluchar stated basically each residential unit has an equal property assessment with the
exception of a few unique property assessments, 6348 and 6390 Satellite Boulevard are
recommended for partial assessments. This is pro-rated because a portion of those were
reconstructed under the 2008 street reconstruction project. We would obviously deduct that
footage and prorate their assessment. The property at 6111 Star Lane is assessed as non R-1/R-2
property. It is an apartment complex, so it is commercial.
Mr. Kosluchar showed options for paying the City's special assessments. There can be a lump
sum payment within 30 days of the final assessment hearing; it can be added to the property
taxes that are paid over 10 years, including interest which is typically 6-7 percent; or there is an
option for seniors meeting certain criteria. They can have assessments deferred until the sale of
their property. Looking at a 10-year payment plan for the estimated $950 residential assessment
at 6 percent interest, the payments would range annually from $152 to about $100 in the l Otn
year.
Mr. Kosluchar said they will be trying to do the bid letting on March 17 and will be
constructing during this summer.
Mervin Herrmann, 278 Mercury Drive, stated he lived at his address when the first street went
in. At that time, they were told they would be assessed only one time and after that it would be
maintenance, even the replacement of another street. He felt this should come out of the street
fund which he thinks is supported by tax money. When it was first built, he worked for the City
and worked on the assessment. They were assessed for the street and curbing. It was one of the
first projects that went in with concrete curb. He said he talked to Mr. Otteson and Mr. Pribyl,
and it was agreed that they had actually been assessed for the blacktop streets and concrete.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 6
Therefore, he feels this would be like maintenance more than rebuilding of the street. He said
they were told they would never be assessed.
Mayor Lund stated there are no assessments for any utility work, like the water main they are
talking about in certain areas. In 2008 they finalized the completion of the City's street
reconstruction program which included those older streets that did not have curb. Now we are
into the mill and overlays on the oldest streets built in 1962. Mr. Hermann's street has the status
of being in the worst condition of the streets in Fridley. This is not a new policy. It is the fourth
year of this special policy for this type of work.
Councilmember Barnette stated he thought he did tell Mr. Hermann the only thing he paid for
was curb and apologized if he misled him.
Mr. Kosluchar stated records they looked at showed that the street was assessed along with the
curb and gutter in 1962.
Mr. Hermann stated it may have been a year or so later, but the number of the job is "62."
There was no street of any kind, and because the developer had not done it, we had to pay for it.
William Burns, City Manager, asked if there was a record of the City promising that there
would never be another assessment.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, no.
Mayor Lund said you can either pay more each year to build up the street funds in Fridley or
reassess when the time arises. Now we are back to doing mill and overlays where we grind up
the asphalt and put in a new layer. If we do not do that, we will have deteriorating roads with
more potholes.
Mr. Hermann stated he realizes how the whole thing works, but the thing he looks at is he was
paying taxes and everybody else in his area for the other areas where they did not have to pay for
the street because they had it paved. Now he said they do not get help from taxpayers. We have
to pay the total bill on our own. He said he is not against the project.
Councilmember Bolkcom said he is getting help from taxpayers. State aid money is going
towards this project.
Mr. Hermann said after they initially did the job, it should have been charged to maintenance,
which should have been coming out of the street fund instead of special assessments to the
people who live on those streets.
Mayor Lund stated this is not the first year since the change in the City's policy. We do not
have the funds to continue perpetual maintenance of mill and overlay for the 100 plus miles of
street.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 7
Greg Smith, 180 Sylvan Lane NE, stated he is for the project. Fridley does a great job with the
streets. That is why he lives here. He said he thinks what most of the people here were really
trying to get at was why us and why now. Mr. Kosluchar had stated that Sylvan Lane was one of
the worst streets that needed to be done. He asked who was the worst. He asked if Sylvan Lane
was going to be the only project area?
Mayor Lund stated for 2009, yes. He showed the map and pointed out the red areas, and said
Mr. Smith's area was all red. The red areas are the worst. Staff does an annual review of the
streets to see conditions. There are a lot of little red areas and those people would pay a huge
e�tra cost because of the smallness of the project. We try to include a number of streets. Why
now? Because last year was the end of the reconstruction of the oldest streets in Fridley that did
not have curb. That was how it was easily identified. A lot of them had the old asphalt curb.
Now we are looking at projects that we have been postponing because we only get so much state
aid. There is a cap, and to best utilize the cap from the state aid is to not make the projects too
big.
Mr. Smith stated he thinks the main idea with people in Sylvan from what he has herd was the
issue of the economy. He asked if there was other ways to pay it rather than all at once.
Mayor Lund stated they could pay within 30 days or do the 10-year assessment at about a 6 to 7
percent interest rate. If you are a senior citizen with some restrictions on income, then you do
not have to pay the assessment but most of the interest does accrue until the assessment is paid.
The economy is down. He believes we are getting favorable contractor rates now.
Dr. Burns stated he spoke with Mr. Kosluchar about options. If Council is willing to consider it,
one option that sounds reasonable to him is to hold the assessment over unti12010. There would
be some City expense, some lost interest revenue of $7,000 to $8,000. However, above and
beyond that it is possible to do a project this year, not assess by November 30 or whenever the
County requires, and then implement the assessment the following year. That would give
property owners one year to come up with the first payment on the assessment.
Mayor Lund said he is not against that option, but would like to think about it. He is
apprehensive about two things. First, if we did postpone the assessments for a year and there is
about a$7,000 to $8,000 interest borne by the taxpayers, he does not necessarily know if he
wants to set a precedent for that although the economic times are probably somewhat unique. He
asked if the $7,000 to $8,000 the City incurred would be taxed onto the property owners'
assessments.
Dr. Burns replied he did not think so. The one down side is you are doing something different
than what they did with the Gardena people in 2008. However, maybe they could also justify it
by saying that conditions are different from what they were in 2008.
Mayor Lund stated this is the fourth year of these types of projects and this type of assessment.
Dr. Burns stated one of the things we really have to be careful of is consistency. We have to
treat people the same.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 8
Mr. Smith asked how about spreading the payment on it. Putting it on your first half taxes and
your second half taxes.
Mayor Lund stated it is being spread. It is a 10-year payback that will be split on the two
payments anyways.
Mr. Smith asked if it is going to be split onto two payments.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that is if you do not pay it up front.
Mayor Lund said it would be for 10 years at a 6 percent approximate interest rate. The yearly
amount would be split in half, in six-month increments.
David Landes, owner of commercial property at 250 Commerce Circle, stated their address is
actually on the street that is parallel to University. He is not sure what part of their property
would have the new street.
Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed it is the back half of his property. He asked what the name
of the business was.
Mr. Landes replied, Custom Graphics. He asked whether it is not the part that is parallel to
University.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes, it is just west of University.
Mr. Landes asked whether businesses are assessed at a higher rate per foot than residents?
Mr. Kosluchar replied that is correct.
Mr. Landes asked it their streets cost more than residential streets.
Mr. Kosluchar replied generally there is added width and added traffic due to it being
commercial property.
Mr. Hickok asked Mr. Landes what streets his business was between.
Mr. Landes replied between the park and the circle. He said they were being assessed
approximately $7,000.
Mr. Kosluchar stated he would be assessed for the east side of the property.
Mr. Landes stated they have a problem with access to their dock Their access is narrow.
Would this be a good time to look into getting the opening changed?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, absolutely, that is the connection to the existing street. Now is a good
time to talk about it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 9
Councilmember Barnette asked if it is Mr. Landes' or the City's responsibility.
Mr. Kosluchar stated any improvements that you do on your property is going to be at your
cost. He would want to change the cut of the driveway. There is an island that divides the in and
out and he would need the City to approve the narrowing of that island and widening of the
opening so trucks have an easier swing.
Mayor Lund stated it looks like that is something staff should probably look at.
Tom Dold, owner of the double bungalow at 6110 Star Lane, said Star Lane had been
resurfaced, not necessarily torn up and resurfaced, but some gravel has been put on it recently.
He knows we have had some upgrades on the curbs recently. When he drives around Sylvan
Hills and drives from 61st to 57th, there are e�tremely bad streets in any of those neighborhoods
with the exception of Third Street. He cannot figure out how Sylvan Hills can be in worse shape
than that neighborhood right now. If you drive Main Street from 61st to 57th the roads are in
tough shape. He disagrees with the assessment that Sylvan Hills is the worst neighborhood in
Fridley right now.
Mayor Lund stated 61st actually is in poor condition in his opinion, too, and so is Main Street.
The reason why they are not factored in on this project is because of the pending Northstar
station site there. He would hate to see to have that improved this year with the construction
traffic and things. Also, there may be some changes to the street that need to be made.
Mr. Dold said there were other streets from Main Street to University going south of 61st
Avenue.
Mayor Lund asked, so he is talking about 2"d Street and 2'/z Street.
Mr. Dold replied, yes. Those streets are all in worse shape than anything he has seen on Sylvan
Hills. He does not understand the logic of what constitutes poor condition vs. poorest condition.
Mr. Dold said he was also concerned regarding the double assessment for the double bungalows.
He said he thought the only double bungalows in the Sylvan Hills area are on Star Lane. There
are three properties on Sunrise Drive that take up more linear feet than the first two double
bungalows which he and his brother own. He does not mind being assessed somewhere but
thinks it unfair they are being assessed twice as much as any one of those homes.
Mayor Lund asked how many families are living on Star Lane. There is one family in that
home yet they have a longer frontage. Mr. Dold has a double bungalow with two families in it.
It is probably reasonable to assume that there is probably more usage with two families using
those roads and, therefore, the benefit.
Mr. Dold stated across the street at 6111 which is being assessed as R-1/R-2, there are 24
families living in that building. He asked if they were being assessed 24 times.
Mayor Lund asked if it was an apartment building.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 10
Mr. Dold replied, yes.
Mayor Lund stated the apartment complex is paying the commercial rate and, as he heard from
another commercial property, they are paying a much higher assessment. He asked Mr.
Kosluchar if they had an amount.
Mr. Kosluchar stated on the mock assessment roll our estimated assessment is about $6,000 on
that property.
Mr. Dold replied his is $1,900 for his double bungalow. Between himself, his brother, and the
ne�t neighbor, they have three properties for a total of six units. They are paying the same
amount as an apartment complex. That is where the assumption falls apart that there is that much
more usage. It is just not fair.
Mayor Lund asked if it was more fair to do the linear footage assessment on the three
properties.
Mr. Dold replied they would be getting a better deal than what they are already getting because
it costs $6,000 for an apartment complex that takes the entire half of Star Lane and the other half
is maybe half a dozen properties. He is just saying that with the amount of usage, that
calculation falls short with the apartment complex in his opinion. He would not mind and would
prefer it if the City would at least consider, instead of two times assessment for a double
bungalow or duplex, perhaps 1.5 times assessment to try and equal this out. If they are charged
1.5 times as a duplex it would actually be exactly the same amount as the property behind them
on Sunrise Drive. There are not many properties that would require that assessment.
Mayor Lund stated he has a point.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated after the neighborhood meeting she went away with the
thought, does it make it sense to do something like this, this year, considering that we may be
close to a depression. What is the cost of waiting and doing the project ne�t year?
Mr. Kosluchar stated the cost will be minimal to delay it a year as long as it is programmed in.
If you start falling behind one cycle, then it is going to build up and the cost will build up over
time. If you let it go a year and double it up with another year's project, then we are probably
pretty limited. We will have the maintenance again this year to do, and we did some expensive
maintenance, and did some skin patching.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked where the state aid came from.
Mr. Kosluchar replied that is gas tax funding.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there are any changes we would have to make going in and
out of that neighborhood related to the commuter rail.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 11
Mr. Kosluchar replied they had some discussions on that internally. He met with Mr. Hickok
and they talked about the rail station. Mr. Hickok gave him some history. It is his understanding
that there is some mitigation built in to try and keep traffic out of the neighborhood. One of the
things that came out of that meeting as well is the existing cut-through traffic. What it boils down
to with this project is we would not be implementing any of those measures over and above. In
other words, we would not narrow a street to make it one way. We would sign it one way, it
would be one way, and there would be parking on both sides. To go to the added cost to narrow
the street at this point would probably be excessive.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would hurt to put in a median. We had a fair amount of
discussion years ago when we first started talking about commuter rail and that was one of the
biggest concerns that neighborhood had. Similar to the concerns when Christenson Crossing was
built. She asked Mr. Kosluchar if he felt there had to be any design changes to the road itself, and
are we not hurting anything by doing this? We sure would look foolish if we did something in
this neighborhood and then came back and changed the roads.
Mr. Kosluchar replied right offhand he did not think so. They would like some time to look at
that, too. There is some time. We will be into May before construction is started.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is amazed at how much a commercial property is assessed,
i.e., Bob's Produce and Dunn Brothers. They are looking at $16,000. She knows that $950 is
huge to a resident, too.
Mr. Kosluchar replied the $16,000 is actually two parcels. They spoke with Mike Schroer. He
understood the need for the project. His issue was more of timing. At this time, it is not good
for him.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the idea Dr. Burns was talking about would include the
commercial properties.
Dr. Burns said that was for the whole project.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated regarding the comments about Second and Third Street, she
asked if part of the reason for the delay on these streets is we were waiting for more homes to be
built there. We do not want to do a project in a neighborhood where we are still building homes.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied, Third Street was completed up to 60tn
Avenue last year. The first part of the work was done and it was left that way while construction
was happening on the northern block so that construction equipment moving in and out would
not take a toll on a finished surface. Near the end of last summer the second lift got put down on
Third. As for 2'/z and Second Street, he is not really well-versed on those conditions.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated a couple of those streets are bad but, again, maybe some of the
traffic patterns related to the commuter rail might change what we are doing there. She asked if
staff had spoken with Bob's Produce and some of the other commercial properties about working
late at night. She asked if it would increase costs.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 12
Mr. Kosluchar stated they actually talked about it with Mike Schroer of Bob's Product, and the
cost is not excessive. They are talking with some contractor right now. They think it is a really
good option.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they are placing notices on mailboxes.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, as he understands it we place them in the mailbox when we cannot get
to a door conveniently.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is not legal. You cannot put political information or
anything in them so it might be a practice we want to stop doing. At the third hearing she heard
Mr. Otteson talk about an inch and a half of asphalt costs about $900 and an additional half inch
costs $300 more. They want to do this project and they want it to last. She asked if they were
putting two inches down.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we are working on that. Obviously we want to do what is right and what
is going to last for the neighborhood, but we also want to do it with sensitivity to the economy.
It is not a one size fits all for all the streets. Some of the streets are built thicker. Some have a
thicker base. We are going through a little more analysis to try and control costs.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if we are going to be spending the taxpayers' money, we
should at least look at whether they should be spending the e�tra for the additional asphalt. She
also asked if we have had any duplexes or double bungalows in any of the rest of our street
improvement projects.
Mr. Kosluchar replied not that he is aware of.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is truly spelled out in our roadway and major maintenance
financing policy. Does it address bungalows and duplexes?
Mr. Kosluchar replied it is more generic than that. It talks about the use. In other words, if the
property is used as two units, then it is assessed as two units. If Council wanted to get more
specific about amending the policy, we could do that.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like them to go back and see what we have done
and if there have been any double bungalows or duplexes.
Mayor Lund stated and it is always tough. He is not against looking at it. He thinks Mr. Dold
does bring up some valid points. He does not want to be making policy changes that now
become exceptions. We have to be very careful we have some consistencies in the policies and
are not changing them mid-stream.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated when she left the neighborhood meeting and someone came up
to her and said why this year, why not do anything this year, she could see their point. She is a
little concerned about delaying it for a year and then ne�t year if the stock market goes down "X"
amount of points, do we then put it onto the ne�t year. We have to be careful in that respect, too.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 13
Mayor Lund stated he agrees and understands the hardships for a lot people. Nobody knows
what the future will hold. He is a little apprehensive about delaying the project because we do
not know if things will come around in a year and what the price of oil will be. There are a lot
of "ifs."
Dr. Burns said we planned this project before the State decided to do University Avenue in
2009. The State will be coming in and doing milling and overlaying on University Avenue
between some point south in Columbia Heights and some point north around Northtown. He did
not think we want to do our project in conjunction with theirs. He asked Mr. Kosluchar whether
we are going to have enough leeway there to get our project separated from the MnDOT project.
Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed we will. At this time we do not have a firm schedule from
MnDOT. They are working with our contractor to get the contract approved and signed. At that
point they are going to sit down and work out a detailed schedule. His understanding of the
project is that it is going from 40th Avenue all the way to 610. The University segment we are
talking about here is probably a pretty small portion. They will probably be in that vicinity for a
month or so. He is confident we can work around that. If we do not believe it is feasible for us
to construct around them, then we will come back to Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when we would know. It would be great if they would tear
down the fence and start mowing at the same time.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we are hoping to know within the ne�t month.
Mayor Lund stated Dr. Burns brought up a point. He was wondering if there would be any
potential cost savings for us in running the project in conjunction with the State's mill and
overlay. Have we spoken with the State engineer regarding any potential savings?
Mr. Kosluchar replied he thinks there are some issues of jurisdictional control, and he does not
think the State would want to be bothered, as this is a little project to them. He thinks the City
stands to have potential savings because the State project is ongoing and they receive better bids
not only from the contractor that is in line for that work but the other contractors.
Mr. Pobuda asked with this project, ne�t year, are 2"d Street and 2'/z Street going to be assessed
as well? Would it make sense to lump that in since it is basically a block away? If the City is
going to have a contractor bid, would it not be less money assessed to the taxpayers?
Mayor Lund asked whether staff has looked at this.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we have not yet analyzed our inspections from 2008. This project was
designated based on the 2007 inspections. We will be looking at it. He knows that basically all
the streets are on our radar. They have been concentrating on the MSA routes, so he knows 61st
Avenue is designated for 2010 right now. It makes sense to connect some of those streets.
Mr. Pobuda asked regarding the Northstar station that is being built, how much are they picking
up as far as rebuilding Main Street and 61st Avenue?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 14
Councilmember Barnette replied none.
Mr. Pobuda stated so then it is back on the taxpayers.
Mayor Lund stated there are the MSA state aid monies. Regarding 61st Avenue west of
University, that was potentially earmarked in 2007, but we purposely delayed that because we
did not want to put a new street in and then have the contractor come in and tear it up if they
were bringing in the tunnel that way or East River Road. It may make good sense to look at 2"a
Street and 2'/z Street and other streets south of 61 st Avenue since we are looking at north of 61 st
Avenue now. As the Public Works Director mentioned, they have not looked at the reviews of
this past summer yet. They are identifying those here later on for 2010. If we do not keep up
with the streets it just means we get further behind.
Mr. Pobuda stated he is in agreement that it has to be done. He would rather pay now then later
because eventually paying later you are going to pay more money in the long run. As far as
owning a rental property, you are making income on that. In his eyes they could actually charge
more.
Councilmember Bolkcom said if state aid funds are cut, would this project go away? If they cut
our funding this year, would it stall this project?
Mr. Kosluchar stated it would be substantially cut back.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but we would still do it.
Mr. Kosluchar replied a portion of it could be done. If state aid funds were taken away
completely, probably very little.
Mayor Lund stated he doubts they would take it away this year, knowing cities have already let
their projects or assigned contracts.
Mr. Dold stated he is an advocate of not delaying this project. However, he has been listening to
a lot of the grand scheme the current administration has in place to revitalize the economy and
put money into infrastructure. If any money ever came to the State and was handed back to the
City of Fridley, would that assessment go away? Is there any chance that assessments like this
would get paid for by that kind of stimulus?
Mayor Lund replied, absolutely not. If there was any money given back, it would be for public
works projects and state bridges. It is not going to come down to us.
Mr. Herrmann stated regarding putting the 2-inch overlay, he knows that is one-third more and
basically this thing is going to cost a third more. There are a lot of constant costs involved.
Therefore, he feels that it should not come up more than maybe $150 instead of the $300 because
of the constant costs that are in there. He wished Mr. Kosluchar would look into that. He will
not outlive the street as it is, but he feels this business is still good business. If it would cost like
$150 more, he would still be for it even though he would never benefit from it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 15
Mayor Lund replied we are going to try and get the best deal we possibly can get without
spending any more money on behalf of any of the taxpayers or ourselves.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks he is saying he is all for us doing 2 inches vs. 1'/z
inches if it only costs a little bit more money.
Mr. Hermann stated it may cost a little more. But that it would cost a third more, he cannot go
along with that.
Ray Lenzen, Housing Director at Banfill Crossing, a senior building at 8310 University Avenue,
stated they definitely are all for the project. They have a few concerns about safety of their
residents with driving while the work is being done on the Service Road as well as the work
potentially on University Avenue that the State already contacted them about. They are going to
have a meeting about more traffic being diverted onto the Service Road. One thing they are
concerned about with their residents is walking over to Wal-Mart. The curve is very dangerous
coming from Wal-Mart to their building. Last year there was a fatally accident that happened
there with a vehicle and a garbage truck Originally when Banfill had developed they had the
potential of having a sidewalk from Banfill all the way over to Wal-Mart. He does not know
what happened and was not there back then. They would like that looked into if possible.
Mayor Lund asked if they were willing to pay for the sidewalk?
Mr. Lenzen stated they are already being assessed $11,000. He knows that part of it was
Wal-Mart was not willing to pay for it.
Mayor Lund said they would look at it.
Mr. Lenzen stated Banfill Crossing is owned by a non-profit organization and they have already
put their budget in for approval. They did not get any of the information about the assessment
until after their budget was approved through the board. This year they told the residents they
were not going to raise rents because of the economy. That definitely was a burden to them but
yet they are still willing to do it. If they are able to defer it to the ne�t year as was mentioned,
that would help them to not have such a big loss.
Mayor Lund confirmed their approved budget is for 2009?
Mr. Lenzen replied, yes.
Mayor Lund stated the actual assessment will occur in November. Then they have 30 days. It
is possible to defer it to the 2010 budget. They can pay it off early if they want to pay it in one
lump sum. They may pay for interest just going into 2010.
Dr. Burns stated the assessment does not apply unti12010.
Mayor Lund told Mr. Lenzen he could deal with staff on that payment issue.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 16
Mayor Lund stated we could certainly have a discussion and look at that possibility. It makes
sense, if nothing else, on the safety issue. We will do our best to try and make some type of
accommodation for the amount of pedestrian traffic coming from the apartment complex.
Councilmember Varichak asked what is done with the leftover asphalt? We used it from the
other street project at Community Park.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we will not be generating nearly as much with this type of project. We
are going to be skimming off 1'/z to 2 inches of pavement. That asphalt actually gets trucked
back to the asphalt plant, recycled, and used again.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:09 P.M.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when they would have the discussion about the assessment,
costs, benefits and other issues raised.
Dr. Burns said some issues have been brought up. He asked if it would be appropriate to bring
it back in the pre-meeting on February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but will that stop us from ordering the plans? That would
delay the project.
Mayor Lund asked what the timeline was. Would it negatively impact the project if we delayed
taking action until the ne�t Council meeting?
Mr. Kosluchar stated he would recommend to Council that they be allowed to continue on with
plans as they are going to be constructing and developing the two roadways, whether we do it
now or later.
Mayor Lund stated questions can still be brought up at the pre-meeting before the ne�t Council
meeting on February 9. If Council wants to stop the project, we still have that out.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the whole discussion about delaying assessments is a huge
policy issue. She asked how the people at tonight's meeting would find out the results. We also
have issues regarding the 1'/z vs. 2 inches, deferred assessment and the cost to the City as a
whole, and duplex vs. the bungalow vs. the apartments.
Dr. Burns said if they could answer the question on the deferral of the assessment until 2010
perhaps we can wait until later to get the other questions answered.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she thought they needed to have a discussion.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 17
Dr. Burns asked Mr. Kosluchar what damage would be done to the timetable if they tabled the
resolution ordering final plans and postponed it until February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they needed to do that. The only thing we are going out for
are plans and specifications and estimates. That has nothing to do with the special assessment,
does it?
Dr. Burns replied, right, we are not getting committed to the project; but we are getting
committed to the expense of going for the plans and specifications.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked she does not think anyone disagrees the project needs to be
done; but it is whether we defer the assessment and how we assess.
Mr. Kosluchar stated they are on two independent tracks. There is a design track and a
construction track If Council is entertaining proceeding with the project, then we will
recommend they pass the resolution regardless of how they want to handle the assessment. That
is something that can be discussed at a future meeting.
Dr. Burns asked if there is another step in the assessment process before awarding the bid for
the contract.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if letters could be sent out after this was discussed.
Dr. Burns replied that would make sense.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked the City Attorney if they were doing anything they should not
be doing, as long as we are going to eventually have the actual hearing on the assessment in
October or whenever it might be.
Attorney Knaak answered you are not doing any harm by doing this, because ultimately it is the
decisions you make at that latter meeting that would matter.
OLD BUSINES:
9. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA
#05-03, by JLT East River Road, LLC, Generally Located at 5601 East River Road)
(Ward 3) (Tabled January 5, 2009).
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated on September 12, 2005, Council
approved the first reading of the rezoning to C-3, General Shopping, from M-2, Heavy Industrial,
for the property at 5601 East River Road. At that time Council also approved this condition on a
24-month timeframe.
Mr. Hickok stated at Council's last meeting they did ask some very good questions of the
developer and staff and some assignments were given about things like the uniqueness of this
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 18
request relative to other rezoning requests that might occur. There was a question about an
easement with a neighboring property owner that Council expressed an interest in wanting to
know more about having an easement document in place by the time this came back.
Modifications to the architectural standards for the development were discussed and a parking
layout for the development.
Mr. Hickok stated the uniqueness to the request is very important. Council asked what made
this site different. This is the largest undeveloped parcel left in the City of Fridley. It is over 26
acres including the little entrance piece to the north. The parcel is zoned right now as M-2,
Heavy Industrial, and one is guided Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. In the Council's
recent amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Council did choose to amend this to
Commercial as opposed to Industrial as the guide plans for this property. Also the property is
being requested to be rezoned Commercial and by Council's first reading that did give an
indication, not only for the developer, but to the viewing public that there was an interest to bring
this forward as a Commercial development area as opposed to continuing it as an Industrial area.
Mr. Hickok stated part of that 24-month e�tension was to bring back the project, and economic
conditions, for one, caused the developer to ask for a number of e�tensions. To conclude on the
uniqueness of the request, this site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial. It has
had its first reading for rezoning. It is the largest undeveloped parcel. Those conditions are hard
to match. Council has its broadest discretion to rezone, but boils down to the simplest question,
is it a proper Commercial district? From staff's perspective, this is a site that is best used as a
commercial site.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding the easement with an adjacent property owner, there was a question
about that and an easement document was included in Council's packet. It is an easement that is
drawn and an agreement between the two property owners.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding modifications to architectural standards, Council found there were
a number of pieces they wanted analyzed and changed. Staff went back and met with the
architect. The architect/developer went back and reviewed those and the changes were made.
Modifications were forwarded and a much improved, packet of criteria for the architecture was
forwarded to them.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding parking layout for the development, there are a couple different
types he thinks are important to show them. The parking lot would be at a 2.2 percent grade
between the base of the building down to an area towards East River Road. The parking lot then
planes out to an area that is just along the right-of-way before it gets to the roadway.
Mr. Hickok stated the developer has added a considerable amount of parking islands in the
parking lot to soften the effect of the hard surface. They also sent photographs of various sites
they have developed. Mr. Hickok presented the photographs. He showed a night-time view of
one of the projects, as he knows lighting is important. There was some interesting discussion
about lighting last time, and Council has a real good sense about what they would like to see
there. They did not want to see a glare and high intensity.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 19
Mr. Hickok presented an aerial view of the site. Previously there was a very large industrial
building that has been removed from the site. He provided more photos from the developer.
Mr. Hickok stated the stipulations have remained the same since staff reviewed this project.
One of the things he would like to note though and apologize for is, when they talked about the
stipulation about the architectural criteria, we should use that more recent date of January 23,
2009, and not the November date they have. Staff feels the petitioner has "passed the test" with
the criteria for rezoning and the stipulations that are included in their packet.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was an additional stipulation.
Mr. Hickok replied yes, Stipulation No. 10. It may be one of the most important additions. The
developer or successors shall agree to bring back the project for further review, if the project
substantially changes from the plan approved. "Substantial" can be defined as the change in the
number of buildings. Change in types of uses or modification of an individual building that adds
or subtracts 20 percent or more to the building's floor area.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok, on page 6 of the minutes from the Council
meeting of January 6, he mentioned there is a 24-month timeframe to allow them to bring back a
full plan for second reading. That is why she asked for the minutes to be pulled. To be honest
with him, if she had known back in August she would have never voted for the first reading
because she really felt they were going to go out and market and actually come back with an
actual use here. She does not see that tonight. She goes back to the minutes of August 2005.
We mention that they will come back with site information and they would be able to market it.
More than just this one but in September, give us that first reading as we know it is going to be
commercial, and we will come back with an actual site plan of an actual retail commercial
property here. She is not seeing that tonight.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked which Comprehensive Plan the City was using. She knows
that we approved the 2020 Plan, but asked if it had been approved by all the agencies.
Mr. Hickok replied it is before the Met Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they were still dealing with the previous Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Hickok stated it is not 100 percent official until it comes back from the Metropolitan
Council and any changes they have made are addressed.
Councilmember Bolkcom said but in reality the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is really not our
bible at this point until it comes back from the Met Council.
Mr. Hickok replied Council took their action to designate land areas for the future and in that
they have described this as a commercial site.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 20
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not disputing that she feels it should be a commercial
site. She asked if the DeMello project was in our Comprehensive Plan as an S-2 redevelopment.
Mr. Hickok said it was.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak, even though they were asking for a rezoning,
did we not hold them to some very strict guidelines because they actually had a use--they had a
proposed project there. She asked the developer at the last meeting whether he has ever done
this anywhere else. Also, have we ever done it as a City? He gave the legal opinion that this is
unique. However, did we not in the DeMello project have an actual use for that property and
hold them to some very strict guidelines related to their development.
Mr. Hickok stated in all due respect he would say that was not a fair comparison, because the
S-2 Redevelopment District not only is a rezoning request that they made, but their master plan
is predicated on the density, the footprints of the building, the landscape, the number of parking
stalls, etc. It was very much like a planned unit development where they are proposing
something that was basically locked down to a master plan. This zoning going from M-2 to
Commercial does not have that master plan. Essentially what the question before them is, is it or
is it not a commercial site, and have you typically, as a practice, had a land use before you where
you can actually look at and view the architecture. Yes, you have. Does that mean you could
not approve one. No, not at all. In a multi-tenant situation like this, it is not unusual at all for a
developer to not know his tenants are. These kinds of rezonings happen regularly.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they have happened in our City.
Mr. Hickok replied, we have not had that much. It is a large piece of property and it depends on
multi-tenants. This is not a Home Depot with a PetSmart. This is a larger site, and it depends on
a number of tenants and they do not know right now who they are. Staff did deal numerous
times with development prospects who were looking at this site. They did go to the market.
They did exactly what they said they were going to do in 2005. They marketed the project. And
they brought development and there were people knocking on our door. There were a lot of
prospects interested in that site. The fact that they do not have a project for them tonight, does
not mean that they did not market the project.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is really sorry if any way she said they did not market it.
She guessed what she is trying to say is that she thought they said they would bring something
back to Council for the second reading with an actual use for this property. She does not see
that.
Mr. Hickok stated no one is more disappointed than them. They would have liked to have had a
real project there. Staff would like to see a project, but given the current economic market, they
are still interested in pursuing this as a commercial site, and they are acting on a first reading and
a Comprehensive Plan designation that says it is viewed as a future commercial site for Fridley.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she sees a lot of wonderful trees on this property. What would
prevent them to come back and say, you know what, trees are twice as high as they used to be.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 21
What would prevent them to say in this market we cannot put all that in because we had to
promise so much for this and this for these retail properties. She asked if he understands that her
concern is that not even one thing is identified here. She was excited when she saw the pictures.
Right now she sees a bunch of cars and a lot of asphalt in the front as you go down East River
Road. She hopes it is a gateway. We are going to have the commuter rail system. We could
possibly have cars on both sides. That is all people will see. It is hard for her to agree with the
second reading. Do we feel comfortable legally because we have been in court two times
recently related to rezoning issues, including a couple projects in the last couple years. Does the
City Attorney feel comfortable if someone else comes along with another so-called "unique"
property that is identified in our 2030 Comprehensive Plan that he can say that this project is
unique compared to some other property.
Attorney Knaak replied yes. The question that he was asked at the last meeting had to do with
that very issue. If we do it in this case, would we have to do it for someone else. The answer is,
the more similar it is to whatever a subsequent project is, the likelier it would be. Even if you
did not want that project to occur, someone could take you to court and essentially force you to
do it. So here the discussion he had with staff was what specific thing about this site in particular
would make this unique. The size of the site seems to be the primary issue that is involved.
There is no other comparably-sized site that is located as this one is right off the freeway that
makes it amenable to this kind of development. So based on the information and discussion he
had with the staff, he does believe that the City could take the position that this is in fact
sufficiently unique so that this would not get thrown back at them and they would find
themselves being compelled to rezone another parcel.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if the uniqueness was because of the size.
Attorney Knaak replied it has to do with the size and the particular location. It is the size and
the location by the freeway. Under the circumstances here, that is a reasonable assessment.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked so on page 14 of the minutes from the last meeting, the two
comments, does that depict what he said that night?
Attorney Knaak replied it does reflect what he said.
William Burns, City Manager, said he agrees with Councilmember Bolkcom, he sat here when
this came up the first time and it was clearly his understanding that we were going to be looking
at a project when we looked at the second reading. On the other hand, the economic climate has
changed an awful lot since the first reading was approved. The developer and the City had put
some time into reviewing the different projects. While we do not have a second reading, we do
not have the protection of a second reading if we agree to it tonight. We do have what he
considers to be a pretty strong stipulation that will under most circumstances allow us to see
what it is that is coming forward at the time that it comes forward when the economy straightens
out. This is not going to be a short-term effort. It is going to be something that is going to take
two or three years or maybe even more. It will take a while. He thinks Stipulation No. 10 gives
us a reasonable amount of protection. He would think that anything that comes back is not going
to be significantly different from what they have tonight. He asked if they liked what they saw.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 22
If they did not, they might want to turn it down. Stipulation No. 10 gives us the ability to protect
ourselves from something that is entirely unacceptable to us at some later point in time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if she reads Stipulation No. 10, it says, change in the number
of the buildings. Change in the types of uses. She asked what those types of changes were.
Dr. Burns replied, changes in the footprint of the building.
Mr. Hickok stated the buildings are labeled right now. Certain ones are labeled out as fast food
restaurant, banks, with a large box retailer on the site. Change in use would mean that they are
not having that mix of retail and other services on the site but they are doing something different.
That would come back before you. A rezoning does not just mean they are going to build what
they want there. It would mean they come in for a permit and by that stipulation, they have one
added with criteria and that is if it has changed, they are going to come back to you and you will
have an opportunity to look at it and understand what it is they are proposing.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, so in other words if they come back and instead of a fast food
restaurant they ask for a Dollar Store and a Fanstasy House, will it come back to us?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it would. He said he did not know if the earlier question about the
landscape piece was answered. That is what they are proposing right now. A big part of that is
protected by the ordinances that exist right now. On an enormous site, an enormous number of
trees are required on that site. Also, we have heard from the developer and they demonstrate
from their projects that they do have a strong desire to keep up their landscape and not just go
with the standard but increase the number and increase the size in many cases. The first step to
bringing a project back like that for us is them being able to go out and say we actually have the
zoning to do it.
Mayor Lund stated he has a concern about Stipulation No. 10 as well. He does think it will
allow us some latitude. His question for Attorney Knaak is does one paragraph really give us the
latitude that is being suggested here tonight. For instance, it says the developer's successors
shall agree to bring back the project for further review. So they bring it back for further review.
It does not really tell them clearly that we have the latitude to make changes if there is some
substantial differences.
Dr. Burns replied, what if we said "for review and approval"?
Attorney Knaak replied if you add "and approval" he thinks his concern would be taken care of.
"Re-approval" would be the appropriate term.
Mayor Lund stated he knows they have the required landscaping. The applicant has stated they
do more than the minimal we require. He asked if that should be added.
Mr. Hickok replied that was the distinct difference in the DeMello project, but Stipulation No.
10 brings you a master plan. He can count the trees on this site plan, and he can tell them that a
modification to the site plan that brings you a different number of trees, it starts to look like a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 23
difference to him, and the number of trees is enough that he would consider substantial, we can
go through it again. Even if the uses remain the same but they have shifted the site so that the
landscape gets diminished, he thinks it is worth seeing again. So this really is a master plan very
much like we had on Old Central.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she should move this into the record.
Attorney Knaak replied he does not know if it would necessarily help but it would not hurt.
You do not really have a development agreement. That he thinks is what they were looking for.
This is a little different than that which is why the protection. The development agreement
would provide many of the protections they were concerned about. You could certainly do that
and attach that or incorporate it as part of the minutes or something like that. But that would not
make it a development plan.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated going back to October 4, 2006, related to the agreement
between the City Council and the Met Council, is that all free and clear now or is there still some
work that needs to be done? Should that be made a part of this because the City should not be
paying for any of that and we were administrators of the fund. Does that make a change in any
way because of the plan? Mr. Hickok made some mention of that at the last meeting.
Mr. Hickok replied he thinks it is important that they mention that. Any obligation that we have
really is the conduit for them to obtain that financing and has been taken on by the developer.
Any new obligations that they would have relative to a change would be directly their
responsibility with the Metropolitan Council, and our role would be to make certain that they did
what was necessary here.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if that was inferred anywhere in these stipulations?
Mr. Hickok replied it is really like a neighborhood dispute if you want to put it in other terms. It
is a civil matter between them and the Metropolitan Council at this point. If the Metropolitan
Council asks something of them, including refund of $168,000 to them, then they would be
responsible for doing that. We would be the watchdogs to make sure that happens.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but right now because the City is an administrator of the funds,
are we under any obligation because we are the administrators? Is there an obligation as a City?
Mr. Hickok replied, he just wanted to be clear, he is not saying we have no obligation. Our job
would be to watchdog on behalf of the Metropolitan Council and make sure they are getting their
funds back if that is what is being asked. At this point it is speculation. He just brought it up
simply because when they made their application, they showed 2,000 square feet plus another
mixed retail development on this site, and that is not what we are seeing today. Does that mean
the Metropolitan Council will follow-up and have some administrative sanctions that they would
impose? He does not know of that ever happening. If it did, our role would be to make sure that
what is necessary happens. The developer in this case has taken on the responsibilities from the
City. They could obtain that grant without us but they have agreed to all obligations of that grant
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 24
including all the paperwork, all of the administration, all of the recording back on the expense
with what they did with the funds.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she just wanted to make sure legally in no way would we be at
all involved in trying to pay back some money should the Met Council request it. She asked
Attorney Knaak if he agreed with what Mr. Hickok said.
Attorney Knaak stated his response and understanding would be that the City would not have
any direct responsibility or liability, but given the circumstances he thinks it would be worth
some initial inquiry on his part.
Mark Anderson, civil engineer with McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., the item he was
going to speak to was the landscape plan. The impression he got was the City wants to ensure
that the level of landscaping is similar to this in the final development. His answer would be that
it will be because what you see is essentially the City requirements and it goes into detail on their
landscape plans. He would compliment the City Code in that is very good and it ensures a nice
landscaped site.
Mayor Lund stated it sounds like there needs to be further review on the one question about the
Met Council. He does not know what ultimately their liability would be. He asked if any of the
petitioners had anything to say.
Joe Meyer, JLT Group, asked if they can be on record here tonight saying they understand that it
is their responsibility. If there is anything. Mr. Hickok described it exactly the way they
understand it. Council can rest assured that there is nothing coming from the developer where
they are going to wash their hands of it and say, well, somehow that is the City's responsibility.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated her concern is that because the City Council did approve the
grant application, she thinks there is some obligation. Until they actually get something back
from our attorney, she is not comfortable about this.
Dr. Burns asked does the City's liability under the grant application increase or decrease or stay
the same depending on what we do with the second reading of the rezoning. Is there any
relationship between the rezoning and our liability? He thinks even if the rezoning is turned
down, there was a grant application that we helped and applied for to the Met Council and if the
obligations of that application have not been met and Met Council chooses to come back and
look for money, the liability is still there whether we are referring to rezoning or not. He is not
sure rezoning is relevant to the liability.
Attorney Knaak replied, he believed that was an accurate statement.
Mr. Hickok replied that was really one of the points of him putting that on the record is that it is
an issue that he cannot, and he does not know that the City can, reconcile. In their application to
the Metropolitan Council, they did indicate they would produce on this site, a certain number of
square feet and that it would be a mix of retail and office. So the point is just making it clear for
the record, that there may be an issue that they need to reconcile.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 25
Dr. Burns stated do we want to add a stipulation to protect ourselves regarding this? Is that
something we should consider?
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there could be an attorney out there that says, I do not care
what it says, you still made the grant application. Also,she did not really hear from our attorney
tonight saying there might be, and he needed to do some more research.
Attorney Knaak stated he would want to see the grant again. The question would be, what
would be the liability and if there was an agreement on the part of the developer that any liability
that the City incurred would be covered by the developer or owner.
Mr. Anderson asked is it not also true that anything you decide not to do even emphasizes it
more because there is nothing there today so if we do not get a new plan approved, we have to go
with an industrial site development which would clearly be less development on this site than
what we are proposing?
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to table this item until the ne�t meeting so the
City Attorney can look at the grant application.
Kathy Anderson, President of Architectural Consortium, stated she has had the pleasure for 25
years designing and master planning and working on many, many millions of square feet of
different retail commercial development. She thinks tonight what they are here for is rezoning
both the developer and the City is looking for on this particular site. Now, Met Council grants
and outside issues such as those are issues that are aside of the fact of this rezoning. She believes
that still we are here to look at rezoning this to commercial. So what they have prepared for
Council are guidelines that gives them kind of a snapshot and scenario. They have reviewed the
City Code and given you a plan; but the Met Council and decisions for the grant monies and
grant approvals are separate from the Council rezoning this property. Things like Arbor Lights,
for instance, that was a gravel pit and the vision was made. The City determined that would be a
good commercial area. However, first and foremost, the City and the developers agreed to work
at getting a commercial zoning, getting it rezoned, taking it to the market so the market will
know this is a commercial site.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked who owned the gravel pit was talking about.
Mr. Anderson replied, Tiller Companies.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was actually owned by the City of Maple Grove before
that.
Ms. Anderson stated Tiller Companies or Tamarack Village, a cow field, or Silver Lake Village,
a rezoning from what was a mall to a mixed use development. The first step though is, and she
thinks everyone was in agreement, we want to have the best and highest quality commercial
development on this site. The Met Council and the developer and that process is separate from
you as a community, and the developer going forward with the commercial development.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 26
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she disagrees with her. If she remembers back in 2005 part of
this whole thing was, to begin with, was to look at a grant application to get this cleaned up and
then rezone it so it is all part of the same process. She feels a little bit like Ms. Anderson is
berating her that she is asking these questions and wants to have this solved before going ahead
with the rezoning. Since we and the developer have been working on this since 2005, they saw
something a few weeks ago and she loves the changes that have come forward and the e�tra
stipulation, but to get that one other thing solved is what she is asking.
Ms. Anderson stated that is not what she is trying to say. She thought their goal was to get this
rezoned commercial.
Mayor Lund stated he thinks Ms. Anderson is trying to separate the issue. He said do we want
it rezoned commercial. If so, then we pass this and have them bring something final to us. If it
is something substantially different from this, they could end up with something a lot different.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not disagreeing it should be commercial. She is just
saying why not figure it out. She heard the City Attorney say maybe we should figure that out
and find out what kind of liability is there.
Mayor Lund stated either we can pass, deny, or postpone it or put a condition on there. He
would like an added stipulation.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how many votes were needed to pass this.
Mr. Hickok said it would take a super majority. Four.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to thank Pam Reynolds as she has done a lot of
work and looking at the minutes and some of the other discussion. She brought up a lot of the
minutes and she did ask Dr. Burns to give her those minutes because she was trying to refresh
her memory back to 2005. She really felt back in 2005 that they would actually see an actual
master plan like there was in the redevelopment such as in the DeMello project and she
understands that this is different.
Mayor Lund asked the petitioner if timing was an issue.
Mr. Anderson replied, no. He is encouraging the Council to think of some way to protect itself
in this. Because he thinks what is going to happen is the City Attorney will look at the Met
Council documents and say, well, it says this, it says that, and you are going to end up saying,
well, we want some more assurance from the developer that we are not liable for the cost. He
thinks we are back to, as Dr. Burns suggested, putting a stipulation in the document that says the
City is not liable for those monies that were granted to the developer. He thinks it answers the
question. He is not trying to duck the question.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she guessed her whole point is it has been so long since that
application. She thinks we are going down the right path, she loves the new stipulations and the
new site plan. She is only one so anyone can certainly make the motion tonight to do it with a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 27
new stipulation that Dr. Burns or someone comes up with. She would definitely vote for it once
she has been reassured by our City Attorney in two weeks that he has looked this over and says it
is okay.
Mayor Lund said he likes the idea of the stipulation saying that they are saying right here,
holding us harmless in that particular case. We do not want to be embroiled in a lengthy lawsuit
if the Met Council asks for "X" amount of dollars.
Dr. Burns asked what the name of the grant was.
Mr. Hickok replied Tax Base Revitalization Grant.
Dr. Burns asked when was it received.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated June 28, 2006. She believed she is looking at a memo from
October 4, 2006, and it said on June 28 the City Council approved an agreement.
Councilmember Saefke stated he is going to agree with Councilmember Bolkcom. He does not
think it is going to hurt to wait two more weeks and get a legal opinion from our City Attorney.
It is not an issue that Council does not want to change this to commercial. As soon as Council is
satisfied that the City is protected, he does not think there will be a problem at all. At the last
meeting, he was terribly reluctant to set a precedent because the question had been asked whether
this City had ever rezoned something without some kind of a plan. His question was then what
makes it unique and, again, that was to protect the City in any future types of development. He
guessed he was kind of satisfied with it and having reread the minutes again, going back to 2005,
where some of the references were apparently it was the desire of the Council at that time to
change this to Commercial. To him there was no question about that. It was terribly unusual for
the first and the second readings to be so long apart. One of the things that kind of reassured him
about his feeling on changing the rezoning is that the Mayor asked the petitioner last time
whether they have funding and he said he had a bank willing to give them some money for
building, is that right?
Mr. Meyer replied he thinks he said the current lender designated a stipulation in their loan that
they have the first rights for funding the new project.
Councilmember Saefke asked so he is pretty sure that funding is available?
Mr. Meyer replied, yes.
Councilmember Saefke stated that was one of his concerns, too, during this economy that
everything would be changed and then all of a sudden the petitioner cannot get the money to do
what they need to do and you have half a project. It is a fabulous location for commercial. As
the development goes on and the rail line goes through and there are some other developments
there, he thinks it is going to be an ideal situation. As far as commercial, right across railroad
tracks is Home Depot so it is not like an isolated parcel. He would rather see commercial
development than industrial development.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 28
Mayor Lund stated as Attorney Knaak is going to be looking at this one condition, he is also
going to request that staff include a Sitpulation No. 11.
Councilmember Barnette stated he definitely wants this to be a commercial site. He thinks that
this could go ahead as it is, but he is willing to wait two weeks.
Councilmember Varichak stated she also is in agreement that we can wait two weeks and get
some answers from our City Attorney.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table the second reading of the Ordinance to Amend
the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts
(Rezoning Request, ZOA #OS-03, by JLT East River Road, LLC, Generally Located at 5601 East
River Road) until the February 9, 2009, Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
Mayor Lund asked the City Attorney to review the question about the potential liability of
reimbursement potentially on Met Council and asked staff to add Stipulation No. 11 along those
same lines and bring it back for further discussion on February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that they actually look at the grant application. She asked that
the date in Stipulation No. 7 be corrected.
Mayor Lund stated in the ordinance, it says 9 stipulations. He asked about Exhibit A.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they need to add the words "and re-approval" in Stipulation
No. 10.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, SAEFKE, VARICHAK
AND BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND VOTING NAY, THE MOTION
PASSED ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE.
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Resolution Ordering Final Plans, Specifications and Calling for Bids: 2009 Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2009-08. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when the discussion on the assessment would be.
William Burns, City Manager, replied he would anticipate at a pre-meeting on February 9.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 29
11. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other
Local Use (2009 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01).
Mr. Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated the resolution is required to use state aid dollars.
Fridley is privileged to be one of four communities in Minnesota who has constructed all their
state aid roads to standard and that being such, is allowed to utilize some of this state aid funding
on local roads.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2009-09. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11A. City Council Meeting of January 5, 2009.
Councilmember Varichak pointed out that on Page 21, Item No. 13, it should say
Councilmember `Bolkcom" made the motion.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11B. Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the minutes. Seconded by Councilmember
Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. Extension of Variance Request, VAR #06-01, for Totino-Grace High School, to
Increase the Height of the School Building from 30 Feet to 48 Feet for the
Renovation of the School Auditorium, Generally Located at 1350 Gardena Avenue
N.E. (Ward 2).
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is hard to keep track of things when they go on and on and
on. She understands funding and it is a bad time of the year. This one started out in 2006. When
do you say enough is enough?
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied if they have not acted on their item
within one year and they have not requested an e�tension, their variance goes away and they
would need to come back and reapply.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 30
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if she had a variance and said, Mr. Hickok, she does not have
any money right now, would she be able to get an e�tension on residential property.
Mr. Hickok replied he cannot think of one where they have done that administratively. Even
though residential does not come to Council, if there is no controversy about it, if they were
asking for an e�tension it would come to them.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, okay, so it is not any different from residential.
Mr. Hickok replied, no.
Councilmember Barnette asked if they have to go through the process again, a notice would go
out to all the neighbors again and it would start all over.
Mr. Hickok replied, that is their purpose in applying for the e�tension, not to have to go through
the process again.
Councilmember Barnette stated but we know the controversy that the other school had, and
here they are raising the height 18 feet. He thinks it pretty important to send notices to the
neighbors.
Mr. Hickok said on this one we had no feedback whatsoever.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks at some point do we look at these and say after "X"
amount of time they go away and they have to reapply. Things do change. The activity in this
neighborhood, the traffic and other things may affect something.
Mr. Hickok stated he would offer that he thinks if we suggest that right up front it really
weakens the integrity of the process to begin with. We want people to apply for, get a grant, and
do it within the first year. As we have now found we have had a streak of these where they are
coming back and not doing them within the first year. Tell them that you are not going to get
many e�tensions. You might get two historically. When they are granted a variance he does not
want to make any decision about e�tensions. If they need an e�tension we will deal with it at
that time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated what prevents them a year from now coming back.
Mr. Hickok stated there has to be a certain time they would have to stop and have them go
through the process again. Even though no one spoke on this to begin with, there may be new
owners in the neighborhood who have a different opinion. As we have done on the last ones that
they have approved, they would send them a letter saying that there would not be another
e�tension. After this if they were not able to complete it, they would have to come back through
the process.
Mayor Lund stated they are going through the economic downturn like everyone else. He does
agree though. What is too many.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 31
William Burns, City Manager, stated nationally private schools have taken a big hit.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but, again, it was requested in 2006. It seems to her that it is
fair to say this is it.
Dr. Burns asked if the big part was the $1,500 or $2,000 fee that is paid for the variance
application.
Mr. Hickok stated he would say that is not as big as the uncertainty of whether they get it
granted again. You would hate to have three-quarters of your funding raised and then have the
time clock tell you that you have to get another variance and you might not get it.
Mayor Lund stated they should really start giving us more detail about where their fundraising
is. We have to have some kind of evidence that they are actually progressing.
Mr. Hickok stated with this particular application they did invite him out. They have been as
forthright as they can be. They have gone through the plans, they have enlisted an architect, the
same one they had for the auditorium. Part of their issue is that the fundraising is only partly
related to what they need the variance for. The fundraising is to rework space inside the school
also.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to approve the e�tension of Variance Request, VAR
#06-01, for Totino-Grace High School. Seconded Councilmember Bolkcom.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she would like them to send a letter and say that we really are
looking at granting variances and e�tensions of variances and we really will need something
concrete to go forward because they have just a one-year e�tension. She asked if that sounded
reasonable.
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Approve Reviewed Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Joint Powers
Agreement.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was looking at the revised Joint Powers Agreement and it
says that we as a City Council appoint one person (Police) together with one other individual to
be appointed by the City Council.
Councilmember Barnette replied, that is him. Don Abbott goes and he goes when he is
requested.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the way she understands it he should be going any time he is
needed for any voting.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 32
Councilmember Barnette stated he is the alternate.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there are two from each city and he really should be going on a
regular basis. If she is reading this right they have two votes.
Councilmember Barnette when he has gone before he has gone just as observer. If they have
law enforcement issues he is just listening and watching.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it says there is an appointment on an annual basis by each of
the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with other individual and it
goes on to say that each one has one vote and you can send someone else in place of one to vote
for a proxy.
Councilmember Barnette said he would talk to Mr. Abbott.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the Revised Anoka County Joint Law
Enforcement Council Joint Powers Agreement. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Informal Status Report.
Councilmember Bolkcom mentioned the upcoming Winter Fest.
William Burns, City Manager, said the February newsletter will be coming out in two days.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated a recycling drop-off will be held on
Saturday, April 11, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and Saturday, October 10, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. This
year we are going back to a leaf dropoff on October 22 and October 29 from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
The ne� paper shredding event is February 7.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is an Anoka County meeting related to 85th Avenue and
the widening of 85th at Springbrook.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated it is Wednesday from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the
Springbrook Nature Center. It has to do with the area east of the Springbrook entrance. They
are putting in turn lanes and widening the road to University Avenue.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated are they actually talking about putting a signal there?
Mr. Kosluchar stated they are talking about moving the existing signal at the University
frontage road.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 33
Councilmember Barnette stated he did not realize they are going to be working on Highway 47
this summer. He asked if Mr. Kosluchar can check with the state to see if there is any chance
they can take the fence along University Avenue down.
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Saefke, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor