08/09/2010 - 29315CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
AUGUST 9, 2010
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 Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Saefke
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Julie Jones, City Planner
Kyle Knutson, Planning and Community Development Intern,
PRESENTATION:
Fridley Royalty.
Kyle Knutson - Summer Systematic Code Enforcement Review.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of July 26, 2010
APPROVED.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Approve Revised Contract for Administrative Services between the City of Fridley
and the Metropolitan Council for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program.
William Burns, City Manager, stated Council approved the new contract on June 14. Other
cities that also provide these services were not as quick to approve the contract. When they did
respond, they asked for a few minor changes. They are acceptable to the City. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 2
APPROVED.
2. Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Contract for Curbside Recycling with
Allied Waste Services.
William Burns, City Manager, stated while staff considered going to a long-term, single-sort
contract for recycling services, they ultimately decided to ask for a one-year e�tension of our
dual-sort recycling contract with Allied Waste. A one-year e�tension will give the City and the
Environmental Quality & Energy Commission the opportunity to complete a study of garbage
collection methods before getting tied into what is very likely to be a 5 to 7 year single-sort
recycling contract. The single-sort contracts are long in order to cover the costs the contractor
incurs buying the containers.
Dr. Burns said the new contract would e�tend the City's existing service with Allied Waste
from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012. Under the terms of the contract, the City's rates would
be increased by 3 percent. The revenue sharing split would remain in place but, instead of a
50/50 split, the City would receive 40 percent of the revenues of the recyclable items. This will
generate between $12,000 and $45,000 per year for our drop-off programs, depending on market
conditions for those items. Staff discussed the e�tension with the City Attorney who believes
that, under the circumstances, the one-year e�tension is legally justifiable. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
3. Resolution in Support of an Application to Conduct Off-Site Gambling by the Lions
Club of Fridley at Community Park from August 20-22.
Dr. Burns stated the permit would allow the Fridley Lions Club to conduct a raffle and sell pull
tabs at Community Park during a softball tournament the weekend of August 20 through 22,
2010. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-46.
4. Claims (147095 — 147284).
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
5. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 3
6. Estimates
APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES:
Valley Paving Inc.
8800 — 13th Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
2010 Street Rehabilitation
Project No. ST2010-01
Estimate No. 2 ............................................. $247,432.58
Northwest Asphalt
1451 Stagecoach Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
2010 Street Rehabilitation
Project No. ST2010-01
Estimate No. 3 ............................................. $179,787.67
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that Item Nos. 2 and 4 be removed.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of Item Nos. 2
and 4. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
No one from the audience spoke.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. Consideration of a Text Amendment Request, TA#10-01, by Voigt's School Bus
Service, Inc., to Allow Parking of Fleet Vehicles in the M-1, Light Industrial, and
the M-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning Districts, Generally Located at 7600 Central
Avenue N.E. (Ward 2).
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 4
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to open the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
AT 7:58 P.M.
Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated petitioner is seeking a te�t amendment to add language to
the M-1, Light Industrial, and the M-2, Heavy Industrial districts that would allow parking of
fleet vehicles as an accessory to the principal use on a lot, provided specific code requirements
can be met.
Ms. Jones stated Voigt Bus Service, which is currently located at 1240 Osborne Road, is in the
process of purchasing the property at 7600 Central Avenue Anderson Trucking. It is the
petitioner's desire to expand their business onto the subject property. The petitioner plans to
store small buses of approximately 12,000 pounds on the subject property. The storage of the
vehicles will be in the side and rear yard of the lot, alongside or behind the existing building.
The petitioner initiated the proposed te�t amendment.
Ms. Jones stated the City does not allow parking of fleet vehicles and in most instances, it would
consider the parking of these vehicles "outdoor storage" and would require the business to get a
special use permit. Over the last several years, staff has been approached by businesses wanting
to move into Fridley that have the need to park their fleet vehicles overnight. Staff has also
come across businesses that are already in operation in Fridley and have some type of parking of
fleet vehicles that are used during the day and parked on site at night.
Ms. Jones said many of the industrial spaces that exist within the City may attract tenants who
have the need to park fleet vehicles overnight. As long as certain conditions can be met, staff has
determined these types of uses should not be discouraged.
Ms. Jones stated when Voigt Bus Service approached the City about purchasing the Anderson
Trucking site to expand their operation, staff started evaluating how reasonable this type of
accessory use would be for all of our industrial properties located in the M-1 and M-2 zoning
districts.
Ms. Jones stated staff has drafted an ordinance allowing the parking of fleet vehicles related to
the principal use (or business) on site as an accessory use, provided the following conditions can
be met:
((1)) Vehicles shall be licensed and street operable.
Ensuring that vehicles are currently licensed and operable eliminates the
opportunity for junk vehicles to be stored on site. This in turn, will also prevent
fZeet vehicles from becoming an outdoor storage issue.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 5
((2)) Vehicles shall be parked on an approved hard surface.
City Code requires vehicles to be parked on an approved hard surface, such as
concrete or asphalt, so this condition is just restating the requirement.
((3)) Vehicles shall be parked in the side or rear yard only.
Requiring the vehicles to be parked in the side or rear yard only will prevent the
vehicles from being parked in the front parking lot which is more visible from the
public right-of-way. City code requires that all storage be limited to the side or
rear yard, so this requirement is expanding off that.
((4)) Vehicles shall be under a gross vehicle weight of 26, OOO lbs.
The petitioner provided staff with weights of typical buses used for their business.
Based on information provided, a typical school bus weights 26, 000 lbs. Though
the petitioner plans to store small buses on the subject property which weigh
approximately 12, 000 lbs, staff determined that the maximum size vehicle we would
think is reasonable to be included in the ` fZeet vehicle " category should weigh
under 26, 000 lbs. Any vehicle larger would be more appropriately parked or stored
in an M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial zoning district.
((5)) The parking stalls dedicated for the parking of fleet vehicles shall be in addition to
what code would require for parking stalls on the site.
City staff wants to ensure that parking demands for the existing uses within the
building are met before additional stalls are dedicated for parking of fZeet vehicles.
If a particular business is required to have 20 parking stalls based on the office,
manufacturing and storage space within the building, and the business needs to
have S stalls for fZeet vehicles, they would be required to have 25 parking stalls on-
site.
((6)) The parking area shall be properly lit, with shielded and downcast lighting and
properly secured.
For security reasons it is important to have the area where fZeet vehicles are parked
lit and secured. Securing the area could be through the use of fencing, cameras,
alarm system, etc.
Ms. Jones stated staff has determined the conditions placed on the accessory use are necessary to
meet the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Off-street parking is considered an
accessory use, as is off-street loading facilities and business signs for uses permitted. Staff
would consider the parking of fleet vehicles an extension of the off-street parking accessory use
as long as the conditions the City laid out can be met. This type of accessory use would be
considered reasonable to be allowed in the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts, without causing
disruption to the neighboring properties and uses.
Ms. Jones stated staff finds the e�tension of the Voigt Bus Service business onto the subject
property with the parking of fleet vehicles as an accessory use would comply with the conditions
set forth in the proposed te�t amendment.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 6
Ms. Jones stated this re-utilization of the subject property will improve the overall condition of
the property, and by approving this te�t amendment, the City will bring into compliance several
other businesses within the City.
Ms. Jones stated as a result of this request, petitioner will be required to comply with
landscaping requirements for the subject property. The site will require the installation of a total
of 37 trees. Staff has agreed to allow the petitioner to install 15 trees now with the proposed
improvements to the east side of the site. At such time as the proposed grassy area to the west
develops, the additiona122 trees will need to be planted.
Ms. Jones stated the property will be updated by hard surfacing the area on which the vehicles
are parked or driven. Petitioner plans to control the water run-off by complying with any
requirements set-forth by either the City or the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Ms. Jones stated they also plan to add green space to the west side of the lot, which is currently
gravel. At some time in the future, the petitioners would like to construct a building in this
location for the storage of their buses.
Ms. Jones stated on July 21, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
unanimously recommended approval. Staff recommends Council's approval.
Ms. Varichak asked if this is the first time the City has ever done anything like this?
Ms. Jones replied as far as the te�t amendment, yes. When she has done code enforcement
work, she met with several businesses and property owners and tried to come up with an
agreement as to where they could store their fleet vehicles that is less visible. This has been a
difficult thing to deal with because they have businesses in town where the City feels what they
are doing is reasonable but within the confines of the Code, it is not allowed. They did recently
have a business apply for a special use permit to be able to store fleet vehicles at one of our M-2
Industrial properties in the southern end of the City. With the process that would have been
involved, the business decided to move to a site in Blaine instead where they had fewer
requirements they had to abide by. The City has lost some businesses because it does not have
this allowance in Code. Staff sees this as a positive improvement for the City. It would bring
into compliance some businesses staff feels are doing a good job of trying to keep their site
looking presentable.
Ms. Varichak asked if this would change the hours of operation for this company.
Darwin Voigt, CEO of Voigt Business Service, replied, no, they run bus schedules; and they
have a set schedule with the schools. Roughly the first bus leaves about 7:00 a.m. and the last
bus gets in about 5 p.m.
Mayor Lund asked with the expansion on this new property, will their hours expand.
Mr. Voigt replied, no. He said in the M-1/M-2 district they have another property that adjoins it,
and asked if this was going to change the parking they have there now.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 7
Mayor Lund asked if he meant the existing facility located on Osborne Road.
Mr. Voigt replied, yes.
Ms. Jones stated she did not see how it would.
Mr. Voigt asked about their existing property.
Ms. Jones said it is her understanding they are storing the buses inside.
Mr. Voigt replied, according to what they have now they are allowed to park them outside on a
hard surface. Those vehicles are over-the-road coaches, and they are heavier than 26,000
pounds. The new property is basically for school busses. Their long-range plan is to move out
of their facility on Main Street down by Rice Creek In talking with staff, it would be beneficial
if they could move to one location.
Mayor Lund asked if the current zoning of the property on Osborne was M-2.
Ms. Jones replied, yes. It is her understanding, and she would have to look back in the records,
there was some sort of agreement in the plat when these three properties were replatted in 1993.
Mr. Voigt replied the replat was done prior to them buying the property.
Mayor Lund asked if the Osborne property was purchased from Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Voigt said it was Mr. Anderson's property. They replatted it to sell off some of the property.
Mayor Lund replied, there must have been some exception or agreement, because if it is M-2,
currently they are not allowed what they consider "outdoor storage" and yet they have been
placing large, as well as smaller, buses on the M-2 current site.
Mr. Voigt stated it was part of the permit when they built. The building permit said they were
allowed to park outside as long as they were on a hard surface.
Ms. Jones stated she recalled an allowance for a couple of coach buses to be stored outside
under certain conditions. She said M-2, but it is really M-1. Staff will have to look into that. It
is not the intent of this te�t amendment to change anything that the petitioner has approvals for
on the existing property. If there were stipulations about that in the previous plat, they would
still stand.
Mayor Lund said that would be specific to that actual property only. There has to be something
in the te�t amendment that might say there is, notwithstanding this existing property.
Mr. Voigt said there is something in writing but he did not bring it with him. There should be
nothing in there about coaches when Anderson did the split because at that time they were not
talking with them about purchasing this property. He does not know why it would have been in
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 8
at that time, but it was in when they got their building permit and that was when that was put in
there.
Mayor Lund stated there must be something here already because the property he is purchasing
was the old Anderson Trucking Service. He asked if it was considered outdoor storage then when
they were parking semi trailers that were licensed, heavier than 26,000 pounds.
Mr. Voigt said he thought they were restricted to 10 units.
Ms. Jones replied, yes, and that is under old Code language that they were a legal non-
conformance. That was a problem issue there, too.
William Burns, City Manager, said it sounds like something they need to come back to Council
and the petitioner with when this comes back for first reading.
Councilmember Varichak asked Ms. Jones whether staff has heard from any neighbors.
Ms. Jones said they have not heard from anyone.
Councilmember Varichak asked Mr. Voigt if he agrees with the six stipulations.
Mr. Voigt replied, yes, he does. There is the tree thing, but he will go along with it.
Councilmember Bolkcom said this is a te�t amendment not just for this property, but for all
properties in M-1 and M-2. Any other business that would want to do something similar would
have to comply with these.
Ms. Jones replied, where the tree thing comes in with the plat goes back to 1993. There were
conditions that were supposed to be met and one of those was landscaping and for some reason
that was not done.
Mayor Lund asked if the property had already been purchased.
Mr. Voigt said it has been purchased.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she does not see any attachment from the Planning
Commission minutes and asked if they could have them before the ne�t meeting. She asked if
they needed a special use permit.
Ms. Jones said they did not.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how staff would know how many vehicles anyone in an M-1
or M-2 District has. Ms. Jones said there were other businesses who were not in compliance that
would be in compliance if this te�t amendment goes through. She asked how they would know
if they were the right size.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 9
Ms. Jones replied, as far as the current businesses she was referring to, they have fleet vehicles
they are storing, and the City Code does not permit that.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but one of the conditions indicated they have to correct the
parking.
Ms. Jones said they normally get into that with businesses, for example, if a new business was
planning to move into town or to expand. For existing businesses, staff would not be dealing
with this unless there is a problem and parking is going beyond the boundaries of their property.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the parking conditions.
Ms. Jones said the City Code requires "X" number of parking spots for the use. What this is
saying is if you are going to store fleet vehicles on-site, besides meeting their code-required
parking stalls for your use, you have to have enough parking stalls to accommodate both.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there were problems with people parking on the street then.
She said she received a complaint from someone who cannot even pull out of their business
because there are trucks parked along the street all the time, and it is unsafe for them. Basically
other than some new business that comes in, this te�t amendment is really not doing anything
other than keeping them in compliance; and the City really will not be following up on them as
long as no one is parking in the street.
Ms. Jones replied, as with a lot of things in the City Code, they do not do anything until there is
a problem. They have to have the Code language in place to solve it.
Councilmember Bolkcom said so someone could be parking a big motor coach or tractor trailer
on their property and as long as no one complains they are parking there or staff happens to be
driving by and do code enforcement they will not have to do anything. In reality anyone else
could be parking bigger than 26,000. However, now we have a te�t to back us up.
Dr. Burns replied, except we do try and do commercial code enforcement every five years.
Ms. Jones stated to clarify, they do have five staff people who do code enforcement and have a
staff person out almost every day of the week doing code enforcement all over the City. Staff is
looking for problems all the time, not just when they are doing systematic enforcement.
Councilmember Bolkcom said you can see by the number of public hearings related to special
use permits that are no longer active that this is an issue. If they are going to do a te�t
amendment, let us make sure that it is enforceable and that businesses that are not compliant
know what the rules are. She said she would hope after the first and second reading that those
businesses staff are aware of would be sent a copy of this so they know what they can or cannot
do on their property.
Mayor Lund asked Councilmember Bolkcom if she wants staff to take the step of notifying
existing businesses of the change in the ordinance.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 10
Councilmember Bolkcom stated because Ms. Jones mentioned there were other businesses that
were not in compliance.
Mr. Voigt stated they have been in Fridley for 25 years. If the weight is an issue, maybe they
could change it to three axles, no semis or something like that.
Mayor Lund said he does not know how much of an issue it is now, other than he did agree with
the statements from Ms. Jones and from what he read in his packet that in M-1 and M-2, 26,000
pounds or less because that is an identifiable thing by the State Patrol and State law as a
designation of a medium-duty vehicle and a heavy-duty vehicle. That is very distinct in
licensing of commercial vehicles.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked is he saying the license plate is actually registered for a certain
poundage vs. axles.
Mayor Lund replied, right.
Ms. Jones said the definitions come from State statutes.
Mayor Lund stated and they go by weight and not by number of axles. He did agree with the
fact though in Ms. Jones' presentation and in his packet that says, this seems more appropriate
for M-1 and M-2, whereas the heavier vehicles over 26,000 pounds (alluding to semi trucks,
semi tractors, the heavier trucks) are more appropriate in an M-3 where you might see that type
of activity anyways, at least for parking of vehicles.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what a big coach bus weighed.
Mr. Voigt replied, about 38,000 pounds.
Mayor Lund stated and that is why he is unclear as to how Mr. Voigt got these bigger buses on
Osborne already.
Mr. Voigt said the weight was never the issue.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding hearing from the neighbors, was just the property
around the bus company notified.
Ms. Jones said they have not heard from anybody in the community. This is citywide. There
were no mailings done. The only notification done was in the newspaper.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether there were any residential properties around these
M-1/NI-2 properties.
Ms. Jones replied, in this particular case there is residential across the street.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 11
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but that person might not even know this te�t amendment is in
front of them. She is not saying they should have been notified, but she is saying they do not
really know what impact this might have on anyone, because now there are fleet vehicles being
allowed to park here. Maybe it is the bigger buses, but she sees buses leave at 6 o'clock when
she leaves for work That is on the other properry but, again, they are talking about M-1/M-2
having fleet vehicles being allowed in some of these businesses now and it could affect traffic
and noise.
Ms. Jones stated they are industrial properties. In this case, they had a trucking operation on this
site since the 1970's.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, but it could change some of those M-1's/M-2's that are near
residential properties that were actually following the Code and not having fleet vehicles?
Ms. Jones replied, she is hard-pressed to think of an example where it would be ne�t to
residentiaL Most of the cases she can think are south of the freeway in a totally industrial area.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the businesses on Main Street.
Ms. Jones replied, she is thinking along Industrial Boulevard, near the BAE site. There are a
couple in the Onaway District. She cannot think of one besides this site that would be across
from residential.
Mayor Lund stated there is no mention of fencing or screening. Is this site already screened or
fenced with privacy fencing?
Ms. Jones replied, yes.
Mayor Lund stated but that is not listed as a stipulation in the te�t amendment. Is that because
it is already precluded in an M-1 or M-2? It is not considered outdoor storage, it is parking of
fleet vehicles in this case. Is there a necessity for fencing?
Ms. Jones replied, they thought about that but what they did is put the requirement in that it be
in the rear or the side yard. In most cases they do have fencing, but they do not want to stipulate
that because a lot of times the Police Department really does not recommend that. They would
really rather have the area well lit and have security.
Debate followed as to how the proposed requirements would impact the McGarvey Coffee
business.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether staff has looked at what other communities are doing.
Ms. Jones replied, Ms. Stromberg had done some research on that but she did not have it with
her.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked to have it provided at the ne�t meeting.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 12
Councilmember Barnette stated one he is a little familiar with is Kottke Bus in Andover. They
have a facility similar to what he thought Mr. Voigt is going to do.
Councilmember Varichak stated she thinks Anoka is also like that. It is located by the pool.
All of their buses are outside also.
Mr. Voigt stated the majority of their buses will be inside. They will be parking some out at the
facility they have on Main Street and over on Osborne. Then at the Central location they will be
able to put them in. Most of the buses that will be coming out of the Central Avenue terminal
will be the special needs buses.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the petitioner is going to control his runoff by either the City
and/or Rice Creek because it is not just one or the other. It says "or" in the te�t, but both might
have different requirements. She asked if that was already taken care of.
Ms. Jones replied, no, but that is a change staff can make.
Mayor Lund asked if they had not requested the te�t amendment, would they most likely be
applying for a special use permit or variance?
Ms. Jones replied, or a rezoning to M-3.
Mayor Lund stated it certainly makes sense in one respect because it is a similar business
adding the bus business to the Anderson trucking site. He does not see that as a big change. He
thinks it is a deviation of not having fencing. It makes an argument of course if police want to
have sight lines, but why do they require fencing so many other times. The size and weight
requirement might be an issue because when Mr. Voigt bought this it was only going to be for
the smaller buses. He can see him very soon wanting to put the big buses in there and then he
would be outside the parameters of this te�t amendment.
Mr. Voigt replied at the present site they have enough room for the larger buses. At such time
when they build another facility, they would probably be putting some in there. Their original
facility on Osborne is designed to be expanded south, and they could put another 20 to 25
coaches in there if they have to. The plumbing and sprinkler is all plumbed in for an addition,
and that was in the original plan.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what a regular school bus weighs.
Mr. Voigt replied, 26,000 pounds is a little light. It is probably closer to 30,000 to 32,000. They
are not near as heavy as a coach.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated so in reality they really could not park school buses. They
could only park the little ones. The way the te�t amendment is written now, you can park your
little fleet vehicles there but not the regular school buses.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 13
Mr. Voigt said some of them you could because they go towards body section. You could get a
bus that is 40-feet long and the little ones are 20-feet long. Some of them in between are going
to fall within that 26,000 category.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated you would have to run the plate on each one.
Mayor Lund stated it is already marked on the plate. That brings up a good point. This te�t
amendment talks about 26,000 pound vehicles. Are they talking about the gross vehicle weight
rating or are they talking about the licensed weight, because that is two different things.
Ms. Jones replied, in all other sections of the Code it is gross vehicle weight.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that is what it states in No. 4
Mayor Lund stated it did say in their packet that they were going to get a matrix of the City of
Eagan's research because they are researching the same issue.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they should continue the public hearing because they do not
have all the information. She would like it continued because there are some questions about
Mr. Voigt's property. She is concerned that they would close it and have a first reading and have
to go back.
Ms. Jones stated she does not have a problem with having discussion at the first reading.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if there is no urgency, she would like to have that information
as part of the public hearing. When they do a te�t amendment it is nice to see what other
businesses staff is saying are not compliant.
Mayor Lund stated he suggests they continue the public hearing.
Mr. Voigt asked what that did for the timeline.
Mayor Lund said it puts it back approximately two meetings.
Dr. Burns stated there will not be a first reading for about a month.
Mr. Voigt stated they have to get their drain ponds in and black top in. He asked that they
explain the first reading.
Mayor Lund replied at a public hearing they take public input but do not make any decisions.
If they close the public hearing tonight, they could have a first reading of the ordinance change at
the ne�t Council meeting. You have to have two readings of an ordinance and then it has to be
published. If you already knew what the timeline was until publication, this adds approximately
two weeks if they continue the hearing.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they are talking the end of September vs. September 13.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 14
Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Voigt how he felt about this.
Mr. Voigt said he can understand the reason behind it. Naturally they would like to get done as
soon as they can, but he understands and agrees with it.
Councilmember Barnette stated it is a procedural thing and he agrees they do that.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated usually after the first reading he could move along and start his
work.
Mayor Lund stated it is highly doubtful that they are going to make an about face. It is usually
for clarification purposes. Although the petitioner may take some risk, and he should talk to staff
about that, he could do some of his preliminary work.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to continue the public hearing to the August 23, 2010,
City Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
AT 8:48 P.M.
8. Consideration of the Revocation of Multiple Special Use Permits: SP #87-16,
SP #03-24, SP #86-04, SP #87-21, SP #88-01, SP #07-06, SP #03-07, SP #08-01,
SP #05-04 and SP #10-03.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to open the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
AT 8:49 P.M.
Ms. Jones, Planning Manager, stated in the summer of 2009, systematic code enforcement of
commercial and industrial properties was conducted. Numerous properties had been issued a
special use permit and were not in compliance with the conditions and stipulations. City Code
Section 205.OS.S.G requires that the recipient begin work required by special use permit
stipulations within one year. If work has not started, the permit is null and void, unless an
e�tension is given. Additionally, failure to comply with conditions and stipulations shall result
in the revocation of the SUP. The list of properties is included with staff's memorandum. Note
that staff is no longer recommending revocation of SP #10-03 for Blue Water Properties as the
owner is working to meet the screening requirements stipulated in that permit.
SP #87-16 - Rubber Research, 4500 Main Street N.E.
Ms. Jones stated this is for e�terior storage of materials and equipment in M-2. They have not
met landscaping, hard surface parking lots and curbed driveway stipulations. A 2007 fire at the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 15
site prompted investigation. In May, 2009, staff tried to gain compliance with unmet
stipulations. After numerous e�tensions, the site has yet to be landscaped or paved according to
stipulations established 23 years ago. In the end, staff considered this permit from 23 years ago
probably does not even apply to the use on this site and are advising Council to revoke the
permit. It is her understanding that these permits that do not come into compliance within one
year basically are null and void by definition of the City Code. What they are asking Council to
do in these resolutions tonight is to allow them to make the record clear in the property tax
records of these properties because that is where the original permit was recorded.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how have they been notified.
Ms. Jones replied, they have been notified by direct letter to both the business and landowner if
applicable.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, regarding this special use permit, have there been any
discussions with the property owner since May, 2009?
Ms. Jones replied, numerous discussions by telephone.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when was the most recent one.
Ms. Jones replied, this evening at probably 5 o'clock She has been having many discussions
just in the past few days. The business understands that the permit was null and void back in
1988 and that this is a formality. The City needs to file the documentation at the County to
demonstrate that and they need to apply for a new special use permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this resolution passes tonight, do they have to remove the
e�terior storage and equipment.
Ms. Jones replied they already have.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how does something not get taken care of since 1988. She
asked how they keep track of all the stipulations and make sure they are complying.
Ms. Jones said they had a computer tracking system now.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but staff does not go to all the special use permits and make
any kind of a visit to make sure they are in compliance?
Ms. Jones replied staff actually calls and reminds businesses when their one-year timeline is up.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if staff was doing any kind of site visit.
Ms. Jones stated they often do reinspect. They are hoping to reinspect commercial and
industrial every three years.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 16
Mayor Lund asked if Rubber Research is still in violation because they already eliminated the
outdoor storage. There were several stipulations. He asked about the e�tensions.
Ms. Jones replied outdoor storage was one of the things the City had granted them an e�tension
for last summer. The main problem is they never completed the landscaping or the paving.
They paved part of the site but not all of it. If they continue to use part of their site, they will
need to do some more paving.
Mayor Lund stated there will need to be some follow-up already because even with the removal
of the special use permit, they are still out of compliance with other elements.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether the stipulations are just for the special use permit.
Ms. Jones replied, yes, but some of the stipulations, such as the landscaping, is something they
would have to do without the special use permit.
William Burns, City Manager, said they would also have to do the paving.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the paving was for.
Dr. Burns replied the City requires hard surface paving.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but if they are not driving or parking on it, then they would not
need it.
Ms. Jones stated the special use permit was for outdoor storage.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it sounds like the stipulations were related to the special use
permit because the reason for the revocation is failure to comply with multiple stipulations.
What she is now telling her is the special use permit just has to do with it being a business.
Ms. Jones stated a couple of the stipulations, the paving and the landscaping, are basic City
Code requirements. They were in the Code at the time they got the special use permit in 1987.
Mayor Lund stated many times he has seen stipulations that are a reiteration of what is already
required.
Councilmember Bolkcom said but it is two different things. One is related to the special use
permit and the other is related to a building permit.
Ms. Jones stated the paving and the landscaping stipulations were related to a specific site plan
outlining how they were going to put outdoor storage on the site. They no longer have outdoor
storage on that site. That site plan, in her opinion does not apply anymore because they never
complied with that plan. As staff told them when they met with them in 2009 on-site, they
needed to come forward with a new site plan and would be given new stipulations. It is an old
permit. They need to start completely over.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 17
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what makes them have to do the rest of it, if they know they
are not going to have a special use permit. They have not been held accountable since 1988.
The City now sends them a letter and says, you still need a site plan and you still need to do the
following things.
Ms. Jones said they are going to get a notice that they do need to meet the landscaping
requirements with the City.
Attorney Knaak stated there might be a bit of a mix-up here as to what part is being enforced.
If this was still in effect and they were doing what they originally planned to do and they were
instead in violation of some of the landscaping, there would be an issue on the landscaping that
the City could go after them. They could also review the permit because there is a violation of
the terms of the permit in addition to the violation of the ordinance. Here, you are going to be
eliminating the permit. The leverage that the City has on the landscaping is gone, but there are
still the other regulations that are in effect for the City. It is not like they have no other
responsibilities or obligations if they do not have the permit. Very often what staff will do is
give the City in essence the e�tra tool of including these other kinds of requirements that are part
of the ordinance as part of the special use permit so if they are not in compliance with the
ordinances, that is another reason to yank the permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how long they had to come into compliance related to the
City Code.
Ms. Jones replied, 15 days. The standard for property maintenance is 15 days. Usually they
have to give them more time.
SP #03-24 — Wallboard, Inc., 5346 Industrial Boulevard N.E.
Ms. Jones stated this special use permit was issued in 2003 for e�terior storage of materials in
the side and rear yards in M-2, but the stipulations have never been met. Staff has been working
with them since 2003 and have been working intensely with them the past year. They have come
forth with a proposal for a way to build storage buildings instead of having their storage all
outside. They are going to build storage buildings over a three-year period to put their storage
inside. If they cannot get it all inside these buildings then, at the end of the three years, they are
proposing to come back to the City and ask for a new special use permit.
Ms. Jones stated, however, at 5:30 today she got a telephone call from Brian Graskow of
Wallboard who is requesting that the City not revoke the special use permit at this time. They
did submit a written request to be entered into public record.
Mayor Lund asked whether the letter was in lieu of the owner being here tonight.
Ms. Jones replied, yes, because the owner could not be here tonight. She said she would
recommend that Council continue this hear until the ne�t Council meeting so the owner will have
an opportunity to be present at the meeting
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 18
Councilmember Bolkcom asked because they are all under one hearing, Council would have to
continue the hearing period then. They are all part of one hearing, right?
Ms. Jones stated they could still take action on the other resolutions.
Attorney Knaak recommended tabling or continuing that part of the public hearing. Keep in
mind what they are dealing with here are several public hearings. He said there should be some
records on each of the public hearings. Once that occurs, Council can typically take action on
any one of those. If they are going to close the public hearing at the end of this, be sure they
indicate which part of the public hearing they are closing with respect to which of these parcels.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to receive a faxed letter dated August 9, 2010, from the
manager of Wallboard, Inc., Brian Graskow. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Jones stated it has been staff's intent since they had this letter of agreement with them
several months ago that even though they have never been in compliance with their special use
permit, staff would give them time. It is a three-year plan for a section that was to be constructed
by September 14, 2010; another section constructed by September 2011; and another section the
following year. When they say "three-year" it was not that it was all or none for the three years.
There is a section they are supposed to have constructed within a few weeks. It is laid out and
referred to in the September 24, 2009, letter.
Mayor Lund referred to the August 9, 2010, letter. To him it seems they are stalling for another
three years.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they have pulled a building permit.
Ms. Jones replied, no, and she discussed that with them this afternoon. They are in the process
of beginning the engineering and plan to be pulling a permit in the ne�t few weeks. They said
this type of structure only takes a day or two to install.
Mayor Lund stated his first impression is that they are stalling.
Ms. Jones stated maybe this is a question for the City Attorney. In her opinion they do not have
the special use permit now because they never met the stipulations of the 2003 permit and that is
why they were proposing revocation of the permit. Staff's agreement was to continue to work
with them even though they do not have a permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the agreement with the City.
Ms. Jones stated they do have an agreement with the City. At the end of the letter to Ms.
Stromberg from Brian Graskow, it says this is with the understanding that during the building
period, Wallboard will transition from its current outdoor storage situation to one that is either
without outdoor storage or which will comply with the City's requirements for outside storage
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 19
under a new and separate special use permit. When staff had reached an agreement with them on
September 24, 2009, it was their understanding then that they did not even have the special use
permit anymore as they were never in compliance with it.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what was the City's communication after this was received.
Ms. Jones stated they had several e-mails and meetings with them.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked and staff told them at that time they did not have the special
use permit.
Ms. Jones stated staff told them it was going to be on this public hearing with all of these others.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when they last had a meeting or correspondence with them.
Ms. Jones replied, last fall. This was dated in September.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if staff told them there would be a public hearing now.
Ms. Jones replied, staff did not know the exact date when it was going to be. Staff had intended
to do this months ago but they have been working on a lot of these, trying to get them into
compliance.
Dr. Burns stated if the special use permit is null and void at this point, why would we want to
table this tonight? Why not just go ahead with it?
Attorney Knaak stated technically, even though they are not in compliance and would not be
able to enforce it, one of the reasons the Council has these reviews is to state it of record. The
way they finally terminate it of record is you actually have a resolution or some official action on
the part of the City. Right now you can have a 20-30 year old special use permit essentially
unenforceable for any number of reasons but it is a matter of record. Someone could
conceivably come in and attempt to gain compliance or start complying with it because these
things do run with the land unless you take action. That is the reason why it is always good
practice to go through and formally review these.
Dr. Burns asked but why not take the action tonight or at least close the public hearing and
possibly even take action on the resolution rather than put it off for another meeting?
Attorney Knaak said that remains an option. They do need to formally pass a resolution which
would then be recordable and would then terminate of record the special use permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but not having this person in front of them and seeing this and
thinking they have been working with staff and they have had a plan since September 2009.
Mayor Lund stated keep in mind that is almost a year ago, and they still have not done anything.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 20
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but on the one before they gave them 23 years.
Ms. Jones stated staff is working with them. Staff is committed to continue to work with them
for the three years. However, the point of the special use permit being in place does not help
them because they are not in compliance with it. They do not intend to come into compliance
with that special use permit. What they are planning instead is to put that outside storage inside
buildings. Unfortunately, the owner does not understand that. Why she was not told about it
before today she does not know because staff has been working with them.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would hurt her if she chose to sell and did not have the
special use permit.
Ms. Jones stated it hurts them today. Without the action they have taken. She cannot sign a
zoning letter saying they are in compliance with that special use permit today, nor could she in
the past seven years they have had this permit.
Mayor Lund stated both of the letters are e-mailed from the manager, Brian Graskow. The
difference he sees in the letters is they had recognized 11 months ago that they would need a
special use permit. Now they are saying they would like Council to continue the existing one to
give them time to get the three-year plan completed. But as Ms. Jones is saying the special use
permit does not help them anyway.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how this was any different from other properties the City has
had with special use permits such as the auto body places. They were out of compliance for a
long time and let go for some time and then they came forward and said they were going to work
on it and then it is another two or three years.
Ms. Jones replied, it is very different than those because in those cases they were working
towards compliance with the stipulations of that permit. In this case they are working on
compliance on something completely different that they do not need a special use permit for.
They are working on doing away with the need for that permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but in the meantime, they have outdoor storage because it is
going to take them three years.
Ms. Jones said but it is not in compliance with that permit and it never is going to. That is what
they are telling the City.
Dr. Burns stated the City's agreement allows them to keep the outdoor storage for the three-year
period without the special use permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked and where is that agreement?
Ms. Jones in the letter that we agreed to.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 21
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is nothing from the City. That should probably be in the
record, too. Something we agreed to.
Ms. Jones stated she has e-mails and correspondence. She was at the meetings. They agreed to
that plan.
Mayor Lund stated and the plan was agreeable to both parties at that point.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated so what Ms. Jones is saying is she has a summary of what she
agreed to with them.
Ms. Jones replied the letter is what they agreed to. They sent that letter summarizing what they
agreed to in several meetings.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but the City has not sent anything back stating, yes, this is
correct? Just because someone sends the City a letter does not mean we agreed to it, does it?
Ms. Jones said they did. Mr. Hickok, Ms. Stromberg and herself inet with them; and they
agreed to that.
Mayor Lund stated it is now public record. Their understanding with this fax of today is they
want to hold up or continue their special use permit which they have not abided by for
approximately seven years.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated with the cost of the special use permit, she can understand they
do not want to apply for a new one. With every special use permit they have, there should be
some sort of checklist that is looked at after six months, nine months, and a year so the City does
not have things that go on for years and years.
Mayor Lund stated he agrees.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive a faxed letter dated September 24, 2009, from
the Vice President of Wallboard, Inc., Brian Graskow. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SP #86-04 - Sentinel Chemical, 55 — 77t'' Avenue N.E.
Ms. Jones stated the special use permit was issued in 1986 to a previous business, not Sentinel
Chemical, for e�terior storage of materials and equipment in the S-3 district. The special use
permit called for a hard surface driveway and storage yard. They decided last summer when
staff was working with them to eliminate the outside storage and not pursue compliance with the
special use permit. Through discussions with the representative of the company today they are
understanding and accepting of this.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 22
Councilmember Bolkcom stated and staff does not have anything in writing. Just a
conversation with them.
Ms. Jones replied right.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated maybe ne�t time it would be clearer to have something in
writing.
Attorney Knaak stated they have received formal notification and it was published. They are
responsible for actually coming and stating on the record they are in opposition.
SP #87-21 - CSM Properties, 500 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Ms. Jones stated CSM Properties came in last year as a result of Mr. Knutson's work and
received two new special use permits. This special use permit issued in 1987 for e�terior storage
was prior to the property having a lot split. The new special use permits take over the current use
of the property and the outdoor storage needs. They have been contacted and are aware of this
and understand why it is not needed and being recommended for revocation.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why it was not looked at when there was a lot split.
Ms. Jones said it still applied, but it was not until they applied for a new one last year that it was
no longer needed because the new permit incorporated the old permit for outdoor storage and
new things were added to it.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why was it not removed at that time.
Ms. Jones said because they knew they were going to have this public hearing, and it was going
to be added to the list.
SP #88-01 - Crvsteel, 1130 73rd Avenue N.E.
Ms. Jones stated this is a similar situation as the previous one. Their permit needs for outdoor
storage had changed over the years, and staff had been working with this one for a number of
years before Mr. Knutson did his work last summer and that really pushed staff to get it resolved.
They came in early this year and received two new special use permits including one for a new
neighboring property they are leasing space from. Their old special use permit has now been
replaced by a new one.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she does not get it. If they apply for a new special use permit
in 2005, why does the old one not go away?
Ms. Jones replied 2010.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it says #10-05.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 23
Ms. Jones said there needs to be a formal action by Council and staff knew they were going to
have this public hearing.
Mayor Lund stated at the time they apply for their current special use permit, they could easily
add a statement removing the old one.
Attorney Knaak stated we have done that in some cases.
Ms. Jones stated they just renumber it. This was different, however, because it involved the
neighboring property also.
SP #07-06 - Global Health Ministries, 7831 Hickorv Street N.E.
Ms. Jones stated this was for limited outdoor storage of shipping containers in an S-3 zoning
district, in the Onaway zoning district. It was her understanding they were unable to come up
with the financing to do the screening that was required in the stipulations and have since come
up with a different process of handling their shipping containers in their loading dock area. She
has not heard from them and assumes they no longer need the special use permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, so they have no containers outside right now?
Ms. Jones replied, occasionally they have them at their loading dock.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but not like they had them before.
Ms. Jones replied, no, they had them stored for a month or more at a time.
Mayor Lund stated they did not contact staff.
Ms. Jones stated staff notified them. She talked to the executive director some months ago, but
she has not heard anymore from them since notifying them of the hearing.
SP #03-07 - Dahlke Trailer Sales and Service, Inc., 8170 Hickorv Street N.E.
Ms. Jones stated there are two special use permits. This special use permit was for the rock
crushing facility in the M-3 heavy intensive outdoor storage district. They came to staff after
they got the permit and said this is a temporary thing, they were not sure it was going to stay.
Staff gave them some leeway in not coming into compliance with all of the stipulations. It turned
out they were right; the operation did not stay long. It is no longer being used for that use for the
site. They have since replatted and have some different plans for the future of this site and no
longer need this special use permit. Staff has contacted them and they are okay with revocation
of the special use permit.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 24
SP #08-01 - Dahlke Trailer Sales and Service, Inc., 8170 Hickorv Street N.E.
Ms. Jones said this special use permit was for a 125-foot telecommunications tower in an M-3
zoning district. The tower was never built. They contacted the company and they said they are
no longer pursuing the tower and are fine with the revocation of this permit.
SP #05-04 - DMK Mana�ement, 8290 Main Street N.E.
Ms. Jones stated this is for another 125-foot telecommunications tower also an M-3 zoning
district. That tower was never built.
Mayor Lund asked Ms. Jones whether she has ever had any discussions with the
telecommunications people.
Ms. Jones replied, no, not on either of these.
Mayor Lund asked, they are not contesting it, but they have been duly notified?
Ms. Jones replied yes. She said they contacted Dahlke today because staff wanted to make sure.
This one is so old and they knew they were not building it anymore but just wanted to clarify
with Dahlke, and they said they are not pursuing the telecommunications tower anymore.
SP #10-03 — Blue Water Properties, 7685 Main Street N.E.
Ms. Jones said they had a stipulation with an August 1 deadline to meet for screening. At the
time staff wrote the memo, they had not complied with that. Staff was concerned that they were
not going to meet their stipulations. They have installed screening now, and that is why staff has
removed them from the list. They are in compliance with their stipulation.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but it was listed in the public notice.
Ms. Jones replied because at the time staff had to publish the public notice they were not in
compliance with two of their stipulations.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they are in compliance with all of their stipulations.
Ms. Jones said staff is still evaluating their screening and whether it will meet the requirements
of the City Code. We are satisfied. They have made progress. Staff always works with
businesses and, if they are making progress, staff continues to work with them. They are not
going to recommend revocation. They are making progress.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, okay, but Ms. Jones said they were not sure they were happy
with the screening. So then does it come back before them at a public hearing again?
Ms. Jones replied, yes.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 25
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why would not just include it and table this portion. If they are
not totally in compliance and some of these other ones are not in compliance. If we are not sure,
why would we not include it in the public hearing because it was in the notice.
Mayor Lund asked if they would be in compliance in the ne�t couple weeks.
Ms. Jones replied, they may be in compliance now. They are just having some differences of
opinion with staff as to what exactly they need to do for the screening.
Mayor Lund stated it might be appropriate to continue it with the other one.
Ms. Jones stated she thinks that would be a bit unfair to the property owner because staff has not
notified them that they were being considered tonight.
Mayor Lund stated regardless if they were to continue it. They can definitely remove it.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they are continuing it what is the unfairness. The City let
them know that they are there because they are not totally in compliance. Otherwise the Council
is going to have to have another public hearing to pass a resolution if there is an issue.
Attorney Knaak stated there is no harm in doing that. You could certainly notify them since
they are going to be continuing it to one of the other hearings. If nothing becomes of it and they
are in compliance, it is easiest enough to resolve it at that point.
Mayor Lund stated he thinks so too. He does not think it is unfair to them not being here
tonight. Just notifying them they continued theirs, along with a couple of other ones they are
going to continue. That may aid City staff in telling them they have a couple of weeks to get
these issues resolved. Staff could report back to Council they are moving along in compliance,
and it may be close enough for them to say, okay, we will just remove this because they have
gained compliance.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the Wallboard one is a little confusing to her and where they
think they are at and where the City thinks they are at is the only other one she thinks they would
table.
Mayor Lund stated he put "continue" on the Rubber Research and Wallboard. And it sounds
like they would be moving towards the same type of thing for the Blue Waters property.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, why Rubber Research?
Mayor Lund stated based that on the conversation there is some contesting of that going on.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated to her it has been years and there are issues related to their
landscaping which is a whole separate issue compared to their stipulations.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 26
Dr. Burns stated he thinks they are being very generous with Wallboard. He does not
necessarily think it hurts to table it, but he does not think there is any way they want to e�tend
this special use permit. They have delayed and delayed and he thinks staff has pointed out that
they have already really lost their special use permit. They have defaulted on it by their inaction.
It gives them encouragement to table it and, admittedly, it probably brings them in here to argue
with them about it.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was going to make it part of the discussion item what she
planned for staff to do. She would like staff to talk to the owner and not the manager and explain
in detail again why the special use permit does not exist and develop a plan of how they are
going to come into compliance and that they will have to come forward if they do not get this
e�terior storage taken care of. Does it seem reasonable as long as they have a plan with the
actual timeline of September 2012 that they would have to have another special use permit?
Council will revoke their special use permit at the ne�t meeting and they still have to have a plan
to be in compliance.
Dr. Burns stated he is not sure what they would gain by allowing them to continue the special
use permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they are not going to. They are going to revoke it in two
weeks, but we are going to give them an opportunity.
Mayor Lund stated he would not go as far as to say they are going to revoke it. That is making
somewhat of an assumption. They have had a special use permit for a number of years. They
had an agreement in place that is 11-months' old now. If they are going to come in, he is going
to say, where is the documentation that they even have a building permit and how soon are they
going to get this up. Already they are outside of their latest agreement which is 11 months old.
He does not think it is wrong for Council to delay some of these things and give them every
opportunity. He sees it as Council giving them another chance at conformance.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she realizes it is a little different than Central Auto Parts and
some of the other ones. They did not allow a lot of their businesses to go longer than they
probably should have if they really have been following the special use permits. How many
times a year do they grant e�tensions for special use permits, building permits, etc. for two or
three years. Maybe it is something they really need to look They would not have such a long
record here if they actually said you do not get an e�tension unless you are really working on it.
Mayor Lund stated this is not to criticize current staff but it seems a little strange there is some
gaps for some who have been given a special use permit and there is seemingly a lack of follow-
through with some of these cases when they go back as far as 1986. With the advent of
computerization there is a much easier way of tracking these things. He knows there is criticism
out when people say the City is not enforcing ordinances and the rules uniformly. With that
being said, he knows that is probably one-tenth of 1 percent. This is relatively minute compared
to those that have followed through.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 27
Councilmember Barnette stated two of these sites were going to have 125-foot
telecommunications towers. He remembered the discussion quite a number of years ago where
the City was required to provide, was it 10 towers? He asked whatever happened to the sites
where these towers were going to go. Did they replace them at some other site?
Ms. Jones replied, the City does have designated sites in the Code where they are allowed to put
towers without a special use permit. These were not sites that were on that list.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing on SP #87-16, SP #86-04,
SP #87-21, SP #88-01, SP #07-06, SP #03-07, SP #08-01, and SP #OS-04. 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 9:44.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table SP #03-24 and SP #10-03 to the August 23,
2010, City Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #87-16, for Rubber Research
Elastomerics, Inc., to Have Exterior Storage of Materials and Equipment in an M-2
Zoning District, Generally Located at 4500 Main Street (Ward 3).
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. 2010-47. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #03-24, for Wallboard, Inc., to have
Exterior Storage of Materials in an M-2 Zoning District, Generally Located at 5346
Industrial Boulevard (Ward 3).
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom tabling the Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP
#03-24, for Wallboard, Inc., to the August 23, 2010, City Council Meeting. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #86-04, for KMR Industries to Have
Exterior Storage of Materials and Equipment in an S-3 Zoning District, Generally
Located at 55 — 77t'' Avenue N.E. (Ward 3).
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 28
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. 2010-48. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #87-21, for CSM Properties, Inc., to
Have Exterior Storage of Materials and Equipment in an M-2 Zoning District,
Generally Located at 500 — 73rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 1).
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak adopting Resolution No. 2010-49. Seconded by
Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #88-01, for AB Systems, Inc., to have
Exterior Storage of Materials and Equipment in an M-1 Zoning District, Generally
Located at 1130 — 73rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 2).
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak adopting Resolution No. 2010-50. Seconded by
Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #07-06, for Global Health Ministries, to
Have Limited Outdoor Storage of Shipping Containers in an S-3 Zoning District,
Generally Located at 7831 Hickory Street N.E. (Ward 3).
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. 2010-51. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #03-07, for RJ Ryan Construction Co.,
Inc., for a Rock Crushing Facility in an M-3 Zoning District, Generally Located at
8170 Hickory Street N.E. (Ward 3).
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. 2010-52. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 29
16. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #08-01, for Pro Source Technologies
for a 125-Foot Telecommunications Tower in an M-3 Zoning District, Generally
Located at 8170 Hickory Street N.E. (Ward 3).
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. 2010-53. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #05-04, for Sprint to Install a 125-Foot
Telecommunications Tower in an M-3 Zoning District, Generally Located at 8290
Min Street N.E. (Ward 3).
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. 2010-54. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Contract for Curbside Recycling with
Allied Waste Services.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated we are doing the change in the 50/50 to 60/40 because they are
going to e�tend their agreement. She asked why we switched.
William Burns, City Manager, said most of them are trying to get out of revenue sharing
altogether. In fact, the ones doing the single sort are getting out of it altogether. In light of what
staff is seeing in the hauling environment, we think the 60/40 is a very reasonable proposal.
Mayor Lund stated he had already had an expectation they were going to lose it all. He was real
surprised it was 60/40.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked because of the increase, Council will have to pass the
resolution related to the recycling because that will not take place unti12011.
Dr. Burns stated they would have to pass the resolution related to recycling as part of our fee
increases during the budgetary process.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but that fee does not increase unti12011.
Dr. Burns stated it would not go into effect until Apri12011.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated our Environmental Quality and Energy Commission is
working on this. The City really does not see itself going through any type of organized
collection for at least a year, so we really are not hurting our chances in any way?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 30
Dr. Burns replied correct. We are keeping our options open.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if they can do this because otherwise they
would be going out for an RFP.
Attorney Knaak replied yes, they have the discretion to e�tend the contract in this matter.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if we were not doing that, we would probably have to go out
for an RFP.
Attorney Knaak replied, no.
Councilmember Barnette stated they did not get a request from other haulers to bid on this.
Dr. Burns replied, no, they never expected to have another hauler agree to this.
Attorney Knaak stated technically because this is a service contract, the City does not have to
bid it as such. That is just best practice.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked the City Attorney, he is telling them that best practice is okay
not to do it here because they are doing the study?
Attorney Knaak replied he is giving them the legal answer that under the circumstances, this is
an appropriate action for them to take.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2010-45. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Claims.
Councilmember Bolkcom said on the first couple of pages it says, "July Purchases." She
believed they are probably all related to the liquor store.
William Burns, City Manager, said he thinks they are.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the entries do not say that. Maybe ne�t time it would be
appropriate. Regarding the entry for the Suites Hotel and Waterfront, it looks like it is for
something that is happening in September. Is that someone who is going to a conference and
they had to prepay? It is dated July 29, 2010, for $658.98.
Dr. Burns stated it is NWAA conference and is related to certification of the Water Treatment
Plant for Jason Wiley and Kory Jorgensen. Typically the City does not pay for conferences
unless they are related to certification and licensing.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 31
Councilmember Bolkcom stated and again that might be something that might be more easily
clarified so she does not have to ask these questions. She said on Page 6 is says `Bolt" $623.
Dr. Burns stated he would have to get a response for her.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked on Page 8 for the ball field light, is that not a capital
improvement because it is $1,400?
Dr. Burns replied, he did not think so because it was a repair. It is a replacement of a light pole
at Community Park.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what does it come under?
Dr. Burns stated it comes out of Operations.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what pushes it the other direction?
Mayor Lund stated if they were probably replacing the entire lighting system.
Councilmember Bolkcom referred to the capital improvement work they are doing for the lift at
the Public Works is different because it is broken, too? She is just trying to understand.
Dr. Burns stated one is an outlay item. It is not a capital improvement. It is an operating item.
Only it comes out of the water and sewer fund. The entry for the ball field would be out of the
general fund.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if t would not come out of the Parks and Recreation fund?
Dr. Burns replied, no it would come out of the Public Works fund because they maintain the
parks. Recreation runs the programming.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but they have a capital outlay related to tennis courts, etc.
Dr. Burns replied, no, the tennis courts are funded by Parks capital funding; but they are not
funded out of their general fund account.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked on page 9, it says "Metro Sales."
Dr. Burns replied that is for copier usage.
Mayor Lund stated does that mean those copiers are leased?
Dr. Burns replied, they are leased.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding "Driving Schedule" on Page 10, Minnesota
Highway Safety and Research, what is that?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 PAGE 32
Dr. Burns replied he is not sure what that would be.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the Claims. Seconded by Councilmember
Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18. Informal Status Reports.
Councilmember Varichak stated the parties she visited on Night to Unite were very
welcoming. A lot of people were out.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there were 88 people at one in Logan Park.
ADJOURN.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Varichak, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor