02/06/2012 - 31303CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
FEBRUARY 6, 2012
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 Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
Councilmember Barnette
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Deb Skogen, City Clerk
Don Abbott, Public Safety Director
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of January 23, 2012
Councilmember Saefke said Page 6, Paragraph 7, should read, "in accordance."
APPROVED AS CORRECTED.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Chapter 224 of the Fridley City Code,
Entitled, "Stormwater IDicit Discharge Detection and Elimination."
William Burns, City Manager, stated this legislation was proposed to bring Fridley into
compliance with MPCA requirements associated with municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4) permitting. It identifies types of pollutants not permitted to flow into the City's storm
sewers and streams, and provides a variety of local tools for enforcing the law.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 2
Dr. Burns stated since the first reading, the City Attorney has suggested two minor
modifications to Section 224.08. One adds an exception for ice control materials. The other
clarifies language related to the exception for non-storm water discharges that are permitted
under an existing NPDES permit. The proposed legislation has been reviewed and approved by
representatives from the MPCA. Staff recommends Council's approval.
Councilmember Varichak referred to page 1, last paragraph. It should be "second" reading and
not first reading.
WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO.
1288 ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 18, 2012.
RECEIVED.
3. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, LS #12-01, to Create Two Buildable
Lots, Generally Located at 551 Hugo Street N.E. (Ward 3).
Dr. Burns stated the City's HRA is requesting Council's approval of a lot split for property it
owns at 551 Hugo Street NE. The lot split will enable the HRA to sell this property for
construction of two new homes. The residential structure that was there has been razed, and the
lots are ready for resale pending Council's approval of the lot split. Staff recommends Council's
approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
4. Resolution Approving an Access Agreement between the City of Fridley and MDW
Equity, LLC, Thereby Authorizing the Appropriate City Signatures and Allowing
Execution of Said Agreement.
Dr. Burns stated the agreement allows our environmental consultant, Leisch & Associates, to
enter the CITGO site on University Avenue for purposes of taking soil borings and asbestos
samples. The testing of these samples is required for submittal of a Tax Base Revitalization
Grant application the City intends to submit by February 15. If the application is successful, the
grant will allow the City to acquire the CITGO property, raze the building, and remove the fuel
tanks. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-07.
5. Resolution Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Funding and Authorizing Applications for Grant.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 3
Dr. Burns stated the resolution authorizes staff to file Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA)
and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Grant applications with the Metropolitan Council.
The TBRA Grant application would fund the CITGO site acquisition and clean-up. The TOD
application would permit the construction of an off-road bikeway walkway on the west side of
Main Street between 57th Avenue on the north and 43rd Avenue on the south. The bikeway
walkway project as it is defined would span I-694 and cost an estimated $1.7 million. The grant
would fund $300,000 of the $1.7 million cost. The remainder would be drawn through the
proceeds of a federal highway administration grant the City should be hearing about this month.
Dr. Burns stated the City's request for the TBRA funding would amount to $250,000. Of this
amount, $150,000 would be used for acquisition. The remainder would cover building
demolition and site clean-up. No City or HRA money would be involved in this project other
than staff time to meet grant- reporting requirements. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-08.
6. Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approval of Plans and Ordering Advertisement
for Bids: Sanitary Sewer Lining Project No. 416.
Dr. Burns stated the City has budgeted $195,000 for sewer lining projects five areas in 2012.
The resolution authorizes staff to seek bids for these projects. Staff recommends Council's
approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-09.
7. Resolution Ordering Advertisement for Bids: 2012 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
Project No. 417.
Dr. Burns stated the project includes replacement of sidewalk, paving, curbing, and other
miscellaneous concrete work arising as a result of utility repairs and other unforeseen events.
The City has $39,950 budgeted for these repairs. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-10.
8. Approve Assignment of Consulting Services Agreeme4nt for 2012 GIS Technical
Assistance.
Dr. Burns stated in January our contractor for GIS technical assistance, the GIS Rangers,
merged with Northstar Geographics to form Flat Rock Geographics. While there are no changes
in the personnel who will be working for Fridley or in the terms of the existing agreement, the
agreement does require Council's approval for the change in ownership. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
APPROVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 4
9. Claims (153691 - 153860).
APPROVED.
10. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
11. Estimates
Shank Constructors, Inc.
3501 — 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
WTP 3 Filter and Chemical Feed Project No. 405
FINAL ESTIMATE ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... $ 11,977.00
APPROVED.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that Item No. 3 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Item
No. 3. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of Item No. 3.
Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM: No one from the audience spoke.
NEW BUSINESS:
12. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Section 2.06, of the Fridley
City Charter, to Allow for a Vacancy of a Council Member to be Filled by
Appointment.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 5
Debra Skogen, City Clerk, stated in May, 2010, the Minnesota State Legislature made changes
to the State election laws by changing the date of the primary elections and determining when
special elections can or cannot be held. Changes were brought to the Charter Commission for
their review and discussion. The biggest change to the new election law is the City's inability to
hold a special election any time between the State primary and the general election. In 2012, that
would be between August 14 and November 6 and within 40 days of the general election which
would bring us through December 19.
Ms. Skogen stated the Charter Commission reviewed the current language, reviewed other city
charters for examples, discussed several amendments with the City Council in a joint session,
and made a recommendation that a vacancy should be filled by an appointment by the City
Council.
Ms. Skogen stated State law requires publication of the amendments and a public hearing before
the first and second readings. The notice of the ordinance and public hearing was published in
the Fridley Sun Focus on January 5, 12, and 19 of this year. The public hearing was held
January 23 with no testimony provided from the public opposing the amendment. Staff
recommends Council's approval of the first reading of this ordinance.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the
ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Fridley City Code, Chapter 121,
Section 121.02, and Repealing Section 121.03, Related to the Consumption and
Display of Liquor
and
First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting Fridley City Code, Chapter 604, Related to
Consumption and Display Permits, and Amending Chapter 11, Section 11.10,
Establishing Fees.
Debra Skogen, City Clerk, stated during the review of the City's liquor code, inconsistencies
were found within Chapter 121 regarding the consumption and display of alcoholic beverages.
While Section 121.02 prohibits the use of 3.2 percent malt liquor or intoxicating liquor in any
private or parking area, Section 121.03 allows the Police Department to issue an intoxicating
liquor consumption or display permit.
Ms. Skogen stated the City Attorney reviewed our City Code and Minn. Stat. Ch. 340A and
found Section 340A.414 requires a consumption and display permit for the consumption and
display of any alcoholic beverages for businesses that do not hold an intoxicating liquor license.
The City Code is less restrictive and, therefore, inconsistent with State law.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 6
Ms. Skogen stated there are two types of consumption and display permits. There is an annual
permit which is only issued by the State of Minnesota after the City approves it. The license
expires on March 31 of each year, and the State fee is $250. They do allow the City to charge up
to $300 for a fee. On the one-day permit, the City may issue up to ten individual one-day
permits to non-profit organizations with social activity in the City sponsored by the organization.
The State law sets that fee at no more than $25.
Ms. Skogen stated eligibility for an annual license are for restaurants, hotels, establishments that
are licensed for the sale 3.2 percent malt liquor which are resorts, bed and breakfast facilities, a
club that does not hold an on-sale intoxicating liquor license, or any applicant who in the past
five years has not been convicted of a felony or violating any provision of Minn. Stat. Ch. 340A.
Ms. Skogen stated the amendment to Chapter 121 would provide new language referring to the
Minnesota state law and repeal authority of the Police Department to issue consumption and
display permits. The enactment of Chapter 604 allows the City the ability to approve an annual
license and issue one-day permits allowed by law, allows the Police Department the ability to
recommend the use of uniformed officers on site during the permit, and authorizes the Police
Department to suspend the license if there is a possibility of a threat to public safety or
infringement of peace and tranquility.
Ms. Skogen stated Chapter 11 recommends setting the City fees in the amount of $300 for an
annual license approval and $25 for a one-day permit. Staff recommends a motion holding the
first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 121 pertaining to alcohol and consumption and
then a motion holding the first reading of an ordinance enacting Chapter 604 and establishing the
fees for those licenses.
Councilmember Saefke asked if the $300 fee the City is imposing was in addition to the $300
fee to the State.
Ms. Skogen replied, a$250 fee to the State.
Councilmember Saefke asked if someone applies, it will cost them $550.
Ms. Skogen replied, yes, and that would provide for a thorough police background check and
any other items the Police Department might need for enforcement and for the processing of the
license.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding Section 121.02(1), it says they cannot consume
intoxicating liquor in any connecting parking lot. She asked how the City would allow, for
example the Lions to do that.
Ms. Skogen replied that is under the review of the law. They found the City had been issuing
permits without the authority to issue them. This changes that. The City can now issue a one-
day license that is not associated with a parking lot pursuant to Chapter 604. Chapter 121 is
mainly for the current licensees that have liquor licenses.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 7
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how she would know reading this. She thinks the ordinances
are confusing. You read one and do not know what applies. It does not say anything about that.
It says, "repealing consumption and display of liquor."
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, replied they are in multiple places in the City Code. In
reviewing the Lions' questions, as well as just a general review of some of the provisions, they
discovered there was an inconsistency between temporary permit issuance and then this
provision that prohibited consumption in parking lots or other areas that were not on the licensed
premises which is typically an enclosed area noted on a person's liquor license. Under
121.02(1), it states, "under Chapter(s) 602 or 603 ... including any parking area connected with
or a part of the land area of the premises of any private bottle club, fraternal organization, or
other private club, defined in Chapter 605. It is referring to all three sections of the City Code
related to 3.2 percent malt liquor, intoxicating liquor, or clubs. Paragraph (3) allows it and
creates an exception if you have a temporary permit or another permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated what is so confusing about these ordinances is what they do or
do not apply to.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, under paragraph (3), there are three underlined sentences, "�
the Citv, �no person" is that a long sentence.
Mayor Lund stated, yes, it is one long sentence.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they could rewrite it so it does not run on for so long.
Attorney Erickson stated it could be redrafted if they want to set it out in a different format, but
the intent here was to describe that, unless you have some type of permit or license, whether
issued by the City or State, you cannot do this.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, but are we writing this ordinance for everyone to understand
or just an attorney and the City Clerk She thinks they should make it simple enough so the
average person can read it and understand it.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what is "any other institution of training or education?"
Attorney Erickson replied she thinks that might be referencing their definition of school or
university. She believed that might be pulled from the zoning definition of university or school.
She stated with respect to Councilmember Bolkcom's concerns about paragraph (3), they could
redraft it in a format laying it out in a numbered or lettered list.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, she thinks it would be a lot better.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked in Section (2) it states, "repealed as follows:" and then there is
nothing there. It is all crossed out.
Ms. Skogen replied, it is repealing that language below it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 8
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there will be a Section 2.
Ms. Skogen replied Section 2 is part of this ordinance. The first part amends Chapter 121.02
and the second part repeals the language for Section 121.03. This is the ordinance and when
they provide it in the City Code and it is physically changed, it will no longer be there. If you
are doing research some time in the future and you want to know why the law was changed, or
how it was changed, this provides that information. Because they are taking it out of the City
Code, they will now enact a new chapter, Chapter 604, which is going to give the City the
authority to approve an annual license or to issue a one-day permit for consumption and display
of alcohol.
Attorney Erickson stated the reason they are doing that is because it is a true permit that is
authorized by State law and they thought it was appropriately placed in Chapter 604. All of the
permits and licenses should be found there and should help readers and users of the Code.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Chapter 604 applied to temporary licenses or all licenses.
Ms. Skogen replied, this would apply to anyone who wants to consume and display permits as
allowed by State law. Annual permits can be issued to restaurants that do not currently have an
on-sale retail license. A hotel, an establishment licensed for the sale of 3.2% malt liquor, a
resort, a bed and breakfast facility, a club who does not have on-sale intoxicating liquor, or
somebody who has not had a felony for the past five years, the permit can be issued by the State
for the annual permit or the one-day permit in the case of an organization that wants to have a
social event since these can only be issued to non-profit organizations. For example, if the
Rotary Club decided they wanted to have an event and serve alcohol, but people would only
consume the alcohol and not pay for it, they would apply for a consumption and display permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked it is only non-profit organizations that are sponsoring the
social event in Fridley.
Ms. Skogen replied, for the one-day permits.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what a display permit was.
Attorney Erickson replied this permit allows the holders to allow people to consume and
display it on the premises; but they are not actually selling it. For example, a restaurant that does
not have a liquor license but has an adjacent room where a book club meets once a month. They
can come in, bring their own alcoholic beverage and consume it on premises, but the
establishment itself is not selling it. That would be something under the annual permit. The
temporary is for non-profits who do not fall into that category of hotel, restaurant; and it is for a
limited duration.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding 604.01(3), if they can charge $300 why does it not
just say that instead of, "not to exceed $300?"
Ms. Skogen replied, that is the way the State law is written.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 9
Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding 604.02(7), it states, "Permits may be suspended by
the Public Safety Director, or a police officer under their direction, when, in the Director's
opinion ..." Does that mean a police officer has to call the Director and ask him?
Don Abbott. Director of Public Safety, replied, their intent was to not require a consult with the
Director at that point. Basically the delegated authority resting in the Director is given to the
officer who is on duty in the City when it occurs.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, would it not be easier to say, "Permits may be suspended by
the Public Safety Director or a police officer when there is a public safety danger or infringement
»�
Chief Abbott replied, he believed that is something they could change but, yes, the intent was to
allow the officers on duty at the time to make that decision.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to waive the reading of the ordinances and adopt the
ordinances on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Fridley City Code, Chapter 508,
Section 508.21.5.D, and Enacting City Code, Chapter 508, Section 508.21.5.E,
Related to the Sale and Consumption of Alcohol at the Springbrook Nature Center.
Debra Skogen, City Clerk, stated during a review of the City's liquor code, the City Attorney
and staff also reviewed this section related to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at
the Springbrook Nature Center because of recent State law changes.
Ms. Skogen stated a new State law allows retail on-sale licensees to dispense intoxicating liquor
off their licensed premises at a community festival held within the City or at any convention,
banquet, conference, meeting, or social affair conducted on the premises of a sports, convention,
or cultural facility owned by the City. As Springbrook Nature Center is a City-owned facility,
this change in the law would allow Springbrook to work with any of the on-sale intoxicating
liquor license holders in the City or with a State-licensed caterer to provide those services.
Ms. Skogen stated the law prohibits dispensing intoxicating liquor to any person attending or
participating in youth amateur events being held on the premises. Also, the City is defining that
a youth athletic event as any event whose participants are 18 years of age or younger.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 10
Ms. Skogen stated an ordinance to Chapter 603 would include the same language allowing for
the on-sale licensees to dispense intoxicating liquor at any community festival or cultural facility
owned by the City. This allows for Springbrook Nature Center to contract for receptions and
social events within the interpretive center and/or adjacent outdoor designated space which was
approved by the City Council in 2007. While it removes language requiring a private party to
contract with the City of Fridley as an approved licensed caterer, it does not preclude the Nature
Center from setting a similar policy as part of this contract. Staff recommends Council's
approval of the first reading of this ordinance.
Mayor Lund asked, identifying an amateur athletic event as any event where participants are 18
years of age or younger, why not just simply state "under 21."
Ms. Skogen replied the State was silent on the issue. An 18-year old may be participating in an
adult event rather than a youth amateur athletic event. Staff discussed this and decided to keep it
the same as State law.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, if the Springbrook Foundation could have their own party and
sell alcohol. It states a private party may contract with the holder of a state caterer's permit.
Ms. Skogen replied they have to have a state caterer's permit. The City is now adding additional
language allowing a City-licensed retail on-sale licensee to dispense the liquor off of their
licensed premises at any convention, banquet, conference, meeting, or social affair conducted on
the premises of Springbrook Nature Center. They took out the language, "a City of Fridley
licensed caterer" and added Section (2) which allows any of our current licensed on-sale
establishments to take food and alcohol into Springbrook Nature Center without a state caterer's
permit or without any other special permit.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the Nature Center could hire someone who has a license?
She asked if the Lions could sell alcohol there.
Ms. Skogen replied she believed they would have to contract with someone to provide that.
Councilmember Bolkcom said we did not get rid of the holders of the state caterers permit. It is
still in there.
Ms. Skogen said the only thing they are taking out is the requirement that the City holds a list of
approved caterers. The Springbrook Nature Center can actually set a policy that they work with
specific caterers as opposed to having the City Code tell them they have to do it. It is allowing
them to actually contract with a state caterer or with one of the local licensed establishments.
Councilmember Bolkcom said the Springbrook Nature Center would have to contract or have
some type of association with someone who has a license with the City of Fridley, or they have
to be someone who has a state catering permit.
Ms. Skogen replied that is her understanding.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 11
Attorney Erickson said that might be something they want to verify. She does not have Section
340A.404 with her, but it might be that a non-profit, much like a park perhaps, could be utilized.
If a non-profit organization had a temporary on-sale, whether 3.2 percent or intoxicating liquor,
it might be that they could still do that. That is a good question.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked which section is that?
Attorney Erickson replied, it is §340A.404 in State law. That is the reference to the cultural
center, sports complex, and banquet facility.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated maybe that is something they could find out about before the
ne�t meeting.
Attorney Erickson replied, potentially based on what State law says, it might be able to be
inclusive of other recognized permits or licenses.
Councilmember Bolkcom said they are crossing off the 18 years of age and younger because
below that section, it section it outlines what a youth amateur athletic event is.
Councilmember Saefke stated he understands if someone has a state caterer's license, they can
serve alcoholic beverages here, and they just got done passing an ordinance amending the City's
old one saying the State must approve liquor licenses for an annual license, correct?
Attorney Erickson replied, just the consumption and display permit. That is a different permit
than a state caterer's permit.
Councilmember Saefke stated he understands, but what if they both serve alcohol? For
example, he owns a restaurant in Spring Lake Park and his liquor license is held there. He has
paid the State fee and is licensed to sell liquor. A party wants his establishment to provide the
beverages for the event in one of the City's public buildings and wants to get their food from
some place else, can they do that?
Ms. Skogen said they cannot do that. The state caterer's permit requires them to provide food
and alcohol as if they were serving it on-site in their premise.
Attorney Erickson stated you cannot divide it.
Councilmember Saefke stated if the State is issuing him a license for the sale of liquor, why is
it not valid somewhere else if he applies for the one-day and pays the City $25?
Attorney Erickson replied, she cannot answer the question. Cities do not approve state caterer's
permits. They are a state-issued license. She does not know what the wisdom of the legislature
was on that, but it is a very confusing set of statutes.
Ms. Skogen read the State law which says, "A commissioner may issue a caterer's permit to a
restaurant holding an on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by a municipality. The holder of
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 12
a state caterer's permit may sell intoxicating liquor as an incidental part of a food service serving
prepared meals other than the premises for which the holder's on-sale intoxicating liquor license
is issued." The serving of alcohol is incidental to the food.
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, stated the memorandum on the website talked about amending
Ordinance 1239. She thinks there was a newer one amended in 2007 which is 1279.
Ms. Skogen stated Ordinance 1239 is the ordinance that allows them to sell 3.2 percent malt
liquor or wine. The newer one, 1279, added the ability to sell strong beer.
Ms. Reynolds stated the memo references, for a social affair conducted on the premises of a
sports convention or cultural facility owned by the City. They said that a"cultural facility" is a
term used by the State. Does the State use the term, "nature center?"
Attorney Erickson replied, it is undefined by State law. She believes Ms. Skogen has spoken
with State liquor authorities regarding the Springbrook Nature Center and they are of the opinion
the Springbrook Nature Center would fall into "cultural center" under the statute they are
discussing.
Ms. Reynolds asked whether this has any requirement, as the City's liquor licenses do, with
respect to the ratio of liquor to food. For example, a caterer comes in to do Spring Fling. Are
they going to be required to have the ratio the City requires restaurants to have of the 40 percent
liquor sales to food?
Attorney Erickson replied, to have a City license they have to meet those requirements. That
would apply to someone coming into the facility. They have to meet that at their existing
establishment. She does not know whether that counts to the events held off premises that
Springbrook or otherwise would count towards that.
Ms. Skogen stated it would be part of their profit, part of their sales. Her interpretation is it
would include those. At the end of the year, when they report to the City what their food-to-
liquor ratio was, that would be included in that figure. It does not include it for a specific event
at that location.
Ms. Reynolds asked, and if they are coming from another municipality?
Ms. Skogen stated that may not be a requirement of their license in that other community.
Councilmember Saefke asked when there are softball games and community events, such as
`49ers Days, is 3.2 percent beer typically available. Last year they permitted strong beer. There
was no requirement to his knowledge of food-to-liquor consumption because it was a temporary
permit which was only good for a day or two and that is what these things are. A social event. If
you are going to have something such as a wine tasting, you are going to have cheese and
crackers. He doubts you would ever get to a 60/40 percent with that. Also there are provisions
in here for the Police Department to chaperone these events if necessary so that things would not
get out of hand.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 13
Ms. Reynolds stated so the premise of the two items is to expand Springbrook's ability to move
closer and closer to being a country club instead of a nature center.
Mayor Lund stated that was not the intent, but her previous questions have some validity as to
whether there is some contradiction in sections of the Code if an outside caterer comes in.
Ms. Skogen stated with a state caterer's permit is that alcohol is incidental to the food.
Mayor Lund stated the Rotary and the Lions actually had a wine tasting events there.
Ms. Skogen stated they sell tickets ahead of time. They do not have to have an intoxicating
liquor license, they can only hold the event open for four hours and there is food.
Mayor Lund stated there is some regulation elsewhere in the Code that talks about those
specific events.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was a new State law related to allowing people to have
on-sale licenses at a community festival.
Ms. Skogen replied yes, that is why they were bringing this forward at this time because the
State law changed in 2011. When she went to training last year, they were citing Murzyn Hall in
Columbia Heights as an example. The Lions provide the alcohol there. Basically what he said is
they could now do it with this type of a license by adding this type of language. The liquor
would be served by the Lions Club for anyone who contracted with Murzyn Hall.
Mayor Lund stated this was brought about because staff was looking at the changes to all of the
City's ordinances.
Ms. Reynolds stated the State law has changed, but does Fridley not have the right to maintain a
stricter set of rules?
Mayor Lund replied yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied on a liquor license but not on this kind of law, can they?
Attorney Erickson replied she did not have the statute in front of her. Generally cities do have
that power, but she thinks it is a policy decision. It is permissible under State law.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but is that not related more to restaurants and establishments
the City is giving a liquor license to. As in the past, they can do a little bit more related to those
types of establishments. They are talking about community activities, such as the Rotary Club
and all the ones who are trying to make a little money for their club. The Nature Center would
get some funds out of renting that property out but could it not also be done at some other area in
the City? They are not going to get a portion of those profits. The Rotary Club can have an
event, charge $10 or $20, and make some money for their own clubs for activities and sponsor
other things.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 14
Ms. Reynolds stated that is in 508 and then when you get into the ne�t one you will be opening
it up all over everywhere.
Mayor Lund stated her point is the City could be more restrictive and say, do not allow beer,
wine, alcohol — any of those things the State law is permitting; but the City is more restrictive.
He does not know if that is an infringement on others. He guessed the question is moot if you
have a caterer allowing for food and incidentally alcoholic beverages. They just do not allow it,
like the school district does not allow it.
Ms. Reynolds asked if Chapter 508 is for Springbrook?
Mayor Lund replied, yes.
Ms. Reynolds stated and then the ne�t item?
Ms. Skogen replied it becomes part of the intoxicating liquor code so that the two codes work
together in conjunction with each other. The only reason they brought this forward is because of
the brand new law. They told them they could do this, and it allows the Nature Center not only
to work with a state caterer from another community, but to work with our licensed
establishments in the City. If we could provide that service to them, they would no longer have
to get a State caterer's permit. It would save them money, and the whole issue is the liquor
would still be incidental to the food.
Ms. Reynolds asked, so Pickle Park could go do it.
Ms. Skogen replied, if they became one of the Nature Center's approved caterers. What the
Nature Center wants to do is work with specific caterers or licensed facilities here in the City.
They could pick and choose whom they wanted. Also, if the City rented out this building for
those types of things, it could also work The Nature Center at this time is really the only one
that rents out rooms for private events. That is why they are bringing it forward for the Nature
Center as opposed to any of the other City-owned buildings.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the
ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Fridley City Code, Chapter 602,
Sections 602.02.3, 602.02.5, 602.05.1 and 602.14.1; Chapter 603, Section 603.02,
603.07.1, 603.09.2, 603.24, and 603.26.1, and Chapter 606, Section 609.09.1 and
606.12.1, Related to On-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor, On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor and
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Clubs.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 15
Debra Skogen, City Clerk, stated staff received a request from the Fridley Lions and the `49er
Days Committee about the possible issuance of a temporary liquor license to locate their event at
Moon Plaza for more visibility for this year's summer festival. Staff reviewed the City Code and
discovered inconsistencies between the chapters regarding the distance requirements between a
church and a school and the number of temporary licenses the City could issue to any one
organization or location. Staff inet with the City Attorney to address those concerns.
Ms. Skogen stated when reviewing the liquor codes, the City Attorney recommended updating
or modifying the language and amending other sections of the City Code related to liquor
consumption and display. As a result of the review, the City Attorney has recommended
repealing Section 602.02.5 regarding an exemption for free beer which appears to be
contradictory to State law and the consumption and display permit. Based on these concerns, the
City Attorney recommended amending the City Code and at the same time updating or
modifying the Code to bring it up to date. The Lions and `49er Days did not ask the City to
change it.
Ms. Skogen stated with respect to Section 602.02, the changes modify the language of
temporary on-sale 3.2% malt liquor to bring it current with state law. Section 602.02.5 repeals
the free malt liquor. The Minnesota Alcohol Gambling and Enforcement Division felt this
section was contradictory to State law and their interpretation that a business cannot give away
free beer without a temporary display permit or have contracted with a caterer approved by the
State.
Ms. Skogen stated with respect to the section entitled "Granting of License," it is recommended
to repeal the language referring to the liquor license board, as the City Council has served in that
capacity for the past 40 years. It is a change in terminology as to who is responsible for
administering the license from the City Manager to the City Clerk, and revising language
allowing the City Council to approve a liquor license at the same meeting.
Ms. Skogen stated under the sections entitled, "Patio Endorsements," they are creating an
exception for a temporary license from the patio endorsement requirement.
Ms. Skogen said in Chapter 603, they are enacting language authorizing on-sale licensees to
dispense intoxicating liquor off of the license premise at any community festival within the City
or at any convention, banquet, conference, meeting, or social affair held within the City at a city-
owned sports convention or cultural facility. There was a change to State law and, when she
attended liquor licensing training last fall, they told them of the change. Staff felt this was a
good time to update this. It also creates an exception for a temporary intoxicating liquor license
to a 400-foot distance requirement from a church or school so it is consistent with Chapter 602
for temporary 3.2 percent malt liquor.
Ms. Skogen stated in addition, they are amending the language regarding who may apply for a
temporary on-sale liquor license to make it consistent with State law and changing the number of
temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses one organization or location may apply from two
per year to that permitted by State law. The City can issue 3 four-day licenses, 4 three-day
licenses, 6 two-day licenses, or 12 one-day licenses to any one location or any one organization.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 16
Ms. Skogen stated staff recommends a motion holding the first reading of an ordinance
amending Chapters 602, 603, and 606 related to on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor, on-sale
intoxicating liquor, and on-sale intoxicating liquor for clubs.
Councilmember Barnette asked if they would still have to enter the patio only from inside the
establishment.
Ms. Skogen replied correct. However, with a temporary liquor license, because it is usually not
associated with a building the City is creating an exception to that.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why they felt they could approve the license at the same
meeting as a public hearing.
Ms. Skogen replied there has been a lot of discussion in the past as to whether they can approve
them at the same meeting. The City Code does not allow that opportunity. This does not say
you have to approve it at the same meeting, but it gives you an opportunity. Sometimes we get
licenses that come in late, and they want to get going and open. You hold the public hearing and
two weeks later you would approve their license, and the City would still have to submit it to the
State. All this says is it allows them the ability to approve the license if they want to. It does not
require them to.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated just because they put in their license late, it does not seem to
her a good reason to do something. She understands that by making this change, they would see
a public hearing and would see it as an actual action item later on the agenda. If they need more
information or have any concerns, they would not approve it.
Ms. Skogen replied the city that she worked at before approved it at the same meeting. They
approved it right after the public hearing. It did not go onto a list of licenses.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they knew why the City does it this way.
Ms. Skogen replied, no. It has been done this way since she started. Staff could find out.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is curious as to why it is being changed.
Ms. Skogen stated there have been questions in the past and they thought this was a good time
since they are modifying the language.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding Temporary Licenses, non-profits are the only ones
who can get a temporary license.
Ms. Skogen replied yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if anyone could be a non-profit.
Attorney Erickson replied, she thinks you have to file as a 317A, non-profit, under the Internal
Revenue Code.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 17
Councilmember Bolkcom stated under 602.02(5), the word subject is spelled "subj4ect" on the
second line. She asked regarding "No Late Night License Endorsement shall be effective after
Apri130, 2008," is that in the ordinance.
Ms. Skogen replied, that is the way it is currently written. She knows at one point they were
looking at having a late night endorsement sunset in 2008, and now would be the time to change
that.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated we do have a late night endorsement.
Ms. Skogen stated they did it in 2006 and it was going to sunset and then it went for another
year. They may have forgotten to come back to the Council to make a correction. Maybe now
would be a good time to remove that last sentence.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they should remove it. It would make sense. However, they
should also maybe have someone review it and tell them if there have been any related issues.
She asked whether the Director would be willing to do that tonight or later on. It really does not
make sense the way it is in there now. It is beyond 2008.
Ms. Skogen asked Councilmember Bolkcom if she would like them to provide her with a report.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, yes, she thinks that would make sense to be provided with a
report before the ne�t reading. She referred to 602.05(1)(A), "The Public Safety Director shall
cause to be made such investigation of the information requested in Section ..."
Ms. Skogen replied, the only thing they have changed would be anything added or stricken out.
Otherwise, the language is as it currently is in the City Code.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it could read better.
Ms. Skogen stated they will find it is the same in other sections of Chapter 602, 603, and 606.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated as long as they are looking at them, they should be made clear
and distinct. Perhaps what is now Section (B) could be laid out in a numbered format. Also,
regarding Section (C), what is a"reasonable time?"
Attorney Erickson replied she does not have an answer to that. It depends on what they might
learn at their public hearing or in the background. She does not know if you can define
reasonable time. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Ms. Skogen replied that is something in the past where there may have been more in the
background and they may need to hold a public hearing. At that public hearing you find
something else, and they may want to continue the public hearing.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if she were someone applying for a license, if they were to
read that, how would they know what a reasonable time would be?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 18
Ms. Skogen replied, they usually tell them it takes 60 days for the license to be approved.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is anything in the ordinance about what would happen
if they did not pay their taxes. The City had an establishment that had some non-payment of
taxes, and they lost their ability to buy alcohol.
Ms. Skogen replied, she did not think there was anything in the changes. It might be under the
conditions of the license.
Councilmember Saefke stated he thought it might be under State Statute.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, for example, Baggan's Pub could no longer buy any
intoxicating beverages. It does not mean the City can shut them down.
Attorney Erickson replied there is a reference to unpaid financial claims in Chapter 602.07.
Mayor Lund stated to Councilmember Bolkcom she is talking about several different types of
taxes. She is talking about the liquor tax.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, correct.
Mayor Lund stated under their liquor license they have to buy the alcohol from a wholesaler,
and they collect the tax. He thinks there is an issue with that if they are not paying their liquor
tax, the license can be suspended/revoked.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she thought when they looked at Baggan's, they were not
allowed to revoke their license.
Ms. Skogen replied their license to purchase alcohol is revoked at that time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, right. It does not mean they cannot still sell what they had.
Ms. Skogen replied, right, but they cannot go into a liquor store and purchase at retail prices.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is really nothing in the City Code regarding not paying
property or liquor taxes.
Ms. Skogen stated there is in Section 603.03, under application. It is not in the new Code, it is
in the current Code. It says whether or not all real estate, special assessments, and personal
property taxes for the premises to be licensed which are due and payable have been paid and, if
not, the years and amounts which are unpaid. They have always used that to say, if you have not
paid your taxes, then you are not eligible for a license.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 19
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when staff is looking at license renewals before the end of
March, do they check to see if the property taxes are paid. If they have not paid the property
taxes, would the City renew their license?
Ms. Skogen replied that would be a reason for not renewing their license. They would have to
pay it prior to the time the staff brings it forward. The City also looks at that under new
licensees as well to make sure that all of their taxes, special assessments, and utilities are current
and up to date.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked throughout the State or only on the property they have since it
is a brand new property.
Ms. Skogen replied, for example, they have the Himalayan Restaurant which is now becoming
Bombay Palace. The LLC is the same, but the name is different; and there are two instead of one
partners. Staff will be bringing their license at the ne�t meeting. She asks whether they are up to
date on their utilities, checks the County website to see if their taxes have been paid and any
outstanding special assessments on that property.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City checked their property taxes all over the state.
Ms. Skogen replied she does not, but the Police Department in their background check does a
thorough financial background on the owners before it comes to Council for a public hearing.
Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 90, there is the same thing under 603.02, "effective
after Apri130, 2008," is still in there. She asked staff to look at that before the ne�t reading.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the
ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. Resolution Receiving Report and Calling for Hearing on Improvement for Jackson
Street Improvement Project No. 413.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated they are here to receive the feasibility report
and set the public hearing date for this project. The discharge from sump pumps along the 7300
and 7400 blocks of Jackson Street have created problems on and off the street, including slippery
conditions, chronically wet yards, and difficult maintenance.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the project's scope is limited to Jackson Street from 73rd Avenue to 75tn
Avenue, and improvements to be considered in the feasibility report include storm sewer and
street rehabilitation. They usually hold an open house during the feasibility process to alert those
who might be impacted by the project, solicit input regarding the project and its need, discuss
project concerns, and provide staff information regarding existing issues. Staff held an open
house on December 14, 2011.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 20
Mr. Kosluchar stated owners of eight properties attended the open house, and there were
mailings to 22 properties. There was a presentation by staff during which they discussed
assessment, construction, and service connections, etc., of the plan for receiving sump pump
discharge. It was also brought to their attention there was strong support for storm sewer and
street rehabilitation on this segment.
Mr. Kosluchar stated on January 9, Council received a petition for both storm water
improvements and street improvements. Both were signed by over a dozen residents. On
January 23, 2012, the City Council passed a resolution directing staff to prepare a preliminary
report and preliminary plans and specifications. This allowed staff to officially begin work on
the design and analysis to determine whether the project is feasible. The report includes an
analysis of street improvements, storm water improvements, private utility and other
coordination considerations, and estimate costs and schedule.
Mr. Kosluchar stated staff recommends eliminating the street rehabilitation consideration in
2012 because of the following reasons: the inability to include this segment in the 2012 street
improvement while maintaining our schedule and budget. At this point, we are having a public
hearing on the 2012 street project ne�t week If there is a delay for advertisement, it will set
them back about a month which could adversely affect the bid pricing.
Mr. Kosluchar stated they also have differing benefiting properties between the storm work and
the street work The street work would likely continue further north and, at a minimum, would
not be only constructed on one side of the street north of Memory Lane. Also, there are potential
issues with sequencing the work If they were to consider both projects at a public hearing, it is
possible one project gets approved ahead of the other which would not be good. Staff is
recommending in the feasibility report to consider the street rehabilitation in a future year, and
2013 is a good candidate. They are actually going to be in the northeast area of the community
for 2013.
Mr. Kosluchar stated recommend moving ahead with the storm water improvements in 2012.
The idea that is identified in the feasibility report is to install a 6-inch main in both boulevards on
both sides of the street for collection of sump pump discharge. They would also stub out a 2 to
5-foot service stub to each property, basically whether they intend on connecting now or in the
event they need to connect in the future. It is a small cost. Any owners who connect would be
required to provide service piping from their house to that connection point.
Mr. Kosluchar stated as they discussed at the open house, their concept is 50 percent
assessment of the Project No. 413 cost which would be the mains running in the boulevard. He
presented a map showing the collection piping extended. On the east side he believed the last
house is 7421 that actually pumps year around. Then there is a connection to the south at 73rd, a
connection to the existing storm sewer system. He presented a map of the concept of the main
construction. They used a horizontal directional drill so they can minimize impact to trees,
driveways, landscaping, irrigation systems, etc. They would not have to open cut construct. He
also showed a concept connection detail from the house. They require an air gap to be installed
so in case the pipe were to freeze or clog, it would not flood the home.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 21
Mr. Kosluchar stated the feasibility report also contains an estimate of $59,840, including
contingency, which is just a little higher than the $55,000 they had talked about at the open
house. The contingency is about 10 percent. The project could be constructed between June and
August this year and might even be able to be constructed in April if the weather keeps up.
Mr. Kosluchar stated staff has completed the feasibility report, and determined the storm water
project is necessary, cost-effective, and can be accommodated within the 2012 budget. Also,
staff has determined the rehabilitation project for the street would not be necessary and cost-
effective in 2012. While they understand the need, they do not think the need changes all that
much or becomes all that much greater. Again, there is a disadvantage in pricing potentially for
the 2012 street proj ect.
Mr. Kosluchar stated staff recommends the City Council move to adopt the resolution which
receives the feasibility report and sets a preliminary hearing date and time. It also outlines
improvements that will be considered at the preliminary hearing for possible construction in
2012. If approved tonight, they would set the public hearing for March 12, 2012, at 7:30 p.m.
Properties identified as benefiting in the report and subject to special assessment would be sent a
notice by mail ten days prior to the hearing. At the hearing, those persons with property subject
to assessment would be heard regarding the proposed project.
Councilmember Saefke asked with respect to the people who signed the petition, he knows that
during the original presentation, the person who had collected the signatures and spoke with
people was unable to contact a number of them. He noticed on some of the documentation
provided, some of the people did not sign the street or the sump pump petition. He asked if the
City had made any efforts to contact those individuals.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, actually, there was an informal survey that was done prior to scheduling
the open house. There were actually three residents involved in collection information and all of
those who had pumps he believed were contacted regarding this project. Out of the 22 at that
informal survey, he believed 20 of them supported doing something. That is without information
on assessments, etc. It may change. However, all of the property owners will be notified by
mail of the hearing; and they will also have a preliminary assessment amount. They will have a
total project cost, and it will be advertised in the official newspaper.
Councilmember Saefke he was just kind of surprised that some of the folks who pump year
around would not have signed the petition at least for the sump pump.
Councilmember Barnette asked if it was possible that they were rentals, and the owners were
not contacted directly.
Mr. Kosluchar replied there was actually one rental property where he thinks a manager on site
signed the petition and it is not a valid signature. Staff found the owner actually lives out of
state. The petition was collected by a private party who made great efforts to collect those
signatures. It definitely shows there is interest. Also, they had eight of those property owners
here during the holidays.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 22
Councilmember Saefke stated he believed the last time they discussed this, Mr. Otteson was
going to attempt to contact the folks who were not able to sign.
Councilmember Varichak stated she felt bad that both cannot be done at the same time.
However, she understands.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated maybe it does not work as well as they thought so why put in a
street until they know it is working properly. It makes sense not to do it at the same time. It will
be torn up again, but they want to make sure they are getting the water off the street first.
Mr. Kosluchar stated that is a good point and staff discussed it. It does not hurt to look at the
system and how it is working for a year before they go in and redo the street. In addition, he did
get some feedback from Duncan Wagner. He e-mailed Mr. Wagner regarding what they were
proposing to do. While Mr. Wagner is not overjoyed they are not doing the street this year, he
accepts that and understands it was a push to try and get it in this year. He is just very happy
something is being done about his storm water.
Councilmember Saefke stated there may be a number of really disappointed people. However,
thinking about it a little more, if they can dry up the problem and let the street and surrounding
area dry out for a year, they will know how severe of a problem there may be. He thinks the
majority of people will be happy that at last it is going to be done.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether the petition said both things.
Mr. Kosluchar replied there were actually two petitions. He believes the storm water petition
was signed by 15 of the 22 properties, which was after review, and they had to exclude a couple
of signatures. Then the street petition was signed by all of those 15 with the exception of one.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to receive the Preliminary (Feasibility) Report for the
2012 Jackson Street Drainage and Street Improvement Project No. 413. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to adopt Resolution No. 2012-11 Seconded by
Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 23
3. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, LS #12-01, to Create Two Buildable
Lots, Generally Located at 551 Hugo Street N.E. (Ward 3).
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they have ever approved a lot split as big as this.
William Burns, City Manager, replied he is not aware of one.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why this one was being done.
Dr. Burns replied, the law with respect to subdivisions allows Council to do this. To recognize
minor irregularities as they approve a subdivision. In this case, the proposed lots are about the
same size as other lots of neighboring properties. The missing number of square footage is not
material.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, 750 square feet, which is significant in a sense. She asked if
this can be done only on publicly-owned property or if anyone could come forward.
Dr. Burns replied, he thought it could be done anywhere.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if an owner can come in and request a lot split. If they do a lot
split, would they then have to go for a variance to build something on it, or would it just be
approved once there has been a lot split?
Dr. Burns replied, his understanding is you have the lot split and you recognize the irregularity
at the time you do the lot split. No variance would be needed.
Attorney Erickson replied, she thinks a recognition and results is something needing to be
conforming since you have a process set up for the minor subdivision. What Dr. Burns has
described is accurate. You have a process set forth for minor subdivisions, it is a recognition of
the authority, and there is no attendant variance request.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a property owner having a lot similar to this comes forward.
Since they have allowed this one to happen, would they have to allow the ne�t request?
Dr. Burns stated he thinks the answer is, yes. If somebody else walked in and wanted the same,
they would do the same thing.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they were setting a precedent.
Attorney Erickson replied, she does not have Section 212 of the City's subdivision ordinance in
front of her, but it is not intended to create a precedent.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, right. She is just trying to figure out if some other property
owner wanted to do the same thing, how can you deny something they are allowing our own City
to do.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 24
Dr. Burns stated apparently it does not establish a precedent but, if another property owner
comes in with similar circumstances, he certainly would have the right to do that and the right to
ask the Council for dismissal of minor variations.
Mayor Lund stated he took this to be not as a precedent because this is in that overlay district of
the smaller lots that were already in an exception to the norm or current Code. His impression
was is if there were another resident with a similar lot size, could he do that elsewhere in the
community.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it makes sense but, on the other hand, are they now going
down a path. It says they are not setting precedent, but how do you handle the ne�t person who
comes along with a lot split request. The City never allowed it. As far as she knows it always
had to be what the Code says. Are they holding the City's own HRA to a different standard?
Dr. Burns replied, he did not think so. If someone came in with a similar proposal, what they
did before might obviously be brought up; but he does not necessarily think what they did here is
something that has to be set as precedent. The circumstances vary from property to property and
from lot split to lot split. He thinks they still have the freedom to make a decision based on the
unique circumstances of that petition.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that is one issue but the other issue is, are they setting
themselves different from everyone else?
Dr. Burns stated he is thinking anyone can do it, whether City-owned property or privately-
owned property.
Attorney Erickson replied, she would think that process of minor subdivision would be
available to anyone--the HRA, the City, any applicant.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she understands that part, but she is asking if they are setting
themselves different because it is City-owned property vs. someone else. If someone came
before the Planning Department and said, they want to do this, do you really think they would
say this is below 750 square feet?
Dr. Burns stated, no, he thinks they would look at it very objectively.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it makes sense to do a lot split and build two homes in this
area but, on the other hand, it is 750 square feet. It is pretty significant.
Mayor Lund stated it is but it is in that overlay district which makes it compatible with much of
the rest of the neighborhood. That makes it a distinction in his mind. If somebody wanted to do
this in another neighborhood altogether, such as in Hyde Park or the Matterhorn area, those are
different circumstances.
Attorney Erickson replied, unfortunately, she has not had an opportunity to speak with any of
the Planning staff about this matter.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 25
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to table this to the ne�t meeting.
Dr. Burns stated his understanding is that it is not necessarily tied to the overlay district. The
fact that it is in the vicinity of the overlay district has something to do with it because the other
lots are very similar, but the freedom the Council has to subdivide gives them the ability to
ignore these lot width and area requirements.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is struggling with the 750 square feet. Is that minor?
When does it become major?
Dr. Burns stated it is up to the Council on a case-by-case basis. It is not major in this case
because the lot is the same size as all the other lots in the neighborhood.
Mayor Lund stated the 750 feet is consistent with the rest of the neighboring area.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is thinking back to a time when she has been on here,
when someone wanted to do something, whether it be a variance or anything else, even though it
is something that is done in the past, they do not necessarily pass it.
Councilmember Saefke stated on page 18, about third paragraph from the bottom, it reads,
"when Riverview Terrace was platted in 1922, all of the lots were platted with a 110-foot lot
depth and 25-foot lot width." While our Code requires a 75-foot minimum width, his lot is 75-
feet wide. When they planned his neighborhood, the lot depths are not quite square so he has
like 141 feet. However, back in 1922 they only made the 110-foot deep so you really cannot do
anything to stretch that out. That is where they are saying it is a relatively minor problem in that
neighborhood because all of the lots are only 100 feet deep. It is not going to be like two strange
lots in the middle of nowhere. It will be conforming to that neighborhood, but perhaps not
conforming to the rest of the City of Fridley. The Riverview Heights area is one of the oldest
areas of the city.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but a majority of that has also been combined to meet the 50-
foot lot requirement if you read on in that same sentence.
Councilmember Saefke stated that is true but you have one place where you can build one big
mansion which would still not conform with the rest of the neighborhood. You would have this
tremendously large lot right now. You have 150 feet as a frontage along the street and 110 feet
deep. That makes for an e�tremely large lot. Even by Innsbruck area. If you were a private
property owner as opposed to the HRA, and you came to the Planning Commission and said,
look, I have this humungous lot in a neighborhood where the lots are smaller, it would stand to
reason that the City could divide that lot and build two nice homes. It was platted in 1922. The
standards back then were a whole lot different than they are today, and that makes that area
unique.
Dr. Burns stated he reviewed this Friday and this morning. If Councilmember Bolkcom wants
to have Paul Bolin come in, that is fine. His understanding is they have perfect freedom to do
this without any problems. These lots are 75-feet wide by 110 feet in depth which puts them in
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2012 PAGE 26
conformity with the neighborhood. He does not think they have to worry about setting a
precedent, because if anybody else comes in, they evaluate the request based on the
circumstances of that neighborhood.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is interested in watching the HRA meeting and/or review
the minutes from that meeting.
Dr. Burns asked Councilmember Bolkcom what she wanted to know.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied she would like to know the history behind the request and
why they are recommending it instead of leaving it as one lot.
Dr. Burns stated they bought the lot at a reduced price under the Scattered Site Program. They
want to take advantage of this property. They think it is reasonable to split it, and develop two
new properties. The sooner they get the approval on this the sooner they can begin to market the
property.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would send Dr. Burns her other questions.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table the Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot
Split, LS #12-01, to Create Two Buildable Lots, Generally Located at 551 Hugo Street N.E.
(Ward 3) to the February 13, 2012, City Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, SAEFKE, VARICHAK,
AND BOLKCOM ALL VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND VOTING NAY, MAYOR
LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ON A 4-1 VOTE.
17. Informal Status Reports.
There were no informal status reports.
ADJOURN.
MOTION by Councilmember-at-Large Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Varichak, to
adj ourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:32 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor