Loading...
02/07/2011 - 29391CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY FEBRUARY 7, 2011 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-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Saefke Councilmember Varichak Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager James Kosluchar, Public Works Director Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE Audrey Nelson, 250 — 61st Avenue NE Pat Gabel, 5947 — 2'/z Street NE John Anderson, 5909 — 2"d Street NE PRESENTATION: Annual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Review of Fridley's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for 2010. James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, said each year the City is required by its permit with the MPCA to provide an update on the stormwater program. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is stormwater legislation from the US EPA 1987 Clean Water Act. The EPA is delegated to the state. The stormwater program in Minnesota is affiliated with the NIPCA. They are given authority over the program. Mr. Kosluchar stated Fridley is classified as an MS4. It is a municipal separate storm sewer system. It includes basically its stormwater infrastructure, ditches, curbs, gutters, storm sewers, similar means of collecting or conveying runoff that do not collect to a wastewater collection system or treatment plant. The City is issued its own permit under the State of Minnesota permit with the EPA. Mr. Kosluchar said in 2008, Fridley received reauthorization of its MS4 permit. The heart of this permit is a storm water pollution prevention program (SWPPP). Fridley has six minimum FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 2 control measures that are part of that. This is the completion of Fridley's eighth year under the NPDES program. Fridley has historically had a very proactive program. It has been meeting the requirements of the six minimum control measures for many years prior to the Federal requirements coming down through the State. Mr. Kosluchar stated the first minimum control measure (MCM) is public education and outreach. The City uses its municipal television, Channel 17. It ran programs on 133 occasions. There were four or five different programs related to stormwater. The programs explained stormwater and wetland interactions with development and non-point source pollution. They have provided printed materials to the public, provided Springbrook Nature Center "Tech-Tip" bookmarks, provided brochures on the Mississippi River and Springbrook watershed, etc. A third item under this MCM is good housekeeping for our municipal operations. They initiated the educational program in 2010. Mr. Kosluchar stated the City has an MCM on public participation and involvement. Rain gardens are part of this program. They assisted in the grading and planting of two new rain gardens in 2010. One was with the 2009-02 Street Project, and one was 2010-01 Street Project. Mr. Kosluchar said this meeting is part of the City's public participation and involvement. People are welcome to come and comment here or call the Engineering Department. Mr. Kosluchar stated the third MCM is illicit discharge, detection, and elimination. Part of that program is development and enhancement of the City's storm sewer mapping capabilities. This year, the City added information on water quality elements, such as ponds and other control structures for water quality throughout the City, both public and private. The City has an illicit discharge ordinance that prohibits dumping of hazardous materials into the storm drainage system or waterway, and this is enforceable as a public nuisance. The City also does outfall inspection annually and cleaning. Staff inspects 20 percent of outfalls each year. This year Springbrook Creek and Stonybrook Creek watersheds outfall were inspected. They also completed repairs on the 45th Avenue outfall to the Mississippi River. The Hartmann Circle outfall to Rice Creek underwent repair and lining in 2010. Mr. Kosluchar stated the last item under the third MCM is identification of non-stormwater discharge and flows. They are continuing to work on the City's wash water discharges with various property owners in Fridley. Mr. Kosluchar stated the fourth MCM is construction site runoff control. There is an existing erosion control ordinance that was approved by the City Council in 2006. It is a fairly strong ordinance. It requires construction compliance through use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction by contractors during development and redevelopment. Silt fencing, temporary ponding, concrete washout areas, and soil stabilization are all part of the typical BMPs that are required during construction. The City maintains its own compliance on its streets and assists with education and compliance for contractors. The City increased it efforts in this area in 2010. Projects included Unity Hospital, Fridley assisted living, and the Cummins Power facility. They reviewed 21 projects and 9 NPDES construction permits were issued. The permits are issued through the State, but the City requires certain practices in order for them to FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 3 be approved by the City. They issued several corrective notices. One notice of violation was issued which was effective in correcting a problem situation. Mr. Kosluchar stated the fifth MCM is post-construction stormwater management and maintaining compliance with development ordinances, which includes the addition of stormwater BMPs during all development or redevelopment projects in the City. They also require management agreements to be filed on large development or redevelopment projects requiring implementation of storm water controls. There were five agreements they coordinated in 2010 on various projects. Mr. Kosluchar stated the si�th MCM is pollution prevention good housekeeping for municipal operations. They perform storm sewer treatment device cleaning annually. They have 13 storm sewer concrete treatment structures. Those are inspected and debris removed. Only 10 of the structures required sediment cleaning in 2010 which is down. As far as street sweeping, they completed approximately 740 hours of street sweeping during the spring and fall rounds in 2010. They do sweep in the summer, but less rigorously. They removed an estimated 1,600 cubic yards of material from our streets, about half of this material by way of sand and dirt. Regarding the de-icing program, the City reduced the amount of sand applied to roadways in 2010. There has been a gradual decline since 2006, and they have reduced the use of sand by nearly 70 percent. This also reduces the amount of spring sweeping that is required. Mr. Kosluchar stated in 2011 they will be working on a new MS4 permit with the State. All small MS4s are working on the draft permit language right now for the State permit. Those MS4s have to then come into compliance with that permit. Mr. Kosluchar stated the last item concerns anti-degradation. Staff does not know what that is going to be yet because the State is still developing their rule-making. It sounds like the City will be held to a set standard back to the 1980s, and is going to have to show that State water has not been degraded since that point. Mr. Kosluchar stated Fridley is an involved stakeholder in the development of new permit TMDLs and regulations, so it participates in the draft permits and comments on them and tries to maintain a sense of where the permits are manageable for municipalities. They definitely see additional costs with complying with the rules and permit requirements that are forthcoming. Resources for the public include the MPCA Stormwater website and the EPA website. The City's website also has information. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is there a link on the City's website if someone would like to read about this in more detail. Mr. Kosluchar replied he will make sure the presentation is posted. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if he had any idea how much time is spent on this and if he saw a huge cost for this in the ne�t year or so. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 4 Mr. Kosluchar replied they do not see this that ramping up; but when these permits cycle, probably into 2012, they will start seeing additional work The permit is issued on a five-year cycle. Every fives years there is a new set of requirements, and they are written so they are staged. From a municipalities and management standpoint, they are getting more into the role of monitoring and regulating stormwater discharge. That is where the push is going to be over the ne�t five years and into the permit cycle after the 2011-2016 cycle. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of January 24, 2011. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 5, under "New Business." The sentence should read: "She thinks that sometimes the water gets muddied, and she would have a problem with e�tending the e�tension for more than one year." APPROVED AS CORRECTED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 19, 2011. RECEIVED. 2. Resolution Ordering Advertisement for Bids: 20ll Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No. 401. William Burns, City Manager, staff recommends approval of the 2011 concrete repair program. Approximately 50 percent was focused in the Hyde Park area and the rest scattered throughout the City. Focusing here, prior to the mill and overlay work in this area, will help keep the mill and overlay project costs down. Staff estimates the total amount of costs for the year to be $45,000. The amount is within budget and consistent with the amount spent in prior years. If approved, the bid award will occur at the March 14, 2011, City Council meeting. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2011-09. 3. Claims (149482 — 149663). APPROVED. 4. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 5 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: 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 THE AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM: No one in the audience spoke. PUBLIC HEARING: 5. Consideration of a Text Amendment TA #11-04, by the City of Fridley, for the S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood Zoning District, for the Purpose of Making Existing Non- Conforming Uses Permitted Uses, as Well as Minor Corrections to the Existing Text. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:47 P.M. Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated this te�t amendment has come from a concern raised during the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment process about the condition of rental housing in the S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood Zoning District. While a subsequent housing study did not support the concerns about the rental housing conditions, staff realized that a 2004 change in State statute meant the zoning language in the S-1 District regarding non-conformities needed to be reevaluated. An action step was put into the Comprehensive Plan to take a look at the te�t language for this district. Ms. Jones said the Hyde Park neighborhood is bordered on Main Street on the west, 61st Avenue on the north, University Avenue on the east, and 57th Place on the south. When the Hyde Park District was developed, it was made up of a mi�ture of commercial entities and all types of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 6 residential units, both single family and multi-family housing. Currently, all but one of those commercial entities has been acquired and has been replaced with single-family housing. Ms. Jones stated Hyde Park's development is consistent with how neighborhoods typically developed before strict zoning laws were put into place. These mixed use developments where people can live, work, and play is something more and more cities are striving to create and Fridley is no different. The Hyde Park zoning district was adopted in 1978 to allow all uses currently within that district to be continued but when a use other than single-family was destroyed by more than 50 percent of its value, only a single-family home could be rebuilt Ms. Jones stated changes in State Statutes, however, now permit non-conforming buildings to be rebuilt even if it is removed intentionally by the owner. Staff is proposing to change the permitted use section in the Hyde Park zoning code to match State Statutes which will allow any existing use to be rebuilt. However, it cannot be geographically expanded if it is non- conforming. Other modifications are also being proposed to the Hyde Park te�t to update the Code and make it easier to interpret and enforce. Ms. Jones stated staff has taken some time over the past few months to research the existing Hyde Park code language. In the "Purpose" section, when the Hyde Park overlay district was adopted, the idea was to remove any commercial or multi-family housing and replace it with single-family dwellings. The purpose statement within the existing Code clearly stipulates that. Staff is proposing that we modify this section to acknowledge the unique characteristics of this neighborhood that currently provides a mi�ture of housing types. It is the City's goal to support the residential character of this neighborhood while also promoting the reinvestment within existing structures and allowing future redevelopment. Ms. Jones stated in the "District Boundaries" section, staff is proposing to change how this is described. It is currently described by legal descriptions of the plats within the neighborhood. Every time there is a replat, however, staff has to do a te�t amendment. Staff feels it will be much easier for everyone and more clearly understood if staff just simply described the boundaries of the Hyde Park area by the street boundaries that contain it. Ms. Jones stated in the "Uses Permitted" section under "Principal Uses," currently what is considered permitted use is only one-family dwellings. In order to allow existing uses, whether duplexes or 12-unit buildings to be permitted, staff recommends adding a section to the Code that will instead read, "One-family dwellings, except for those uses as allowed as part of Section 205.23.4.C.(1)." That section of the City Code states, "All existing uses will be classified as permitted uses within the zoning district on the present property which they occupy." This statement clarifies that multi-family use properties are considered permitted uses that can be reinvested in and rebuilt but again, not geographically expanded. Ms. Jones stated in the "Accessory Uses" section, staff determined that for consistency purposes, this section of Code should match that of the R-1, Single Family, section of Code. The existing language points to the need for a special use permit for accessory structures which is something that was removed from the R-1 code several years ago. This is important because the City has also increased the fees for the special use permit on residential. For someone to put in a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 7 second accessory structure, they would have to pay a$1,000 application fee. Staff does not feel that should be required in this district as it is not required in the R-1 district any longer. Ms. Jones stated under the "Existing Uses" section, several years ago amendments were made to the State Statute and the City's zoning code that allows non-conforming uses to be rebuilt, whether the property owner chooses to replace the building or if the building is destroyed or damaged by nature peril. Sections (2) and (3) in the "Existing Uses" section should have been removed at the time of the adoption of the State Statute language in our Code. Ms. Jones stated regarding lot width, within the "Lot Width" section of the Hyde Park zoning district, there are a set of setbacks for living spaces and accessory structures which staff finds confusing and really unnecessary. Appropriate setback requirements have already been established in the setback section of the zoning code. Staff recommends just removing the setback requirements within the "Lot Width" section. Ms. Jones stated as far as lot coverage, when the 0-6 Overlay District (that is the overlay district for pre-1955 platted lots) was approved in 2000, it recognized smaller lot sizes throughout the City to be conforming. Hyde Park was not part of that overlay district even though there are a lot of smaller lots there. Within that overlay district there is an increase in lot coverage allowance and reduced setback requirements. It allows for additional development opportunities on those smaller homes on small lots. Since the Hyde Park zoning district also has smaller lot sizes and reduced setbacks from the standard R-1, single-family zoning code, staff determined it was appropriate to increase the lot coverage requirements from 25 percent to 35 percent in this zoning district as well so someone might have the opportunity to expand their smaller home even though their lot size was small. Ms. Jones stated under the "Refuse" section, the word "waste" should be removed and replaced with "refuse." Ms. Jones stated in 2005 several parcels within the Hyde Park neighborhood along Third Street were replatted to allow for the construction of 16 new single-family homes. This is part of HRA's Gateway West project. At that time, a te�t amendment was approved that would allow reduced side yard setbacks specifically for new construction. Staff has determined that the reduced setbacks should apply to all properties within this zoning district and not specifically to just new construction. This change would also be consistent with the setback dimensions used in the 0-6 Overlay District. While reviewing this section of Code, staff also discovered a typo related to the height of an accessory structure. In all other sections of Code, accessory structures shall not exceed 14 feet. For some reason in the Hyde Park te�t, it reads "15 feet" and for consistency sake, staff recommends correcting the 15-feet height limitation to 14 feet. Ms. Jones stated along with these te�t amendments for the Hyde Park zoning district, staff is also proposing the adoption of a new Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zoning district. The Hyde Park neighborhood is proposed to be included in the TOD overlay district. Staff brought these two te�t amendments forward at the same time because they are interrelated and staff felt it was important that the public and Council hear what is proposed in both of the te�t amendments. Staff would like to point out that even if the TOD overlay ordinance is not FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 8 approved, they would still recommend that these modifications be made to the Hyde Park zoning district language. Ms. Jones stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19. There was a claim made that the Hyde Park special zoning district was created through a petition. Staff was not able to find any record of that. A rezoning for Hyde Park was a joint effort between the City and a neighborhood council. The neighborhood council was made up of 16 people who owned homes, apartments, or businesses within the Hyde Park neighborhood. The council was established as a response to residents who had concerns about a 1969 commercial rezoning which left their residential properties non-conforming. Staff understands it was difficult for people to get insurance. The neighborhood council held several meetings in which they discussed the problems and future planning of the neighborhood. As a result of those meetings, the neighborhood council wanted to create a special zoning district so people would be able to continue to utilize their existing structures and replace them if they were destroyed by over 50 percent. The City and neighborhood partnered together to create the S-1, Hyde Park Zoning District. Ms. Jones stated there were also comments about Hyde Park apartment buildings and the survey work that was done ranking the conditions of these buildings. The Comprehensive Plan references neighborhood concerns about the maintenance of apartments in Hyde Park. However, a later housing condition survey did not rank Hyde Park apartments as poor. The study was completed by the City's housing intern who ranked properties based on a five-point e�terior building system. Those conditions related to roofs, siding, paint, doors, soffits, fascia, and foundation. The interior conditions were not rated. Although the Fire Department states the condition of these buildings are no worse than other rental structures within the City of this age, staff assumes that as these buildings continue to age, the conditions of both the e�terior and the interior will become a bigger concern. As a result, this te�t amendment would allow multi- family property owners the ability to feel comfortable reinvesting in these buildings without losing their investment. Ms. Jones said there were some comments about inconsistencies concerning the new Hyde Park zoning language between allowing property owners to expand to 35 percent lot coverage and only being able to build what exists now if a building were removed or destroyed. This is not an inconsistency. Both statements are true depending on the situation. A single-family home that is located on a conforming lot will be allowed to expand their home with an increase in lot coverage up to 35 percent as proposed. However, a multi-family building that is considered non- conforming based on lot size or because it is a multi-family use would not be able to expand the footprint of their building but could rebuild the exact same sized structure on the lot. Increasing the amount of lot coverage allowed in the Hyde Park zoning district will allow those conforming uses to reinvest in their property by permitting new front porch additions, living space additions, or other expansion options that these properties otherwise could not accomplish now. Ms. Jones stated at the January 19, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, after staff's presentation and receiving comments from the public, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve the te�t amendment unanimously. In addition, there were no recommendations to staff to change the proposed language. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 9 recommendation and recommends approval of this te�t amendment. The first reading of the ordinance on this amendment has tentatively been scheduled for the Council meeting on February 14, unless otherwise directed by Council. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how the neighborhood would change. She asked if there would be bigger buildings. Ms. Jones replied, as far as single family, really not much. Potentially some additions may occur. As far as apartments, multi-family properties would be able to rebuild. As written in State Statute, they are allowed to rebuild regardless of what the City Code states, as State Statute supercedes the City Code. They can only rebuild it as it was built before. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, if she had a concern about apartment complexes there now, they could not be any bigger than they are now. Ms. Jones replied, as will be stated in the TOD overlay district, in addition to this te�t amendment, a property owner of a multi-family property would be required to come to the City with an application for a TOD plan which would need to be heard through a public hearing process both before the Planning Commission and City Council for review. They would have to meet all the design and setback criteria of that district. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she had a 12-plex now, could she make it a 6-plex and put in garages as long as it was not a bigger footprint. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said if it does not have a garage now it would not be able to have a garage even if it fit within the same footprint. It is really to replace is there right now. Councilmember Bolkcom said it would not necessarily be an incentive for an apartment owner to reinvest in his building other than in windows. Mr. Hickok replied one of the things about its location is that people could enjoy the property and not need two cars, because they can use transit. There would still be some benefit for people to rebuild their building. There is always the energy efficiency values they can build into structures and just the architectural value they could add so they can compete with some of the more modern units. If the garage is the only feature they lack but the building is nice, well positioned, and has modern bathrooms and kitchens, etc., they should still do quite well in the marketplace. Councilmember Bolkcom stated on "Existing Uses," under (C), it says only permitted uses within the zoning district, so you cannot change your use. If you have a single-family home, you cannot tear it down and build a duplex. Ms. Jones replied, correct. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 10 Councilmember Bolkcom replied, and under (D), (2) the words ". .. dangerous, create annoying odors, noise... ." are new to the ordinance. She asked for an example of what would not be allowed. They used to have a furniture repair business that put out a fair amount of odor. Is that something they are saying would not be allowed? Ms. Jones stated, right. That is standard language the City has in pretty much every section of the zoning code. There could be something, such as a recycling center that makes a lot of noise that would not be a good fit for a residential area. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the section on lot requirements had already been in there. Ms. Jones replied, correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated under (D) related to side yard setbacks, this is only related to houses. We are not proposing any changes to apartment complexes. Side yards still have to be what they are at present. Ms. Jones replied, right. This means these setbacks are the same regardless of whether it is a multi-family property or single-family home. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it said that. Everything she sees says, "where a house is built." Ms. Jones stated the only permitted use in the district is a single-family home, so this language is geared towards what a single-family home is allowed to build. The multi-family structures there would have to build according to the same setback now in existence. Councilmember Bolkcom said this is not proposing that it would change for a multi-family dwelling. Ms. Jones replied correct. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when the 60-day action was up on this item. Mayor Lund replied February 14 Councilmember Saefke said basically a lot of the language is to meet the State Statute, because whether or not they pass this, people who own multi-residential properties have the right to rebuild no matter what our ordinance says. Ms. Jones replied correct. Councilmember Saefke stated by providing the same benefits the City gives to the O-6 zoning who have undersized lots, they are actually allowing them an e�tra 10 percent of buildable area on the same lots they own now so they can put in a breezeway, porch, etc. To him it is a benefit to the property owner. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 11 Ms. Jones replied correct. That is why they are proposing the language. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, stated although she is not a resident of the Hyde Park area, she is opposed to the changes being proposed to the current restrictive residence district language. When the Comprehensive Plan was being rewritten, the group, Concerned Citizens, kept an eye on this Hyde Park language. At that time, the original draft gave an edict that the language would be loosened. The Concerned Citizens requested a language change; and it was changed to say, "consider changing the language." This zoning has been in place for 33 years. The way it currently reads there really is no reason to change it. The current language, Section 4(c) which addresses the existing uses already allows for multi-family homes to be rebuilt. The current language Section 7(� requires all properties meet maintenance standards and does not prevent the owners of multi-family residence to remodel their building. Ms. Reynolds stated at the Planning Commission hearing residents of Hyde Park asked that the City enforce the Code. Their comments, however, were taken to mean they were in favor of the language changes which would allow multi-family to be a conforming use. She understands this language may not talk about conforming use but, if the TOD district lays in on top of it, the concept of replatting say two or three lots and building a much larger structure could very well happen. Ms. Reynolds stated development staff more than once referred to the language that would prevent a non-conforming structure from being replaced if destroyed by more than 50 percent. This language does not appear in the Hyde Park zoning language. This language appears in Section 205.04 of the City Code, Section 3. It would be her belief that if that language needs to be changed to conform to State Statute, they should do it in that section. Ms. Reynolds stated staff offers that the proposed language changes are minor. However, the language changes would allow increased density development at least when they get to the TOD portion of it. This neighborhood wishes to remain restricted to the ratio of single-family homes to multi-family that currently exists in their neighborhood. In the agenda information there is a memo from Community Development staff dated February 3. On page 2 of that memo, staff addresses some comments from the Planning Commission meeting. The first comment addressed is whether a petition brought about a change to S-1. While it is true that a neighborhood council was formed and worked with the City to accomplish this zoning change, a petition was the beginning of that process. At the Planning Commission hearing, Pat Gabel said, "I was a catalyst for the S-1 zoning district back in the 1970's. I was the person who walked around with the petition." Ms. Reynolds' understanding is that petition no longer exists because of document retention rules which say after so many years you can throw them away. Ms. Reynolds stated the neighborhood council at that time had representatives of people who were home, apartment, and business owners within the neighborhood so all factions were represented when this language was created. At the Planning Commission hearing, she presented the Commission with a copy of Minn. Stat. § 462.12, Restricted Residence Districts. She believes this statute covers what happened in Hyde Park. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 12 MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive Minn. Stat. § 462.12 from Pam Reynolds. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Reynolds stated in 1978, at the Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed language which would establish this restricted residence district, Commissioner Schnabel said, "There has been a lot of give and take done among the property owners and residents who have been involved in the neighborhood group. Everyone has worked hard to come up with a plan that has been presented." She went on to compliment them on their struggles and pointed out that they had demonstrated a very, very valuable thing for the community. Chairperson Harris noted he would like to see this type of cooperation spread throughout the whole City of Fridley. Commissioner Oquist said the Commission did an excellent job. He reminded the committee to keep active and promote their neighborhood. Commissioner Langenfeld said, "It is really nice to see the citizens group together with the City, meet and approach a common goal, to make the Hyde Park area a better place to live." He indicated that now they were all joined together, the citizens should not let the City forget they exist. Throughout the process this zoning change remained viewed as positive for this neighborhood and was unanimously approved by Council on June 5, 1978. Ms. Reynolds stated after the Planning Commission hearing, she was approached by some of the residents in Hyde Park who felt that perhaps another petition would once again help protect their neighborhood. Because State Statute §462.12 clearly states that vacating this type of district requires the approval of 50 percent of the property owners, they felt that showing through petition their lack of desire to change their zoning might have a positive outcome. She agreed to help. They set a goal to collect signatures from 50 percent of the property owners hoping to send a clear message to the City Council. Ms. Reynolds stated as she knocked on doors in this neighborhood, she was encouraged to find that the Hyde Park neighborhood is being revitalized. She met new owners who have chosen Hyde Park to live and raise their families. Older residents who remember the rezoning episode are glad to see new families moving in. One similarity continued to be voiced, and that was the need to address the bad elements in their neighborhood and the belief that creating language which would be the conduit for higher density was not the answer. They also did not think creating an overlay district in the form of a TOD that would in essence nullify their zoning was appropriate either. Hyde Park has 192 properties. To the best of her knowledge 36 of these are multi-family residences. There is one commercial building, 4 that are currently bank-owned, 3 that are owned by Anoka County Community Outreach, 12 owned by the HRA, and 136 single- family residences. The goal of 50 percent is 96 properties. Because of weather, early evening darkness, etc., they fell short of reaching the goal. She offered a petition with 67 signatures representing 62 properties. To date only 2 properry owners have said "no." Ms. Reynolds stated some people believe the HRA, because they own so many properties, is looking to this language change to allow them to take the properties they currently own and develop them so they look like the townhouses on the other side of University. She asked that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 13 the petition be entered into the record and then either deny the two proposals before Council, or continue the public hearing for two weeks to allow them to get the additional signatures. A third option would be to create a similar neighborhood commission and enter into communication with the property owners in this area. She said she did check the petition against the Anoka County tax website and all of those who signed are the property owners at the addresses listed. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks they are getting off the subject. This is a te�t amendment and has nothing to do with the TOD. She would like to hear from some of the neighborhood, too. She knows they live there and she has represented them. John Anderson, 5909 — 2"d Street NE, stated he is the current chairman of House District 58 Republicans, and their area covers seven Fridley precincts. He is here representing his group in support of Te�t Amendment 11-04. While we cannot restore the rights of property owners who have been driven out of Hyde Park neighborhood, we can restore the property rights of current multi-family property owners by passing this text amendment. The amendment would do the following: restore property rights to multi-family property owners to allow multi-family property owners the ability to invest in their properties up to demolition and rebuilding their property; thus, improving the rental housing stock of the neighborhood, prevent multi-family property owners from continuing to allow their properties to cascade and to continue structural disrepair as there is zero incentive to replace their properties with a single-family home in Hyde Park. Mayor Lund stated he felt staff gave a succinct presentation about the actual changes. He asked Mr. Anderson if he had an opportunity, as well as others who want to speak, to look at the new language in the ordinance. Mr. Anderson replied, yes. Mayor Lund stated this item is pretty straightforward. Mr. Anderson said he agreed and supports it. Pat Gabel, 5947 — 2'/z Street NE, stated she lives in Hyde Park She has lived here for over 40 years. She knows about the Hyde Park neighborhood council. She knows exactly what happened and how difficult it was. Councilmember Bob Barnette also knows and remembers. They need to do this te�t amendment. It is just cleaning up language. A couple of people have told her that some things were misrepresented to them in terms of these petitions. She has carried petitions. It is really easy to go up to somebody's house, and say something at the door and scare them. Frankly, there are a lot of people right now in Hyde Park who are scared. They think something bad is going to happen to them. There are people who are there stirring this pot and getting them going. She has seen this happen before; this is not the first time. They need to take care of the te�t amendment and then move on to the TOD. They are about two separate things. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the neighborhood council. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 14 Ms. Gabel said people wanted to be able to rebuild their homes if something happened. While they were zoned commercial that was not doable, plus they had mortgage problems, and insurance problems. Of course they got a group of people together to work on this and other issues evolved, and the other issue was they really wanted the commercial out of there. She thinks everyone accepted that the apartment buildings were there to stay. Councilmember Bolkcom said when Barbara Dacy was the Community Development Director, they went through the neighborhood before they did the Gateway East and were looking at doing row houses. They heard very loud and clear from the neighborhood that they did not want that. The City said it would step back and build something and the HRA went ahead and did Gateway East. The ne�t project was to buy some of the houses and do the Blueprint homes. They heard from the neighborhood they wanted single-family homes. Ms. Gabel stated she is hearing is the City is going to have row houses like those across the street, and they are going to fill the place up with it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked in that same neighborhood where there are still some vacant lots, only single-family homes could be built there. Mr. Hickok replied that is correct. There were 16 lots in that plat and there are a number of single-family lots yet to be built. There would be no multi-family on those lots. Ms. Varichak asked if they cannot just build those. Somebody has to go to him and say they want to build a home there, correct? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, actually the HRA owns those lots; and they had a contractual arrangement with Blueprint Homes to build. They would sell the lots on a lot by lot basis. The HRA still reviewed every single house plan to make sure it fit the characteristics the HRA wanted on those lots. The housing market, being what it is, the HRA has pulled back from marketing those lots or building with that builder until the market comes back. Councilmember Barnette stated no one has been more of a guardian of Hyde Park than Pat Gabel. He and Ms. Gabel go back to the 1970s and she was fighting for Hyde Park She lived there and knew what they wanted. They were going to look at multi-housing across the street, and they were not going to have that. The big thing with Ms. Gabel and Mr. Anderson is they live there and they know what is going on. No one on this Council is there to hurt Hyde Park. They are there to help them. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak regarding the te�t amendments here is it fair to say, taking into consideration that the TOD is a whole different story, that the things being done here tonight, are any different than any other te�t amendment where they went through other ordinances and cleaned up the language because it is no longer a part of State Statute. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, replied, no. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 15 Mayor Lund asked if this was in relationship to the petition, too, where it is stated that it is the belief that the proposed action is in violation of State Statute which requires vacation of any portion of the restricted resident district to be initiated by property owners within this district. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thought she heard from Ms. Reynolds that they do not need this but she thinks this te�t amendment needs to be done because what it does is makes the City in compliance with State Statutes. They are not making it any different from any other neighborhood. Attorney Knaak replied that is correct. Certainly there is nothing to prevent Council from receiving the petition as an expression or opposition or support. He does want to correct some confusion with this Section 462.12. This does not apply to Fridley. This Statute applies to cities of the first class, something that a group of citizens can do in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth. He does not believe there has been any effort to create a district under 462.12 in Fridley because it would not be legal to do so. Again, that is not to say that the statement that is being made here the concern or the positions advocated are in any way incorrect or that they cannot receive them. In fact they probably should receive them having been made of public record. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the petition supersedes anything they are trying to do in the te�t amendment? Attorney Knaak replied no. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they are going against any law by doing the te�t amendment. Attorney Knaak replied not that he is aware of. The Statute that has been cited here just simply does not apply here. That is not to say that the citizens cannot petition or cannot oppose or support what they are doing. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive an eight-page petition notarized February 6, 2011, from Pam Reynolds. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Lund stated it was also mentioned about Chapter 205.23, and that the changes should occur there rather than in here. Ms. Jones replied, actually staff did do a te�t amendment to 205.04 around 2006. Mr. Hickok stated by placing it in front of the Code where the general language is right after the definitions, it applies to the entire Chapter 205. It is not that it is missing necessarily elsewhere in the Code. It is just that some of the language is general language in the front of the Code and it applies to all the districts. That would be the case here. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 16 Mayor Lund asked if it were conceivable for someone to buy two or more residential lots in that area and put in a multi-family building. Ms. Jones replied they could not do it the way it is proposed. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if his assessment was that you really cannot change it because it is an existing use of a single-family home. Attorney Knaak replied if you do, in essence you are creating a non-conforming use. You could conceivably do that, but as a general practice, it is not a good idea. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if he was saying someone would be permitted to do that. Attorney Knaak stated if they were to rezone an area, for example. Councilmember Bolkcom stated someone could come in, take down a house, and build a triplex. Attorney Knaak replied that is correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated so it is not increasing the density. When they are talking about this te�t amendment, it does not change the density that is there now. Mr. Hickok replied, correct. Ms. Reynolds said she e-mailed Mr. Hickok and said the 50 percent business does not appear anywhere in 205.23 which is the Hyde Park language. She asked where it was. He just said that it was changed already. Mr. Hickok said in 2006, there was a statutory amendment that the City change the language in the front of the Code. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and it does not just apply to Hyde Park, it applies to the whole district. Mr. Hickok stated, across the board--R-1, R-3, R-4, Hyde Park. Ms. Reynolds stated if you read paragraph (c), Existing Uses, in the current language, sections (2) and (3), it already allows the multi-family to be rebuilt if they have been there, through the same footprint. In Section 205.04.3(e) it says, "Any non-conforming use is destroyed by fire or peril to the e�tent of greater than 50 percent" (this is off the website). Mr. Hickok stated he would like to thank Ms. Reynolds for further pointing out staff's suggestion of changes to Hyde Park because they do not want one section of the Code to contradict what the statutory requirement is for non-conformities. They do not want a contradiction and that is a point for bringing this forward. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 17 Mayor Lund stated staff is trying to make this so that it is not contradicting State Statutes and it is applicable already to the other parts of Fridley but there is a contradiction with the Hyde Park. Ms. Reynolds stated, no, it is already applicable in Hyde Park It is under non-conforming uses and structure earlier in Chapter 205 where it talks about the 50 percent. At the public hearing there was a gentleman who stood up and said that when he spoke with Ms. Jones, she told him that if his duplex burned down and it was more than 50 percent, under the current Hyde Park language, he would not be able to rebuild it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated duly noted they can look at it before the first reading to make sure it is correct. Mr. Hickok stated it is correct. In the front of the Code there is the general language and that applies across the board. They are being further asked tonight to fine tune Hyde Park's section. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:57 P.M. 6. Consideration of a Public Hearing for Text Amendment TA #11-03, by the City of Fridley to Consider the Creation of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zoning District Near the Northstar Train Station. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:58 P.M. Julie Jones, Planning Manager, said this about in 2007 while they were working on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. Staff proposed several redevelopment areas on a map. One of those was the Northstar TOD redevelopment area. Ms. Jones stated they had an e�tra push in 2009 when the State legislature gave Fridley approval to develop a transit tax increment financing district if it so desired. The area of land that was approved by the legislature to be included in that district are the Georgetown Apartments, several apartment buildings in the Islands of Peace park area, the industrial buildings of U. S. Corrugated and Tri-Star Insulation, vacant land that used to be Tyro Industries that has now been rezoned commercial, railroad right-of-way, and several industrial properties including Home Depot. This TIF area does not include the Hyde Park area. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 18 Ms. Jones stated this te�t amendment is interrelated with the Hyde Park te�t amendment. Staff spent a great deal of time debating the aspects of the Code between both of these proposed te�t amendments to see how they relate to each other and make sure they work together simultaneously. This is a long-term plan they are looking at. There are no proposals before the City causing it to take a sudden look at this now. Staff has been looking at it for a long time, and it may take a long time to really bring to fruition. Ms. Jones stated the HRA has a 200-year long lease on the land where the east Northstar park and ride lot is. This is not something that is just a short-term thing they are looking at as far as the Northstar being here. At the last public hearing before the Planning Commission, there was a lot of talk about creating more ridership for the Northstar rail. Yes, the City is interested in getting more people riding the rail from New Brighton, Mounds View, Spring Lake Park, and Columbia Heights. When they are coming and going to and from that station, the City wants them to patronize the businesses in Fridley. They want them to come and stop on their way home and shop for groceries at Cub Foods on 57th Avenue, maybe get a bite to eat at Zantigo, or stop and get gas at Holiday gas station. They really want to take advantage of the fact that this feature is here in our community. Ms. Jones stated Northstar was mentioned several times as being light rail, and it is not light rail. It is commuter rail, and there is a big difference and it makes a big difference what type of economic development you see around the train station. Commuter rail is rail that runs on existing freight train tracks. It is very limited service. It is designed just to run in the peak of rush hour in the a.m. and p.m. Trains typically run once an hour. You do not see the type of commercial development ne�t to commuter rail like you do ne�t to light rail where there is more frequent service every 15 minutes consistently throughout the entire day. Ms. Jones stated any redevelopment that happens around a commuter rail station has to be sustainable on its own regardless of the train station being there because no business is going to survive just on a couple of hours of clientele coming to it during the day. Staff considered this as they developed this Code language. Ms. Jones stated a big part is providing access to the thousands of people who already live ne�t to the train station. The City has over 3,000 people who live within a half mile of the train station. There is Georgetown Apartments, the biggest apartment complex in the community within a half a mile of this station. Twenty to thirty percent of people in the community do not drive. They are either too young, too old, disabled, or they do not have their license. The City does want to provide a transit district that allows people to take advantage of the Northstar train and the bus service and other transit opportunities in the area. Ms. Jones stated the transit overlay district boundaries came about for several reasons. Staff spent a great deal of time focusing on action steps in the Comprehensive Plan to study certain intersections as far as making them more pedestrian friendly. One of the intersections was the one at 61st and University. Another one was at 57th and University. And the train station near 61st Avenue along the tracks. When staff looked at creating connections to the commercial area along 57th Avenue, it only made sense that the area in the middle was included in the TOD overlay district. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 19 Ms. Jones said there was a lot of confusion at the Planning Commission meeting about this being a new tax on residents in the proposed area. The type of infrastructural improvements they were talking about--sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian lighting, parking structures, etc.--the theory would be revenues here from the transit TIF district. If new development comes in, they would need to meet the terms of the TOD code language. The single-family home properties in Hyde Park are exempt from this. If a single-family property owner would want to rebuild in the Hyde Park neighborhood, they would not need to submit a TOD plan. A multi-family property owner, however, would need to submit a TOD plan and meet the standards set forth in the Code. Ms. Jones stated she was not going to go into the details of the design criteria proposed in the Code but generally it is about requiring buildings to be built closer to the street, putting the parking to the back of the building rather than the front, requiring sidewalks and bike walks being incorporated into new developments, creating colorized crosswalks to keep pedestrian walkways safer as well as lighting for those, and also some special maintenance requirements particularly for bus stops. Ms. Jones stated several concerns were raised at the Planning Commission hearing and at the meeting they had with the HRA. There were concerns about snow storage, existing industrial property additions, the "Uses Excluded" section, the term "half-mile radius," the 45-foot height requirement proposed for the Hyde Park District, the streetscape maintenance, and the lack of green space in a typical TOD development. Ms. Jones said with respect to the snow storage, after the HRA meeting, staff looked at some of the example districts and for the most part what they saw was the snow was being trucked away. Snow storage, while it is not specified in the Code, is something staff always looks at when they are reviewing design plans. They just went through that with the proposed redevelopment of the Cub Foods site. They did not have a lot of space in their TOD plan, and Cub Foods stated if they have to they will truck it out. That is a cost of business that a lot of developments incorporate into their lease fees. Ms. Jones stated one thing staff did change was a point about additions to industrial buildings. The HRA pointed out they were concerned with the 15-foot setback It might be unreasonable for some industrial additions. Staff made an exception in the Code for that. Ms. Jones said building height was another thing that some people were opposed to changing. The Code goes by the requirements in the underlying zoning district. The only section where they have a problem with that was within the Hyde Park district because the building height is 30 feet. The R-1 Code specified 45 feet. They thought the 30 foot would be limiting. Ms. Jones stated under "Maintenance," additional maintenance requirements are in the TOD code to ensure access to transit and attention to landscape. While current Code does require property owners to maintain the public boulevard adjoining their property, it does not really say anything about bus stops. That has been a tough issue for the City because a lot of people assume that MTC or Met Council is maintaining our bus stops, but it is actually the City. Staff thinks that in a TOD setting, when the bus stop is close to a front door, the adjoining building FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 20 owner should be taking care of the snow and the mowing. Staff incorporated that into the TOD language. Ms. Jones stated regarding the concern about open space, even though buildings are built closer to the street, landscaping still needs to be provided according to the language of the underlying zoning district. Staff was glad this was mentioned because it caused them to go back and look at that. They realized there was a flaw in what was proposed in the TOD language because the underlying landscaping language in the Hyde Park area basically states you just have to put in turf grass, it does not say anything about planting trees like in other sections of the Code. Staff wanted to fix that and make sure there was landscaping in place. Ms. Jones stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the te�t amendment after their public hearing on January 19. They did raise a concern about the term "half-mile radius" that was in the "Purpose" section of the proposed TOD language. Staff agreed that the word "radius" was not necessary. They did recommend leaving in the term "half-mile" because they are concentrating efforts within a half-mile of the station as far as creating those connections to transit. Ms. Jones stated staff is prepared to hold the first reading of the ordinance at the February 14 City Council meeting and the second reading at the March 14 City Council meeting. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the term "half-mile" was from where it is. Can they include boundaries and addresses? She thought the Commission members wanted to get rid of the words, half-mile, and not just the radius part. She asked why they left "half-mile" in there. Ms. Jones replied, the language that referred to the term "half-mile" is in the "Purpose" section. The boundary section of the Code that defines the boundaries refers to what is in the map which is typical of other overlay districts. The shoreland overlay district, for example, refers to a map. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the map includes everything that is a half mile away. Ms. Jones said they use that term as it concentrates on that when it talks about the half mile. The areas to the south of the train station are all within a half mile. They did not go beyond the half mile distance. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what was north. Ms. Jones said it is not included. The purpose of this district is to connect the areas around the train station and the commercial area along 57th Avenue. Councilmember Bolkcom asked so they included Hyde Park but not some of the other properties that are within a half mile. Ms. Jones replied, correct. They did this because this is a transit-oriented development district. They are not just looking at the train, they are looking at the bus stops, and the bus stops are along University Avenue and East River Road. They are also looking at making connections to FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 21 the other forms of transit in the area to create an area that focuses on giving people the ability to get to that transit easily via sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. Councilmember Bolkcom asked but if she lived north of there, would she not take the bus. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said it is not meant to disrupt existing single- family residential areas. Presumably they have already been using transit and they would encourage them to continue to do that. There is a developed area on the east side of the tracks, north of this district that is certainly within the half-mile walking distance that has a fully developed single-family area that has sidewalks along 61st Avenue, for example, and opportunity already. It is not being enhanced by any additional overlay and the expectation would not be that the single-family pattern would be disrupted north of 61st Avenue, for example, for additional improvements in there. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why in Hyde Park. Mr. Hickok stated it is meant to give residents there more opportunities, safer crosswalks, lighting, landscaping, other things that do not exist there right now. It increases the potential for those things to happen in that neighborhood. Councilmember Saefke asked if it would affect any individual property owner except for the fact there may be better crosswalks at 57th and University and 61st and some e�tra lighting. Ms. Jones stated there is an exception in the Code for the individual single-family property owner to be exempt from having to apply for a TOD plan if they wanted to redevelop their property. For example, if a developer came in and bought two or three single-family properties, they would need to submit a TOD Plan in order to be able to do anything and have approval by Council. The advantages for someone in Hyde Park is in seeing these multi-family properties being redeveloped. Without this, the only thing they can do if they wanted to rebuild their property 50 years from now, long-term, is rebuild exactly what is there. They could submit a TOD plan and they could redesign the property differently, but they would have to meet the design criteria that is laid forth in this plan. The details in it are pretty stringent about how the building has to be designed, the quality of materials that have to be used, what sort of parking needs to be provided, etc. Councilmember Saefke asked if it would allow for additional units. Ms. Jones replied, possibly but they would have to meet all of the criteria of this proposal. Councilmember Saefke stated he thinks that is where the confusion and the objections are coming from. They said if they accept 11-04, they could only rebuild what is there on the same footprint with the same amount of units. Now they are saying, okay, if they accept this TOD, then the rules change except for the fact that they would have to submit a plan and as long as the plan meets the criteria for building construction, they can possibly have increased units which increases the density. There does not seem to be any objection by the majority of the neighbors on that one issue. When you look at the TOD, he can understand some of their concerns that if it FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 22 is allowed to happen in the neighborhood itself density could increase. He could see how it could change the character of the neighborhood. It has become clear to him tonight about what he sees as a bit of a contradiction because he thought the neighborhood as it exists would be left alone. Any preapproval or any units that were shown in the diagram with the picture, the town homes, would probably be built on the west side of Main Street where sometime there may be vacant property where Parsons Electric is now and in that area and it still would not affect the neighborhood that exists today. Councilmember Bolkcom said she would be very nervous if she lived in that neighborhood. That is why she asked why it needed to be included. She understands why they think it is going to cause people to want to build up their apartments in that area and have the opportunity to walk to the train station. Most of the people who are here tonight are from Hyde Park She does not think a lot of people on that other side have an idea that it could change the character of their neighborhoods, too. Mr. Hickok replied they did not have these te�t amendments independently as they wanted to eliminate that confusion. All of these are predicated on having the district below it be the governing district unless somebody wants to come in and do something transit-oriented development wise. In order to do that cleanly, they needed to clean up the Hyde Park district. There were some ambiguities in there and things that were inconsistent with statutes. They could not do that independently. It is meant to clean up the Hyde Park district below and meant to allow an opportunity for development if somebody wants to come in and propose a transit- oriented development that meets the criteria that will be spelled out in the te�t and that would be approved then through a separate process. They would have a Planning Commission and a City Council review, a public hearing, and first and second readings. Mr. Hickok stated the market will govern, too. People are saying this is just to get a lot of multi-family in Hyde Park If the market is going to be there for that, they might get some nice new development there that has not happened since 1978. He thinks there is something to be said for the fact that the neighborhood really wanted something better since 1978 but for the investment of the City and the HRA nothing has happened in there. When the City started reinvesting, neighbors started reinvesting, and properties started looking up. This does offer people a reason to come in and look if the market is going to support it. If the market does not support it, train or otherwise, you are not going to see developers in here trying to develop it. On the other hand, if the market would support it, you are probably going to see some proposals for some nice, innovative development that brings new investment to the City. Mr. Hickok stated we talked about difficult times, high taxes, etc. How do you get relief? Part of it is a broader tax base; providing opportunity to share the tax burden with new development and not have it borne entirely by the people who exist here now. This offers at least a future opportunity that might have some new and innovative development which shares the cost of what it really takes to run a city and the services that are needed. There is the TOD benefit and there is the added benefit of new development and broadening our tax base. William Burns, City Manager, stated he thought the concern here is that the TOD allows the owner of the four-plex to reconfigure his lot so he now has room for six or eight units. What FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 23 staff is really trying to do here with the TOD is to accommodate a project that would include more than that lot where the four-plex is located. That market force that wants to redevelop in there, is probably not interested in just one lot, correct? That market force, that developer is interested in maybe combining an acre and one-half in the Hyde Park area, too. Councilmember Bolkcom asked and that is something that makes me happy if I live in that neighborhood that the density they are already concerned about is going to get higher. Dr. Burns stated the density becomes higher, but there is also better money in there according to some very strict standards that would prevent it from being something other than a transit- oriented development that accommodates those standards. Councilmember Bolkcom stated people cannot walk down East River Road to this commuter rail station so why not the River Road apartments and that whole neighborhood. The half a mile is the magic number here. Mr. Hickok stated through studies nationally, half a mile is what people will walk to catch a mode of transportation. Councilmember Bolkcom asked but he also mentions it is an opportunity because she would think everything that is in this little area in Hyde Park, that is all within a half a mile of the rail station, too. Mr. Hickok replied every bit of it. Councilmember Bolkcom said she also thought she heard him say something about it also being part of getting on a bus and going to the commuter rail station. Mr. Hickok stated University Avenue would be also included. It would also include Gateway Northeast and those undeveloped properties where the buildings are being demolished. It would include that side of University and there are bus stops right there. It would be a huge void to not have Hyde Park in the center of where buses stop along University and where the train stops on Main Street. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is sure everyone in the neighborhood would like to have better lighting and better sidewalks and have them maintained. She is not sure density is an issue they are interested in. Mr. Hickok stated density is not going to happen unless the market supports it and density is not happening now in the marketplace. It also does not happen without Council's review and the Planning Commission having a public hearing. They have the broadest discretion in the area of zoning as a Council. They have the ability to say it does not work for Hyde Park They have that safety net. They are not giving blanket approval by doing a te�t amendment here allowing a TOD. They are only opening the door a crack to possibly get some new and exciting development. It is puzzling to him that they hear about new development being an enemy to people when, frankly, new investment in the community is typically a good thing and is what FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 24 people are interested in and would like and it protects in this TOD single-family homeowners. They are protected unless they decide, and they have an arms-length agreement with somebody else to sell, they are comfortable right there and get to stay there. In fact if you adopt the Hyde Park amendment they get to increase another 10 percent and put a porch or family room on. It is not meant to harm them. It might put some new investments in their neighborhood which staff thinks would be a good thing. It has not happened since 1978 without the City's help. Councilmember Barnette stated one of the things Ms. Gabel fought very hard is not to get in to the townhome kind of situation. Under this TOD if he were a developer and he came in and bought three single-family homes side by side could he then build one of those 45-foot high brownstones on that piece of property? Mr. Hickok stated first of all, a developer would probably do it on a contingency because it would be clear from the TOD ordinance that you do not get it automatically. You would probably want to see if you could tie up some pieces of land and consolidate parcels like the City took 10 years to do in Hyde Park in order to get the 16 single-family homes. If the developer was able to put together the land deal, it would just be on a contingency to see if the Council would support it. Councilmember Barnette stated but it would be given the opportunity to come to Council or Planning Commission and ask that question. John Anderson, 5909 — 2"d Street NE, said he is there representing his group in opposition of Te�t Amendment 11-03. Mayor Lund asked if everybody in his caucus in that district is against this. Mr. Anderson replied, everybody who he has spoken to. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if he lived in the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson replied he lives in the neighborhood and is the representative from Hyde Park specifically as well. In their Constitution as well as a full committee vote when he was elected chairman he is allowed to speak on the behalf of the group. He is here representing his group in opposition of Te�t Amendment 11-03. Many who support this te�t amendment will make the statement that the te�t amendment is not a referendum on Northstar Commuter line when in reality that is exactly what the te�t amendment is about. The Northstar Commuter line is a disaster and a failure. Its only purpose is to steal taxpayer money to combat the flawed belief of manmade global warming. The Northstar line has cost $317 million and currently costs over $16 million to operate every year with $3 million coming back in from ridership. Another way of explaining this is the train costs on average $22.37 per one-way trip overall with the rider paying $3.74 of that. Public transportation assists in creating a vibrant environment for commerce which is why it is okay to be subsidized to some level. The Northstar line is a project that was not designed to promote Commerce but in fact hinders it by taking $317 million plus $16 million a year from private capital to line pockets of government bureaucrats. The Northstar line is FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 25 equivalent to a project that digs a whole then fills it back in. It may provide jobs but there is no production to show for it. Mr. Anderson stated if successful, this te�t amendment will aid in destroying Hyde Park neighborhood's character. An important reminder to the Council members is they were elected to represent the best interests of the City, not the interest of mistaken environmentalists, the Met Council, or the Northstar Corridor Development Authority. It is their opportunity to take a stand against continued theft of taxpayer money. They ask that the Council try not to be sympathizers and rej ect this te�t amendment tonight. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE, stated at the Planning Commission meeting, she made a map that had the half-mile radius but did not bring it. She asked what would stop somebody from changing the boundary later. In the Hyde Park neighborhood, their greatest concern is the 45-foot height, the number of properties owned by the HRA along Third Street and what that could look like if this overlay district is put into place. Not to mention the string of multi-family housing that sits along 2'/z Street. She could see a developer buy the apartment buildings because he can build 45 feet high. Mr. Hickok pointed out that there are no developers beating wanting to buy these properties. Once the economy turns around and this language is in place, there will be nothing except the Council to stop them from doing it. That is her fear. Once they change the language, what kind of legal bind does that put them in to conform to the language they changed to? Ms. Reynolds stated when she was out in this neighborhood she explained very concisely to people what happens if the TOD goes into place. She told them the previous language would do this. It is the TOD that suffocates your S-1 zoning because the S-1 zoning now is pretty much null and void if the TOD goes into effect. Pat Gabel, 5947 — 2'/z Street NE, stated she thinks this TOD is in the best interest of Hyde Park. She thinks it gives them the opportunity to be flexible. They had no opportunities in there. They keep talking about since 1978. Nothing has happened since long before that time. It is way past time. She does not know what is going to happen in here, but she trusts Council is going to do the right thing. She does not expect to see 45-foot apartment buildings being put up all over Hyde Park She does not think that is going to happen. She knows what the HRA plans are along Third Street and that is to continue the single-family dwellings. She does think there is a lot of fear mongering that is going on when you tell people that these 45-foot buildings can go up and might go up. That is not fair. It is not consistent with what they are trying to do here. They are trying to build a better place to live. We all need to work together to do that and look at the potential and the possibilities. Audrey Nelson, 250 — 61st Avenue, stated she lives in the Hyde Park neighborhood. She does not view Pam Reynolds as being a fear mongerer. She actually has just been voicing a number of things that Ms. Nelson and a number of her neighbors were already thinking in the first place, and she has been the person who has been able to explain things to most of them. They do not understand the language. They do not understand the te�. She actually has been very helpful. Their neighborhood does need revitalization. She finds herself feeling a little bit resentful when she keeps hearing that nothing is taking place in the neighborhood. She takes very good care of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 26 her house. Her neighbors take very good care of their houses. It is kind of disrespectful to those of them who do take good care of their homes to hear that nothing is happening in the neighborhood. Things are happening. She disagrees with this TOD district. She did some research of her own. The purpose of a TOD development district is to create higher density and promote the use of public transit. Well, of course, public transit, yes; but it is creating higher density that her and her other neighbors are nervous about that. Tonight is actually the first time they have actually heard where that is part of the purpose. They have a distrust of what is going on here. Mayor Lund stated he thinks Ms. Nelson made some reasonable comments. He thinks there is always some distrust in government. The petition has been signed, and he does not doubt that Ms. Reynolds and others took a considerable amount of time to go door to door and were as unbiased as they could be although adamantly opposed to it. He would hope that the staff's presentations and the discussions from the public hearing from the Planning Commission and now here that some people have some of the fears at least alleviated. It means more to him if people who sign the petition or people who have an interest and do not know come to the Council meetings and get a lot of their fears allayed or questions answered and get the whole picture. Mayor Lund stated this does not mean that he does not disagree or that he wipes out this whole petition thing. He does not think for one minute that given more time more people would sign the petition, but he really questions whether they really know what it is all about. There was a lot of discussion about the first te�t amendment, and he did not see anything negative about it. Mayor Lund stated he understands the concerns about the height change. He understands staff's point of view, too, that it is inconsistent with the rest of the community. However, there were some differences made a long time ago. He also sees the argument from staff's point of view that they are trying to help this area. Ms. Nelson mentioned that she is not against redevelopment or improvements. He thinks that the staff is honestly trying to aid a couple of neighborhoods. There has been talk about Georgetown Court Apartments, the Charles Street Apartments. They looked at that with the HRA several years back to see if there was anything that could be done to aid that area. There are people who do maintain their property and keep it up and in good order in that neighborhood but there is also a lot of aging and degradation that is slowly occurring there. He sees some of the arguments and the validity to the arguments, the concerns and the fear. Mayor Lund stated it appears there is a concern because the HRA is buying up more scattered sites. The ones they recently tore down on 2'/z Street were very bad and no way even livable. He thinks the neighborhood should be thankful the HRA bought them. Get rid of the blight and allow a developer to come in and put single-family houses back on those lots. Regarding the fear they are going to build a four-story apartment building, he does not see it as being realistic especially with the restrictions of the overlay district. Mayor Lund stated regarding Ms. Reynolds stating the overlay district smothers the S-1, the underlying district still exists. It certainly creates some opportunity. He is somewhere in the middle. He understands staff wanting to aid the community, but the neighborhood is saying, no FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 27 thanks. At least some of them. He does not know if that is broad based. The petition tends to go that way. Also the petition talks about the first te�t amendment changes. He did not see there was an issue there. The petition says disallow both and he does not know why they are so negative on the first one. Staff made a good presentation. He has to determine whether it overrides the concerns and fear of government intrusion. He wished more people would be here so he could get a better, clearer picture from the entire neighborhood rather than just the petition. Councilmember Bolkcom stated when people sign petitions sometimes they feel they really do not have to come to the meeting and feel their voice is going to be heard by petition. She asked what happens if they take Hyde Park out of this equation? She is not comfortable with this hersel£ She is worried about that someone could come in and buy up a couple of foreclosures. She thinks it is that whole maintenance issue. We have maintenance issues now on 57th Avenue. What guarantees are there if someone comes in within this area to take care of snow, etc.? Right now we know that MTC does not take care of the snow and there is garbage there. The 60-day agency action law is up ne�t Monday. Could they have a couple of neighborhood meetings? Mr. Hickok stated it is Council's prerogative to take Hyde Park out of the TOD. This is only a staff recommendation that has come through the Planning Commission to them. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but it is not a detriment to the total TOD. Mr. Hickok stated it is Council's prerogative. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how hard it would be to bring it back. Mr. Hickok asked to bring Hyde Park back in to be part of the TOD later. Councilmember Bolkcom replied, yes. Mr. Hickok stated it would be a te�t amendment going through the Planning Commission and come back to the City Council and the boundary would be redefined then to include it. As far as the landscape and snow removal, just like our ordinances right now there is Code enforcement requirements for maintaining the property and the right-of-ways. There is a certain amount of self-policing going on especially with this type of development that you would likely see happening in a transit-oriented development. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they could force them to do it. Mr. Hickok replied absolutely you could and they would. As far as the landscaping, it is the same type of thing. Landscape maintenance as seen in the language is pretty clearly defined. It is necessary. The 60-day law is up ne�t Wednesday. It sounds like they need more time and the Council has, again at their discretion, the ability to e�tend the amount of time that they would need to evaluate something like this. They do under the law have another 60 days, and he would recommend just like with any other development that they put a letter to the file as to what it is that will cause them to need the additional time. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 28 Mr. Hickok stated it sounds like it would be beneficial to talk to the neighborhood. Councilmember Bolkcom said they deal with rental housing all over the City. It is also about the future. She thinks the issue is it is one thing if it is one house but if it is another when it is apartment complex that is not maintained. It is the issue of high density and maintaining the property and screening the clients that live there. Mr. Hickok stated he does not think any of them has predetermined this would be rental. Again, if the market were there, they would like to see developers who are looking at rental but oftentimes what happens in transit-oriented development is owner-occupied development. Ms. Jones has mentioned that they have viewed other transit-oriented development in the country and saw very nice, high quality, well-maintained properties that he thinks they would be proud to have as neighbors. If people do not think that can happen, just remember not too long ago when the market was marginal and the Gateway East development was built. Initially people were really skeptical about it. The units sold faster than the developer could build them. The price was going to be in the mid-$100,000's and the cheaper units were sold at $175,000 and up to $200,000 range, far exceeding expectations for that time. If the market is there; the market will yield some nice stuff. They are not saying that is what would end up there. It is opening up opportunities for them to later view through a public hearing process and decide whether they want it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated to Mr. Hickok that he and Ms. Jones had the advantage of being at other TOD's in other communities and around the United States. She thinks one of the issues here is that not everyone has had that opportunity. Can he point to any places that someone might have a neighborhood at all like Hyde Park that has done something like this in the metro area? That is one of the reasons she would like to see the public hearing continued and delay the first reading, because she would personally like to explore some of that a little bit more. She thinks given the 60 days they could do that. It might change some people's minds who live in that neighborhood. It would give the neighborhood an opportunity to hear both sides. Mayor Lund stated he has heard from people that it is not enough time for them to digest it all. There is the fear of the unknown and the fear that they are taking something away from them. Council and staff are not looking to do harm to the neighborhood. He would like to see more people participate, and likes the idea of calling a neighborhood meeting. He hopes they come wanting to find answers to their concerns and their questions. Maybe they will see the benefits. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if they should continue the public hearing or close it. She prefers to have it continued so they could have a neighborhood meeting. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, stated by continuing the public hearing they would allow for additional public input on the record this evening as a decision-making basis for whatever they want to do. Councilmember Bolkcom asked as far as the first reading at the ne�t meeting, that could be just language to continue/ FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 29 Attorney Knaak stated he is not sure they would be in violation of the 60-day rule in this kind of case. If it is not based on an application coming in and, if it is a legislative matter, having to do with rezoning and is something they initiated. He knows that issue has been discussed here and it probably would not be a bad idea which is what staff said to put something in the record indicating a desire to e�tend it. Since they are not dealing with a response to an application for rezoning or anything like that, they do not need to worry about. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they could actually do that at the ne�t meeting because it could be on the agenda and they could read it into the record. Councilmember Saefke asked if they were just talking about the TOD te�t amendment. Councilmember Bolkcom replied, yes. She asked if they should continue the public hearing and leave the date open. Attorney Knaak replied yes. Dr. Burns asked Attorney Knaak if they could continue a public hearing indefinitely. Typically when you continue something indefinitely that kills it. Attorney Knaak replied, it does not by definition kill it, just as a matter of practical effect, it can. Councilmember Bolkcom said she would like to continue the public hearing until they have had a neighborhood meeting and received more input. Mayor Lund stated within the ne�t 60-day requirement cycle. Attorney Knaak suggested they set it on for a month from now. Mayor Lund stated he thinks it should be two months from now. Councilmember Bolkcom suggested continuing the public hearing until April 11, 2011. Mayor Lund asked if it fit within the ne�t 60 days. Mr. Hickok he stated he did not know if they could get the first and second reading then if they put it out that long, although Attorney Knaak said the 60-day piece is not an issue. He just thinks with the members of the audience having a trust issue, he does not want them to think there is an automatic approval by them not acting on it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they can have the first reading on the agenda on February 14, 2011, and at that point they can read into the record the need to further study and have discussion and input from the neighborhood and still be within the limits by having it on April 11, 2011. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 30 Mayor Lund stated he thinks they are stretching it out as far as they can to give staff ample time to put a neighborhood meeting together and allow people time to attend it. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2011. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED AT 10:21 P.M. AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS Councilmember Bolkcom asked staff when they thought the people in the Hyde Park neighborhood will be receiving some sort of letter regarding the meetings. Mr. Hickok stated they will take a look at the calendar. He said it would be reasonable to think that within the ne�t week to 10 days they will have a notice out about a meeting. 7. Consideration of a Text Amendment TA #11-02, by the City of Fridley to Consider Clarification of the Existing Master Plan Amendment Fee and Review Procedures in Section 205.24 of the Fridley Zoning Code. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and 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 10:22 P.M. Ms. Jones, Planning Manager, stated this te�t amendment is related to the S-2 redevelopment district as far as the master plan amendment in the Code. The S-2 redevelopment district master plan applications including master plan amendments have always been charged an application fee. The current fee is $1,500 which was set in 2004 and was looked at again in 2009 when they did a fee study. Staff is not proposing to change that fee. The S-1 Code language does not state in the Code that there is a fee and it does not refer to Chapter 11 where the fees are listed in the Code. So many of the developers are looking at the Code on-line and reading that language. Ms. Jones stated staff proposes the City amend the Code to refer to the fee that the City has been charging over the past several years. In addition, staff proposes amending Chapter 11, our fee section of Code to include this fee and to update some other fee changes as well. They were planning to bring those fee changes to them at the ne�t Council meeting on February 14. They will have to talk about this now because one of the changes proposed was the TOD fee. Ms. Jones stated Section S.B. of Chapter 205.04 states the HRA must submit a report to the Planning Commission and City Council. While the HRA has been notified and given an opportunity to comment on S-2 redevelopment applications in the past, the Authority has typically done so to City Council. The City would probably be able to meet the 60-day action FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 31 requirements as they were just talking about in the previous te�t amendment if the Code were actually followed as written particularly now since the Planning Commission only meets once a month. Ms. Jones stated the Planning Commission review the proposed te�t amendment at a public hearing on January 18. They unanimously recommended approval. Staff concurs with the recommendations and in changing Section 205.24.SB(3) to state, "Review and recommendation to the City Council from the Fridley Housing and Redvelopment Authority." The HRA will still be reviewing these proposals as they always have been, but their comments would come to the City Council. They would not be prepared in time for the Planning Commission level. This is what they have been doing, and they just want to make sure the Code states clearly what the City's process is. Ms. Jones stated the process for review is holding a public hearing tonight and having the first reading at the ne�t Council meeting. The te�t amendment to Chapter 11 does not require a public hearing. It only requires a first and second reading, and they were trying to get these on the same calendar. The second reading being on March 14. They will have to talk about actually having a third look at Chapter 11 fees because she knows the Fire Department is looking at bringing forth some recommendations for changing their rental fees as well. Mayor Lund asked if she was suggesting they delay this action. Ms. Jones replied, her suggestion is to at least move forward with this. She would hate to see this sit for a couple of months. William Burns, City Manager, asked is the TOD fee specific to this or is it a general fee for TODs. Ms. Jones replied it would be a new line item in Chapter 11 fees that would list that fee. Dr. Burns asked for a TOD that might be established. Ms. Jones replied right. They cannot pass that until the whole Code is in place. Dr. Burns stated if that is the case then he does not know why they cannot bring it forward. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but they do not have a TOD yet. Mayor Lund stated for future TODs. He asked Attorney Knaak if they can have a fee in there that is consistent even though they might not presently have a TOD. Attorney Knaak replied there actually is no reason why you could not do it now. The question they may want to ask is why would you if you do not have it. Dr. Burns stated or take out the TOD fee and come back with it later and amend it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 32 Ms. Jones said it does not require a public hearing. She asked if it needed to be published. Attorney Knaak replied it can become effective on publication. At some point they will have to publish it but not in advance. Dr. Burns stated it seems to him they have identified some things that need to be corrected and the sooner the better. You can take the TOD out and get it corrected as early as possible. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 10:28 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: 8. Resolution Requesting the Coon Creek Watershed District to Expand its Boundaries to Include a Portion of the City of Fridley Currently in the Six Cities Watershed Management Organization. James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated Fridley has two watershed organizations within its boundary: Rice Creek Watershed District and Six Cities Watershed Management Organization. Rice Creek is a very large district. It has one outfall to the Mississippi and basically splits Fridley down the middle. They perform permitting regulatory functions. They have an annual levy and full-time staff offices so it is a well-established organization. Six Cities WMO is approximately 21 square miles. It is in three separate discontiguous areas and there are six main outfalls through the Mississippi. The permitting regulatory functions have been historically through the cities' administration. There is a minimal levy and member cities fund all the activity within the WMO. There is no staff or offices. Mr. Kosluchar stated the Six Cities WMO was established in 1983 through a Joint Powers Agreement with Blaine, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Hilltop, and Spring Lake Park. There were minor amendments to the JPA in 1994 and 1998. The Six Cities WMO joint powers agreement defines the roles and responsibilities of this organization. They include preparing and adopting a Watershed Management Plan, reviewing and approving local water management plans, initiating and completing capital improvement projects, and regulating the use and development of land in the sub-districts, especially when issues can be resolved at the City level. Mr. Kosluchar stated the Six Cities WMO was scheduled to update and submit its third generation plan in 2008. A draft plan was developed in 2009. This plan was prepared with the input of Board of Water and Soil Resources who is the regulator of watershed management organizations and districts in the State. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 33 Mr. Kosluchar stated the plan is still not complete as it is pending a decision on membership and continued viability of the six cities. There is definitely potential for a required agency revision of the plan. In other words, they are going to make the plan more stringent. The changes in plan requirements have resulted in increased financial obligations for the operation of the Six Cities WMO and its related projects. We need substantial funding to provide the required level of service to Fridley residents, and the Six Cities WMO will definitely have to provide staffing in order to meet these requirements through a contractor or hired staff. Mr. Kosluchar stated the initiation of this Six Cities WMO plan will require reorganization to provide these requirements and to provide the direction for these requirements. Currently the Six Cities WMO does not have legislative authority to levy to provide funding for operating. While this was investigated some months ago, it was determined by the Six Cities WMO attorney that legislative authority was required. It was reviewed by board representation, and they found it was just not feasible at this time. There is only one WMO that has that legislative authority and that is the Mississippi WMO. Mr. Kosluchar stated there are some viability and funding issues. Not having a levy makes it difficult to perform the functions that are necessary for the Six Cities WMO. Funding options are storm water rate surcharges or a special taxing district, both initiated by a city. There are six cities in the organization, so it is very difficult to get everyone on the same page. Future activities will be regulated to minimize the level of service and cost choices over the long term. The Cities of Blaine and Coon Rapids have committed to leaving the organization and part of the reason is because of the lack of funding and because the requirements are becoming more and more stringent. They just do not see the Six Cities WMO as a functional vehicle to carry out modern watershed management. Mr. Kosluchar stated the Six Cities WMO would have to develop a new organizational structure in a short time frame and comply with the regulatory requirements. BWSR has expressed that Six Cities WMO needs to perform at a higher level and outlined options for the Six Cities' board to consider. One of those is if continuing to operate with four or fewer cities, continuing operating as the Six Cities WMO only if special levy legislation is obtained. Staff has explored the possibility, and it seems very unlikely that this could happen in the near future. The third option is to dissolve the JPA and discontinue Six Cities WMO completely and enjoin adjacent watershed agencies. Mr. Kosluchar said we only have two options. One is the Six Cities WMO. Without a drastic turn around and in talking with board representation, staff sees the possibility of dissolution of the Six Cities WMO some years down the road even if they try to maintain it. There is no indication that the member cities are really inspired to modify the workings of the Six Cities WMO. It has been a minimally-functional WMO which is fine. It performed its purpose, but the regulatory environment is more complicated now and it is difficult to carry out that mission with just staff resources from each city. Mr. Kosluchar stated the other option is working towards joining other WMOs adjacent to us. Rice Creek Watershed District and the Mississippi WMO are very structured and have a high level of service. Coon Creek Watershed District in the north is more in line with what Six Cities FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 34 WMO should be performance-wise and service-wise. All these agencies have independent taxing authority. Watershed districts automatically have that authority. Mississippi WMO has that authority in the State. Mr. Kosluchar stated the City Council asked that staff and the board representative develop and review alternatives. Staff has spoken with the three adjacent WMO agencies: Coon Creek, Rice Creek, and Mississippi. They had interviews with the Coon Creek Watershed director and the Mississippi WMO director. They are familiar with Rice Creek and work with them on a regular basis in Fridley. Two of the three cities that are adjacent, Spring Lake Park and Columbia Heights also deal with Rice Creek Staff invited those three cities to present their questions when they had interviews with the two directors. Mr. Kosluchar stated one of the things that was developed after their meetings was an estimated annual cost comparison. The variation is largely due to what services they provide and what capital funding is included within the umbrella of the organization. For instance, Mississippi WMO is a capital feasibility in that they contribute a higher percentage of their budget for a capital project than Coon Creek, for example. Obviously Six Cities WMO has a very minimal capital budget at this time. What staff does know is that while there is a wide range in these agencies and in the annual cost, they do see them turning towards a similar level just because of the regulatory environment driving each individual district towards a particular level of service. Mr. Kosluchar stated staff recommends moving towards the Coon Creek Watershed District and the Mississippi WMO. The cost of the other agencies is greater, but the level of service is higher and more geared towards existing activities required in future regulations. These organizations provide an added level of service, opportunity, and improvement the Six Cities WMO would be unable to provide. Each agency has existing staff, program project budgets, and they are able to access outside funding to serve member communities. Mr. Kosluchar stated there are a few reasons why they would like to move in this direction. While they prefer to have the low cost Six Cities WMO function and serve the area properly, the regulatory climate is not conducive to a favorable change; therefore, the revenue situation is not. The cities of Blaine of Coon Rapids expressed their desire to move towards the Coon Creek Watershed District. Watershed management is generally more effective if you are dealing with it on a watershed basis that is along the watershed boundaries, rather than political boundaries. It would make it more complicated if Fridley and Spring Lake Park were to hold onto this area of six cities and kind of split the watershed. Mr. Kosluchar stated the Mississippi WMO has strong revenues. Larger downtown densities actually pay a larger share of costs. Obviously that tends to benefit less dense areas because there is a higher tax base supporting them. Both the north Six Cities WMO and south Six Cities WMO area in Fridley have similar land use geography to these respective neighboring organizations. Both these agencies, therefore, would be effective in dealing with storm water issues in these areas. The ability to levy is very important because both of these agencies can respond to the regulatory environment. Neither agency has voiced any opposition to incorporation. Staff recommends approving the resolution requesting that Coon Creek Watershed District expand its boundaries to include the portion of the City of Fridley currently in the Six FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 35 Cities WMO lying north of the Rice Creek Watershed District and for Coon Creek Watershed District to petition BWSR to approve the changing of boundaries. It is north of 73rd Avenue, west of Trunk Highway 65 to East River Road and goes to Rice Creek which is kind of the dividing line. Everything north of Rice Creek Watershed District would go to Coon Creek. Mr. Kosluchar stated the second resolution is similar. Other than petitioning the south area into the Mississippi WMO, it asks the Mississippi WMO to include a portion of Fridley and to amend its JPA to include a portion of Fridley and include us as a member with representation. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was at the Coon Rapids meeting when BWSR was there. She thinks they were pretty stern saying they were not going to give the Six Cities very long to get things done. They were sort of disappointed in that if something was not done relatively soon back in October 2010 they could basically disband and we could become part of the County. Would this be another option? Mr. Kosluchar replied that is correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Rice Creek Watershed District was not really interested in this, right? Mr. Kosluchar replied right. He spoke with the director early on when there was some discussion about Blaine possibly leaving. His impression was that Rice Creek has a pretty focused mission. It is obviously within that one watershed and is a very large area. Having that very large area, it is difficult for them to carry the message that there are some areas that really do not drain into the watersheds that are impacted by a property 20 miles upstream, and the property 20 miles upstream is paying for that district. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and right now because Six Cities WMO did not have any taxing authority, any budget money had to come out of the general budget and so basically it was being paid for by all the residents. The Rice Creek Watershed District is paid by the homeowners that are in that watershed. This straightens this in the sense that going to these two other watersheds would allow people to be taxed accordingly because they have that taxing authority. Mr. Kosluchar replied that is correct. It balances out. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is any chance they would have a representative on either one of these organizations. Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed the Mississippi WMO's director indicated that if the cities of Fridley, Columbia Heights, and Hilltop would go into MWMO that he thought that it was definitely possible to get two representative seats. Councilmember Bolkcom said they do have a project that we have been working with some of the residents and this would give the City an opportunity to use some of those resources that are at the Coon Creek. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 36 Mr. Kosluchar replied yes. When you have two agencies applying for any funding, that always carries more weight. Mayor Lund stated people will see a change in the line item on their property tax statements with the City going away from Six Cities. Those who are outside of the Rice Creek Watershed District have not seen any costs for the services and they will now. Councilmember Bolkcom stated this is a fee that would actually be by another agency. She asked Attorney Knaak to expand on this. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, stated the Charter does provide. He thinks the concern was that because this is a likely fee, a new fee almost for a certain percentage of the population of the City, whether this would be against the City Charter provision which requires a vote before every fee increase. This is not that kind of fee increase. It is outside the Charter and that increase is not something that would require a vote. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt Resolution 2011-10. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Resolution Requesting the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization to Consider Amending its Joint Powers Agreement to Include Membership of the City of Fridley and Expand Its Boundaries to Include a Portion of the City of Fridley Currently in the Six Cities Water Management Organization. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2011-11. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Kosluchar what are they looking at for a time frame. Mr. Kosluchar replied the Six Cities board meets on Thursday and the resolutions will be presented. The resolutions will be provided to the neighboring watershed organizations. Coon Creek has mentioned they are actually holding off on their planned boundary change after receiving the Blaine and Coon Rapids requests pending this meeting. His understanding is both of these organizations may have this structured so they have revenue flowing in 2012 from these areas. 10. Informal Status Reports There were no informal status reports. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2011 PAGE 37 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 10:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor