10/11/2010 - 29319CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
OCTOBER 11, 2010
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember Barnette
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Debra Skogen, City Clerk
PRESENTATIONS:
Pumpkin Night in the Park at
Springbrook Nature Center
Twin Cities Gateway
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of September 13, 2010
APPROVED.
City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010
APPROVED.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 2010.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 2
Councilmember Bolkcom pointed out on page 4, paragraphs 14 and 15, the word "Clearwater"
should be replaced by "Clearwire."
APPROVED AS CORRECTED.
2. Resolution Confirming the Statutory Level of Tort Limits.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
periodically asked cities to renew their acceptance of tort liability limits as contained in
Minnesota law. The resolution accepts these limits. The limits are $500,000 per individual
single claim and $1,500,000 for a group of claimants on any single claim. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-73.
3. Motion to Approve the 2011 Budget for Twin Cities Gateway.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the Twin Cities Gateway is the local visitors' bureau
created in 2010 by the cities of Fridley, Coon Rapids, Blaine, Mounds View, New Brighton,
Ham Lake, Lino Lakes, Anoka, and Shoreview. The organization is funded by a local lodging
tax collected in the nine cities. The estimated revenue for 2011 is $530,000. Expenditures are
estimated at $492,800. Of the expenditures, 70 percent is designated for marketing, advertising
and promotion of the region; 23 percent of the expenditures are designated for administrative and
other overhead expenses; and 7 percent is designated for the organization's cash reserve which is
expected to grow to $99,000 in 2011. The budget was approved by the Board of Directors at
their meeting on September 14. Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED.
4. Approve Agreement for Residential Recycling Program Between the City of Fridley
and County of Anoka.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the agreement is an annual agreement with Anoka County
which covers the terms and conditions for the City's receipt of recycling funds (SCORE Funds).
For 2011, Fridley is scheduled to receive up to $67,089.04 in SCORE Funds from Anoka
County. The 2011 SCORE Grant includes a base of $10,000 and $5.08 per household. The
amount represents a$.08 per household increase amounting to $772.08. Other than the changes
in funding, staff has found no noticeable changes from agreements approved in previous years
and recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
5. Approve 2011 Development Review Schedule for Planning Commission and City
Council Action.
APPROVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 3
6. Resolution Designating the Time and Number of Council Meetings for 2011.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-74.
7. Claims (147920 — 148163).
APPROVED.
8. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
9. Estimates:
APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES:
Northwest Asphalt
1451 Stagecoach Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
61St Avenue/Moore Lake Drive
Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2009-02
Estimate No. 4 ................................................................................$ 12,466.37
Concrete Idea, Inc.
13961 — 44th Lane N.E.
St. Michael, MN 55376
2010 Miscellaneous Concrete Project No. 395
Estimate No. 4 ............................................. ..................................$ 8,533.25
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that Item No. 4 be removed and placed on the regular agenda.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Item
No. 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 Item No. 4
Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 4
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
No items presented.
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Special Use Permit Request, SP #10-10, by Buell Consulting, Inc., on Behalf of
Clearwire Communication, LLC;
and
Resolution Approving Special Use Permit, SP #10-10 for Buell Consulting, Inc., on
Behalf of Clearwire Communication, LLC, to Allow Telecommunication Equipment
to be Installed on an Xcel Transmission Pole, Generally Located North of 6951
Central Avenue N.E. within the Railroad Right-of-Way (Ward 2).
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioner is requesting a special
use permit to allow the installation of telecommunications equipment on an existing Xcel
transmission tower. The Xcel tower is located on railway right-of-way north of 69th Avenue,
near 6951 Central Avenue, and is owned by Minnesota Transfer Railway Company. The
property owner has signed off on the special use permit application and the City has received an
e-mail from Xcel Energy stating they are working with Clearwire concerning the project and
subject to results of their engineering analysis, they will be approving the Clearwire installation.
Mr. Hickok stated the proposed communications facility will consist of installing up to 9
antennas/microwave dishes on top of the Xcel power tower at 140 feet above ground and
constructing a group equipment cabinet inside a 49-square foot ground lease area in-between the
tower's four legs. The subject property is zoned RR, Railroads, as it is railroad right-of-way.
Properties on all sides of it are zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial and occupied by either Medtronic or
Cummins. Xcel has a utility easement on the railroad right-of-way to have their existing towers
on the subject property that is owned by Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.
Mr. Hickok stated telecommunication towers and the installation, operation, and maintenance of
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are allowed on railroad right-of-ways, adjacent to
industrially-zoned districts, but only with a special use permit. The petitioner's radio frequency
engineers have stated that when selecting possible locations for wireless telecommunications,
they attempt to select locations, such as existing towers, parks, water towers and light pole
applications, to minimize or limit any negative impacts.
Mr. Hickok stated City Code requires the petitioner prove that a new site is necessary and that
usable Approved Sites are not located within a one-half mile radius of the proposed new site.
The Locke Park water tower is located approximately .74 miles from the proposed new site. The
Cummins property is on the list of the City's "approved tower sites;" however, locating
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 5
equipment on this site would require the installation of a new freestanding cell tower. Placement
of the proposed telecommunications equipment will not prevent Cummins from eventually
installing a tower on their site; however, it would be within one-half mile of the proposed
equipment. Installation of a tower on the Cummins site would not require special use permit
approval, because it is an approved site. Locating telecommunications equipment on an existing
Xcel tower is a better solution for the City, as it takes up less land area and minimizes any
negative impacts that may be associated with the installation of a new freestanding tower.
Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing for Special Use Permit, SP
#10-10 on September 15, 2010, and unanimously recommended approval. Staff recommends
concurrence with the Planning Commission, and approval of the special use permit with seven
stipulations.
Councilmember Varichak asked if Cummins does decide to build their telecommunications
tower, what does this do in regards to the closeness to the other tower. Does it cause a
distraction or lose any activity with the sites being so close to one another?
Mr. Hickok replied, their frequency engineers told staff as long as those two towers are from
different vendors, such as Clearwire in one location and Verizon in another and are not
communicating with one another, being located close to one another would not be an issue.
Their engineers try and position these things so they have a certain distance between two towers.
In this case they would not try and communicate with anything on Cummins tower if one were
built but as long as it is not their equipment, the distance would be fine. Sometimes cities do
have these "farms" of monopoles that are on one location just to minimize the visual impact.
Councilmember Varichak asked if petitioner is okay with the stipulations.
Mr. Hickok stated petitioner did call late in the day today to say he had another commitment
that caused him not to be here this evening. He extended his apologies. He did say he was okay
with the stipulations and also okay with the stipulations that were added by the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Saefke stated he wanted to clarify that it is his understanding Cummins would
be kind of reluctant at least at this time because of some of the government contracts and the
security of their property which would limit the access to any telecommunications equipment on
their property, correct?
Mr. Hickok replied yes, by outside vendors. They may choose some day to have their own;
however, outside vendors getting into that site would be problematic.
Councilmember Saefke asked because of the City's ordinance and the way it is set up, if
Cummins in the future would decide to have their own telecommunications with other facilities,
they would need a variance because it would be within one-half mile of an existing one?
Mr. Hickok replied, no. They are put to a certain task when they are asking for a special use
permit. They are required to demonstrate that they cannot go on an existing facility or an
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 6
approved site, and they cannot be closer than one-half mile to an existing facility. By choosing
this location, they have done two things: they have tried to accomplish what the City's
telecommunication ordinance says. They would have liked to negotiate with Cummins which
was the better deal for them. However, from what staff understands, there were those concerns
about being inside a secured area. It was not a real clear option for them at this time. As a
result, Council's approval of the special use permit recognizes there may be a Cummins' facility
less than one-half mile away and, therefore, would not require a variance to that section of Code.
Council basically is saying by approval of this special use permit, that they have considered the
fact the ordinance would require they be spaced a distance of at least one-half mile but this is an
exception.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was going on top of the tower or alongside it.
Mr. Hickok replied, it is actually going into the fabric of the latticework Rather than being a
power pole as they oftentimes see, this is a large lattice structure that has four legs and then goes
up into a very large network of arms that carry the power. The equipment will be up in the frame
that already exists. It will not be on top. It will be positioned in and below the power. The City
has one other location by Community ballpark where they have done this and it really truly kind
of disappears into the fabric of that lattice and you cannot see the equipment very well unless
you are really looking for it.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it would be 140 feet from the ground up through the lattice.
Mr. Hickok replied it would be better described on the top of the structure as opposed to the mid
or lower section of the tower.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked as far as the stipulations, how long do they have to do the
landscaping and screening plan.
Mr. Hickok replied 12 months. The City gives them a planting season and basically right now
they get ne�t year as a planting seasons. By this time ne�t year it would need to be planted.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to approve Special Use Permit Request, SP #10-10, by
Buell Consulting, Inc., on Behalf of Clearwire Communication, LLC with the following seven
stipulations:
1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility
equipment on this site.
2. A landscape and screening plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed telecommunications
equipment so that it blends into the surrounding environment.
4. The equipment shelter shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry.
5. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this
application.
6. Access road shall be paved with either asphalt or concrete.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 7
7. Per Section 205 of the Fridley City Code, this Special Use Permit will become null and
void one year after the City Council approval date if work has not commenced or if the
Petitioner has not petitioned the City Council for an e�tension.
Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to adopt Resolution No. 2010-75.
Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Approve Change Order No. 1 for 2010 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2010-01.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated this change order is fairly substantial. Items
1-5 are related to city curbing. They had underestimated the curbing replacement. Some of that
was because of the southeast area of the community. They had more clay and rock soils and
there was more shifting in the curbing. They do have a set of standards and a set of guidelines
the City uses for curb sectional replacement. They actually boosted the quantity from the City's
previous year's resurfacing project and found in meeting those standards they replaced quite a bit
more curb.
Mr. Kosluchar stated Items 6-9 are related to new and overlay of pavement. A portion of that is
because of some underestimation of quantities in the final bid documents. Another portion of
that is because of modifying from a 2-inch section to 2'/z -inch section in certain locations on
particular streets. Basically what they ended up finding is that once they started the operation
and breaking through pavement, rather than paving over the thin layer of asphalt which will kind
of reflect the cracking, they moved to a reclaim operation which they had on several streets
already, but they just did not designate on these particular streets.
Mr. Kosluchar stated there was also some additional pavement over on Central Avenue, north
and south of Rice Creek Road, an Anoka County roadway. That segment was not bid. They
worked with the County to try and develop a plan that they could incorporate into the bid
documents, but they were not really successful. They bid the project without e�tension for the
pavement on the north and south portions; however, they went ahead after they recognized there
was some definitely necessary curb replacement and it would improve the ride along Central
Avenue.
Mr. Kosluchar stated Items 10-12 are additional storm sewer items for Mississippi Street and
Rice Creek Road. These are all County costs. Basically they wanted to do additional structure
work on their storm drainage structures.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 8
Mr. Kosluchar stated Item 13 is for a valley gutter that was installed on Rivers Edge Way.
They had one valley gutter culled out, they added another valley gutter that did not previously
exist; and it was because of the flat grading. Staff did not think they could get it to drain
sufficiently and they did not want to have the pavement deteriorate because of standing water
and ice.
Mr. Kosluchar stated Items 14 and 15 are related to walk segments on county road and
upgrades to ramp approaches on all the County road segments. They had some of those
identified and then they actually added connectors where they thought they should go with the
approval of County.
Mr. Kosluchar stated Item 16 is related to Anoka County median and some changes to the
median noses to upgrade them to new standards.
Mr. Kosluchar stated he requests Council consider and authorize them to proceed with the
change order. This is all work they needed to complete the project.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether only $29,000 belongs to the County.
Mr. Kosluchar replied correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if any of the increased curbing was related to the County.
Mr. Kosluchar replied the increased curbing in Items 1-5 which was about $57,000 total, was
mainly City curbing. There is some County curbing in there for Central Avenue where they did
the approaches to Moore Lake Road and Rice Creek Road. He believes that was in the order of
approximately 400 feet, but they do have about 1,500 feet of City curbing in here. They do have
a portion of some pavement which, again, is the approach e�tension roadway for Items 6-9, that
is for the County. There are a couple of smaller items for the County later in the change order.
Basically, it is largely for the City.
Councilmember Bolkcom said it would be very beneficial if it was broken down and a
breakdown for the County was shown. Also, because it is $163,000, what is the difference as far
as the assessments?
Mr. Kosluchar replied he can tell them they do not assess for the curbing. The City funds that
through its state aid account. The asphalt is assessed largely. A large portion of the change from
the original contract was because of a quantity error. He does not think it was in their
preliminary estimate. The contract estimates created that area when they went to detailed
quantity. They started with a preliminary budget and estimates for the project. They had a pretty
good preliminary estimate and then somewhere along the way, when they were developing plans
and specific quantities, they missed a large amount of pavement in this project. The quantities
that were bid were actually a little bit shorter than what they had initially proj ected.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how it happened.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 9
Mr. Kosluchar replied there are some corrections they need to do in their computation method.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the pedestrian ramps are county pavements.
Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed the pedestrian ramps will be City cost because the sidewalk
system is City. They will try and work with the County.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they had to get permission from the County to do it. She is
wondering why they would not share the cost of connecting to their street. Mississippi Street is a
County road.
Mr. Kosluchar replied Anoka County has a long history of not providing any pedestrian or
bicycle facilities. It is his understanding that whenever the City of Fridley has requested putting
in a trail or walk there is an agreement that the City bears the cost of that.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they are held to the same standards related to ADA
requirements.
Mr. Kosluchar replied he thinks the County feels the existence of the walks and off road bicycle
facilities are only there because the City desires it.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, even though they list them as part of their walkway and
bikeway paths. She asked if this was the end of the change orders.
Mr. Kosluchar replied this will be the end of the change orders for 2010-01. They have done
the estimating and they have done the final assessment projection. There should not be any other
outstanding item.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the total number was still within the cost of the project.
Mr. Kosluchar replied correct.
Mayor Lund asked regarding the curbing in the project because so much more was replaced
because of clay or rock soils, does that mean the curb was okay, but it had shifted in one segment
so the water pooled.
Mr. Kosluchar replied correct. Shifting is the root cause of many of the failures.
Mayor Lund asked if the joints are re-barred together to keep them from shifting.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, no. It has never been a City standard to do that. He has seen it done in
other communities but it is fairly expensive.
Mayor Lund asked if it would be less expensive in those cases where the curb really is in good
condition to use a grinder and grind off the raised areas.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 10
Mr. Kosluchar replied he thinks that is a good solution for the curb offsets which are minor;
however, the curb that was replaced was either cracked through in more than one location per
segment or it had some other problem that would be fairly expensive and time-consuming to fix.
He said they have spoken about the possibility of doing some grinding in Fridley. They did try
to minimize wherever they could the segment length they were replacing.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve Change Order No. 1 for 2010 Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST2010-01. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Approve Agreement for Residential Recycling Program Between the City of Fridley
and County of Anoka.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she know they send out a promotion regarding recycling and
they send out a promotion at least once a year about the City's drop-off days. She asked if
something was put in the newsletter or local newspaper.
William Burns, City Manager, replied they periodically have had recycling articles related to
drop-offs and the recycling program itself in the City's newsletter..
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she understands in the agreement that they agree to do this
yearly.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, replied they do.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the terms of the agreement are from January 1, 2010, to the
end of this year. Why is it coming to them now in October?
Mr. Hickok replied they put it on when the County provides it to the City.
Mayor Lund said it appears the dates should be January 1, 2011, through January 1, 2012.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated on page 15 of the agreement it says the City is supposed to
report on July 20, 2010, and January 20, 2011.
Mr. Hickok stated this is a contract provided by the County to be approved for ne�t year.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak what they should do.
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, suggested they approve it subject to acceptance of the changes
determined to be necessary by the Council.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Hickok if there is some kind of timeline on when this has to be into the
County.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2010 PAGE 11
Mr. Hickok replied, it typically is the first meeting in October annually for the upcoming year.
Mayor Lund asked if it would be okay to table it to the ne�t meeting. Attorney Knaak said they
could do it subject to approval, but he does not want to approve it and then have the County
make a lot of changes.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what percentage of SCORE funding really pays for the City's
recycling cost.
Mr. Hickok replied, it is a minor percentage. It is basically seed money in the cost of a program
that is just shy of $400,000.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated and they have to provide recycling or have the County take
over which would be an increased cost to the residents. Every year it gets to be a little less
although the tonnage keeps going up.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table this item to the October 25, 2010, City Council
meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Informal Status Reports
Mr. Hickok thanked all of those who volunteered last Saturday for the recycling event. They
had a great turnout for the recycling drop-off at the City's Public Works facility. There were 406
cars which represents 120 more cars than in the spring. The City will have two events ne�t year
on the second Saturdays of April and October.
ADJOURN.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Varichak, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor