Loading...
09/10/2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:31 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 Darin Nelson, Finance Director/Treasurer PRESENTATION: Constitution Week: September 17-23, 2012 Get Fit Fridley Day: September 22, 2012 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Canvass Board Meeting of August 17, 2012 City Council Meeting of August 20, 2012 Councilmember Varichak referred to Page 19, Paragraph 3. It should read “He asked what would happen.” APPROVED AS CORRECTED. NEW BUSINESS: 1.Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 15, 2012. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 2 Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 10, paragraph 6, and stated she preferred the well following sentence to read as follows: “Through this planning process. . . Anoka County as as a perpetual easement. . . .” RECEIVED AS CORRECTED. 2.Resolution Consenting to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Adopting a 2012 Tax Levy Collectible in 2013. William Burns , City Manager, stated the levy is equal to .0185 percent of the taxable market value of all real estate and personal property in Fridley. The 2013 tax levy will allow the HRA to collect $392,400 based on a citywide tax market value of $2,121,000+. It will cost the owners of a $150,000 home $23.36 for the year. The owners of a $1 million business property will pay $185 for the year. This is an annual levy dedicated to furthering the HRA’s redevelopment priorities. Staff recommends Council’s approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-59. 3.Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter the City of Fridley into a 30-Year Agreement with Independent School District #14 for Cooperative Use of the Fridley Community Center. William Burns, City Manager,stated in 1996, the City entered into two 30-year agreements with School District #14 for building projects to improve community facilities. The first one was for the Fridley Community Center (FCC) where the City added a new addition and helped remodel other portions of a former elementary school; namely, Parkview Elementary. The second agreement was for the Hayes Elementary School gymnasium where City dollars allowed the gym to be expanded to a full-size gym with a competition wood playing floor. Dr. Burns stated both projects have been wonderful assets for the community and have seen considerable use for school, city, and other community activities. Given the success of this co- op adventure, the need for updating the current agreements, and the very good relationships that exist between the City and School District, City staff is suggesting the agreement be extended for another 30 years. Dr. Burns stated the FCC agreement gives the City priority use of the community rooms in the new addition, four remodeled rooms in the upper level, and the lower level ZONE facility. The district and the City have shared priority use of the gymnasium, kitchen, and activity room on the gym level. The district has priority use of the remaining rooms in the Fridley Community Center. The City operates a senior program, the ZONE teen center, instructional activities, fitness classes, special events, and numerous other activities throughout the year at the Fridley Community Center. Other City departments also use the FCC meeting rooms for meetings and other functions. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 3 Dr. Burns stated under the terms of the FCC agreement, the City pays the school district a monthly fee to help with facility operating costs. In 2012, this monthly cost has been $7,241 a month. The anticipated cost for the entire year is $87,000. Dr. Burns stated on August 13, the Fridley City Council met with the District #14 Board in a conference session to discuss the extension of these cooperative agreements. At the conclusion of this meeting, both parties expressed strong support for the extension of both the FCC and Hayes agreements. The School Board approved the revised agreements at their meeting on August 21, and staff recommends Council also approve the FCC agreement which is set to take effect, if approved, on October 1, 2012. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-60. 4.Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter the City of Fridley into a 30-Year agreement With Independent School District #14 for Cooperative Use of the Hayes Elementary School Gymnasium. Dr. Burns stated the Hayes agreement gives the City use of the school gymnasium during the afterschool and evening hours, as well as on weekends. The City uses the gym extensively for elementary afterschool programming and adult basketball and volleyball leagues. The Fridley Youth Sports Association teams also make considerable use of this facility. The City also uses an extra room that was built onto the gym as a warming house for the skating program. In the summer, the City uses the warming house base as headquarters for the Hayes playground programs. Dr. Burns stated the agreement provides the City pay an annual amount to help the utility costs. In 2012 this amounts to $700. The City also shares the cost of periodic refinishing of the wood gym floor. The City of Fridley has been served well by these agreements, and staff recommends approval of this agreement. If approved, the agreement will go into effect October 1, 2012. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-61. 5. Claims (156414 - 156641). APPROVED. 6. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 4 7.Estimates: Central Roofing 4550 Main Street N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55421 Municipal Center Roof Replacement Project No. 418 Estimate No. 1 ........................................................ $138,038.80 Allied Blacktop Company th 100503 – 89 Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369 2012 Cooperative Street Maintenance Project No. ST2012-10 Estimate No. 2 ........................................................ $ 60,192.81 Midwest Asphalt Corporation 5829 Baker Road Suite 420 Hopkins, MN 55345 2012 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2012-01 Estimate No. 2 ........................................................ $151,797.65 APPROVED. 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 adopt the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 5 OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Donald Anderson, Jr., 7304 West Circle NE, stated there are cars and semi trucks parked overnight at the old Baggan’s Pub parking lot. Councilmember Bolkcom mentioned there are also a lot of very tall weeds there. Mayor Lund said they will check it out. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.Consideration of a Rezoning Request, ZOA #12-01, by MDW Equity, LLC, to Rezone Property from C-3, General Shopping, to C-2, General Business, Generally Located at 6101 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1). MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:52. Scott Hickok , Community Development Director, stated rather than Michael Stern being here on behalf of MDW Equity, LLC, Dean Dovolis of DJR Architecture, Inc. Michael Stern is in Florida and asked Mr. Dovolis to be here on his behalf. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the property located at 6101 University Avenue NE from C-3, General Shopping, to C-2, General Business, to allow better economic use of the parcel. The property was zoned C-3, General Shopping Center, at the time of its original development in 1960. This is the Citgo site at the st corner of 61 and University Avenue, on the northeast quadrant of that intersection. Mr. Hickok stated the site has been consistently used as a gas station site since 1960, changing owners several times throughout its history. In the early 70s, Shell Oil agreed to an easement with the City to allow the City, along with the adjacent property (owned by St. William’s Church) to exchange property along Highway 47 and the east Service Road. Mr. Hickok stated in 2000, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determined that an investigation and cleanup had adequately addressed petroleum tank release at the site, and the site did not appear to be any threat to the public or the environment. A “no further action letter” was issued at that time. In 2012, further investigation was completed by Liesch & Associates, at the City’s request, as staff was researching on behalf of a new TOD development grant the City was applying for. Staff was hoping to evaluate what soil contamination existed there, because if staff had been successful in its grant application, the City would have purchased the building, demolished the building, cleaned up the site, and got it ready for development. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 6 Mr. Hickok stated in 2012, St. William’s Church applied for rezoning of its property at 6120 Fifth Street from C-3, General Shopping Center, to R-3, Multi-Family Residential. Churches can be in that residential district. Those parcels, as well as the Moon Plaza, had originally been part of the same zoning, C-3, Shopping Center District. The subject property was also that until it was separated by the movement of the frontage road along Highway 47. The action caused this site to be isolated and, therefore, was not included in the rezoning that had been occurring around the property. Mr. Hickok stated because of the location and size of this site, it is practical to rezone the property for other retail-type uses that would be permitted in the C-2. There are several of these “turn-back” parcels in the City, and they are located along University Avenue and Highway 65. These lots certainly have served well for petroleum uses and other convenience uses along the corridor. The C-2, General Business, seems to be the best zoning district in that it allows a minimum lot of 20,000 square feet, and requires a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning at their August 15 meeting. Staff recommends Council’s approval. Councilmember Saefke asked if that was a unique turn-back area in the City as far as the zoning goes. Mr. Hickok replied it is the last one to be rezoned to C-2, the appropriate zoning. There have been some that were industrial. The last rezoning prior to this was for the Valvoline station on rd 73 Avenue and Highway 65. That was zoned industrial. Councilmember Saefke stated he sees nothing wrong with this proposal for rezoning. It is an ideal situation for the City, the developer, and the property owner. Councilmember Bolkcom asked who the zoning administrator is. Mr. Hickok stated that would be Julie Jones, Planning Manager. Councilmember Bolkcom said as far as a C-2 vs. a C-3, the City is really not limiting itself, rather increasing the opportunities at this site. Mr. Hickok replied, yes. It could not develop as a C-3. In the future, if it wants to be commercial, it has to go to a C-2. The property owner was not going to be able to sell the property without having this rezoned. The site is pre-existing non-conforming. Most potential sellers are interested in taking the building down. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 7 NEW BUSINESS: 9.Approve Preliminary Plat Request, PS #12-01, by Brian Krystofiak of Carlson McCain, on Behalf of William Fogerty, the Owner of Columbia Arena, to Subdivide the Existing Large Lot into Three Separate Lots to Allow for Potential Future Development Opportunities on the Site, Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1). Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioner and William Fogerty are at the meeting. The property is located at 7011 University Avenue NE. They are requesting a special use permit to convert the existing building into an independent living center with a la carte services. Petitioner is also seeking a plat to subdivide the existing large lot into three separate lots to allow potential additional development opportunities on this site. Mr. Hickok stated the existing Columbia Arena building will be converted into a 116-unit independent living building. The project will convert both the front and back buildings. It is anticipated there will approximately 60 units in the front building and 56 units in the rear building. There will also be support services, such as medical assistance, transportation, housekeeping, salon, and fitness. They will be provided to the tenants on an “as needed” basis. Mr. Hickok stated the exterior of the building will be completely remodeled. There will be construction of a third-story addition on the front of the building and fourth-story addition on the back building. The back building will be taken down to the existing foundation to add a fourth story allowing more flexibility for more modern architecture. The back building will have indoor parking on the first floor, and floors 2 through 4 will be living areas. Mr. Hickok stated a new circular drive will be constructed to a new main entrance that will be in the southeast corner. A detached garage will be constructed on the northeast side of the existing lot that will have 59 parking stalls. There will be more than 90 surface parking stalls, and the first floor of the back building will have 68 parking stalls. New landscaping and several stormwater filtration basins will be installed. Mr. Hickok stated City Code allows independent living and assisted living in the R-3 multi- family zoning district, provided the requirements related to the building site and parking are met. City Code requires that 116 parking stalls for the proposed project be in existence based on parking ratios for an independent living complex. It also requires that half of those stalls be covered. The petitioner is planning 217 parking stalls with 127 of them enclosed. Mr. Hickok stated it currently, the existing lot lines for the property extend well beyond the st University Avenue service road on 71 Avenue. Therefore, those roadways are on the petitioner’s property through road easements. Once the proposed plan is filed, both the st University Avenue service drive and 71 Avenue will be dedicated to the City. As a result of the right-of-way dedication, the petitioner will lose about 132,375 square feet or roughly 3 acres of land. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 8 Mr. Hickok stated staff determined that it would be appropriate to use the pre-plat lot square footage for the development of Lot 2. Lot 2 is where the building itself still sits and, because so much of the land is underneath the frontage road and basically goes out to University and it will be severed off as part of the plat, the City gave them the benefit of having that square foot dimension for the first building. That benefit goes away on Lots 2 and 3 because then a new plat will be in existence and the roads will be dedicated but, because the roads have not been dedicated yet and it is just easement, the City has allowed that middle lot to use the pre-plat square foot dimension. Mr. Hickok stated City Code requires the buildings within an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district not to exceed 65 feet in height. The height of the arena is 43 feet. The height of the back building, the four stories, will be 53 feet, 4 inches. Both comply with the City Code. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is seeking to replat the property into three separate parcels. The proposed plat will consist of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3, Block 1; and the addition is to be named yet. Lot 2 is the center lot where the existing building will be. That is the one where the City is giving the benefit of the land under the roadway until the plat is finalized. Mr. Hickok stated through the planning process, petitioner is asking to have the existing 30-foot ingress/egress easement on the east side of the property, which leads to the fire training center, redirected so it gives more room for the garage. It will still give the City access into the fire training center, but puts it more efficiently against the lot line as opposed to cutting it as a diagonal across the parking lot which it does now. Petitioner has met with the Fire Department, and they have agreed on that proposed location for the ingress and egress. Mr. Hickok stated at the time Lot 3 is developed, the petitioner is proposing to move the Anoka County trail closer to the southern property line and the existing park. Until then, the trail will remain where it is. Petitioner also plans to retain a portion of the existing parking lot to allow parking for park users. Through this planning process, a trail easement will need to be filed with Anoka County, and a perpetual parking easement for the park is going to be put in place as well. This is something the petitioner has agreed to do in lieu of park dedication. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this special use permit and the plat request on August 15, 2012. After receiving comments from neighboring industrial owners, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to approve, Special Use Permit, SP #12-04, with a small modification to Stipulation No. 9 allowing assisted units as well as independent units within the proposed projects. That motion carried on a 3-1 vote with the sixteen stipulations. Mr. Hickok stated that some of the industrial neighbors who attended the meeting were there to let them know they were happy with the development on this site and wanted the City to know they existed there. They will continue to do their industry and probably continue to make noise, and wanted the developers to understand if you move next to them do not complain, as they were there already. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 9 Mr. Hickok stated Commissioner Sielaff voted against the SUP because he felt the additional stipulation was warranted to basically have more sound deadening building materials in the proposed building and additional landscaping that would help keep down some of the noise from the industry to the north. The remaining commission members felt that an additional stipulation was not warranted because the City can address potential noise issues through its existing noise ordinance, and the industries were there when the City approved the rezoning when this property was rezoned. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Preliminary Plat Request, PS #12-04, with seven stipulations. Staff recommends Council’s approval. Councilmember Saefke asked if the Fire Chief had approved the new access to the fire training station. He asked if the fire apparatus would be able to make the turn into the gate. Mr. Hickok replied (referring to the aerial on the projection screen) if you were to take that st diagonal that cuts across and continue it out towards 71, that is kind of how the easement goes right now. It goes at that odd angle through the parking lot. You can see how inefficient that is. What they have done, and the developer has agreed to it and the Fire Chief has said it will work fine, is basically brought it in parallel to the eastern property line to a point that it takes them into the training center. Trucks can make that turn just fine. Councilmember Saefke asked if any trees will have to be removed. Mr. Hickok replied some may be removed. There is a landscape plan that will supplement landscape where necessary. Councilmember Saefke said they have excess parking. To him the logic behind that one is because they have to dedicate some parking for a park. His concern is green space and permeable driveways, etc. He personally does not want to see more parking than is needed. Mr. Hickok replied staff is behind him 100 percent. This is actually a reduction of parking from what was originally proposed. They have reduced some of the parking and exchanged it for green space. Part of the logic that was helpful to the City is in the event that there is no longer a demand for senior housing, it would be able to support more market rate housing. Staff has stated where possible they would like to see green space rather than parking. Councilmember Saefke stated he knows the developer and Mr. Krystofiak are very well aware of the fact there were concerns about the noise. He knows they talked about this issue on prior proposed developments there. He personally does not have a major concern about it because, as was his understanding from previous discussions, sometimes seniors like to hear the noise. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they do not like it at the other senior apartment building. When there was a lot of noise at the loading docks at Wal-Mart, people used to call her regarding concern about the noise. Mr. Hickok stated the parking on both the northern lot and the southern lot will be coming out though, and that will be seeded. Topsoil seeded and basically maintained until they have development so that you will not see the broken asphalt with the weeds growing up through it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 10 They plan on taking that out. It will really help the marketing of their senior project and actually will help with their runoff. They paid a lot of money to the Watershed District because of the amount of runoff on this site, and they would like to lessen that as much as they can also. Reduce the impact. Councilmember Saefke asked if we will have a utility easement where the existing water main runs through the property then. Because it goes from the service drive all the way back into the municipal garage area. The water main just north of the sidewalk of the existing building. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, that has been part of the discussion. With respect to the old special use permits, the developer is okay with the recommendation to revoke the previous special use permits for previous projects. The new special use permit would replace those if Council chooses to do so. Through this one motion on the special use permit, Council would be approving a new special use permit and revoking the other ones. It is a housekeeping item basically. They do not need to be there anymore once you put a special use permit in place. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how much parking there would be for people using the park. Mr. Hickok replied, they will leave the southern row of parking along the property line of Lot 3. Basically, when they cut out the asphalt in Lot 3, they will leave a drive aisle and nose-in parking to the curb along that end. That will be formalized when Lot 3 develops. Eventually, they will make it more of a permanent solution and, at that time, they would determine precisely how many parking stalls. At minimum, it would be the remaining number that is currently along the southern property line. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it seems like a lot of parking space. She asked in assisted living and senior apartments, what do they normally anticipate. It does not seem like there would be that many employees. Mr. Hickok replied this is not assisted living per se. This is independent living which has a different parking ratio than assisted. They have a la carte services where as you gravitate towards needing “assisted type” living, they would come and provide those services in your independent-type unit. For independent living, there needs to be a parking stall per unit; and you need to have half of those under cover. Councilmember Bolkcom asked there are 116 units. Mr. Hickok replied and you have to have half of them under cover. Those would be under the back portion of this building. The parking on the back of Lot 1 is actually inside a building. That is a parking garage also. There are a relatively limited number of stalls when you subtract the ones underneath the building. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is still going to be 90 parking stalls, correct? Mr. Hickok stated for 116 there will be staff here. There will also be visitors. They can take out as much of those that they need. For assisted living it is a half stall per unit. How it related FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 11 to the other complexes, independent living requires a stall. This has more parking than any of the ones they have seen. With Banfill, there is not as much parking. This project will probably have younger seniors who have one car, maybe two cars, and just choose apartment living as opposed to having a house. Councilmember Bolkcom asked who will maintain, clean, and plow the sidewalk and the trail. Mr. Hickok replied, on their property they do. When it gets to the park trail then it would be park property; however they maintain their trail. Councilmember Bolkcom , askedregarding the dedication of the roadway and the whole thing related to giving them so-called credit, has the City ever done that before? Mr. Hickok replied yes. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, going through the stipulations, the five-foot sidewalk, which is Stipulation No. 2, that is something they maintain. Mr. Hickok replied, yes. They want to make sure the seniors have connection to the trails. Councilmember Bolkcom stated regarding Stipulation No. 3, the easement related to the fire training facility, that is all done, signed, and sealed? Mr. Hickok replied it is signed and sealed when Council approves the plat. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the Fire Chief has approved the easement. Mr. Hickok replied yes. It is all embedded in this plat and the accompanying documents will be filed at the County along with the plat itself. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, regarding Stipulation No. 4, parking before Lot 3 and Locke Park. That is only approved by the City’s Park and Recreation Director. It has nothing to do with the County because it is an actual city park run by the County? Because No. 5 refers to an easement. They have run into some problems with the City’s parks and that whole thing with both signatures. This has all been run by the County already? Mr. Hickok replied Jack Kirk has been involved with this process from the beginning with all the development review committee discussions, etc. He is comfortable with the way it is worded. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they ran into the whole thing related to a lot of improvements that were going on in Locke Park and really the agreement says all that stuff is supposed to be passed by both entities. She would assume it has happened, but there are four stipulations related to those trails and the whole stipulations. They do not know for sure if it has been run by the County? Mr. Hickok replied the County let this property go for sale without protecting themselves. The FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 12 one who is asking for parking is Jack Kirk for his soccer programs. The County should have, when they sold this property to the State Youth Sports Association, protected themselves with an easement for their county trail that goes across the property. They did not do so. Unfortunately when the State Youth Sports Association sold it, it was sold to a private and public entity. The City is thankful this developer said let’s do it. The trail is an important part of their development as they want to connect to it. The park being next door and the activity there is an exciting part of their development as well. So they are not objecting to it. As for the County, they did not make any provisions for themselves on this. It is for our own park activities that Jack Kirk has asked that we do it. Without this parking, it would leave them without parking for the soccer fields. Councilmember Bolkcom said she commends the petitioner for allowing this to happen and the stipulations. Councilmember Bolkcom said Mr. Hickok stated once the development starts, all the asphalt will be torn out except the parking. Is that going to stay? She does not want it to be where the City has projects starting and there is still old asphalt and it does not look good. She asked if staff felt comfortable in not having a stipulation related to that. Mr. Hickok replied, the petitioner could probably answer that. If Council feels they need a stipulation regarding taking out the parking lot and seeding it, so be it. Staff thinks that marketing of this development is going to be incumbent upon them. The owner will tell you that he pays $50,000 to the Watershed District for the runoff that hard surface creates. The minute he can get it out of there, he wants to get it done. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the concern about noise. What happens if this place is built and Councilmember Saefke receives a complaint about the noise. Mr. Hickok replied, how they sound deaden it is really going to be a marketing issue. If something is needed in the windows and walls, he is guessing it is being designed in. Councilmember Barnette asked if any of the units could be purchased. Mr. Hickok replied it will be lease only. Councilmember Varichak asked if there is an age requirement. Mr. Hickok replied, he believed it is 55 and up. Mayor Lund asked the petitioners if they had any comments in response to Council’s questions or anything they would like to add. Brian Krystofiak , Carlson McCain, replied, regarding the parking lot, he assumes the intent would be for them to come in and, once construction starts or at least the site work, they will want to get in and get it all out. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why there was so much parking. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 13 William Fogerty , Petitioner, replied because at 55, if it was a normal R-3 zoning, you would need one stall per every bedroom and that does make one stall for every bedroom. Mayor Lund stated he is over 55 and they are still going to have two cars for a while. In market rate housing you have one car stall for each bedroom, and a lot of these are two-bedroom. Mr. Fogerty replied, in actuality, they are one plus a den. The Code does now allow a den to be called a bedroom. Mayor Lund stated if there was not a park adjacent to this, he would say this is very tight and there is not a lot of green space. There is parking all the way around this building except on the very eastern edge. If he were to go into an apartment he would like to have some amenities outside rather than a parking lot on all three sides of this thing. The parking is already allocated for, but do they have to put it all in. Mr. Fogerty replied the reasoning for this is because the most economical time to do that is right now. In the City’s zoning, Lots 1 and 3, cannot have more than 20 percent coverage for the lots of the acreage for the actual structure itself. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Hickok if that was true, it is only 20 percent in an R-3? Mr. Hickok replied correct. It is 30 percent with garages cells. Mr. Fogerty stated basically 70 percent of the other lots are, and then there is what they gave the park. Mayor Lund stated there is not much green space for other uses. Mr. Fogerty stated it is possible and designed in this on Lots 1 and 3, depending on what they actually use there you could have cross easement parking. You could green up. He does not know how it is going to rent for sure. Councilmember Bolkcom asked the petitioner if he was okay with all of the stipulations. Mr. Fogerty replied yes. With respect to the noise concern, the City already has a noise ordinance in place. As long as they do not violate that, they do not have any problem. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Fogerty if he has the financing in place for the project. Mr. Fogerty replied he thinks they do. He does not have the final TIF agreement which will help a little bit with the amount of equity he has to come in with. Also, he does not have the actual final specifications on the building. William Burns, City Manager, asked Mr. Fogerty if he has done any market analysis. They FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 14 have two other senior buildings in town now. Mr. Fogerty replied that does not affect him at all. His second market study actually turned him away from assisted living and memory care. In actuality the need is for direct senior housing. There is a major need in Fridley for just senior housing. Dr. Burns asked, and that is supported by studies he has done? Mr. Fogerty replied, yes, very much so. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to approve Preliminary Plat Request, PS #12-01, by Brian Krystofiak of Carlson McCain, on behalf of William Fogerty, the Owner of Columbia Arena, to subdivide the existing large lot into three separate lots to allow for potential future development opportunities on the site, generally located at 7011 University Avenue N.E with the following seven stipulations: st 1.University Avenue Service Drive and 71 Avenue shall be dedicated as public right-of- way on final plat. st 2.A 5-foot sidewalk shall be installed along the University Avenue Service Drive and 71 Avenue to meet the specifications of the City engineering department at time of site improvements for Lot #2. 3.An easement to provide perpetual access to the fire training facility has been discussed, and agreed to, but has not been shown on preliminary plat. An easement description and easement document must be prepared, approved by the City’s Fire Chief and made ready for final signatures for filing, prior to approval of the final plat. 4.An easement to provide perpetual shared parking between Lot #3 and Locke Park to the south shall be prepared, approved by the City Parks and Recreation Director and made ready for signature and filing, prior to final plat approval. 5.An easement for the Anoka County Trail shall be prepared, approved by the City’s Park and Recreation Director and made ready for signature for filing, prior to approval of final plat. 6.Anoka County Trail shall remain until which time Lot #3 is developed. When Lot #3 is developed, the Anoka County Trail shall be moved to the southern edge of Lot #3, according to Anoka County standards at the property owner’s expense. 7.The relocation of the Anoka County trail and the filing of trail and parking easements, will eliminate the developer’s need to contribute park dedication for this plat. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10.Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit, SP #09-03, Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, and Special Use Permit, SP #10-11; and Approving Special Use Permit, SP #12-04, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 15 for Carlson McCain on behalf of William Fogerty, for the Property Located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1). MOTION by Councilmember Saefke adopting Resolution No. 2012-62 with the following sixteen stipulations: 1.The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan A1.1, dated 8-15-12. 2.The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with the architectural plan A3.1, Building Elevations, dated 8-15-12. 3.The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4.The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5.The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 6.The petitioner shall comply with all sign code requirements for any existing signs that remain and installation of new signage on the property. 7.Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 8.Screening through landscaping shall occur along the eastern property line. Proposed screening shall be shown on landscape plan and be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 9.If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than senior assisted and independent living, a new special use permit will be required. 10.Per Section 205 of the Fridley City Code, this Special Use Permit will become null and void one year after the City Council approval date if work has not commenced or if the petitioner has not petitioned the City Council for an extension. 11.The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 12.City engineering staff to review and approve site layout, utility, grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13.The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 14.Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the County, and the City shall receive a copy of the filed document prior to issuance of building permits. 15.Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 16.A Development Agreement outlining the Developer’s obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 16 nd 11.Resolution to Vacate the Alley in Between Main Street and 2 Street, that is thst Bordered by 60 Avenue and 61 Avenue, Petitioned by the Property Owner at nd 6008 2 Street, the Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP) (Ward 2). Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioner is requesting a transit- nd oriented development master plan amendment for the properties at 6000 and 6008 2 Street to allow the construction of a 13-unit, multi-family housing development. The petitioner is also nd requesting to have the unimproved and unused alley in between Main Street and 2 Street that is thst bordered by 60 on the south and 61 on the north vacated to allow additional land area for the proposed development. Mr. Hickok stated the subject property is zoned S-1, Hyde Park, and the neighborhood is located thnd in a transit-oriented development area. The property specifically is at the corner of 60 and 2 Street. The existing four-plex was constructed in 1961. ACCAP has owned the property since nd 1994, and the vacant parcel at 6000 2 Street was owned by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. nd Mr. Hickok stated the parcel at 6000 2 Street is not buildable on its own but, through a combination with the ACCAP property, the proposed project could add, according to the petitioner, approximately $2 million in new value to this neighborhood. Mr. Hickok stated in May of this year, the HRA was able to review the proposed project and found that these new multi-family residential units promote the HRA’s mission. As a result, they agreed to sell the land to ACCAP through a resolution. The closing on the property is dependent upon the City Council’s approval of the land use actions discussed in this presentation. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a three-story, 13-unit, multi-family apartment building. The proposal includes 12 rental units and 1 unit for a caretaker. Their target market will be 100 percent affordable with units at less than 50 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size. This is typical with the ACCAP rental situation here. Mr. Hickok stated according to the petitioner, it is expected that most of the residents will come from Anoka County; primarily the Fridley area. The siding on the new building will consist of brick, cement board, and cement stucco board in various horizontal and vertical variations. The landscaping will consist of a series of rain gardens planted with birch trees and other native Minnesota plants suitable for rain gardens. There will also be other tree and shrub plantings ndth throughout the site. A five-foot sidewalk will be installed along 2 Street and 60 Avenue, and an approximate 1,000 square foot play area will be constructed for the children that live within the complex. Mr. Hickok stated 14 parking stalls will be provided with 10 of the 14 covered by a concrete and steel parking port. Mr. Hickok stated in 2011, the Transit Oriented District overlay was approved in the S-1 Hyde Park neighborhood which is where the property is zoned. It is within the TOD district. The proposed development is the City’s first TOD overlay master plan request and aims to achieve FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 17 the desires the City set forth when creating this district. The TOD overlay allows for flexibility when designing a redevelopment project, encourages dense mixed use, and pedestrian-friendly developments. It was also created to minimize the use of automobiles by allowing reduction of parking requirements if certain conditions can be met and sidewalks constructed. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is very interested in designing their first project to TOD standards, as the criteria will enhance the development through the use of high-quality building materials and design. It will also enhance the site through installation of sidewalks which will provide better access to public transportation such as Northstar commuter rail and the Metro Transit bus system. Mr. Hickok stated this is not the first project for ACCAP or the architect. They are quite skilled and versed at doing projects. This will be their first TOD in this area. Mr. Hickok stated within Council’s packet is a list of all the performance standards the petitioner is required to meet as part of this TOD project. Some of those standards are related to lot coverage, setbacks, height, façade articulation (how the face is broken up and not just big plain faces that are boring, but exciting in how the architecture is laid out), parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and lighting. They have designed their project to comply with the TOD standards and those standards that staff still has questions on. They would be addressed through stipulations the petitioner is already aware of. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has designed a good project and will achieve what the City was hoping for with the TOD development. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is also seeking to vacate an existing unimproved and unused ndthst alley between Main Street and 2 Street which is bordered by 60 Avenue and 61 Avenue. When the 12-foot alley is vacated, the abutting property owners will acquire 6 feet of additional land along their rear lot lines. Mr. Hickok stated although ACCAP could construct the proposed housing project without the additional 6 feet, it seemed appropriate to consider the alley vacation at this time since it will give the project additional land area and no one within the block uses the alley to gain access to and from their property. It appears in some cases people are already using the alley for their own purposes with placement of fences, sheds, etc. in the location where the alley should be. Mr. Hickok stated staff has asked the petitioner to contact all of the property owners along the alley to obtain signatures for approval of the vacation. At this point, they have received signatures from 7 of the 15 property owners. City staff has spoken with the property owner at 6007 Main Street, and they have confirmed they would approve the alley vacation; however, a signature has not been received as of yet. To date there has not been any negative responses from any property owners to the vacation request. As a result, staff brought the request forward to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission held their hearing for the TOD Master Plan FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 18 Request, TOD #12-01, and Vacation Request, SAV #12-01 on August 15, 2012. After a brief discussion they unanimously recommended approval of the vacation and the master plan with 15 stipulations. Staff recommends Council’s approval. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the parking. There are 13 apartments and 14 parking spaces. Since this is a TOD and there is the Metro Transit system, do they feel no one will have more than one car? Mr. Hickok replied ACCAP will help monitor that. They feel the parking is adequate for their parking demands, and the purpose of the TOD is to encourage alternate transportation. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what would happen if it was not adequate. There may be some Hyde Park residents who say that is the problem now in that area. There are other apartment complexes that do not have enough parking spaces. There has been some street redevelopment and there were issues where people thought they were parking on their own property but it was actually a part of an easement. Also, the commuter rail does not run very often. Her biggest concern is where are they going to park if they have more than one vehicle? Mr. Hickok replied it is a very valid concern. It will be regulated through the lease. Council has at its discretion the ability to ask for more parking. However, as they can see, there is not room for it. What that will mean is they will need to, through their lease, likely assign parking stalls. If parking is displaced out onto the street, the City is well within its right to say you need to be able to sustain your own parking demands there. The petitioner is aware of that and are building a project based on the understanding this is the way it would operate. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether they could add that as a stipulation. This is counting on no one coming to visit the residents. She does not want cars parking out in the street overnight which will obviously become a bigger problem during the winter when they cannot park in the street. Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of the TOD was to design projects that would increase the importance on the building itself and provide encouragement for multi-modal transportation. This entire area is designed to be master planned in this fashion. It really does capitalize on the fact that mass transit is available--in this case, two forms. If Council feels that a stipulation is warranted; however, this developer has gone into this with their eyes open and have said they understand this is a TOD area and they have matched the requirements of the master plan and indicated this is adequate for what their experience has been and what their needs are. Mayor Lund stated he has the same concern. With 13 apartments, it is not just about the 1 stall per apartment, it is also about guests. He thinks they are going to hear a lot from the neighborhood about parking on the street. It is going to be an issue in the wintertime. He does not like the deal. Jeff Johnson, Anoka County Community Action Program, stated he did not want to set a negative precedent for the City’s TOD district. They are agreeable to a stipulation that requires ACCAP to have a provision in both the lease and to require parking permits that require no more FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 19 than 1 car per unit regardless of the size. They will have 12 resident cars permitted and no more required for each resident using those parking lots. That is how they intend to manage the property. This is affordable housing. The people will be of modest income. There is transportation in the area. They will provide social services on the site, and part of it is going to be financial and budgeting education. Frankly, they cannot afford more than 1 car per household, and they should manage their household with 1 car and that is why they like the TOD concept here and they are plenty comfortable managing the property that way. This is going to be a unique building at this location. This is going to be one of the few elevator buildings in this neighborhood and they expect to have some disabled people in there as well. They think the 14 parking spaces will be adequate based upon what they expect to experience as far as demand and type of use of the housing here. Councilmember Bolkcom asked and as far as their visiting guests? Mr. Johnson replied, there will be two overflow parking spots on the property and visitors will be on the street. Councilmember Bolkcom said he is saying that they will not see people who actually reside at this property parking on the street. Mr. Johnson replied they shouldn’t. They will be managing in such a way that they will be able to see if it happens. The parking is all wide open. If they are permitted and putting their car in the street that is not going to be something ACCAP is going to suggest they be doing. JoAnn Wright, Housing Director for ACCAP, stated the residents need to have permits. They cannot park on their property without a permit, and they do not intend to hand out more than one permit per unit. They are not allowed to have people living in the unit off the lease. That is a reason for eviction, and they do enforce that. As far as guests, she assumes people will have guests during the day. They do not expect to see regular overnight guests. When they do, they get a notice to prove that person has another permanent place to live and, if they do not, they get a notice to move out. So they have had very little trouble with parking. They also employ a towing service that monitors their lot. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they have 7 of the 15 signatures on the alley. Do they need all signatures to have this happen? She thought it was a stipulation. Mr. Hickok stated typically the City has for an alley vacation. As a policy, Council has not wanted to be the referee in these situations. The reason staff is comfortable here tonight in recommending approval of the vacation is that they have heard not one negative comment from anyone. Sometimes there are absentee owners. He would say in looking at the ones they have not received along Main Street, that may be the case there. However, all of them are using it. Frankly, if the City chose not to vacate this and asked them to move their sheds, fences, etc. he thinks they would have a bigger issue. They are already using it like it is their back yard. Maybe they fear there is some cost if they say yes. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how they have gotten the signatures so far. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 20 Ms. Wright replied she is the one who has been getting them. They have sent letters to all of the addresses they have information on, and have gone so far to use things such as US Search and Linked In to track down others. She actually called one gentleman at his place of employment in Michigan. He was very much in favor. She does not seem to be able to reach them, because she thinks there may be a lot of absentee landlords. Mr. Johnson replied they sent out one letter to all of the people. Once this is approved, they will dig into this quite a bit more. Someone at ACCAP will be working on getting all of the signatures before they proceed with the development. He actually talked to two of the owners who thought the alley had been vacated for quite a while and they owned the alley. Mr. Hickok replied, as to Councilmember Bolkcom’s question whether there is anything keeping the City from vacating it. The answer is, no, there isn’t. What they are trying to do through this policy is keep Council from trying to be the referees on these issues. There is nothing holding them back ordinance-wise from being able to do this. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would feel more comfortable if they had a higher number of signatures, such as 10. Mr. Hickok replied, frankly, they are already using it. They could not be any more enthusiastic about having it vacated because they are demonstrating it through their actions. Apparently they have no knowledge that an alley even exists there. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but we also know there are people all over the City that do things on property that is not theirs, whether it be park property or whatever. They have had issues before. She does not know if they want to be the tough guy here. Mayor Lund stated he thinks they would be the tough guy if they took the stance saying to get off of it. He thinks people would come forward very readily then. Councilmember Bolkcom stated then they need to go throughout the whole City and look at all of these little alleys where people are doing that because now they are treating a group differently because we want to build a new building here. Mr. Hickok stated staff asked Council at one time to do that, and the answer from Council was to take it one alley at a time. Frankly, if Councilmember Bolkcom wants his advice, they should take them one project a time. Councilmember Bolkcom stated replied she agrees. Mr. Hickok stated it will be overwhelming if they decide to take the rest of the alleys with all of nd th the rest of the circumstances. On this one, between Main Street and 2Street and between 60 st and 61Avenues, you have no opposition, and from every signature they do not have there is use of the alley that would be very difficult to discontinue. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for the eight who have not signed, they are using it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 21 Mr. Hickok replied, yes, whether it is a fence, a shed, parking on it, have a driveway on it. Every single case. You can take a look at the aerial photo and say all these people apparently believe there is no alley there because they are all using it for their own private purposes. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether the City would say to them they need to sign the vacation or they have to move it. Mr. Hickok replied he would not. Councilmember Bolkcom replied he is telling them they could be the tough guy. Mayor Lund stated nobody is proposing to do that. Mr. Hickok stated he is not suggesting the City be the tough guy. What he is saying is they are not hearing from anyone, so essentially, that is a vote for getting rid of the alley. They are not coming forward but they are using it. Essentially, they are taking it as if it is theirs. If Council wants to tell the residents to move their stuff out of there, that is being the tough guy. However, in this particular case, a project could use the other six feet. They have heard from some of the property owners adjacent to the alley that they are okay with it coming out. The other people they have not heard from have stuff in the alley that we would have to ask them to remove if we decided not to vacate the alley. Mayor Lund stated the only question being asked here is either they vacate it or not. Nobody is suggesting going to the next step and saying, okay, let’s be the tough guy. Councilmember Varichak stated she thinks Councilmember Bolkcom’s question is do they need to have all the signatures to vacate. Mr. Hickok replied, no. Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, stated Mr. Hickok is correct. There is nothing in the Charter that requires it to be a unanimous consent of all the adjacent property owners; and inconsistent use sort of suggests they probably have an interest in it being vacated and the underlying fee accruing to them. Councilmember Bolkcom stated in the past, it has been a policy for the City to receive consent from over half of the people who live on the alley that they are going to vacate. However, maybe this is different because it is a project. Mr. Hickok stated it has been 100 percent; however, it has been on issue of either vacating or paving the alley. In one instance, someone needed the alley to access their garage. This is a block that you could so easily vacate if Council chooses to do so because this project needs it. They have gone and done the best they can, and they have been diligent about it. Staff has talked to Ms. Wright about getting 100 percent, and staff is holding them to 100 percent. However, they can only do what they can do. The reason the City likes 100 percent is that Council is not FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 22 being the referee on these things. He is not seeing anyone here tonight who is objecting to it. Further, they are all using the alley. They absolutely are not going to want Council to say they cannot have it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there had been a notification sent to whoever was on the title of the property. Mr. Hickok replied yes. There was a neighborhood meeting and several attempts, letters sent, and personal phone calls made, and inquiries made as far as Michigan. Councilmember Bolkcom replied, but she has not seen any of that other than the 7 of the 15. She heard the very same thing at the Planning Commission meeting. Then she also heard them say at the podium once this will happen, they will do even more work on making it happen. Why did they not do the work up front? They have had time between the Planning Commission and now. Ms. Wright replied they are looking at 7 out of 15 who show up as approved on that list. Those are people they have signatures for. However, there is an eighth person that verbally agreed. She was asked to send a letter out which she did. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the letter said there is no cost, etc.? Ms. Wright read the letter they sent: nd ACCAP owns the property at 6008 2 Street. ACCAP would like to have the 10-foot ndthst wide alley that is located between Main and 2 Street and 60 and 61 Avenues vacated. You are listed as the owner of a property on that alleyway. If the alley is vacated, each owner along the alley would get a 5-6 foot strip of land added to their rear yard. The current owner, the City of Fridley, would transfer the land to the owners of the property along the alley at no charge to the property owners. The City says we need all the owners to agree for the alley to be vacated. If you agree that the alley should be vacated, please sign below and return a copy of the letter to us in the attached, stamped and self- addressed envelope. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for you to keep. If you do not agree, please call Jeff Johnson (xxx-xxx-xxxx) to discuss your concerns. She thinks it was clear. Mayor Lund asked if they received any back as undeliverable? Ms. Wright replied, three. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok if most of the properties are rentals? Mr. Hickok replied, along Main Street, yes. He believed the five signatures they do not have are along Main Street. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but they have to have a rental license FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 23 Councilmember Saefke asked Mr. Johnson if he received any calls objecting. Mr. Johnson replied he never received any calls. Councilmember Saefke stated that is a positive “yes.” Their obligation was to try every effort to contact the owners. They did. He thinks that is as far as they need to go. If the owners do not leave proper addresses, is that the City’s fault? Councilmember Bolkcom asked who will maintain and clean the sidewalk? Mr. Johnson replied, ACCAP. It is on private property. Councilmember Barnette stated because this is an ACCAP project, apparently there are income levels set for who can lease these apartments. For example, for a family of four. What is the income level qualification under ACCAP to lease one of these properties. Ms. Wright replied, without the amount being in front of her, for a family of four, 50 percent, should be around $43,000 to $45,000 a year. Therefore, if there are two adults, they are working at very low wages and, if it is a single parent with kids, they have a better job but they have kids, too, with daycare costs, etc. They do serve people who are lower income. They are not serving the general population. Mr. Johnson stated it does have the income restriction and does not limit the income increases. That restriction only applies to the family when they first occupy. There is no restriction on the amount their income can increase after that, and there is actually a prohibition for evicting them or asking them to leave just because their income increases. Over time, this type of development becomes less low income if people choose to stay although their income has increased until they are ready to move on. Ms. Wright stated their tenants are very happy with their housing and usually do not want to move. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether there will be a code of conduct, such as wild parties, police phone calls, etc., also included in the lease. Ms. Wright replied they have a one-page item regarding activity of that sort. No drugs, no criminal activity, and they work closely with all the police departments. Mayor Lund stated he does not like carports. He does not think it adds as an amenity to a neighborhood. It does serve as covered parking. He thinks it cheapens the property. It is a concern to him and other taxpayers who help subsidize this through government programs. Certainly they want to help people of need and those who are working but have a lower income level. It is bothersome to himself and others the question of whether they move on. He thought this was housing to help people become self-sufficient. Ms. Wright replied they do have people moving on. They get jobs, they work their way up, and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 24 they move on to buy their own homes usually. A lot of their people are not going to get better jobs. They will keep working. They have a place to live and, in this case, a very convenient place to live with minimal cost because of the transportation issue. Mayor Lund stated he still has some grave concerns about the carport. He thinks it is great combining the lots, but then they are creating a building with 13 apartments rather than putting in, for example, 8 or 10 and creating a larger green space and/or parking area. Kids grow up and at 16 they want to have a car, etc. The parking restricts people who want to stay there. Ms. Wright stated ACCAP is the largest affordable housing provider in the County. They have a lot of housing options and when things are not working out where people are, they, say, look we have this available to you. Mayor Lund asked if the model was for ACCAP and other housing organizations to go away from single-family and into more of this type of multi-housing. Ms. Wright replied, they are working hard to divest themselves from their single-family properties. The only place where they work well is for a group home because that is their home and there is staff helping them. When they have a single-family home with a rental family in there, they have a couple problems. One it is very expensive to manage. She patrols the single- family homes and makes sure there are no problems. They have taken over lawn mowing on a lot of them as they cannot count on the renters to take care of it. The other issue is she has found the properties that run the best are the ones who have really good caretakers on site. Mayor Lund stated he does not see a lot of benefit from the carport. He asked whether there was ever any consideration to putting garages in. Mr. Johnson replied, yes, and they are supposed to be considering economic situations or feasibility. It is a small site. If they had garages there would be less parking than the 14 they were able to obtain. They maximize the number of parking spots on the site by doing a parking port versus having garages. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. 2012-63. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12.Resolution Approving a Transit Oriented Development Master Plan, TOD #12-01, by the Anoka County Community Action Program, Inc., (ACCAP), for the Purpose nd of Constructing a New Three-Story, Multi-Family Building at 6000 and 6008 2 Street N.E. (Ward 3). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to add the following Stipulation No. 15: “Property FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 25 owner shall issue a single permit and assign a single stall per tenant at the time of leasing a unit to the tenant, and property owner shall enforce the parking requirements on an ongoing basis.” Councilmember Bolkcom asked the petitioners if they were in agreement with Stipulation No. 15. Ms. Wright nodded in the affirmative. Mr. Johnson nodded in the affirmative. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Lund stated he is going to be voting against the following motion. He is still uncomfortable with it. It is too much building, not enough parking space, not enough green space for that sized property, and he does not like the idea of carports. Carports do not add to the overall look of the building, the area, and the neighborhood. He would like to see a different plan. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2012-64 with the following fifteen stipulations: 1.The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan by bvt Architect dated July 31, 2012. 2.The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural elevations by bvt Architect, dated July 27, 2012. 3.The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4.The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5.The petitioner shall ensure that the proposed monument sign meets vision safety regulations and shall obtain a separate sign permit prior to installation. 6.Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7.The petitioner shall receive Mississippi Watershed Management Organization approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 8.City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage and utility plans prior to issuance of building permits. 9.Property owner at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. ndnd 10.The petitioner shall combine the parcels at 6000 2 Street and 6008 2 Street for tax purposes and to allow the proposed development to occur over both lots. 11.Irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas and a plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 12.All lighting in the development shall be shielded and downcast. Lighting shall be FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 26 provided either on the exterior of the building or through freestanding lighting to adequately illuminate the sidewalk. 13.Privacy fence proposed along the west and northern property lines shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of the building permit. 14.Carport elevation and dumpster enclosure elevation shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 15.Property owner shall issue a single permit and assign a single stall per tenant at the time of leasing a unit to the tenant, and property owner shall enforce the parking requirements on an ongoing basis. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, VARICHAK, SAEFKE AND BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND VOTING NAY, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ON A 4-1 VOTE. 13. Resolution Abating the Accrued Interest for the Taxes Payable Years of 2011 and 2012 for 6111 Star Lane N.E. within the 2009-2 Street Improvement Project (Ward 1). Darin Nelson , Finance Director/Treasurer, stated at the August 20, 2012, Council meeting, Council approved a resolution abating a special assessment for 6230 Highway 65 that had been inadvertently assessed for the 2009-2 Street Improvement Project. At the same Council meeting, questions arose as to whether the correct property owner located at 6111 Star Lane NE was actually at the public hearing on October 25, 2010, when the special assessment was approved. Looking back at the minutes from that meeting, it does not look like the property owner was in attendance that evening. However, it should be noted the property owner does also have another property a block or two to the west that was part of the special assessment street reconstruction project. Mr. Nelson stated the question was also asked whether the property owner should be required to pay interest. In talking with Anoka County, it turns out the City has complete control as to how it wants the assessment to be handled. It has been decided that because it was the City’s error, it would forgive the interest that has accrued for the first two years of the project. Mr. Nelson because the City is changing the terms and forgiving the accrued interest, the County needs another resolution stating Council’s intent since the City’s original repayment schedule is different now than what it was originally. Mr. Nelson stated he did speak with one of the property owners who was very understanding of the error and thanked the City for wanting to dismiss the interest. Anoka County will be sending the property owner an invoice for the past due principal which will be due in 90 days. When they send the invoice, the City will also be sending a letter to the property owner on the City’s behalf explaining the situation and further explaining what was going on with the assessment. Staff recommends approval of the resolution abating the accrued interest in the amount of $399.43 and $303.73 for the taxes payable in the years of 2011 and 2012, respectively. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 27 MOTION by Councilmember Saefke Adopting Resolution No. 2012-65. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. Approve the Private Sanitary Sewer Repair Assistance Program for Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Mitigation. James Kosluchar , Public Works Director, stated this is a follow-up from the last meeting. Staff is working on reductions in the inflow and infiltration of sanitary sewers which helps the City avoid sanitary sewer backups and reduces its treatment costs. Mr. Kosluchar showed a graph from July 16, 2011, when the City had a very severe rain and kind of magnifies the facts they could see the rise in flow rates afterwards. The Public Works Department is initiating a flow monitoring program and will identify areas that it will further investigate, including smoke testing discussed at the August 20 meeting. After that discussion, Council approved work related to establishing that program. Mr. Kosluchar stated Council also requested that staff provide a recommendation for a program to assist property owners with repairs that are identified. Mr. Kosluchar stated the three sources of I/I the City is going to get from private properties mainly are going to be from clear water, foundation drains and sumps, directly connected roof drains or yard drains, and deteriorated surface lateral running all the way from the house out to the street. Basically, foundation drains underneath the house can be connected directly to the service line. There can be downspouts connected just outside the house to the service line yard drains and of course you can have cracks in the service pipes running out to the street. Mr. Kosluchar stated they looked at the City Code that exists which says that no water from any roof, surface, ground, sump pump, floating tile, or other natural precipitation shall be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. This is codified in Chapter 403 established by Ordinance No. 1044 from 1995. The ordinance also permits inspections by City staff and sets a surcharge of $300 per quarter for non-compliance. In addition, it establishes a one-time incentive cost share program through the end of 1996. Basically it was established for a two-year period, and it provided for a 50 percent match of costs for properties up to a cap of $450. Mr. Kosluchar stated they also looked into kind of typical repair costs. Some of them can vary widely. Staff got some information on clear water, removal of foundation drains, repiping of sumps, and actually installing sumps and found it was a little lower than staff thought it was, about $600 to $1,200. To remove directly connected roof drains or yard drains typically runs around $300 to $800. To repair service laterals, depending on if you are doing a spot repair or more lengthy repair it might be $2,000 to $4,000. It can go up if you replace your entire service line and if you have to dig under the street. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 28 Mr. Kosluchar when looking at a program to suggest to the City Council, staff thought about the above goals and providing incentives for repairs and have people want to make them. They wanted to allow a reasonable timetable for those repairs, and limit the cost to the overall ratepayers. They also wanted to limit redundant payments for prior reimbursements. They did not get into the records to see whether the City has good records to see who was paid what, but they thought about a contingency if somebody got paid in 1996 and then they disconnected their sump, reconnected to the sanitary sewer, would they pay them again to disconnect it again. That is something they wanted to stay a away from. Mr. Kosluchar stated they also wanted to make the program eligible citywide. They are trying to get to a goal of I/I reduction and to just limit it to the areas they are limiting and not offer it to all the residents seemed a little unfair and maybe counterintuitive to what the City’s objectives were. They looked at options for incentive. They have an existing surcharge of $300 per quarter. They have an existing low interest loan program through the HRA and Center for Energy and Environment. That can actually provide loan funding. There is an existing voluntary assessment program for those who are ineligible for the loan program. That is typically five years, and they do fund service lateral repairs with that program. Also, they thought about a cost share program similar to the one that was established through ordinance in 1995, and then a surcharge waiver. Mr. Kosluchar stated they want to look at the two new items which are the cost share program and the surcharge waiver. The cost share program would induce people presumably to address issues more quickly if it was offered to them. You would put a timetable on it, and offer money for a limited amount of time. The revenues are topped but the cap could be substantial if it is raised from $450 per property. They looked at that and inflation would about double it. One of the drawbacks is that is not really suited to service lateral repairs because of the variability. It may not make an impact on a $4,000 repair. He thinks it was notably left out of the prior program and ordinance. Mr. Kosluchar stated they looked at the surcharge waiver and obviously this would induce somebody as well. There is no current revenue stream that would be required for this. Basically you are paying for the inflow and the amount of flow that is coming out of these properties now. Mr. Kosluchar stated they came up with kind of a proposed program which is completion of a surcharge waiver and the existing offerings the City has. It would be available for residential properties with three or fewer units. No commercial or industrial. If there is a condition identified as illegal by Ordinance No. 1044 or for sanitary service lateral repairs, that would be eligible. The property owner would be notified if a repair was completed within a six-month time, the surcharge would be waived. Also, similar to the City’s current program, it would make the HRA and CEE loan available; and the City’s voluntary assessment program for financing up to the $5,000 per property. There is a 10 percent administrative fee that does get applied currently under the City’s program. The City can discontinue the program at any time. Those are kind of the high points that staff came up with for a proposed program. Staff is recommending City Council approve the attached program, called the Private Sanitary Sewer Inflow/Infiltration Assistance Program. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 29 Councilmember Bolkcom asked because it is not part of the ordinance how would anyone know this exists? Mr. Kosluchar replied they would be notified by a letter if there was a corrected activity that needed to happen at a property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated if someone was looking at this down the line, where would they know to look for this because it is not part of an ordinance? Mr. Kosluchar replied to amend the ordinance would be the cleanest and the superior way to do that. He would caution they do not know what the response is going to be. They would prefer to try the program out and see how it works. William Burns , City Manager,stated they have a newsletter coming out in October; and he will cover it then. However, Mr. Kosluchar might also put a heading on his website page for this whole project and put something on his webpage to educate people. This is going to get a lot of attention, particularly for the areas identified on the map that will be in the newsletter, people are going to see it. Attorney Erickson suggested it would be good to perhaps at some point put a reference in the City’s ordinance if they wanted to after they tested it out. Again, there is that risk of whether or not the funding is going to always be there, and it has already been incorporated into the City’s ordinance. It maybe allows for more flexibility if it is kept as a stand-alone policy. Councilmember Bolkcom stated unless you made the references to the loan program as long as they are available. They need to make it simply an ordinance and you have everything there vs. a reference where you had to go find something else. Chances are it will get lost. It totally makes sense not to do it right away until the quirks are worked out. At least they should keep it a thought. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to paragraph 6 and suggested replacing the word, “pleasure” with the word, “discretion.” MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom amending Paragraph 6 to replace the word “pleasure” with “discretion.” Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the Private Sanitary Sewer Repair Assistance Program for Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Mitigation. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. Informal Status Reports: There were no informal status reports. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 PAGE 30 ADJOURN. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Varichak, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor