05/07/2012 - 31346CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
MAY 7, 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-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Rachel Nelson, 4624 — 2'/z Street NE
Lary Falck, 1135 — 73rd Avenue NE
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of Apri123, 2012.
APPROVED.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 18, 2012.
RECEIVED.
2. Claims (154837 - 155011).
APPROVED.
3. Licenses.
Councilmember Saefke said the last entry is listed as "Unlawful" Gambling Permit.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED, CORRECTED, AND AS ON FILE.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 2
4. Estimates:
Ron Kassa Construction, Inc.
6005 East 250th Street
Elko, MN 55020
2012 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
Project No. 417
Estimate No. 1 ............................................. $2,885.70
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, VISITORS:
Rachel Nelson, 4624 — 2'/z Street NE, introduced hersel£ In March she was elected the chair of
the DFL in Senate District 41 which includes all of Fridley. She invited any viewers to the DFL
meeting for the district held at the Fridley Community Center on the second Thursday of each
month.
PUBLIC HEARING:
5. Text Amendment Request, TA #12-01, by the City of Fridley, to Amend the Fridley
Zoning Code, Chapter 205, to Allow a"Farmers Market" as an Accessory Use.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to 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.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 3
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, we have been hearing about creating healthier
lifestyles which includes an opportunity to purchase and consume locally-grown fruit and
vegetables. One way staff has been able to help with these efforts is by helping to administer the
State Health Improvement Program (SHIP), with the assistance of the school districts and Unity
Hospital. The SHIP program helped fund the East River Road corridor project. It placed an
emphasis on creating multi-modal transportation along a six-mile long stretch along that
corridor. It also helped the City complete a bikeway/walkway study to help identify where the
City's current walking and biking systems have been missing connections. We hope to
eventually receive grants to help fill those gaps.
Mr. Hickok stated City staff spent some time brainstorming on ways to help with healthier
lifestyle options for residents. Two options that kept recurring in the discussions were
opportunities for community gardens and local farmers' markets. The City already has two
community gardens for residents. One is at the City's public works garage which is a very
popular location. The other is administered through Unity Hospital which is very popular as
well.
Mr. Hickok stated Unity Hospital conducted a farmers' market on their site last summer which
was mainly geared towards employees and held once a week The City has received inquiries
from St. Phillip's Lutheran Church and Medtronic to have farmers' markets as well on their
properties. The City currently does not have any specific regulations allowing farmers' markets
and, as a result, Fridley's zoning code does not permit them.
Mr. Hickok stated when staff originally started their research, they surveyed some of the
surrounding communities to see what their requirements were. We discovered a lot of cities do
not have specific regulations regarding farmers' markets. Some allow them as transient
merchants while others allow them through a city or community-sponsored event. Others were
without specific regulation other than to require a special use permit.
Mr. Hickok stated staff also contacted the Minnesota Farmers' Market Association (MFMA) to
find out what kind of regulations they typically see when farmers' markets operate within
communities. The MFMA organization is dedicated to supporting the growth and development
of the farmers markets across Minnesota. That research revealed that the City needed legal
assistance. We engaged the help of the City Attorney, Darcy Erickson.
Mr. Hickok stated in order to allow farmers' markets to exist in our community without making
it be too complicated, yet still be controlled, staff decided to suggest allowing farmers' markets
as an accessory use in all districts provided certain regulations could be met. A farmers' market
can only be located on a residentially zoned property provided it has an institution on it. An
"institution" is defined as a public or private institution which includes a church, hospital, or
medical clinic.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 4
Mr. Hickok stated the following is how the te�t amendment reads. Under "Accessory" it states,
"Farmers' Market, provided it meets the following requirements:
(a) Shall be a member of the Minnesota Farmers' Market Association or other similar
recognized association of farmers markets and meet all of the respective
requirements;
(b) Shall identify a market manager that facilitates the requirements of the City.
(c) Shall have General Liability insurance including Products and Completed
Operations coverage with minimum limit of liability of $1,500,000 per
occurrence.
(d) Shall have applied for and received all required county and state licenses and have
complied with all applicable City of Fridley regulations and city codes.
(e) The majority of the products sold shall be grown or produced in Minnesota.
(� The sale of live animals and alcoholic beverages is prohibited.
(g) Any advertising or directional signs displayed either off premise or on premises
shall be displayed on the day of the event with the exception of one 4-foot x 8-
foot sign that can be displayed on the premises during the duration of the farmers'
market season.
(h) The location of the event shall have written authorization from the property
owner.
(i) An established schedule shall be submitted as to the dates and times of the
market.
(j) Any temporary structure used for the farmers market shall be erected and
removed on the day of the event.
(k) A site plan shall be submitted showing tent and vendor locations, vehicle
circulation and parking prior to commencement of event. Site plan to be
approved by the Community Development Director.
(1) A Farmers' Market Event Permit Application shall be completed, approved and
on file with the Community Development Director prior to commencement of
event, providing proof that all above requirements are being met.
(m) The City reserves their right to revoke any Farmers' Market Event Permit issued
for failure of compliance with the above requirements. The City will process any
such license revocation according to the procedures listed in City Code Section
11.08.
Mr. Hickok stated staff has determined these requirements are necessary for a farmers' market
to work within the City. Lines will be added to each section of the zoning code, including the
residential, commercial, industrial, and the special zoning districts, such as S-1, Hyde Park, S-2,
Redevelopment, S-3, Onaway, the PUD zoning districts, and the newly-approved TOD, transit-
oriented district. When the TOD language was approved, farmers' markets were allowed
through a special use permit. This would be a change and would not require a SUP in the TOD.
If Council is proposing to allow farmers' markets to exist as an accessory use with a permit in all
other zoning districts, it only seems appropriate to allow it in the TOD as well.
Mr. Hickok stated a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission's April 18 meeting.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. There has been a slight
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 5
modification to the farmers' market definition. The change simply clarifies the wording of the
original definition as approved by the Planning Commission. It does not change the substance of
what was approved.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Barnette asked about sales taxes for any of the products and how it would be
collected.
Mr. Hickok replied there would be none for the food product.
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, replied individual vendors probably would be reporting their
own sales to the Department of Revenue and would be responsible for their own sales.
Councilmember Barnette stated one of the questions from a retailer was does the grower need
to have a Minnesota Department of Agriculture permit?
Attorney Erickson replied that is something they can check They are granting a permit for the
actual market itself as opposed to regulation of the individual vendors.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what was considered a majority of the product being sold. For
example, could she sell peaches from Georgia along with other things from Minnesota?
Mr. Hickok replied that is typically the case where they have the bulk of their inventory is
something they have grown here, but they might have a specialty item. Peaches are a good
example where they have offered some of those as well, but the majority of their stock is grown
in Minnesota.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated as a City, it is basically giving a license to someone who wants
to have a farmers' market, and it is up to them to market themselves, get their own growers, etc.
The City is basically setting the guidelines as well as to what they can sell, how they sell it, when
they can sell it, the parking, etc. If there is someone who has a business in Fridley and who
would also like to go to that market, they would have to basically contact whoever set up the
farmers' market.
Mr. Hickok stated someone could be a part of the growers' association. Much of why staff
structured this the way they did was to have the growers' association internally regulate it and
control some of the specifics about the vendors, such as who they are, where they are from, and
where their produce is from. It becomes a much more controlled group. Staff found from its
analysis there is a strong bond between the groups. They know each other and they do farmers'
markets in a number of different locations. It becomes a bit more self-regulating that way. If a
local business wanted to belong, there are certain criteria the growers' association would have
for being a member also. As long as they fit into that profile and become a member and meet the
criteria of that growers' association, they can be a part of this group.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 6
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it takes the ownership off the City for things such as a majority
of the product has to be from Minnesota. Could a grower from Wisconsin come here?
Mr. Hickok replied part of what staff learned through this process is that Minnesota state
statutes really define and protect Minnesota farmers and specifically talks about produce that is
grown here and taken to market here. Staff worked within the confines of what the state statute
says here. Could somebody who is on the border of Minnesota/Wisconsin be a part of it? It
would have to meet the criteria the Minnesota Growers Association has for their members.
Councilmember Bolkcom referred to the big farmers market off of Lyndale. There are growers
there who sell tomatoes and someone is there from Wisconsin selling cheese. Mr. Hickok is
saying it is not necessarily limited here but depends on the whole structure of the Minnesota
Farmers Market Association (MFMA).
Attorney Erickson stated what the City is permitting through this process is the market itself.
In order to fit the confines of the permitting process, the market itself will have to be a member
of the MFMA. The MFMA in turn has its own set of guiding principles. One of their
components is that for them to be a member of the MFMA they have to sell a majority of
Minnesota grown products. However, they do have in the ordinance they drafted either you have
to be a member of the MFMA or a similarly recognized type of organization. They are trying to
set a balance between having some degree of control yet allowing some flexibility; and it is sort
of self-regulating in that these organizations will have their own bylaws, and they may be set up
as non-profit corporations.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if someone calls one of the councilmembers and states one of
the growers was from Wisconsin or wherever, what would be the ne�t step? Would the City
staff then go back to the main manager of the farmers market or would they actually do their own
policing at that point?
Attorney Erickson replied, she thinks the first step would be to contact the market manager.
That was sort of the piece to this so they eliminate having to do a lot of leg work and have one
contact person.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated related to general liability insurance, that is through the
manager of the market who is setting up the market. It is not each individual grower having to
have that same liability insurance.
Mr. Hickok replied correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether there could be a farmers' market over in the parking
lot on a commercial property, for example, by Petters.
Mr. Hickok replied, it is not just residential and being an institution. There was a spectrum of
other zoning including even our "S" districts and industrial districts, etc. The site plan would be
important because typically by their nature, farmers' markets are an active area. There are
tables, tents, and is kind of a little festival of sorts. You want to make sure that circulation in the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 7
parking lot still works. It is going to be set up so it is out of the way of the normal circulation of
the parking lot. On a commercial or institutional site, it would likely be off from the drive path
or in an area where it is sectioned off so traffic is not driving through. It is very much like doing
a special use permit for other types of uses outside on a commercial or industrial site where they
are regulating for purposes of keeping people safe and not having the uses mixed in any sort of
dangerous way.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it could it be at the e�tra space outside of Bob's Produce
market. Does it have to be outside?
Mr. Hickok replied, that is a perfect example of where you might have a farmers market.
Typically he thinks they are outside.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what if there was a vacant building somewhere and plenty of
parking.
Attorney Erickson replied, it needs to be an accessory use. If it were vacant, she does not know
what it would be accessory to. The definition does reference "outdoor event."
Councilmember Saefke stated if it were indoor, it would be more of a retail business than what
would typically be considered a farmers' market.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she has been to other cities where there are farmers' markets
and people bring things into an actual building. It is called a farmers' market but just not an
outdoor farmers' market.
Councilmember Saefke asked some years ago around 44th and Main Street, a single-family
residence had a large garden and they would sell their excess tomatoes, corn, and beans. Would
this amendment prohibit that?
Mr. Hickok replied that is really what the State's regulations are meant to allow is that person
who has grown it locally. It allows them to grow it and market it. The City can precisely
regulate how that is done. They could be part of this association.
Councilmember Saefke asked but what if he just had a large garden and had excess and, instead
of letting it spoil, he just wanted to set up a little stand in his front yard and sell the excess?
Would he be allowed to do that as an individual?
Mr. Hickok replied, they would still need to be in an institutional location and need to fit all of
these other guidelines. No, that person could not sell the vegetables.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she had a garage sale, could she sell cucumbers.
Attorney Erickson stated there is actually a Constitutional Amendment that permits farmers to
be able to sell their own produce and products of the farm. The distinction here is they are
talking about a conglomeration of a number of people getting together to sell their products.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 8
Certainly that raises zoning considerations for the City and the ability to control it. It may be
something that slides under the radar very often in communities but it may be that it is subject to
that constitutional amendment. Typically, it a single person acting on his/her own.
Mayor Lund stated under Councilmember Saefke's scenario, the answer as to an individual
selling, would be "no" because under the accessory uses, they would have to meet the criteria of
a farmers' market and that means they would have to be a member of the MFMA.
Mr. Hickok replied that is where the State has really carved out a protection for people who
grow their own produce, who want to take it to market, and precisely how they do it. They may
fly under the radar of a farmers' market. They are not trying to have a market, they are just
taking the produce to market individually.
Councilmember Saefke stated as to the individual selling, he is saying they would just be
selling excess.
Mr. Hickok stated he drives by one of those on his way to work where they have tomatoes on
folding card tables in the driveway on the roadside. He thinks there probably is a provision staff
will find allowing them to take it to market.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether there could be prepared food at all. Could she sell
fresh squeezed lemonade?
Attorney Erickson replied, she thinks the definition is pretty narrowly tailored. She does not
see a provision that allows the option to be vending food to be eaten on site, and it is pretty
focused on locally farmed.
Mr. Hickok stated as they were looking at these associations, it is pretty well defined within
their own group because they run the risk of being something other than a farmers' market when
they start to branch out into these other product areas. Their real purpose is to sell their product
at market. If they branch out into too much of this product area, beyond what they are growing
locally, it is something other than a farmers market; and it might run the risk of not fitting into
local ordinances. You also run the risk of prepared food needing to have a State agriculture
license, etc.
Councilmember Saefke stated when they are talking about a farmers' market underneath these
amendments, they are not talking about one like those held in Minneapolis and St. Paul. They
are talking about one that lasts one afternoon, maybe into early evening, once or twice a week
just to sell basically produce that is locally grown (primarily Minnesota grown). They are not
talking about something that would e�tend into a 12-hour day, and not a super variety of things
you would find at the larger markets which would mean no selling of prepared foods.
Mr. Hickok stated because the City has them put up and take down their stands, it is very
different than Minneapolis who have structures there. This is meant to be something that is very
portable.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 9
Councilmember Bolkcom stated parking has to be on-site. It would not be where there is very
limited parking.
Mr. Hickok replied correct.
Councilmember Varichak asked if more than one site can hold a farmers' market at a time.
Mr. Hickok stated this is a great example of the free market at work You might have four of
them for a month or so and find out there is just not enough demand. One might prevail and
have the right location, etc. and people keep going there. However, if you water it down too
much and get it going in too many locations, it probably will not be successful.
Councilmember Varichak asked if there would be an event manager for every site.
Mr. Hickok replied yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but it could be the same event manager who is managing more
than one market.
Attorney Erickson replied correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether there could be one at Springbrook.
Mr. Hickok replied yes.
Councilmember Varichak asked if dairy, eggs, and meats were included in the farmers'
markets.
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom mentioned they did receive an e-mail from a woman who was in
support of the farmers' market.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
AT 8:29 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
6. Resolution Approving a Compliance Agreement between the City of Fridley and
Lary B. Falck, Owner of the Property Generally Located at 1135 — 73rd Avenue
N.E., to Accommodate Limited Outdoor Storage (Ward 2).
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 10
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the property is off Highway 65 and has
access off of 73rd and 73 '/z Avenues. The owner purchased this property in the early 1980s.
Records show that a 1982 stormwater management plan was drawn. Staff was unaware of this
site plan when outside storage was observed by the City's code enforcement officer who began
inspecting industrial properties in 2009. The problem was that the current site conditions did not
match the plan. Staff observed this on their inspections of the industrial district, came back and
looked for a special use permit, and learned that this was built prior to 1983's requirements for
the special use permits as they know them in more recent years. This site, however, was not
built precisely with the plan that was shown in the original approvals.
Mr. Hickok showed an aerial of the site, the 2009 site conditions. The paved area had expanded
beyond the original plan, and the fence location did not match the original plan. Also, some
landscaped areas were being used for storage and parking. There is some outdoor storage
present to the north of the building. South of the building the fence comes down quite a ways
towards 73rd Avenue and then goes across. The fenced in area is quite a bit larger than originally
shown on the plan.
Mr. Hickok stated staff conveyed to the owner this site was no longer legal non-conforming
because outdoor storage had expanded. The owner was given the option to either reduce the
outdoor storage to comply with that 1982 plan or to apply for a special use permit. A modern
special use permit would allow only 50 percent of the footprint of the principal building and in
this case, by complying with the modern requirement, they would be entitled to less outdoor
storage than they had approved in 1982.
Mr. Hickok stated after much debate and work between the attorneys' offices and several
e�tensions granted to the owner, an agreement was reached. The agreement requires the owner
move the fence back to closely resemble what was portrayed in the 1982 site plan. Staff is
allowing e�tension of the fence line west to better screen the view of the outside storage from the
street, as the site now has a public right-of-way on three sides. The deadline for moving the
fence is June 15.
Mr. Hickok showed what would be attached as Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A is a reflection of
the current conditions in aerial depiction. The idea is the fence as it exists in Exhibit A needs to
be relocated to where they see it in Exhibit B. The property owner has until June 15 to
accomplish this.
Mr. Hickok stated the City's legal counsel has advised the agreement be approved by resolution.
Staff recommends Council's approval of both the resolution and the related agreement.
Councilmember Varichak stated in 1982 there was an agreement between the property owner
and the stormwater management plan. Is that correct?
Mr. Hickok replied, that is correct.
Councilmember Varichak asked why he would not automatically be grandfathered into that
and not have to make any changes.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 11
Mr. Hickok replied that is the essence of this case. Had they built the fence in accordance with
the 1982 plan and everything else that plan had to represent, they would be grandfathered and
there would be no issue at all. By not building to that, they lost their grandfathered status. What
the City has agreed to do is to allow them to go back to the 1982 plan if they were willing to do
that, or they would need to comply with the modern standard which would be a smaller outdoor
storage area than 1982 would grant them. They have gone ahead and gone back and agreed to
move the fence to where it would be in 1982, as opposed to moving it to where they would
require it today which is 50 percent of the footprint of the building which would be much
smaller.
Councilmember Varichak asked Mr. Falck whether he is in agreement with this.
Lary Falck, 1135 — 73rd Avenue NE, replied, he did not understand what Mr. Hickok had on the
plan now about moving the fence. There is just one little square on each side that is supposedly
to come out was their agreement.
Councilmember Varichak asked Mr. Hickok if that was true?
Mr. Hickok replied the original plan basically had the gates coming out straight from the
building, east to west.
Mr. Falck replied, that was not a site plan. That was a landscape plan. There was never a site
plan. The fences were put in according to Code. The City had no problem with it at the time.
They had to have their setbacks from the road. They could have gone all the way around the
building if they would have wanted to at the time. That fence was put in according to Code.
That landscape plan did show some lines, and he has no knowledge of what happened there. He
did have a partner at the time. All they were told is they had to do it according to Code.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Falck whether he sees the distinction in the lines currently shown in
Exhibit B. It shows the current lines of the fence and the proposed changes to those lines.
Mr. Falck replied that was a landscape plan Mr. Hickok was taking that off of. He said he
objected to it at the time. They went back and they said, no, you just have to do it according to
Code; and that is what they did. His attorney told him that staff could not direct for what they
were doing at the time. He was not there at time. That is what the lawyers are for now, for
trying to get this under plan so they do not have to go through this.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Falck whether he agrees with what they have before them in changing
the fence from where it is now to moving the fence to the north and south sides bringing them to
a smaller footprint.
Mr. Falck replied, if Mr. Hickok is saying this is where the fence is going to be now, that is not
going to happen.
Councilmember Saefke stated when he went out to the property with Mr. Hickok and they met
with Mr. Falck, he thought this is what they agreed to at the time.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 12
Mr. Falck referred to the site plan and stated he agreed to take part out on both sides and then
there would be a fence to pick up the gate.
Councilmember Saefke stated it was going to come down. It is essentially shown in the 1982
plan. He still will not have storage, etc. on the north side of the building; and they talked about
doing some clean-up because there was other stuff stored in there that probably should not have
been.
Mr. Falck stated and they were going to eliminate that fence and bring the fence back to the
driveway.
Councilmember Saefke asked if that is what they are agreeing to tonight.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Falck where he thought the fence would be on the drawing.
Mr. Falck indicated on the drawing that this is the only thing they agreed to take out.
Mayor Lund asked and was shown where the existing fence was. He asked Mr. Falck where he
expected it to go now. He asked Mr. Falck to draw a line east and west of where the fence is
going to go.
Mr. Falck drew the line and indicate he is saying that is where the fence is going to be; and that
is not where it is going to be. This fence is all going to remain, there will be another fence
coming "this way" to "this point right here" and then this will be eliminated in the green.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Hickok to show Mr. Falck where the existing fence is and where the
proposed fence is going to be.
Mr. Hickok replied, the agreement in the field was to allow them to take and keep it because it
would essentially screen and allow them to screen those two parking stalls. They could come
across with their gate and then go out and it would basically become a"T" shape. It comes back
and, in this case, allows them to put those stalls inside. But it does open this as Mr. Falck is
saying, green. It should be planted in accordance with that if those plans do not exist.
Mr. Hickok stated as to how and where this came from, this was a plan that was approved and
Bill Deblon signed it on April 30, 1982. Mr. Falck also signed it at that time. Also then what
these marks represent, pink is to represent curb, yellow is to represent Class V, blue is to
represent fence. As they know, for the City's special use permits, by modern times, Class V
would not be allowed for the storage area. That would be allowed as long as they did it in
accordance with this. The curbing would need to be in. The fence, had they installed it like this
at the time, would not have an issue here and it gets to the grandfathering. Has the City allowed
them to do a little bit more? Yes, the City has said if they wrap their fence "around here," bring
their gate "back here," and go ahead and leave the fence where it is, come back to a gate "here,"
that would be permitted and is what they need to do. That is what is meant to be represented by
Exhibit B. Exhibit A shows the existing conditions as they are right now and in a much larger
configuration.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 13
Councilmember Saefke stated he sees Mr. Falck's head nodding yes.
Mr. Falck stated this fence here is moved. He has this fence moved. This fence, code for the
road, when they redid the road in 1983 or 1984 they widened the road. As to the site plan, "this
here" is asphalt. This plan does not show this as being asphalt. That was asphalt. They allowed
them to do that. They were told they could put the fence in as long as it was to Code. It went in
as Code. He does not remember everything but he did have a lot of paperwork.
Councilmember Saefke stated what they are doing is just making a legal document of what they
have all agreed on. He recalls when leaving him the day they were at his property, that if that is
what the City was willing to agree to with him, he would do it within two weeks.
Mr. Falck replied, yes, he agreed to that. He indicated they are going to agree that the only
place the fence is going to be moved is here, and there will be a new fence done here to pick up
the gate.
Mayor Lund stated he has to have more clarity on this because what he sees on the drawing is
not what either Mr. Falck or Mr. Hickok have shown here. On the drawing that is now on the
screen, it shows the blue line going across yet to the immediate right of that driveway out to the
north. Mr. Hickok pointed out it was okay to go up from his gate, back up to catch the existing
gate, closer to 73 '/z Avenue. The blue line shows it going straight across where the gate would
go. Has there been a change?
Mr. Hickok stated as they stood out in the field that day, Councilmember Saefke might recall
that Mr. Falck said, if that is what you want, I will draw it up now and get you a drawing. In lieu
of having a drawing which was never given to them, they have basically tried to represent what
the discussion was. When they were out in the field, Mr. Falck had all sorts of reasons why it
would really make sense for them, and he would be willing to do it that day, if he could move it
in around where those parking stalls were on the north and south of the building, bring the gate
across, and leave that fence out where it was but bring the gate across and the new fence down to
the south and up to the north. Staff told him to draw it up, show them what he wanted.
Mayor Lund stated what is shown on that drawing is not exactly what is going to happen.
Mr. Hickok stated they could ask them to move the fence in to where the blue line is. There
would be no fence around where those parking stalls are and, frankly, the gate would come out
straight from the southeast corner of the building and from the northeast corner of the building
over to the area on the other side of the driveway; and that little "T" would be the storage area
that they get to have. There was a concession made out in the field allowing them to bring it into
here, get it so you have the landscape outside of the fence. Get all of the material out of there
and put it in the area that is intended for storage. The same thing for the south side. Put it over
to where it is intended for storage and, if you want to bring the gate across right there and leave
that the way it is on that side of the driveway it, but fence it in, put the gate up where it was
supposed to be. It is not identical to the blue line here but, frankly, the unfortunate part now, is
not having a plan that matches that discussion in the field.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 14
Mr. Falck stated he made them out for the lawyer. He asked if they had received them.
Mr. Hickok replied, the City has no plan that represents his position on this.
Mr. Falck stated he will get them from the lawyer and get them to Mr. Hickok They wrote
them up and gave them to him.
Mayor Lund stated the agreement before them is stating in essence what Mr. Hickok has just
showed all of them. He asked Mr. Falck whether he was okay with the agreement.
Mr. Falck replied, if it was what they did in the field, yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated which was discussed tonight and pointed out to them by
Mr. Hickok is correct.
Councilmember Saefke stated there was some give and take by both sides.
Councilmember Varichak stated she just wants to be sure Mr. Falck is okay with the drawing
as is and that he will comply with this.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated not the drawing as it is, because it is her understanding the
drawing is not exactly right. He is okay with what has been pointed out by Mr. Hickok about
where the fence is going to be.
Mr. Hickok stated he thinks what will be helpful is to create an Exhibit A and move having one
so they can all nod on record showing they agree to this. Right in behind the curb on "this north
end" and back.
Mr. Falck stated that is a small spot and you will not get a car door open. It is going to have to
be at least two feet off of that blacktop.
Mr. Hickok stated, two feet off the blacktop to get the door open. Okay, from there the gate is
going to come straight across. There will be a fence "here." It will come out only to the point
that the fence currently exists. It will come back Same thing "here." Across, here, into where
the existing fence is and it is not right on the street.
Mayor Lund stated he will have to move the left side and bring the gate up higher and then drop
down to get to the existing fence.
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
Mr. Falck replied, that is what they agreed to in the field.
Mayor Lund stated it seems like a workable solution. He asked Mr. Falck if he agrees with that.
Mr. Falck replied yes.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 15
Councilmember Varichak asked Mr. Falck is he okay with what was described because
obviously it was not the same as what she saw here.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated he is agreeing with the new substitute for Exhibit B? He is
agreeing to that plan?
Mr. Falck replied yes.
Attorney Erickson stated and just for the record, Mr. Hickok, this is what will be constructed
pursuant to the compliance agreement as Exhibit B. They are substituting this Exhibit B for the
one that was in the packet.
Mr. Falck stated this is how they got into trouble the last time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated maybe they need to table this item until the ne�t meeting and
come up with a drawing that can be clearly understand.
Mayor Lund stated he is signing it, meaning he agrees to it.
Councilmember Varichak stated they can table this and get a better picture of what it is
supposed to be if that is what they want to do. If Mr. Falck feels comfortable with the drawing
that was just brought before them, then they do not need to table it.
Mr. Falck replied no, he agrees with it. They will get it done right away.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Falck, if he can complete the fencing change and
landscaping by June 15 which is what is in the agreement right now? She asked what happens if
Mr. Falck does not complete it.
Mr. Hickok replied there are provisions in the agreement that would allow them to move
forward and have it done.
Mr. Falck replied there is an agreement which the attorneys made.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, yes, it is in their packet. She just wanted to make sure he is
aware that June 15 is the completion date for the fencing and the landscaping. Even though there
is a new Exhibit B, he is agreeing to that, and he is going to complete everything that is in the
agreement by the 15 of June.
Mr. Falck replied by June.
Mr. Hickok stated there have been mowing implements on display outside the fence in the grass
area east of the building. He wanted to put it on record that this site does not have any
provisions that allow outdoor display or storage of those materials in the grass area. He wanted
to make it clear to Mr. Falck that it is not part of this agreement to allow lawn mowers to be
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 16
displayed on the grass. That was not part of these provisions and the agreement does not allow
it. That would be a different code enforcement issue. It is important that is clear. They had to
wait a meeting. The agreement would have been on the agenda for the last meeting, but they had
to contact the attorney and about the lawn mowers and get that issue taken care of first.
Mr. Falck stated that has been very limited. They just happened to do it that day.
Mayor Lund stated he has seen mowers displayed out there.
Mr. Falck stated they will demonstrate them. They will cut the grass.
Mayor Lund stated it is okay to use the mower to the cut the grass but not for displaying them.
Mr. Hickok stated and not leaving them there.
Mr. Falck replied he has no problem with that.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to adopt Resolution No. 2012-30. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Receive Bids and Award Contract for 2012 Street Improvement Project No. ST.
2012-01.
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated this project was authorized on February 13, 2012.
The City Council approved Resolution No. 2012-13, authorizing preparation of final plans and
advertisement for bids for Street Improvement Project ST2012-13. This project is located in the
Rice Creek neighborhood, and is about 3.6 miles. There are also some satellite areas that are
going to be done--west Highway 65 frontage road off of 73rd, Oakley Drive north of Mississippi,
and Fourmies Avenue just south of the Municipal Center.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the project in the 2012 CIP is $1,349,000, including its five funding areas.
That also includes Community Park parking lot work The most recent construction cost
estimate performed by the engineering staff was $1,065,000.
Mr. Kosluchar stated on Friday, May 4, bids were opened for the combined Project ST2012-01;
and 31 bid sets were purchased with 6 responsive bids received on this project. The low bid was
received from Midwest Asphalt, Inc., of Hopkins in the amount of $1,010,327.75.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the project was bid within budget and is also 5 percent below the final
estimate. Presuming this award, special assessments are projected to be in line with the
feasibility report which estimated a single-family property assessment of $1,950.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 17
Mr. Kosluchar stated Midwest Asphalt, Inc., has completed several past projects for the City,
including the 2008 Street Rehabilitation Project and several mill and overlay projects. Staff has
found their workmanship and attention to schedule to be acceptable and find their personnel
responsive in dealing with construction issues.
Mr. Kosluchar stated staff recommends that Council move to receive the bids and award the
2012 Street Improvement Project No. ST2012-01, to Midwest Asphalt, Inc., of Hopkins,
Minnesota, in the amount of $1,010,327.75.
Mr. Kosluchar stated if approved tonight, a preconstruction meeting will be scheduled with the
contractor. Notices will go out to the affected property owners once that meeting is held and
staff is able to obtain a schedule for the contractor.
Mayor Lund asked about MSAS and if the funding went down.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, what happens is they are able to get MSAS dollars for local streets up to
a limit. In this case, they reached the limit. Originally when they scoped the project and
prepared their feasibility report, they were considering Seventh Street, that long segment, and
that is all state aid route, that was eliminated in the feasibility report and so they had this ratio
going forward of MSAS to local so the estimate was a little bit high for MSAS as it turns out.
Motion by Councilmember Saefke to Receive Bids and Award Contract for 2012 Street
Improvement Project No. ST. 2012-01. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Receiving Bids and Award Contract for 2012 Water Main Project No. 404 and
Jackson Street Improvement Project No. 413.
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated these two projects were authorized by the City
Council on March 12 by resolution.
Mr. Kosluchar stated on April 24 they opened bids for the combined Project Nos. 404 and 413.
They received four responsive bids. The low bid was received from GM Contracting of Lake
Crystal, Minnesota, in the amount of $496,699.01. For Project No. 404, the watermain
rehabilitation portion, the low bid is within the budget. Probably one of the reasons they only
had four contractors is because this work is trenchless technology so there is directional boring
of pipe, and there are fewer utility contractors that do that work on larger diameter pipe vs. open
cut. There is a long segment on 83rd Avenue, south of Springbrook Nature Center that is in very
bad soil and in a poor location to get at to maintain. On Fireside Drive, they have had a bad
break history there including one last winter. Finally, on Anoka Street, that is a loop and
provides some redundancy. Actually, the City had a break on Old Central and they were
concerned about the northeast area of town and being able to feed that, and the Anoka Street
connection would allow the City to have some redundancy in that area.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 18
Mr. Kosluchar stated on Project No. 413, the low bid is slightly higher than estimated; however,
the special assessments would be approximately as presented in the feasibility report. He said he
wanted to explain the assessment amount. He was working with the original number they had at
the open house on $1,250 for the special assessment. In the feasibility report, they had raised the
amount to $1,360. Right now they are projecting $1,315.
Mr. Kosluchar stated this project is on Jackson Street north of 73rd Avenue. The object of this
project is to provide an interceptor for sump pump discharge underground so they are not
discharging into the street. The project goes from 73r up past Memory Lane.
Mr. Kosluchar stated Fridley has not worked with GM Contracting in the past; however, they
received references from three different cities that were all positive. Coon Rapids, Roseville,
and Plymouth have all worked with them in recent years and all were positive. As a matter of
fact, he believed the City of Coon Rapids hired them to correct some work that was going poorly
and started by another contractor. Staff recommends Council move to receive the bids and
award the contract for the Jackson Street Improvement Project No. 413 and 2012 Water Main
Project No. 404 to GM Contracting, Inc., of Lake Crystal, Minnesota, in the amount of
$496,699.01.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to receive the bids and award the contract for the 2012
Water Main Project No. 404 and Jackson Street Improvement Project No. 413 to GM
Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $496,699.01. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Receive Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for the Municipal Center Roof
Replacement Project No. 418.
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated this project is included in the 2012 budget. The
Fridley Municipal Center roof is approximately 25 years old. It has inadequate sloping and
drainage. It has poor overflow protection. The City has been having minor spot roof repairs
completed once or twice a year in recent years to prevent water intrusion into the building. Even
so, the City has had leakage into the building on a few occasions in the last three years.
Rehabilitation short of replacement will be ineffective at correcting drainage issues.
Mr. Kosluchar stated this project will consist oi removal and replacement of the existing
ballasted and EPDM roofing system over the Fridley Municipal Center and Main Fire Station,
replacement of prefinished metal coping system, metal gravel stops, metal fascia, and metal
scuppers at the roof perimeter.
Mr. Kosluchar stated staff selected Stantec, Inc., to complete design drawings and contract
documents for the roof system. They have coordinated their design with the Engineering and
Building Inspection Divisions. Plans and specifications have been received by the Engineering
Office. The contract documents call for a 20-year warranty.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 19
Mr. Kosluchar stated the project is being bid with several alternates, including a white EPDM
option and a thermoplastic-polyolefin (TPO) option. A mandatory pre-bid meeting will be held
onsite to allow contractors to review existing conditions.
Mr. Kosluchar stated staff recommends Council move to receive the plans and specifications
and call for bids for the Municipal Center Roof Replacement Project No. 418. If approved, a bid
opening would be set for June 5, and a recommendation should be provided to the City Council
at the June 11 meeting.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether there was an opportunity to do solar-type panels and if
there was any benefit to that.
Mr. Kosluchar replied the City Manager had initiated some discussions earlier this year. They
wanted to make sure of that before they designed something which is capable of carrying those
solar panels and, yes, it is. That was one of the first questions they wanted to answer with the
architect and make sure they could retrofit that in the design. They may be able to put pads in
early without much trouble.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Kosluchar if he had an expectation of what the estimate will be.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, the estimate right for the base bid without any deductions is $485,000.
They do think they can bring that down with the alternate.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they are looking at building a new municipal center, why
should they spend a half a million dollars on a new roof. There was some discussion tonight at a
previous meeting about looking at a new municipal center.
Dr. Burns replied, it is his understanding the roof condition requires something done
immediately. They are looking at a new municipal center longer term rather than immediately.
Mayor Lund stated as he recalled in their earlier meeting they discussed the potential for a study
and who knows if that will result in a new building, an updated one, remodeling, expansion, or
maybe nothing. If anything came out of that study, they would be looking at 10 years plus down
the road.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated between now and the time when the bids come out she would
like to see some discussion about where things are at regarding the Municipal Center.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes, that is a good point. Staff has talked about it. However, he does
not think the building is not serviceable. If you sold a house you may not put a new roof on it.
However, if you did not sell for maybe two to five years and you needed a new roof you would
probably put that roof on knowing that the ne�t user would get the benefit of that roof.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied that is one scenario; but the other scenario is, if she thought
she was going to remodel her house in the ne�t few years, she would not put a new roof on until
she knew it was going to work with her addition.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2012 PAGE 20
Mr. Kosluchar stated she may remember they looked at the concept plan for the fire hall
expansion. The roof improvements they are doing now really would not be in conflict with that
plan for expansion, and that is the closest they have gotten to any kind of real possible retrofit for
the space needs.
Mayor Lund stated he is willing to look at what the bids come back in at, and they can always
opt out.
Dr. Burns stated it would be difficult to complete the study they were talked about tonight
between now and then.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, she is not asking for a study. She is asking what they think
the liability of this center is in "X" amount of years. How many years do they have to have a
new roof in order for it to pay for itself without remodeling or doing any kind of additions.
Dr. Burns replied, there is a lot of dollars involved in replacing this building, too. It is a multi-
million dollar project to replace this building, and it is not going to happen anytime soon. The
resources are not there in the City budget to do that.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked in how many years does he think it will be.
Dr. Burns replied he does not know. He thinks the study would help to identify the timeframe
which they might be doing a building or some other alternative with this building. Given the
finances of the City, he thinks the City does not have the money, short of going out with a very
expensive bond issue to the general public to replace this building. The money is not there.
MOTION to receive the plans and specifications and call for bids for the Municipal Center Roof
Replacement Project No. 418. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Informal Status Reports — There were no reports.
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 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor