The URL can be used to link to this page

CCA 02/09/2015 � ��t' ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Fridley The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500. (TTD/572-3534) WORKSHOP (5:30 P.M.) 1. Interviews with Commission Applicants 2. 2014 Department Highlights (City Manager's Office and Human Resources) CITY COUNCIL MEETING (7:00 P.M.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. SERVICE REPORT: Citizens' Academy APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of January 26, 2015 ............................................................ 1 - 15 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9. 2015 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 21, 2015 ................................................... 16 - 23 2. Special Use Permit Request, SP #15-01, by RJ Ryan Construction, Inc., to Allow a Building Addition that will Increase the Lot Coverage Requirement to 45.1%, Generally Located at 8050 Ranchers Road; and Resolution Approving Special Use Permit, SP #15-01, for RJ Ryan Construction, Inc., on Behalf of the Property Owner, Ranchers Road LLC, for the Property Located at 8050 Ranchers Road N.E. (Ward 3) ..................................................................... 24 - 30 3. Special Use Permit Request, SP #15-02, by Samer Alamy, to Allow a Daycare Use in an R-3, Multi-Family Zoning District, Generally Located at 6875 Highway 65 N.E.; and Resolution Approving Special Use Permit, SP #15-02, for Samer Alamy, on Behalf of the Property Owner, Two PC Partnership, for the Islamic University of Minnesota, Generally Located at 6875 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) ................................................. 31 - 38 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 PAGE 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI: 4. Final Plat Request, PS #14-a5, by DET 7220 LLC, to Replat Two Properties to Make an Adjustment to the Property Line, Generally Located at 7220 Central Avenue and 1241 — 72"d Avenue N.E. and Resolution Approving Final Plat, P.S. #14-05, by DET 7220 LLC, the Property Owner of 7220 Central Avenue N.E., to Modify the Property Line Between 7220 Central Avenue N.E. and 1241 — 72"d Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) ........................................................ 39 -44 5. Resolution Extending the Date for Compliance Outlined in City Council Resolution 2014-99 from February 23, 2015, to June 30, 2015, Related to Retaining Wall Requirements at 1627 and 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. - (War 2 ....................................................................................................... 45 55 6. Resolution Approving Application to Enter into a Funding Agreement with the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) for Grant Assistance for the 4800 East River Road Redevelopment ............................................................................................ 56 - 57 7. Resolution Ordering Final Plans, Specifications and Calling for Bids: 2015 Street Rehabilitation ProjectNo. ST2015-01 ................................................................................. 58 - 65 8. Approve 6t" Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement for the North Metro Regional Street Maintenance Consortium for Street Maintenance ................................................................................................. 66 - 69 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 PAGE 4 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 9. Receive Bids and Award Well Redevelopment ProjectNo. 448 ............................................................................................. 70 - 78 10. Approve 2015 Anoka County SCORE Municipal Funding Request for Fridley's Residential Recycling Program; and Approve Agreement for Residential RecyclingProgram ....................................................................................... 79 - 88 11. Claims (167065 — 167237) .......................................................................... 89 - 102 12. Licenses ....................................................................................................... 103 13. Estimates ...................................................................................................... 104 OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda — 15 minutes. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 PAGE 5 APPEAL HEARING: 14. Consider Appeal Request from Steve Saba, 7345 Centrai Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) ....................................................................................................... 105 - 168 15. Informal Status Reports ................................................................................ 169 ADJOURN. - � c;ry oj Fridley FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF February 9, 2015 7:00 p.m. — City Council Chambers Attendance Sheet Please print name, address and item number you are interested in. Print Name ( earl ) Address Item No. <: 1 l. � ��(,�-J J � ' �� '��/�-- � , � � � / / _ � �+y� _ `� /��,,, .. .L��C .�.��'y. i.''7"T ,-- �� ..?-�G L-' ? "V�.,,,.1/ ` Y.).J��1 �j1L�"� • . � . ..; ., .. ' IC - ! / ` l "�Y' �r�(, l { - �� , ,;-,r �-� /`.; _ . � � � � �' �� '�' 'r'Yl� �:�=� ,�,L1 � ��?r t G cb`� -I , � " --� , `` ' ,� '� - � L � � f .� ).t� r.` ,�v�t� "� � � � .: ✓ � ✓�— ✓\/�� _- . � ; ,� �� / , . '�> �,.,� � ' `� �� GI , , f/ ; �,._._.. �;� 7-'� '•.� .��="�`Z� � � � � . ��; � �- ��: ��'I Z-�:�1.; � I, , � / ; �� ` �1� � C=�L\ l_h; t�.�� ' ''��;/�f. �C�� i'' `� .-�`"i r`;�CL�;'�-` �.'�.�,L` � /�� N 1\�f= �%',`�j^l�!�1 '/f ''/t /'/�'r.;t �" �j �� i � , � , ,� �� ;� � � �- �� J � � ��' ' �`1.JL C- �� -'I I� �� A � !C ��. G�� r � �/' �<�n. " � 1�`-�" 1� ../\,U,C(,��'��(`T, I��4�s�� r � � r_ . �._� �tirt� -� ' �3 L� � r"�Lru�.��- �Z� /l.'� V'1 -,.r-Y+-� iy' r�' � � ` -i:-', ' J CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY JANUARY 26,2015 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:11 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember Barnette Councilmember Saeflce Councilmember Varicha.k Councilmember Bolkcom � OTHERS PRESENT: Wa11y Wysopal, City Manager Darcy Erickson, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director Rolland Pogreba, 4941 Roman Road N.E. Nizar Benhaj, 5141 Third Street N.E. Joshua Druley, 5056 T'hird Street N.E. Richard Palmatier, 5347 Altura Road Don Howard, 5225 Horizon Drive, Bryan Scholtes,4916 3rd Street Anita Mansfield, 5012 Hughes Avenue Steve Nielson, 5212 Horizon Drive Laura Carlson, 5048 Hughes Avenue John Zimmer, 5013 Hughes Avenue Bernadette Pogreba,200 Panorama Avenue Charlie Kramasz, 148 Crown Road Beth Rising, 5249 Horizon Drive Roger porf, 5236 Horizon Drive APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of December 22,2014. APPROVED. City Council Meeting of January 5,2015. Councilmember Saefke noted on page 46,his name is misspelled in the motion, and on page 47 toward the bottom, it reads Mayor Wysopal. 1 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26,2015 PAGE 2 Councilmember Varichak asked for language to be fixed on page 46. Councilmember Bolkcom statement doesn't read correctly where it is talking about Rosenberg book of rules. APPROVED AS AMENDED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Approve Certificate of Plat Correction for Northern Stacks (W�rd 3). APPROVED. 2. Resolution Requesiing Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other Local Use. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05. 3. Approve Change Order No. l for Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No.453. APPROVED. 4. Resolution Approving a First Amendment to the Site Cnrrent Lease Agreement with T-Mobile Central LLC for Highway 65 Tower#2 (Ward 1). ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2015-06. 5. Motion to Approve the Classification as Non-Conservation and Sale of Tax Forfeit Parcels Identified by Anoka County Resolution No. 2014-144 and Directing Staff to Notify Anoka County in Writing of the Approval. APPROVED. 6. Appointments—City Employees. APPROVED. 7. Claims—(ACH PCard 1501; 166796-167064). APPROVED. 8. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. 2 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26.2015 PAGE 3 APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the Consent Agenda with corrections to the minutes. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM: � Rolland Pogreba, 4941 Roman Road, reported that there are a lot of stray cats in his neighborhood and it is a nuisance. Mayor Lund replied that a staff person will contact him to see if something can be done to remedy this situation. Nizar Benhaj, 5141 3rd Street, asked if the City would consider putting in speed bumps on his street when the street project happens this summer. People speed through this area and there are a lot of kids living there too. Mayor Lund replied the City has 120 miles of street and many streets have issues with speeding cars. The Public Works Department does not like speed bumps because they are hard on the snow plows. The Police Department may be able to put up a speed machine to help slow down the cars. If there are a lot of speeding cars, the police may be able to do a saturation and catch the speeders. A lot of times when this is done, it is the residents in the area who are speeding. He asked him to connect with Mr. Kosluchar to have a further discussion on possible remedies for this situation. Councilmember Bolkcom also suggested he talk with Chief Abbott from the Police Department. Joshua Druley, 5056 3rd Street, lives in the same area and agreed that there is a lot of speeding going on. There are a lot of small kids in the area and this is a safety issue. The problem is between 53rd and 49�'. Mark Geoffrey manages the apartment complex on 53'� Avenue and 3rd Street, and he also agreed about the speeding. He said no one stops at the stop sign on 3'� Street and Horizon Drive either. There are many young children in the area and no one feels safe going outside. This needs to be addressed. He also said that he manages the largest apartment complex in Fridley and has a lot of illegal dumping happening at his complex. People duxnp televisions, mattresses, etc., and then he has to pay someone to haul them away. He has contacted the police for help but recently received a letter from code enforcement to do something about the garbage. He has signs posted saying no dumping and is not getting any help. Code enforcement just sends a letter saying he is polluting the community when the community is actually using his complex as a public service by taking care of their trash. 3 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26,2015 PAGE 4 Mayor Lund asked if they were dumping outside of dumpster closure. Mr. Geoffrey replied they are dumping inside and all around the dumpster. Richard Palmatier, 5347 Altura Road, said that people speed through his area too. Mayor Lund agreed that it is a very busy area and that a staff person would get back to him. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Saeflce. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAlVIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9. Preliminary Assessment Hearing on 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2015-01. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated the City has developed a pavement improvement plan based on rehabilitating the pavement with the intermittent sealcoating. The goal of the City's pavement improvement plan is to provide satisfactory pavement quality while minimizing costs. Mr. Kosluchar stated this program is in its tenth year. The program was developed to rehabilitate the deteriorated asphalt surface on a recurring schedule. The program targets pavements of a condition where pothole patching, crack sealing, and seal coating is no longer efficient or effective. The annual street rehabilitation program rates the streets condition and groups streets into project areas. The volume of the project is a pricing advantage. The planned project for 2015 was developed under a 5-year street program. Mr. Kosluchar stated the street resurfacing project areas are tentatively designated ten years ahead of project timelines for planning purposes. Poor condition rating of streets gives initiative to rehabilitation of a segment. Factors used to establish the condition rating based on annual inspections include surface wear, crack size and condition, weathering, skid resistance, uniformity and ride quality. Other factors that affect prioritization of projects are if the street does not require reconstruction to meet standards (base, width, curbing etc.), time since last ' 4 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26.2015 PAGE 5 major maintenance, interim maintenance work performed/required, adjacent project activity and source(s)of available funding. Mr. Kosluchar stated the project areas are identified in the City's 5-yeaz capital improvement plan. The current 2015-2019 CIP includes $4.8M in major street rehabilitation in the next 5 years. It is estimated 66%of this construction is funded from special assessments. The proposed work includes Summit Manor Neighborhood in Ward 3. The recommended work includes: • Select underground utility repairs. • Water main replacement on segments of Hughes Avenue, Third Street, Capitol Street, and Horizon Drive. • Sanitary sewer main replacement on segment of Hughes Avenue. • Street segments to receive 8"reclaim and 2"asphalt surfacing • Some drainage improvements depending on funding decision this week. Mr. Kosluchar reviewed the construction timeline. Pavement rehabilitation process is expected to be completed in 10 to 12 weeks of the start date. Construction time would be mid-May to mid-September, 2015. The project will be divided into 3 or 4 phases, and each phase would last 2 to 3 weeks. The reclaiming process allows recycling of the pavement that is removed. Street and access closures are required on the day of paving. Traffic is kept off the new mat for up to 8 hours. Project staffwill work with owners on access. Mr. Kosluchar stated when reclaiming the street, the driveway will not be accessible for a few minutes as the machine goes by the driveway. When paving the street, the street will be closed up to 8 hours except for emergency reasons and parking may be restricted. Owners are encouraged to complete the survey and provide and email contact information. The project kickoff notice in April, will include schedule, contractor information and general information. Project updates include the latest schedule, immediate work, access limitations, contacts, specific information, etc. The City will provide "yellow sheets" as needed. Owners should notify stafF of any special circumstances or concerns. . Mr. Kosluchar stated that property owners have been sent the following mailings: 1. Notice of an open house(October 2014); 2. Project questionnaire to be returned or filled out; and 3. Notice of a public hearing which included estimated special assessment based on policy. Mr. Kosluchar said the estimated project cost is $1,644,000. The amount of$204,000 will be paid by City of Fridley Municipal State aid, $742,000 by special assessment to benefiting properties, $628,000 from the Water Utility Fund, $30,000 from the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund, and$40,000 from the Storm Water Utility Fund. Mr. Kosluchar said Low Density Residential (LDR)properties accessing the rehabilitated street benefit and are therefore subject to assessment. Assessment is determined by dividing pavement-related costs by the number of benefited properties. Cost is reduced by pro-rating for 30' standard street and the City pays for additional width. Corner lots are assessed on one side 5 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26.2015 PAGE 6 only. Oversized lots which may be split are assessed for additional benefit. Multiple unit residential properties up to four units pay the lower of the commercial rate, or the residential rate reduced by 50%for each unit over one. There are 268 parcels subject to LDR special assessment under the City's policy. He reviewed the historic LDR assessment costs. Mr. Kosluchar said that non-LDR properkies include commercial, industrial, and multi-family. They pay 100% of pavement-related costs adjacent to their property frontage. All adjacent streets benefit the property. They pay curb line to the center of the street. There are 22 pazcels subject to non-LDR special assessment under City's policy. He reviewed the historic Non-LDR assessments. Mr. Kosluchar reviewed the repayment of assessment options: Option 1: Lump sum paid within 30 days of the assessment hearing(after construction). Option 2: Added to property ta�ces that are paid over 10 years with an interest rate of approximately 5.3%(prime rate+2%). Option 3: Senior citizens / disabled individuals meeting certain criteria deferred until the future sale of the property(interest accrued until the sale). Mr. Kosluchar reviewed the repayment of assessment 10 year payment plan at 5.3% for$2,000. He said the total payment over 10 years would be$ 2,583. Mr. Kosluchar said staff recommends the City Council move to open the preliminary assessment hearing on Street Rehabilitation Project No. 5T2015-01. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if staff received any telephone calls, letters or emails about the project. Mr. Kosluchar replied about 4 or 5 people responded. Two wanted to know when they could pay or how the financing worked. One may or may not be here tonight, but wanted more information to understand the project and one requested a copy of the presentation. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if these people were for or against the project. Mr. Kosluchar recalled another person wanted to widen his driveway. He did not get a feel if these people were for or against the project. Councilmember Saetke asked if the map of the 10-year plan was available in case people wanted to see the map so they could find out what year their street was scheduled to be redone. People may be able to save money up to pay for their special assessmer�ts. Mr. Kosluchar replied the map is available and staff can put it on the website with the presentation. People can request information from the Engineering office by calling (763) 572- 6 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26.2015 PAGE 7 3552 and asking for the street resurfacing plan. This plan does not identify every street, but notes the neighborhoods the City will be focusing on. Don Howard, 5225 Horizon Drive, said he is not in favor of the project. It looks expensive. He is also confused by the letter because it says to conduct a public hearing to consider authorization and later in the letter is says that you are subject to special assessment. The letter makes it sound like the City has already decided to do the proj ect. Mayor Lund said that property owners will only be assessed if the project is approved. Mr. Howard said his street is in great condition, and that it probably only needs seal coating. He is pretty sure the money could be spent better elsewhere. Councilmember Bolkcom said the reason the letter you received read that way is because it is state statute to notify property owners and let them know that they could be assessed for the project if it is approved. The wording in the letter is all part of the legal notice. It does not mean it is a done deal. Mayor Lund said it is customary when there is a street project, for staff to fix the worst streets first. Bryan Scholtes, 4916 3rd Street, said some cities in the metro offer a 15-year repayment plan. He asked if that was an option. He also asked about pricing to replace personal sanitary sewer lines. Mr. Kosluchar said the homeowner can get their personal sewer lines televised for free to understand their condition. The cost to fix the sewer lines depends on the circuxnstances. Prices can range from$2,500 to $5,000 to replace. Mr. Scholtes asked if the City had referrals of contractors to come and give him an estimate. Mr. Kosluchar replied the City has not selected the contractor yet for this project, and the bids would be awarded in April if the project goes ahead. T'he City has a list of contractors that work in town. He asked him to contact him for the list. Mayor Lund asked if Mr. Scholtes was having problems with this private line. Mr. Scholtes replied that his lines are clay and they are deteriorating. He thought it would be easier to work with his sewer lines when the street work is done. Mayor Lund said being proactive is usually a good idea. He said he did not recall people asking for a longer timeframe to repay street projects; the longer the payment is stretched out, the more interest will be paid. Because the City has been running the project successfully for 10 years, he did not think the payment plan would be extended beyond 10 years. 7 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26,2015 PAGE 8 Councilmember Bolkcom said homeowners can get a loan for 15 years and maybe at a lower interest rate through other lenders. They do not need to use the City's resources. Anita Mansfield, 5012 Hughes Avenue, said she needs to do something with her sewer main and has had it televised twice. She thought contractors would be at the meeting, and asked if she would be able to hire the contractor they chose to fix her lines. She also asked if her yard would be dug up to fix her line. Mr. Kosluchar said she is free to hire the contractor the City has hired for the main work but the arrangement would be kept separate. They would put in a liner that looks like a sock that is pulled through the line that makes the inside of the pipe look like new PVC plastic. Ms.Mans�eld said that her pipe drops off after about 10 feet from her home. She did not know if a new lining in the pipe would fix the problem. Mr. Kosluchar said that it did not sound like a new lining would help her situation. It sounded like the joints may be offset. The lining process is for hairline cracks or root intrusion. If the joints are offset they usually have to be dug up and repaired. Ms. Mansfield asked if the City would let her know when the contractor has been selected so she could speak to them ahead of time. Mr. Kosluchar recommended she get the list of contractors and get a few quotes. Steve Nielson, 5212 Horizon Drive, said he did not think his road was in need of repair but has problems with the sewer and backups at his home. He asked if he could just repair a section of the pipe to his home. Mr. Kosluchar replied if there is just one spot with an offset joint if can be repaired. Different contractors will tell you different things. He recommended the pipe be videotaped to help find out where and what the problem is. Laura Carlson, 5048 Hughes Ave., asked if she paid the assessment in 90 days if she had to pay the interest in full. Mayor Lund replied the interest would only be paid for the 90 days, not 10 years. He also asked if she was in favor of the street project. Ms. Carlson said she did not think her streets were that bad. She was in fa�or of the project because it would help pay for sewer repair that really needs to be done. Mayor Lund said that homeowners will only be assessed just for the street project, the sewer repairs will be paid out of funds set aside for ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure. Attorney Erickson reviewed the payment options. The entire assessment can be paid with zero interest if paid within 30 days. If the amount is not paid in 30 days but paid before it is certified, 8 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26. 2015 PAGE 9 the interest accrued during thaf time period would be paid. If the payrnent is made any time after certification,the balance must be paid plus that year of interest. For example if in 2016 I wanted to pay off my assessment I would pay the assessment plus the first year of interest, not 10 years of interest. Mayor Lund said that once the assessment is certified to taxes, the county does not have the ability to charge less than annual interest charges. Councilmember Bolkcom said people have been talking about patches on their street. Staff spent a lot of rime patching holes. She asked what else happens with streets. Mr. Kosluchar replied prior to any pot holes being formed, cracking is what staff is looking for. Adhesion of asphalt will not be maintained so resurface is the answer. Sealcoat will help, but once the street is cracking, sealcoat is a short term measure. This year may not be a perfect year for every segment, but we are working in that neighborhood. If this street is bypassed, we will not be back for another 30 years to address the street. The street is showing wear and the street will not last another 30 years. � Mayor Lund asked if there was substantial alligator cracking on these streets. Mr. Kosluchar replied yes, the rate of the street was 20 which put it on the edge to replace the street. Ellen Strelow, 5373 Horizon Drive, asked how to contact the department to come out and televise the sewer lines. Mr. Kosluchar said to contact the Public Works garage at 763-572-3566. A crew will come out to televise free of charge. The crew does need to get into the home, so an appointment will need to be made. They will explain to the homeowner what they are looking at and what they find. Mayor Lund asked if Ms. Strelow was in favor of the project. Ms. Strelow said the jury was still out. It is a lot of money. John Zimmer, 5013 Hughes Avenue, said he was concerned about access to his driveway when the street is torn up. Mr. Kosluchar replied that staff would help him find a way to his home. There may be times where there could be limited access and people will have to park and walk to their home. If the street is torn up to replace sewer lines they will close it up every night. If there is 300' of sewer line to replace,they will replace 40 to 50 feet at a time. Mr. Zimmer said he is in favor of the project. He looked at the numbers and the prices go up every year. With the fuel oil down now, maybe it will be lower than the assessment. He works for an asphalt company and knows that everything tends to go up every year. 9 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26,2015 PAGE 10 Mayor Lund agreed and noted that the biggest price is the asphalt. It is possible there will be more favorable prices this year. Staff usually errs on the high side but you never know until it goes out to bid. Mr. Zimmer asked how thick the asphalt layer would be. Mr. Kosluchar replied 2 to 3 inches, with a reclaim base and sandy soil. Councilmember Bolkcom noted that if bids come in too high, staff has the option not to do the project. Bernadette Pogreba, 200 Panorama Avenue, said she is for the project and agrees the streets need to be done. Charlie Kramasz, 148 Crown Road, said he is in favor of the road improvements. Joel Dzubak, 129 Horizon Circle, asked if staff were coordinating with CenterPoint Energy to put in the new gas service at the same time. Mr. Kosluchar replied yes, they have met with CenterPoint Energy and if the project goes ahead, they will do a large amount of the replacement at the same time. Mayor Lund added that is pretty typical when the streets are done to get in touch with other utilities. Mark Geoffrey asked if the assessment repayment plans were available to the commercial properties. Mayor Lund replied yes and they pay a higher assessment. Mr. Geoffrey said that his property has a lot of footage. They own large chunk of Third Street. Mayor Lund asked if he was in favor of the project. Mr. Geoffrey answered yes. It will make the community better. Beth Rising, 5249 Horizon Drive, said she had concerns about the current project and did not think her street needed it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Kosluchar if this street was not done now, when would it be done. Mr. Kosluchar replied that it would be beyond 20 years before they would get back into a neighborhood--maybe 18 to 20 years. 10 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26.2015 PAGE 11 Councilmember Bolkcom said if residents on one street feel they do not need repair, they could get a petition together with a majority of the homeowners on the street signatures knowing it may not be repaired for quite some time. The petition could be submitted and taken into consideration. Mayor Lund added that there are other factors involved in deciding which streets need repair. The City tries to look at the worst areas first, and then moves on to different segments of the City. Staff is consistently reviewing or grading our streets. Taking out segments will elevate the price. There are plenty of streets in the City that need repair. Fridley has over 100 miles of streets and this project is less than five miles. Think about how long it will take to repair all of the streets. Ted Beecroft, 5256 Capitol Street, asked what happened to the project that was going to lessen the heavy garbage trucks on the streets. Mayor Lund replied that project failed. The City will continue with the open garbage system. The majority of the Council voted no to that proposal. Mr. Beacroft said that will still put a lot of weight on the street. He moved in 30 years ago and has in the past footed the bill himself for street reconstruction. He is in favor of the project. Roger porf, 5236 Horizon Drive, is against the project. Dave Palm, 5228 Capitol Street, said he does not live at the home, but is trying to sell some property due to a death in the family. He asked if he sold the property before the assessment was levied if he had to let the new owners know of this project. Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, said that the closing company will contact the City to see if any projects are scheduled. It will probably be apportioned in the purchase agreement. Mr. Kosluchar said that once Council authorizes the project to move forward, the resolution would go into effect and every property would be subject to assessment. Mr. Palm asked if the project would start this spring. � Councilmember Bolkcom said this will be on the February 9 agenda. Richard Palmatier, 5347 Altura, asked how the City arrived at the$1.644M. Mr. Kosluchar replied that is based on a unit price estimate. The preliminary cost is based on the preliminary plan. Mr. Palmatier asked how many miles would be resurfaced. Mr. Kosluchar replied 2.8 miles,but half of the costs are utility costs. 11 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26,2015 PAGE 12 Mr. Palmatier said he heard the City of Chanhassen is doing 40 miles of street for$2.OM. Mr. Kosluchar said they are probably not doing the same process. For that price it is probably an overlay or sealcoat project. He will check with his counterparts in Chanhassen and see what they are doing. Mr. Palmatier said he has a bump at the end of his driveway and wanted to know if he could get that addressed at the same time. He asked if the contractors who do the work for the city also resurfaced driveways. Mr. Kosluchar replied that is not true of all contractors; each contractor makes their decision if they would like to do other work or not. Some people have had success with companies doing their driveways and they have done a good job. It is best to talk to the contractor before they are working in your neighborhood so they can plan ahead. Councilmember Bolkcom added that years ago it was common for contractors to offer the service of resurfacing driveways but the condition of the driveways had very poor quality. Those getting quotes to get their driveways fixed need to make sure they are looking at licensed and bonded contractors to ensure quality product. � Mr. Palmatier said he is leaning toward in favor of the project but has not totally decided. , Nizar Benhaj asked if there would be any additional surprise costs in addition to the assessment. � I Mr. Kosluchar replied no, not City-related. Mr. Benhaj asked if a sidewalk would be considered between 53rd and 49�'Avenues. There is a , lot of traffic on the street and this would prevent accidents. Mr. Kosluchar replied if the neighborhood is interested, they could start a petition and the City could consider the request. A sidewalk would be subject to an assessment and would be a shared expense between the City and homeowner. Mayor Lund said the project in Chanhassen is 4.3 miles long according to the information online. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close 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 CLOSED AT 9:02 P.M. 12 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26.2015 PAGE 13 NEW BUSINESS: 10. Approve Agreement with Split Rock Studios to Provide Design Development for Interpretive E�ibits at the Springbrook Nature Center(Ward 3). Jack Kirk, Parks and Recreation Director, said he recommends the City enter into an agreement with Split Rock Studios to provide the formal design development of the exhibits for the Springbrook interpretive building that is being remodeled and expanded. An important component of the new and expanded Nature Center building will be educational and inspiring exhibits. Split Rock Studios is a local business (north metro-St. Paul area) and is a nationally known eaLhibit design and fabrication company. They specialize in creating cultural and natural history exhibits for museums, interpretive centers, aquariums and zoos. Mr. Kirk said the estimated $5.4 million budget for the building expansion and renovation includes a budget line item of$324,390 for new exhibits. The exhibit design work provided by Split Rock Studios will provide for a combination of new e�chibits and some of the current exhibits that are in place today at Springbrook. The plans will also provide ideas on future exhibits to be included when additional funding has been raised. Mr. Kirk said the services provided by Split Rock Studios will include working closely with the SPRING Project Committee on the exhibit design. At the conclusion of the process in May, we will expect final floor plans for e�ibits that have been coordinated with the building plans provided by our architects. The exhibit construction techniques, finishes, colors and materials will be finalized. They will be providing us with a detailed production and installation schedule, along with an updated budget of the exhibit components. . ; Mr. Kirk said the proposed fee for the exhibit design services is $41,680. The $5,000,000 State I Crrant being provided to the City of Fridley for the improvements to the Springbrook Nature ' Center will be used to pay for the e�ibit design services. It is staffls recommendation that the � City Council approve the attached Agreement for Professional Services with Split Rock Studios ' to provide a design development package for interpretive exhibits at the Springbrook Nature Center. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve an Agreement with Split Rock Studios to Provide Design Development for Interpretive Exhibits at the Springbrook Nature Center. Seconded by Councilmember Saeflce. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Resolution Approving the Transfer of the Cable Franchise and Change of Control of the Grantee. Wally Wysopal, City Manager, stated a public hearing was held on January 5, 2015, in accordance with City Code, Chapter 405A, to transfer the franchise owned by Comcast to GreatLand Connections. GreatLand Connections, as a newly created company, will require third 13 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26.2015 PAGE 14 party assistance to address many operating issues such as programming agreements, customer service, billing, technical support and related issues. Charter Communications will be the company which will fundamentally run the business under a third-party agreement. Charter has the right to purchase GreatLand in 5 yeazs and if that occurs, it would require Council approval. Essentially, Charter Communications will be operating the cable business in the Twin Cities. Mr. Wysopal stated the City and multiple cities negotiated collectively with Comcast. Outside legal counsel was obtained and provided by Brian Grogan, Esq. Approval was made contingent upon several items from Comcast, including the payment of all legal fees and costs associated with the due diligence review of the transaction and the new franchisee. The reimbursement is not considered a part of the franchise fee, so it does not reduce the City's anticipated income. The reimbursement is not contingent on the transfer being approved, so if the deal falls apart, the City will still get reimbursed. It also included the back payxnent from Comcast for underpaid fees due the City of Fridley which amounted to $2,220.96. Mr. Wysopal stated GreatLand Connections also stipulated to several items of concern expressed by the City. GreatLand will provide an escalated complaint system whereby the City will have the ability to expedite serious and persistent resident complaints up the command chain at GreatLand. GreatLand will also meet quarterly with the City for the first 2 years to monitor and affect the transfer of the franchise. There are some concerns the City has that are outside of the Franchise authority. These include the content subscription offerings, equipment utilization, �, automatic bill payment processing and personal internet address. GreatLand has offered � assurances that customers will not need to purchase new equipment and that content subscriptions will remain the same as with Comcast. However, such assurances are not for certain because the franchise does not deal with such issues. Likewise, the City has no authority to affect the other items of concern. Mr. Wysopal said upon the transfer, residents should expect the need to change payee settings on their automatic bank payments and create a new email address if they have Comcast-provided email service. Beyond the personal inconvenience, the City has a concern that customers may use this change of companies to drop cable. The City receives approximately $270,000 in revenue from the cable franchise which is used to support our cable TV and communications functions. Staff recommends approval of the transfer of the Cable Franchise and Change of Control of the Grantee. Councilmember Barnette asked why Comcast was doing this. Mr. Wysopal replied Comcast has too many cable providers throughout the country. There is a certain number threshold and the federal government then considers it a monopoly and this puts them into that limit. GreatLand has the right to sell to Charter Communications in 5 years. It appears they are going in that direction. MOTION by Councilmember Saeflce to adopt Resolution No. 2015-07. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. 14 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26,2015 PAGE 15 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Informal Status Reports James Kiewel brought up information from his past appeal hearing. Mayor Lund replied the appeal hearing is now closed. Attorney Erickson added Mr. Kiewel needed to communicate future information with staff. The appeal hearing is closed and the resolution was passed. Mr. Kiewel asked when the next Council meeting was. Councilmember Barnette replied February 9. Mayor Lund said that he needed to reach the City Manager or staff if he wanted to be on the agenda. Councilmember Bolkcom announced the Springbrook Nature Center open house on February 2 from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Come see the first view of the new design. The design will be up on the website after the open house. !, ,, Councilmember Varichak attended Winterfest. There were a lot of kids, and the event was a I huge success. Kudos to the Parks and Rec staff and all those who helped plan this event. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Krista Peterson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 21,2015 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, Tim Solberg, Leroy Oquist, and Dean Saba MEMBERS ABSENT: Todd Olin OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Rob Stenger,RJ Ryan Construction Dan Simcoe, Micro-Matics Samer Alamy, Islamic University of Minnesota Approval of Minutes: December 16,2014 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP# 15-01, by RJ Ryaa Construction, Inc., to allow a building addition that will increase the lot coverage requirement to 45.1%, generally located at 8050 Ranchers Road. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:04 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, Planner, stated the petitioner, Rob Stenger of RJ Ryan Construction, Inc., who is representing Micro-Matics LLC, is seeking a special use permit to increase the lot coverage requirement from 40 percent to 45.1 percent, to allow for the construction of an addition to the east side of the building,which is located at 8050 Ranchers Road. Ms. Stromberg stated the addition will be used for additional office, storage and manufacturing space for the business. � Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial, as are the properties to the north, south and east. The property to the west is zoned M-2,Heavy Industrial. The property was originally developed by Gerald Paschke in 1983 in conjunction with the property to the north at 8090 Ranchers Road. There was a common wall that was built to allow for the zero lot line set back. Since the building was constructed in 1983, it has remains as is with minor interior and exterior modifications. In 1984,the City Council approved a variance to eliminate the requirement on setback from parking and hard surface for this properiy and the property to the south at 8010 Ranchers Road. This allows the two businesses to share a common access and drive aisle. 16 Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2015 Page 2 of 8 Ms. Stromberg stated Fridley City code allows properties in the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district to obtain a special use permit to increase the lot coverage reyuirement from 40 percent up to 50 percent. The petitioner is seeking to increase the lot coverage requirement from 40 percent to 45.1 percent to construct a 4,500 square foot addition on the east side of the building. This addition will essentially take the existing "L" shaped building and make it a "rectangular" shaped building. The new addition is planned to be used for office, storage and manufacturing space and will be located in the existing parking lot area. Ms. Stromberg stated based on the breakdown of the uses within the building and the proposed addition, 54 parking stalls are required for this property. The addition will displace the parking stalls in front of the building, so the site will be left with 39 parking stalls. Ms. Stromberg stated Micro-Matics runs a day and night shift and also has employees that work on the weekends. The general manager has articulated to staff that they have a total of 43 employees between the three shifts. He understands that at times parking may be tight, but they plan to eliminate the overlap in shifts and replace it with gaps between the day and night teams, so parking does not become an issue. He also has stated that in their business it takes less people to run more machines, so not as many employees are needed and additionally with them moving to working 7 days a week, they will get better utilization of the machines and employees. Staff will place a stipulation on the special use permit that when and if parking does become an issue, re-design of the interiar space may need to be done or the petitioner may need to consider a shared parking agreement with neighboring property owners. � Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed addition complies with all setback requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff has not heard any comments to date from neighboring property owners. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as an increase in lot coverage for a one story building from 40 percent to 50 percent is a permitted special use in the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction of the addition. 2. The petitioner shall meet all building, fire,and ADA requirements. 3. The petitioner shall receive Coon Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. If on-street parking becomes an issue as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council. Chairperson Kondrick asked Ms. Stromberg,just for their own personal gratification and perhaps the petitioner's as well, as to Stipulation No. 3, petitioner shall receive Coon Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit,what do they look for? What do they need and expect? Ms. Stromberg replied, it is just an extension of what the City's engineers typically look for as faz as stormwater. In this situation, they are adding hard surface but yet their new addition will be over an existing parking lot,which is already hard surfaced. It is a separate permit completely from what the City issues. The petitioner has been working with the watershed on this already so they are aware of it. 17 Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2015 Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Sielaff asked regarding the parking, they are going to have fewer parking stalls than the City requires them to have. Their shifts are going to be separated out. Is there a potential for doing on- street parking? Ms. Stromberg replied, the City does not want them to do on-street parking. If that becomes an issue, then they would need to bring it back to the Council. Commissioner Sielaff stated it was not clear to him, it could imply that you could do on-street parking at some certain levels. He would like to see a stipulation stating, if there is any on-street parking period. Ms. Stromberg stated that the stipulations could be modified. She also notes that this has been common for the City's industrial businesses. The City Code is requiring more parking than industries are telling staff that they need because of the machines they have their manufacturing facilities do not require as many employees as they once did. That has been something staff feels they need to look into further, to amend that requirement. Dan Simcoe,Micro-Matics, stated he is the manufacturing manager at Micro-Matics. Rob Stenger, RJ Ryan Construction, Inc., stated he is the project manager. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Simcoe and Mr. Stenger whether they have had chance to read the stipulations and know the concerns of the City regarding those stipulations? Mr. Simcoe replied,yes,they have. Mr. Stenger replied,yes he has. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they have any problems with them? Mr. Stenger replied, no problem. Chairperson Kondrick stated regarding parking, he asked them whether they understand the City's concern? Mr. Simcoe replied, absolutely. Chairperson Kondrick stated the City does not want a bunch of cars on the street. However, if it does become a problem they will have to revisit this in the future and talk about it. Mr. Simcoe replied,understood. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they had anything else to offer the Planning Commission? Mr. Simcoe replied,just a little breakdown of their staff at Micro-Matics. They do have 43 employees, 27 of which are on the dayshift, 11 on the night shift, and then 5 employees on their weekend shift. Currently they have a little overlap right now. Their day shift works until 5:30 and the second shift comes in at 5:15 so there is a 15-minute overlap and they do that just for communication between the shifts. They do have 15 individuals who come in at 5:30 in the morning and leave at 4. With the 11 who 18 Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2015 Page 4 of 8 are coming in on the second shift, the 15 will be leaving prior to their start. However,they are willing to do additional separation of the shifts so they do not have a parking issue. Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Simcoe so they understand the City's concerns. The City is also concerned with Mr. Simcoe's business as well. Things have changed as Ms. Stromberg said. For example,one machine takes the place of three now,etc. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:16 P.M. Commissioner Oquist stated as to the parking, he asked whether the building to the north uses much of that back parking lot? Is it possible Micro-Matics could use some of that space? Mr. Simcoe replied, yes, he thinks there is a possibility there. He does not think they are using any of �II that space right now other than for some storage of their own equipment, but the space is preriy much � wide open. I''i MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving Special Use Permit, SP# 15-01, by RJ Ryan Construction, Inc., to allow a building addition that will increase the lot coverage requirement to 45.1%, generally located at 8050 Ranchers Road with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction of the addition. ' 2. The petitioner shall meet all building,fire, and ADA requirements. 3. The petitioner shall receive Coon Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. If on-street parking occurs as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP # 15-02, by Samer Alamy,to allow a daycare use in an R-3,Multi-Family zoning district,generally located at 6875 Highway 65 NE. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:18 P.M. 19 Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2015 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Samer Alamy on behalf of the Islamic University of Minnesota, is requesting a special use permit to allow a daycare use within the existing building at 6875 Highway 65. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is located off of Highway 65,just south of 68`h Avenue. The properiy is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as are the properties to the north and south. There are single family zoned parcels east of the property and Highway 65 borders the property to the west. The office building was constructed in 1960 through special use permit approval, since the property is zoned R-3, Multi- Family. A rear yard setback variance was approved in 1968,which allowed the construction of a building I, addition, 6 feet from the east property line. Another addition was constructed to the building in 1972. The use of the building has remained office since it was constructed. Ms. Stromberg stated in 1990 a variance was granted to allow a free-standing sign of 48 square feet, to allow wall signs that use the City's commercial/industrial wall size ratio, to reduce the setback from 10 feet to 4.9 feet, and to increase the height of a free-standing sign from 6 feet to 7 feet. Ms. Stromberg stated the Islamic University of Minnesota(NM)has put an offer on the subject property � contingent upon approval of this special use permit request. The NM plans to use the existing building for a daycare center. The initial plan is to use the lower level of the building for the daycare center while the upper level remains as office space. Eventually the entire building will be used for the daycare. � Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is not planning any modifications to the exterior or the building, ! parking lot or landscaping at this time. They are aware that building permits will be required for any �; interior modifications. Ms. Stromberg stated daycares are a permitted special use in the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, provided they meet the necessary requirements, related to building and site requirements and parking, subject to the stipulations suggested by staff. Ms. Stromberg stated the property complies with lot coverage requirements and as a result of the rear yard setback variance previously approved, setbacks are in compliance. Ms. Stromberg stated the existing building is approximately 3,700 square feet in size. The City code requires 1 parking stall for every 100 square feet of useable daycare area. The petitioner anticipates using approximately 2,200 square feet of the walkout level at this time for daycare area. As a result, 22 parking stalls are required. There are 15 parking stalls on the subject property with an additiona124 parking stalls on the parcel to the south. The property to the south is also owned by IUM and there is a shared parking arrangement between the two properties, which could provide the daycare use with a total of 39 parking stalls if needed. Ms. Stromberg stated staff understands that the upstairs will continue to be used for office area and will eventually be used for the daycare use. If parking stalls beyond the 39 available for this building are being used,the petitioner will have to designate other parking stalls on the 6831 Highway 65 NE property for the subject property. The petitioner has articulated that he is confident that between the daycare use at 6875 Highway 65 and the University/Church use at 6831 Highway 65 NE there is adequate parking. The petitioner also understands that they need to provide adequate parking on-site for their uses and that on- street parking is not an option. As a result, staff will stipulate that if parking does become an issue additional review by the City Council will be required. 20 Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2015 Page 6 of 8 Ms. Stromberg stated City Code also requires that in order for a day care center to be located in the R-3 Multi-Family zoning district, a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet is required. The lot is 23,958 square feet,therefore, exceeding the minimum lot size requirement. Ms. Stromberg stated State licensing requirement will dictate the amount of daycare children allowed in the building based on the size of the building, as will fire and building code requirements. At this time, the petitioner anticipates a maximum of 50 students,with 10 staff. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff has not received any comments to date from neighboring property owners. � Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit, as daycares are an approved special use in the R-3,Multi-Family zoning district,with stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following , stipulations be attached: I 1. The petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to interior alteration of the building. ' 2. The petitioner shall comply with the Minnesota State Building code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Fire MarshaL 4. The petitioner shall comply with any State and County regulations to operate a daycare ' center. 5. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new signage. 6. The site shall become up to date with code requirements for accessible parking stalls. 7. Any outdoor play area constructed on the property shall be in the rear yard and fenced in. 8. If on-site parking becomes inadequate and the use requires on-street parking,the Property Owner shall appear before the City Council for further review and potential amendment of the stipulations for the special use permit. Chairperson Oquist stated regarding Stipulation No. 7,with it being a corner lot,where is the rear yard? Ms. Stromberg pointed out on the map the only area for an outdoor play area, which would be on the east side of the lot, in the green area. She also showed that 68`h Avenue side would be considered the front yard, as iYs the narrowest street frontage, The petitioner may work out some kind of agreement for the play area in the green space on the lot to the south since they are the same owners. Chairperson Solberg asked about location for dropping off the children. Ms. Stromberg stated, likely the children won't be dropped of£ In her personal experience, she would park in a parking stall, get her kids out of the car, and they would walk into the daycare. It's likely the age group for the children occupying the daycare won't just be dropped at the door. Chairperson Oquist stated he thought he read this will be a "for" profit daycare so essentially they would be open to the public. Samer Alamy, Islamic University of Minnesota, replied, that is correct. Also, it is not necessarily that the Islamic University is going to be running the operation. If they have a business who wants to run the daycare,which they have been approached,they may lease the building to be used as a daycare. 21 Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Chairperson Sielaff asked what is the capacity? Mr. Alamy replied, his understanding from looking at the State's requirements for daycare centers, it is 35 square feet per child. They are between 1,800 and 2,200 in the lower level which is really kind of a rough estimate and that limits them to about 50. And then the number of students, depending on their age,will deterrnine the number of staff. Chairperson Sielaff asked whether the space requirement does not vary, for example, an infant and a toddler, it is the same? Mr. Alamy replied, it does not. They have generic requirement. They just wanted to see if the operation makes sense. If they can only get maybe 15-20 students, it might not make financial sense. Commissioner Oquist asked if the daycare falls through and they buy the building, what then becomes of this special use permit is for the daycare center, could they then just make the whole building into office area? Ms. Stromberg replied, they can use the building as an office. That is what it was originally built for, or a daycare. Commissioner Oquist asked what happens to the special use permit then if that should happen? Ms. Stromberg replied, it typically stays with the land but, if they know it is not going to happen, the City could revoke it. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:32 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated Mr. Alamy has been straightforward. City Staff has filled them in well. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving Special Use Permit, SP # 15-02, by Samer Alamy, to allow a daycare use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 6875 Highway 65 NE with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to interior alteration of the building. 2. The petitioner shall comply with the Minnesota State Building code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Fire Mazshal. 4. The petitioner shall comply with any State and County regulations to operate a daycare center. 5. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new signage. 6. The site shall become up to date with code requirements for accessible parking stalls. 7. Any outdoor play area constructed on the property shall be in the rear yard and fenced in. 8. If on-site parking becomes inadequate and the use requires on-street parking,the Property Owner shall appear before the City Council for further review and potential amendment of the stipulations for the special use permit. 22 Planning Commission Meeting January 21, 2015 Page 8 of 8 Seconded by Commissioner Oyuist UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNA1vIMOUSLY. 2. Receive t6e Minutes of the December 1,2014,Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Receive the Minutes of the December 8, 2014, Housing & Redevelopment Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. I UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ' OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated to update them from the previous meeting, the preliminary plat for Paul Hyde and the Determan project were both approved by the City Council. They still need to get their plat approved by the CounTy and then it comes back again to the Council for final approval. Ms. Stromberg stated the special use permit for used car sales lot on Highway 65 and 73rd was also approved. Ms. Stromberg stated the next Planning Commission meeting will be February 18, 2015. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIItPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � • `��a�y��y / �� Denise M.Johnson Recording Secretary 23 i ; � - AGENDA ITEM �°�� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF �. Fridley FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Date: February 3, 2014 To: Walter T. Wysopal,City Managei�� From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director lulie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Resolution Approving Special Use Permit Request, SP#15-01, RJ Ryan Construction, Inc.for 8050 Ranchers Road NE RE UEST The petitioner, Rob Stenger of RJ Ryan Construction, Inc., who is representing Micro-Matics LLC, is seeking a special use permit to increase the lot coverage requirement from 40% to 45.1%, to allow for the construction of an addition to the east side of the , � 4 � s� building, which is located at 8050 Ranchers Road. �, �a-�, ` � ��,�� - 9ISTNV'E'fJf"� �, Tp %rE y . �` Fridley City code allows properties in the M-1, Light r " �� -�+�t�� p " �} �� . � x.� .$L*., , � . .R.� � i `rf Industrial zoning district to obtain a special use � � �f�` f , a�a _� ° � W � 5.~� � ermit to increase the lot covera e re uirement ,�.:..- # �o � � � � s P g q . �� ,� .x. � ,� �. from 40% up to 50%. The petitioner is seeking to � � �` � �� 4�� ,�� ,� increase the lot coverage requirement to construct '� .�� _ � .,� �`� a 4,500 square foot addition on the east side of the �� '�` � �� .� building. This addition will essentially take the � � ' ,.,; ��; �� ',� � r� ii r LSS} � '6059 � .� K, .�. existing L shaped building and make it a ,�� ;, � �_� �,��,� . "rectangular" shaped building. The new addition is '��' � ��° � �� , � ' � ° � planned to be used for office, storage and �� - � �' " manufacturing space and will be located in the � �,��'� "�� i�� existing front parking lot area. � ��4�� ' 3 .� ��o� � �" � "'��" �`�`°"� � �� i��: z,�� PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ° ��x'�� ; �� *�� . �r�., ::. �'��:.�� ` � �� At the January 21, 2015 Planning Commission � .�.--�.. � �� , �� A�� meeting, a public hearing was held for SP#15-01. ' �'�: � ' �. �� °: � _� � ��,_r_ After a brief discussion,the Planning Commission � ?��' _< .� '��'>, � � recommended approval of SP#15-01, with a minor �" � �,�� ,� � 3 � modification to stipulation#4,to ensure that if any � ��'� ��, r -� � ` `� � s� � � ` street parking occurs as a result of this use,the �� . "�� ; - , - special use permit will go back before the City �, � . ��, �� ,� �� Council for additional review. The other N ` stipulations were approved as presented by staff. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 24 PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission and approval of the attached resolution. STIPULATIONS 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction of the addition. 2. The petitioner shall meet all building,fire, and ADA requirements. 3. The petitioner shall receive Coon Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. If on-street parking occurs as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council. 25 City of Fridley Land Use Application SP#15-01 January 19, 2015 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: SUMMARY OF PROIECT R1 Ryan Construction, Inc. The petitioner, Rob Stenger, on behalf of Micro- Rob Stenger Matics, is seeking a special use permit to increase 1100 Mendota Heights Road the allowable lot coverage requirement from 40% Mendota Heights MN 55120 to 45.1%to allow the construction of a building Requested Action: addition on the property which is located at 8050 Special Use Permit to increase the allowable Ranchers Road. lot coverage. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Existing Zoning: City Staff recommends approval of this special use M-1 (Light Industrial) permit, with stipulations. Location: An increase in lot coverage for a one story building 8050 Ranchers Road from 40%to 50%is a permitted special use in the Size: M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district, provided all 48,510 sq. ft. 1.11 acres other code requirements are met. Existing Land Use: CITY COUNCIL ACTION/60 DAY DATE Industrial Use—Micro-Matics City Council— February 9, 2015 60 Day— February 16, 2015 Surrounding Land Use &Zoning: � � N: Industrial (Tire Depot)& M-1 � �: � ..,�;� '�� ,._� � " fi�,, E: Industrial(Multi-tenant Bldg)&M-1 � .�,,..- .�_ ...,� • � � ' �H'ST AVE�fJ£� "�` S: Industrial& M-1 ' � �,�, 3�si.�✓ENF � �4.--w^ � �'�..... � W: Industrial(AR North America)& M-2 �� m � . � ,� � � ;� Comprehensive Plan Conformance: � � "^�� , .��R� � ��..:, �o t � � �- `: ';�t' �� ,:1 Consistent with Plan , � � , 41�.�= ,�� '`g � � Zoning Ordinance Conformance: -. � �� °�� `�� ,,��' �� `��•�� Sec. 205.17.3.C.(1).((a)) requires a special �-, use permit for a one-story building to � increase lot coverage from 40%a to 50%of �,t� �� b��o ; � � �� i the lot area. �� Sec. 205.18.3.C.(4) requires that the �� ' �� . ;,�� ' ;�� =F; petitioner meet all other ordinance � � � �_�� r �� ty� � ;# � � requirements. � � � : �� Zoning History: " � �� , 1981—Lot is platted. �� `�� a��i �'�� x �� "� �� a 1983—Building constructed. � ""� � � +� es�� _F rrr �`�.s�° r � �: �� a ¢ a€-a:'°`�' � —�:�.r�is A�a , x„ � �sL-+�G- w t Legal Description of Property: � �:, �,� �� . b „� �� , w.. Lot 2, Block 4, University Industrial Park. � ��, ° � � �� ' �� j�`�� r � ��_ tE� -� � z-,�. Public Utilities: � � �`� �� - ' �q � .� �� ' � -� r�. 74��i tl ii��.b� .+ ��T F�� F' � I . Building is connected. � � �� Transportation: � �� '`� ��"�� , � t � � . � , . � � , The property is accessed from Ranchers , ,�;:.,� ; {� �� `� � w'� th st � ..�� ,�'�ao�'�' �?�.. ..< �. �p "..'��..� Road, Main Street, 79 Avenue and 81 Aerial of the site Avenue. Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg Physical Characteristics: Building, hard surface parking areas with landscaping along Ranchers Road. 26 i Land Use Application Special Use Permit #15-01 RE UEST The petitioner, Rob Stenger of RJ Ryan Construction, Inc., who is representing Micro-Matics LLC, is seeking a special use permit to increase the lot coverage requirement from 40%to 45.1%,to allow for the construction of an addition to the east side of the building, which is located at 8050 Ranchers Road. The addition will be used for additional office, storage and manufacturing space for the business. HISTORY The property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial, as are the properties to the north, south and east. The property to the west is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. The � property was originally developed by Gerald Paschke in 1983 in conjunction with the property to the north at 8090 B�Sra��E BISTAVfNf e�n Ranchers Road. There was a common wall that was built to �o ■ allow for the zero lot line set back. Since the building was constructed in 1983, it has remains as is with minor interior and exterior modifications. In 1984,the City Council '°'° � approved a variance to eliminate the requirement on setback from parking and hard surface for this property and � �� the property to the south at 8010 Ranchers Road. This N � allows the two businesses to share a common access and m A� � drive aisle. m �.. 7Y69 ANALYSIS '°"° '°m Fridley City code allows properties in the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district to obtain a special use permit to �=Z � increase the lot coverage requirement from 40% up to 50%. YE 79TH AVf Nf 79T}i AVE NE 79TH qyF NF The petitioner is seeking to increase the lot coverage � ,,�� ,�� ,� requirement from 40%to 45.1%to construct a 4,500 square foot addition on the east side of the building. This addition will essentially take the existing "L" shaped building and make it a "rectangular" shaped building. The new addition is planned to be used for office, storage and manufacturing space and will be located in the existing parking lot area. Based on the breakdown of the uses within the building and the proposed addition, 54 parking stalls are required for this property. The addition will displace the parking stalls in front of the building, so the site will be left with 39 parking stalls. Micro-Matics runs a day and night shift and also has employees that work on the weekends. The general manager has articulated to staff that they have a total of 43 employees between the three shifts. He understands that at times parking may be tight, but they plan to eliminate the overlap in shifts and replace it with gaps between the day and night teams, so parking doesn't become an issue. He also has stated that in their business it takes less people to run more machines, so not as many employees are needed and additionally with them moving to working 7 days a week,they will get better utilization of the machines and employees. Staff will place a stipulation on the special use permit that when and if parking does become an issue, re-design of the interior space may need to be done or the petitioner may need to consider a shared parking agreement with neighboring property owners. The proposed addition complies with all setback requirements. 27 City staff hasn't heard any comments to date from neighboring property owners. RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as an increase in lot coverage for a one story building from 40%to 50Y is a permitted special use in the M-1, Light Indusrrial zoning district, subject to stipulations. STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted,the following stipulations be attached. 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction of the addition. 2. The petitioner shall meet all building,fire, and ADA requirements. 3. The petitioner shall receive Coon Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. If on-street parking occurs as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council. 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP# 15-01 FOR RJ RYAN CONSTRUCTION,INC. ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, RANCHERS ROAD LLC FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8050 RANCHERS ROAD NE WHEREAS, Section 205.17.3.C.(1).((a)) of Fridley City Code allows an increase in lot coverage for a one-story building from 40%to 50% of the lot area in an M-1, Light Industrial zoning district by a special use permit if certain conditions can be met; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2015, the Fridley Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by RJ Ryan Construction Inc. on behalf of the property owner, Ranchers Road LLC, for the property located at 8050 Ranchers Road NE in Fridley, legally described as Lot 2, Block 4, University Industrial Park, for a Special Use Permit SP# 15-01 to allow an increase in lot coverage from 40%to 45.1%; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2015, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of Special Use Permit, SP#15-01; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2015, the Fridley City Council approved the stipulations represented in Exhibit A to this resolution as the conditions on Special Use Permit SP# 15-01; and WHEREAS, the petitioner was presented with Exhibit A, the stipulations, at the February 9, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, Section 205.OS.S.G of the Fridley City Code states that this special use permit will become nu11 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; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley that the Special Use Permit SP# 15-01 and stipulations represented in Exhibit A aze hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9T" DAY OF FEBRUARY,2015. SCOTT J. LUND—MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 29 EXHIBIT A SP# 15-01 Special Use Permit for an Increase in Lot Coverage 8050 Ranchers Road NE, Fridley, MN Stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction of the addition. 2. The petitioner shall meet all building,fire, and ADA requirements. 3. The petitioner shall receive Coon Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. If on-street parking occurs as a result of this use,the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council. 30 - AGENDA ITEM ��;:>.°f CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF � Fridley FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Date: February 3, 2014 To: Walter T.Wysopal, City Manager � From: Scott Hickok,Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Resolution Approving Special Use Permit Request, SP#15-02, by Samer Alamy for 6875 Hwy 65 NE RE UEST The petitioner, Samer Alamy on behalf of the � . � � x� Islamic University of Minnesota, is requesting a _y�� '� �� ' ��. ".�6g� � �,�� special use permit to allow a daycare use withm :�, ° ° "� ��2 � �. � � �,.r � �,� � � �� the existing building at 6875 Hwy 65 NE. ;'� ' �.� ��_'�.�'"�'��"�' � z,, �c 86&AlA�fN[ �b87ri AYF Nf �. 6STH AVE 1JE . .�+ The Islamic University of Minnesota (IUM) has put � ` � ` � �� : an offer on the subject property contingent upon � '� � ��<�T �y � �� , � approval of this special use permit request. The �� , �� '� : - `°'s � �� " IUM lans to use the existin buildin for a da care '.� . � ` � � p g g Y ,� ,�� 68�5�µy center. The initial plan is to use the lower level of � �� ,��,� � � ��,� �� the building for the daycare center while the upper �,� � � �� `� ' �a-� level remains as office space. Eventually,the r. '� � �� `�' �� ` �� entire buildin will be used for the da care. �� •�� ;� � �� Y � �- �.F° � �,, �� . i� � �:t � . ; � a. Daycares are a permitted special use in the R-3, y �,�{,.�� yq 66� r {t 8 F ' �� i R ^°' �i S'<' Multi-Family zoning district, provided they meet �y �� ''��°�� : �� ': the necessary requirements, related to building > �� z � �' , ^ '� . ;�x�� and site requirements and parking, subject to the �i �� r�� m � � . ��. �� `3.'';�;�µ�� stipulations suggested by staff. �� ' �' �� ' � ; �`�li �� PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION � 6 At the January 21, 2015 Planning Commission 5�.� �� meeting, a public hearing was held for SP#15-02. � °� � �� G��"r""'� ��- After a brief discussion,the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP#15-02, with the stipulations as presented by staff. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission and approval of the attached resolution. 31 STIPULATIONS 1. The petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to interior alteration of the building. 2. The petitioner shall comply with the Minnesota State Building code requiremenrs. 3. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Fire Marshal. 4. The petitioner shall comply with any Stare and County regulations to operate a daycare center. 5. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new signage. 6. The site shall become up to dafe with code requirements for accessible parking stalls. 7. Any outdoor play area constructed on the property shall be in the rear yard and fenced in. 8. If on-site parking becomes inadequate and the use requires on-street parking, the Property Owner shall appear before the City Council for further review and potential amendment of the sripulations for the special use permit. 32 City of Fridley Land Use Application SP#15-02 January Z1, 2015 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAI INFORMATION Applicant: Transportation: Samer Alamy The property receives access from the Hwy 65 4930 Pennine Pass NE Service Drive. Columbia Heights MN 55421 Physical Characteristics: Requested Action: Lot slopes down to the south, it consists of the Special Use Permit to allow a daycare use. building, parking areas, and landscaped areas. Location: SUMMARY OF PROJECT 6875 Hwy 65 The petitioner, Mr.Alamy is seeking a special use Existing Zoning: permit to allow a day care use within the existing R-3 (Multi-Family) building at 6875 Hwy 65. Size: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS 23,958 sq. ft. .55 acres City Staff recommends approval of the special use � Existing Land Use: permit, with stipulations. Office Building Daycares are a permitted special use in the R-3, Surrounding Land Use &Zoning: Multi-Family zoning district, subject to stipulations. N: Motel& R-3 C1TY COUNCIL ACTION/60 DAY DATE E: Single Family Homes& R-1 City Council—February 9, 2015 S: Islamic University/Church & R-3 60 Day—February 16, 2015 W: Hwy 65 & ROW �� .� �� _ `P� � y4�b, �.�'� . � ��, '�'.��j�i9l�� . 6&YO k,-�y� r 1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: °�� ti� � � � ��.�� ' .�� Consistent with Plan. �� ' '�� F�"� � °-�`� a�� ," +� _�_ �� # Z011lllg�fC�lt18l1C2 C011fOffT18f1C@: r�nr:n'ycror �vsrN ave roF �en, ;,�r.r,� ; � Sec. 205.09.01.C.(3j requires a special use ��; " � � � � ��a� �`� �" �� 2�Y ` � u,, � � i4 permit to allow a daycare in the R-3 zoning �� :� � ,t� � � _� � . .�� district �_� , � � �� ' `°" t � s�� _ � _ �`,�� ,�; �-.� � � Zoning History: �� "�� '�°� t - 6875 7+.? 1939—Lot platted. y � ��'� � �� 1960—Office building constructed. �°�� - � � �� :� �sem �� "�� 1968—Rear yard variance approved and �� ' � � °�"`` A I' ��` ` a � -,� building addition. � �� `� �� ` � �� r 1972—8uilding addition. � � � � W; " ' � '�� '� � � 68GC q e 1990—Sign variances approved. � � �� ,. � . �� ` �� Legal Description of Property: � � �_� �� '� � The North 95 ft, of the North 190 ft. of Lots m �� $� � � � � b � 14& 15, Brookview Addition, Anoka � ��m � � �°`�� ;�� 4,�b�s � ;t � ' �_� �� ;:�� County, Except the West 22 feet of the , �'� , �` ��► �� North 95 feet of Lot 14. �� and �� ; ��, , . � �.. The South 95 feet of the North 190 feet of k�� "°" a e �k�.;. nr:w _ Lots 14& 15, Brookview Addition, Anoka Aerial of Subject Property County, Except the West 22 feet of the Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg S�uth 95 feet of the North 190 feet of Lot 14. Public Utilities: Building is connected. 33 Land Use Application Special Use Permit #15-02 RE UEST The petitioner, Samer Alamy on behalf of the Islamic University of Minnesota, is requesting a special use permit to allow a daycare use within the existing building at 6875 Hwy 65 NE. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The subject property is located off of Hwy 65,just south of 68t"Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as are the properties to the north and south. There are single family zoned parcels east of the property and Hwy 65 borders the property to the � I s.�o rn west. The office building was constructed in 1960 th�ough special use permit approval, since the Yavc�r 68TH AVE NF cae � � property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family. A rear yard � 6876 6875 setback variance was approved in 1968, which �:� allowed the construction of a building addition, 6 ft. s:� � 6845 GB from the east property line. Another addition was constructed to the bui�ding in 1972. The use of the ; � "�► CHANMEL RD IV£ building has remained office since it was constructed. � � � In 1990 a variance was granted to allow a free- ; rn standing sign of 48 sq. ft., to allow wall signs that use � z the City's commercial/industrial wall size ratio,to i "" `•�` reduce the setback from 10 ft.to 4.9 ft., and to � r �a3� 6846 so� 6 � increase the height of a free-standing sign from 6 ft. � � � to 7 ft. � � , ANALYSIS � 68TH VL NE The Islamic University of Minnesota (IUM) has put an offer on the subject property contingent upon � � approval of this special use permit request. The IUM ' � ^ plans to use the existing building for a daycare center. The initial plan is to use the lower level of the building for the daycare center while the upper level remains as office space. Eventually,the entire building will be used for the daycare. The petitioner isn't planning any modifications to the exterior or the building, parking lot or landscaping I at this time. They are aware that building permits will be required for any interior modifications. Daycares are a permitted special use in the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, provided they meet the necessary requirements, related to building and site requirements and parking, subject to the stipulations suggested by staff. The property complies with lot coverage requirements and as a result of the rear yard setback variance previously approved, setbacks are in compliance. The existing building is approximately 3,700 sq.ft. in size. The City code requires 1 parking stall for every 100 sq.ft.of useable daycare area. The petitioner anticipates using approximately 2,200 sq.ft. of the walkout level at this time for daycare area. As a result, 22 parking stalls are required. There are 15 parking stalls on the subject property with an additional 24 parking stalls on the parcel to the south. The property to the south is also owned by IUM and there is a shared parking arrangement between the two properties, which could provide the daycare use with a total of 39 parking stalls if needed. 34 Staff understands that the upstairs will continue to be used for office area and will eventually be used for the daycare use. If parking stalls beyond the 39 available for this building are being used,the ��87" '�'�r �� "��°� � � � � � petitioner will have to designate other parking � � �,d�� stalls on the 6831 Hwy 65 NE property for the � `� �`' �� se�s ��'��`� subject property. The petitioner has articulated ��p�� . � �� '`»� ' 4 4�t �, that he's confident that between the daycare use �� '`� "� �`ea�s � �-�� at 6875 Hwy 65 and the University/Church use at � �� .�� 6831 Hw 65 NE there is ade uate arkin The �°�„ �� .�A , '687° �� ' �� Y q p g• �� " � �� ,� � ►+ ,; ��t � petitioner also understands that they need to �� ' � ��°;� ; � � � �� provide adequate parking on-site for their uses � ��"��. �� °} ��`a��'� ` �= � � � .� ��,� and that on-street parking isn't an option. As a � •°�� "`�` �� 68� ��'��"� �� "� ;� � � ��w: result, staff will stipulate that if parking does _ � � � � �_ . become an issue additional review by the City " ��`' `� � � i Council will be required. ��rn �� , � � �, � $ .� ,�� ,� � �.� ;��.��t�.--t,... ��.� "" .� . City Code also requires that in order for a day care � ��;z ,� � ' �.`--" � �, �,.,� center to be located in the R-3 Multi-Family zoning � -� r�w � �� district, a minimum lot size of 12,000 sq.ft. is �� x�;� :� W . °'� �' �� s�� required. The lot is 23,958 sq.ft., therefore, � � �� .� � �°�� " � � � ' kF � , . �, r.S�fi��a exceeding the minimum lot size requirement. � ` r � �� ., sasi� , .y� �. � , �*�g� .�� : ��. � 4 v"! State licensing requirement will dictate the ��' ' �� ' 6$31� amount of daycare children allowed in the building �� m �� P1'O�e�'ky , �� based on the size of the building, as will fire and I �. � �, building code requirements. At this time, the ° ,�� petitioner anticipates a maximum of 50 students, �� `�� ,,� ��r � with 10 staff. �� '" �� _` '�" '� �I � 4`w. .. 6S TH PL NF��.�.�.�, � City staff has not received any comments to date from neighboring property owners. RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit, as daycares are an approved special use in the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, with stipulations. STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. The petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to interior alteration of the building. 2. The petitioner shall comply with the Minnesota State euilding code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Fire Marshal. 4. The petitioner shall comply with any State and County regulations to operate a daycare center. 5. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new signage. 6. The site shall become up to date with code requirements for accessible parking stalls. 7. Any outdoor play area constructed on the property shall be in the rear yard and fenced in. 8. If on-site parking becomes inadequate and the use requires on-street parking, the Property Owner shall appear before the City Council for further review and potential amendment of the stipulations for the special use permit. 35 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - - A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP# 15-02 FOR SAMER ALAMY ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER,TWO PC PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ISLAMIC IJ1vIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA,GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6875 HWY 65 NE WHEREAS, Section 205.09.1.C.(3) of Fridley City Code allows daycares in the R-3, General Multiple Dwellings zoning district by a special use permit if certain conditions can be met; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2015, the Fridley Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by Samer Alamy on behalf of the property owner, Two PC Partnership, for the potential buyer, Islamic University of Minnesota, for the property generally located at 6875 Hwy 65 NE in Fridley, legally described in the attached Exhibit A, for Special Use Permit SP# 15-02 to ; a11ow a daycare use; and !, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Special Use Permit, SP #15-02 subject to the stipulations set forth in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2015,the Fridley City Council approved the stipulations represented in Exhibit B to this resolution as the conditions on Special Use Permit SP# 15-02; and WHEREAS, the petitioner, was presented with E�ibit B, the stipulations, at the February 9, 2015 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, Section 205.OS.S.G of the Fridley City Code states that 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; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley that Special Use Permit SP# 15-02 and stipulations represented in Exhibit B are hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2014. SCOTT J. LUND—MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 36 EXHIBIT A SP# 15-02 Special Use Permit for a Daycare Use 6875 Hwy 65 NE,Fridley, MN 55432 Legal Description: The North 95 feet of the North 190 feet of Lots 14 & 15, Brookview Addition, Anoka County, Except the West 22 feet of the North 95 feet of Lot 14. and The South 95 feet of the North 190 feet of Lots 14 & 15, Brookview Addition, Anoka County, Except the West 22 feet of the South 95 feet of the North 190 feet of Lot 14. 37 i EXHIBIT B SP# 15-02 Special Use Permit for a Daycare Use ' 6875 Hwy 65 NE,Fridley, MN 55432 , Stipulations: 1. The petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to interior alteration of the building. 2. The petitioner shall comply with the Minnesota State Building code requirements. 3. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Fire Marshal. 4. The petitioner shall comply with any State and County regulations to operate a daycare center. 5. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new signage. 6. The site shall become up to date with code requirements for accessible parking stalls. 7. Any outdoor play area constructed on the property shall be in the rear yard and fenced in. 8. If on-site parking becomes inadequate and the use requires on-street parking, the Property Owner shall appear before the City Council for further review and potential amendment of the stipulations for the special use permit. 38 _ AGENDA ITEM ��n �j CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF � Fridley � FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Date: February 4, 2015 To: Walter T.Wysopal, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Resolution Approving Final Plat, PS#14-05, DET 7220 LLC RE UEST On Monday, January 5, 2015, Preliminary Plat, PS #14-05 was approved for the properties at 7220 Central Avenue and 124172"d Avenue to replat these two properties to make an adjustment to the property line. The petitioner would like to sell the - ��7$,AT� � ��• � 9z- � ° , < n,r„�... � property at 7220 Central Avenue, ' ``'�"�'�`'"°7"�8"�"'YF�. ` ��- -" t —. .. _.... Rr.x•!.,� �w�ie'T'r , _._ ...� � __... .___..... ___...... I ' � but in order to do so the property F ,� �`,' " � ' `" ` - _ ,-"' i � �. . . �..__ line needs to be modified to ensure ;�';�` ;-� � ' i i .._ the wastewater treatment building � ' r _ ; .,.:.� �-- � �I � on site remains with the parcel at � ` �` �"- ; ��4�7�"d�1v�t.e � � 124172�d Avenue. � � " �''�-�- , � �� ( � , � l�Eit 1 `� i �'° , ��, � �' � , . • i '.". . � : .. __ ...___ . I I 1 t.� .� # � �. �. . . ��__,... ; M-.--r �� The complexity of the ` � ; � �`` � ! � ; ,; infrastructure inside the ; �i � ` r� c� �' � , -+ , ---+- ---------- . -__-- -�, i �,; ��,,.. � f ,�y. ;,�"w, �,��; I .�,. . � ,- _ wastewater treatment building �� , � � I L � �r �.' ! 1. makes it very difficult to relocate ��' ` °-� �� -=� �� :�`� �� ;�� v� y �� '� � �� r � •#�- 3 s,fi -rs s;2� � the building somewhere else on I�� s", �,:, ; � � � su ; site; and it is used by the tenant !� � �� '' � �`�� i�=��'�2�Gien't��Avent}� �,� ' �� °, that is located in the building at � �'� � `�- - ��,� � �� '�� R � � x �� —;;+-�� ,� � �. �? �'.i s� 124172"d Avenue �� '�� ' - � � - �� - � -+-q� I�.� �i �''� � d� ; Y � �:� ; l, � � ��l �' r 33 ��z�i,. 7; �,zK s '�. �, . � Once the preliminary plat is , ��-� `� �'� �� " .�� ' �� '�.� �,1, �,, , , , . . .. ._ _ _ .:._ ___.. , � approved, the petitioner has 60 _ ' y '� � �,a�,..�� ,�a�.�c�,�=ti- ° �� ,�.: ..-:� z, , c _ a,� _�. days to bring the final plat back ~~-� - before the City Council. The final plat is now ready for approval and signatures by the City. 39 RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of final plat, PS#14-01, and the attached resolution. STIPULATIONS 1. The petitioner shall install a fire suppression system within the existing wastewater treatment building or the wall between the building and newly created property line shall be retrofitted to a 3- hour fire-wall, due to the close proximity of the building to the property line. 2. Each building on both parcels shall be assigned an address for police and fire identification. 40 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, P.S. #14-05 BY DET 7220 LLC, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 7220 CENTRAL AVENUE NE,TO MODIFY THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 7220 CENTRAL AVENUE NE AND 1241 72ND AVENUE NE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 17, 2014, and recommended approval of said plat; and WHEREAS, the City's Subdivision ordinance allows the Planning Commission and City Council to permit variations to code requirements through the subdivision process, provided such variations would not cause undue hardship or are not contrary to the intent and purpose of the regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes through the Subdivision ordinance the setback variations for the wastewater treatment building that is on the property; which will not cause undue hardship or is contrary to the intent and purpose of the code requirements, as follows: • a side yard setback reduction for 1241 72"d Avenue to .08 feet • a rear yard setback reduction for 7220 Central Avenue to 4 feet WHEREAS, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for DETERMAN ADDITION at their January 5, 2015 meeting; and WHEREAS,the City Council approved the final plat of DETERMAN ADDITION at their February 9, 2015 meeting; and WHEREAS, a copy of the final plat DETERMAN ADDITION has been attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the stipulations of the final plat are attached in Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council approves the Final Plat for DETERMAN ADDITION and directs the petitioner to record the plat at Anoka County within six months of this approval or such approval shall be null and void. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015. SCOTT LUND -MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 41 Page 2—Resolution -2015—DETERMAN ADDITION EXHIBIT A STIPULATIONS 1. The petitioner shall install a fire suppression system within the existing wastewater treatment building or the wall between the building and newly created property line shall be retrofitted to a 3- hour fire-wall, due to the close proximity of the building to the property line. 2. Each building on both parcels shall be assigned an address for police and fire identification. 42 �� Fe � �i ►� �,,;'� ��j � �n �� -' �yge � " �p � �$ �`E E �� Ix H N �9 C°2 A �Z ,��; � �� 'R z� �; ��' ��say � � �; � R �� 5 �s_ < �- a U� 5f b��; r��to I ��$ yi3e �- � ;e�y5'�°��-`:: � g�s ��d�€ � � I g a, I �s� ��o I � i . I R �� ... . ;' " I •o; I Y.�: � r�.e i - r'� .. i ,...._...... ,...... —1 ,_ � .._ $ . .. .. �..,.---------.�,. :�::: $�---------_----- ..... ..... ...;;,;,:;;,�; ;,;�n ::..... .,... ,,.. ,,,,, . �.,.. .,.,,,•, .,�.;-:;.�.< ,��;:; .•,'i=.:�y n s�_'�„w-., I .< <..c riKC A,irn��u n v�.m�v rr ur�"', R R � Z1p[ � �'a''� .z�x'«�i��i�m•.n.wro m»c-n<x-. � ��Y''Y.�.X:OOG'——y � - ——•— m9cG_.._�__� '• � I'iC 3..91 .IXl' e�� —_' __ _____Y,iT,S[�'�;. (5£'ON,1VM119Fi;�31V1S A1N'10�) `` R F, I R R 3P�/�V �t7�'.� R R �� I �� __,'� I ` �___�______—___ �� _� R I �� : I � � � g�K �! i D�i i '-:t;; . i ,-t j $! 8 , g s. �4 . � � �, .,I ; I s� �r ��I � �� ''r;. I' r� I .�o, � ' � O �s �%�� v+v� � � � � � �� I I .. Ix . N � `� I ... , .. _ � - , ':� :, � i;::� i i � FA------�------:-�-�o,�=--------------- ---- ` � `�' - �ry ��.. � F:: � � # I � .. I.� ' % I = `'J � I `� I �i - � � j 't� , �b � "" � I � ��, � I� I i roee .s.scaas I b � Fi: � _ I rc « d� �o I y G � ` � � - � Z !I -- I �p answos�; — � n m"-- �� . W � f I .I � � �°ti,��A��'��:,�:,A„�,.,�_,r- p I 0 ;;: I, I ��``�l'.;_.{� .rl F_' �'_ ;� /'1 �b � :id� _ I; � \,JI I F ;;�� ,_, ' _ �I ..` i y. � �:�i � � '�" � '• � �I � �� .`t�: e I � .��'" � E j � �I bAF`�I sa��-^- I �� P=� � � ' $ �� :t; � �� rl �I � £�I � - I � �� b6l � I � . I '"" � y I� 6�I 2 � _ . ^ : I " ; s � � `-• �. .: � :•, ;;; , •-,. i � - � •- I ::� -- :I J 4� � I :: � � ; --------- ---------- ------------------- --� �1 ^�^�--- I:: � � - - -_ - ------ ::: � � - :.: , -r z- - - - - - �-i�_a I .r - - - - - -� - ' � �, �:-. ,. r----�- '� " � -- ' ----------m«�----- --;----- --—- , -".,,-9�a��.,.��n«.3.,��,n....o-.,—•-�- Tt 'a---s��bodx�.,+A.,.,�.,�•nrw.+o-t;..--a---- - � � il L!_ _ _ _ _ i i.��L�—t�n — — — � � ��` Ie! ��,7.s.��wa.��.wo ,.w ,W��..4��.., — @�: - � i�i � '--..dM .i , .n�.,w wn,n,wwc�...�n�"m<;��..��AS.,�:. � � � I F I �i�; I �z�... W.�$'° ,... ��.,N. ................�., .,,,...�....,. � �},- �' ,. r �i NOIld��X3 _L � ' ��?; j': z i w a�.'"�°,�'p��,.y_, �� '� � �---------- ' ' .�. __,�,�n_„��, ,.,,.s.�-� -- - � ----- _ _ii- M "'';8� -��- -�- -�—�, �. ;� ��sl 3 I$b: �� t, � € �� !, �� rW =��a- 43 __---_' r � ----�_ �� $ � fi � . � 4 �N N � �. � i b a § �G�r�' b �� $ 0�1 9�x �� ; � -° � �� oap $� s � ��E� fiR � � B S Y g $o � � 's�o 1 �fi � � � s� g E 3�'S ��£ ?x $ � ga 3bo�X 5 ' oi� � 6 t �' s s� g �m �gt� �� Y $ '3 �.c ��3$ _ � '' t� £a$e �' a' a - �` �� ca g � ��'� �'� R `06 3. �€ F� ��g fi y L . "' �. ' �� '� �g �� °'� 8.g �� 'g�6$ y� � :o � `5Jf ys1 " Eel; % � m � € R � ��S b� o �'S�6 �� n"� � g <$ � $o bAs�' � i s o 3 �� ol ;�,�� W� `$ �1 N� �� ` � $fiS4� ' S > ��: ?^ -0 1 a i�i�o � L � o � � J� 3� V� `� � `�b� R � " S �o ° ` � 5Y°Y g i �g �g �sN � ° og3 � �N� � Y £ Y° � L Y i g t �6 x` Y „ Y g - % 8 s a ,. .. Z �$t� � , �$ - a J� � $� �� g �° � u � r �g�� $ z' �5 �V b °� m � g m� �� o m . �� gs € � y� � �E� �� e `� � v y�E� o � �r �_ � � `e 5 '�o 4~ a+ � � g' i � f �� o� �✓� & �' � - . r �°�� ' c�� % � � '°t '�� <� �� 5 � s p @Y 8 �5 $€o��y ��, N� � � g � �� a�.§Q a- §� a� ° � F S. 5� °��f� 5� �'9 y g °I - S 5�. `��g� �: �gA � g � g �� ;��aa� �-g a$x r l� � L�s 4�� r� �� !a � � ° �a ��"�'° ''� '4 $ i � s br ��WY� a �` � a � E � _ .��L t� n� � �°$ o_ =fi ag �. � s '� gi� z��,r$, �� ; � '� , s $ =.R N��al ;� �� e .% $�� a&�� a� �� $ �' i �R:� ��g�y gy �� 9� t � sg� �y�=' z$ `�� R � W�� 3��€�+ o'� �$ � � S� ry� °�� 6a��3 �° g� � �l � 9 � �°s �R�}� �� i ��°f �P' • �o�b� z� �€ E � � g'' �g � � 5;'y, �$ :a� o . Jtb ��' �e �} E <t.{r z=��° y- $� " s ° S`d �i � . e§$6� Rg �_ � � � � �� Vj � $�� n�E�� ;5. � � R � N� €� � �� _��'� �,3� °s' E5 =� _ '� k ?,�w g$'�S� �'a E° $ �aE gi 44 �` AGENDA ITEM � `��t� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF ` Fridley FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Date: February 5, 2015 To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Subject: Modification to Resolution Extending Date For Compliance for James Kiewel to Correct Outstanding Retaining Wall Issues at 1627 & 1631 Rice Creek Drive Background On December 22, 2015 the City Council approved Resolution Number: 2014 - 99, with associated Findings of Fact. In that resolution it resolved that: ....based on these findings,the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby affirms the order of the City Planning Manager directing the Owner to either:(1)remove the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and 1627 Property pursuant to a valid land alteration permit and,if reconstructed,reconstruct it pursuant to valid land alteration or building permit;or(2)provide the City a structural engineering certificate concerning the structural integrity of the retaining wall on the1631Property and the1627 Property as required by Fridley City Code Section 205.OS.S.I(2), 206.01.1,and 206.01.2, as well as Minn. R. 1300.0120 by February 23,2015. Update Mr. Kiewel has retained the services of a certified Structural Engineer who will perform the analysis and provide the required report. This Engineer, has requested that he be allowed to do the analysis when the snow melts and frost leaves the ground near the retaining wall. Staff has prepared a minor revision to the approved resolution for City Council consideration. Council is only considering the extension date, not re-approving, disapproving, or modifying anything else on the approved Resolution Number 2014 - 99, if they approve this modification. This date is being offered in recognition of the engineer's request to provide the report in warmer ground conditions. If approved, Mr. Kiewel will have until June 30, 2015, rather than February 23, 2015 to meet the requirements defined in Council Resolution Number 2014 - 99. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached extension to the date of compliance for Council Resolution Number: 2014 - 99, extending the date for compliance from February 23, 2015 to June 30, 2015 to allow his engineer sufficient time to analyze the subject retaining wall and allow Mr. Kiewel time to make any necessary modifications as outlined in the original resolution. By this approval only the date for compliance will change, no other alteration to the original resolution will be made. 45 CITY OF FRIDLEY RESOLUTION NO.2014-99 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RELATED TO 1627 and 1631 RICE CREEK ROAD NE WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), through its Community Development staff, including the Planning Manager and Community Development Director, conducts routine and systematic zoning code enforcement inspections throughout the City to help protect the health, safety, general welfare and good order of the public; WHEREAS, an owner of property is liable for violations of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance pursuant to City Code Section 205.05.10,which specifically states: 10.ENFORCEMENT Violation a Misdemeanor;Penalty. The owner of a building or premises in or upon w6ich a violation of any provisions of this Chapter has been committed,or shail exist; or the lessee of the entire building or entire premises in or upon which a violadon has been committed or shall exist;or the I owner or lessee of any part of the building,or premises in or upon which such violation has been committed or shall exist, shall be guiity of a misdemeanor,and subject to all penalties provided for suc6 violations under the provision of Chapter 901 of this Code each and every day that such violation continues. Any such person who,having been served with an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order to remove any such violation,within ten (]0) days after such service, or shall continue to violate any provisions of the regulations made under authority of this Chapter in the respect named in such order shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of this Code. Each day that such violation continues shall be a separate violation. (emphasis added). WHEREAS, James Kiewel ("Owner") owns real property located at 1627 Rice Creek Road NE in the City(the"1627 Property); WHEREAS, Owtter owns real property located at1631 Rice Creek Road NE in the City (the "1631 Property"); WHEREAS, the City Zoning Code requires a land alteration permit whenever earth moving equipment is involved in major land disturbance activities on real property; WHEREAS, while the Fridley City Code only allows minor landscaping that can be completed with hand tools to be conducted on residential property without a land alteration permit; WHEREAS, on or about June 28, 2005, Owner applied for a land alteration permit (the "Permit")for the 1631 Property(Exhibit 2); 46 Resolution No. 2014- 99 Page 2 WHEREAS, the materials that the Owner submitted to the City indicated that the proposed change on the 1631 Property in the land alteration work for which he sought the Permit included a retaining wall and depicted a four(4) foot grade difference from one end of the lot to the other(Exhibit 2) indicating a retaining wall under four(4)feet tall; WHEREAS,if the Owner's land alteration permit application indicated a retaining wall over four (4) feet in height, City policy would have required additional engineering drawings in order to demonstrate and certify that the retaining wall was properly designed; WHEREAS,while the State Building Code provides that any retaining wall over four(4) feet in height requires owners to obtain a building permit, City practice is to fulfill and administer the State Building Code permit requirement through issuance of the land alteration permit because City Public Works staff is more qualified to review, analyze and approve such plans as they relate to grading and erosion control; WHEREAS, in administering the building permit requirement in this manner, the land alteration permit, issued under the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires an owner as one of its conditions to submit � engineering plans to demonstrate that the retaining wall was properly designed; WI�EREAS, in enforcing the terms and conditions of its land alteration permit, the City is enforcing its Zoning Ordinance rather than the State Building Code; WHEREAS, in the application, the Owner reyuested the Permit to "fill low lying areas of[the] backyard" on the 1631 Property(Exhibit 2); WHEREAS, on or about June 30, 2005, the City approved the Permit for the 1631 Property (Exhibit 2); WHEREAS, the Permit only authorized land alteration and dirt and fill moving on the 1631 Property and not the 1627 Property(Exhibit 2); WHEREAS, Owner moved dirt on the 1631 Property during the timeframe allowed pursuant to the Permit; WHEREAS,the Permit expired on September 30,2005 (Exhibit 2); WHEREAS, on or about October 4, 2005, the City received a noise complaint that Owner had been moving dirt on the 1631 Property with heavy equipment; WHEREAS, subsequent to the October 4, 2005 noise complaint, the City, through its Assistant Public Works Director, discovered that the Owner had constructed a six(6) foot tall retaining wall on the 1631 Property consisting of two levels of three(3)foot tall plastic barrels(Exhibit 3); and WHEREAS, in some areas on the 1631 Property, the retaining wall is topped with three rows of railroad ties, for a total height in excess of eight(8)feet in some areas on the Property(Exhibit 9); and WHEREAS, City Code Sections 206.01.1 and 206.01.2, as well as Minn. R. 1300.0120 require the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any retaining wall that exceeds four (4) feet in height; 47 Resolution No. 2014 - 99 Page 3 WHEREAS, the City issues its building permit for retaining walls that exceed four (4) feet in height through inclusion of the retaining wall authorization in the land alteration permit and is reflected in a condition that the retaining wall design be certified by a professional engineer; WHEREAS,the Permit did not authorize or allow the Owner to construct a retaining wall on the 1631 Property that exceeded four(4) feet in height and did not authorize any retaining wall construction or land alteration or earth moving at all on the 1627 Property; WHEREAS, on or about December 14, 2005, the City Assistant Public Works Director sent a letter to the Owner notifying him that: (1) the Permit had expired; (2) he needed to provide structural engineering certification to approve the constructed retaining wall; and (3) directed him to obtain a new land alteration permit by December 31,2005 (Exhibit 3); WHEREAS,the Owner never obtained another land alteration permit for the 1631 Property; WHEREAS,the Owner has admitted that the retaining wall exceeds four(4) feet in height; WHEREAS, after the expiration of the Permit, the Owner continued to move more dirt, and fill on the 1631 Property without a valid,unexpired land alteration permit and moved dirt and fill on the 1627 Property(Exhibits 5 and 7); WHEREAS, on or about July 29, 2007, the City received a noise complaint through its Police Department regarding the 1631 Property and, upon arrival, the responding officer observed the Owner driving a bobcat and moving dirt on the 1631 Property(Exhibit 5); WHEREAS, on or about July 29, 2007, the Owner did not have a land alteration permit authorizing land alteration and dirt moving on the 1631 Property; WHEREAS,on or about August 6,2007, City Community Development Director, Scott Hickok, sent the Owner a letter informing him that he needed to obtain a land alteration permit for the excavation continuing to occur on the 1631 Property and provided an August 10, 2007 deadline to obtain the land alteration permit(Exhibit 6); WHEREAS,the Owner failed to obtain any land alteration permit for the 1631 Property after the expiration of the Permit on September 30,2005; WHEREAS, on or about September 5, 2011, the City, through its Police Department, was dispatched to the 1627 Property and, on arrival, the responding officer observed the Owner, who had not yet taken title and possession to the 1627 Property, on a skid loader moving dirt(E�ibit 7); WHEREAS, on or about September 5, 201 l, there was no existing land alteration permit for the 1627 Property; WHEREAS, the responding police officer observed during his visit to the 1627 Property that there was no vegetative cover left in the rear yard of the 1627 Property(Exhibit 7); WHEREAS, the Owner used heavy equipment and altered the land and moved dirt on the 1627 Property without ever having applied for or received a land alteration permit from the City; WHEREAS, on or about January 2Q, 2013, the City's Assistant Public Works Director sent the Owner a letter regarding the"Non-permitted Soil Disturbance"at the 1627 Property(Exhibit S); 48 Resolution No.2014- 99 Page 4 WHEREAS,in the January 24, 2013 letter, the City's Assistant Public Works Director informed the Owner that: (1)"significant grading of soils has taken place" on the 1627 Property; (2) that he had obseroed "stockpiled soils, a skid loader, and non-stabilized soils on-site" and (3) that these activities required a land alteration permit(Exhibit 8); WHEREAS, subsequent to the City's Assistant Public Works Director's January 24, 20131etter, the Owner never applied for a land alteration permit; WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013, Julie Jones, City Planning Manager, and Scott Hickok, City Community Development Director, conducted an exterior inspection of the 1631 Property, and observed the plastic barrel retaining wall on the 1631 Property and observed that it was failing in that at least one of the plastic barrels in the second row had shifted out of line and was susceptible to falling, one of the barrels had ripped open, and run off water was being diverted off of the 1631 Property(Exhibit 9); WHEREAS, with respect to the 1631 Property, on September 11, 2013, Julie Jones, City Planning Manager, sent the Owner a First Notice of Non Compliance of the Fridley City Code advising the Owner that: (1) his Permit had expired when he had done earth moving work; (2)the Permit had not authorized construction of the plastic banel retaining wall; and (3) the State Building Code required a building permit when installing a retaining wall in excess of four(4)feet(Exhibit 10); WHEREAS, with respect to the 1627 Property, on September 12, 2013, Julie Jones, City Planning Manager, sent the Owner a First Notice of Non Compliance of the Fridley City Code advising the Owner that he had extensively altered the rear yard and constructed a retaining wall in excess of four (4) feet tall without a land alteration permit(Exhibit 11); WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, the Owner served the City with a "Notice of Contested Case" for each the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property objecting to the City's determinations conceming the grading and construction of a retaining wall without a valid land alteration permit and building permit(Exhibit 12); WHEREAS,with respect to the 1631 Property, on October 9, 2013, the City Planning Manager, sent the Owner a letter advising the Owner that he had constructed a retaining wall without a building permit or land alteration permit, that the retaining wall is failing and creating a public nuisance and that he needed to provide structural engineering certification for the wall by December 31, 2013 or remove it by June 15,2014(Exhibit 13); WHEREAS,on November 1,2013,the City, through Scott Hickok,its Community Development Director, mailed the Owner notice of the scheduling of an Appeals Commission hearing for November 13,2013 at 7:00 p.m. to hear the Owner's appeal from the Planning Manager's order to provide structural engineering certification of the retaining wall by December 31, 2013 or remove the retaining wall by June 15, 2014 (Exhibit 15); WHEREAS,on November 7, 2013,Darcy Erickson, the Fridley City Attorney, sent the Owner a letter advising the Owner that the November 13, 2013 Appeals Commission meeting at which the abatement of the retaining wall constructed without a valid land alteration permit and building permit was cancelled, because the City abatement hearing was premature at that time, as the October 9, 2013 Notice provided a deadline for removal of the retaining wall by June 15,2014(Exhibit 16); WHEREAS, the Owner failed to remove the retaining wall from the 1631 Property before the June 15, 2014 deadline; 49 Resolution No. 2014- 99 Page 5 WHEREAS, Owner failed to provide the City with an engineering report that certifies that the retaining wall is structurally sound before the June 15, 2014 deadline, despite City requests for said report; WI3EREAS, on or about July 9, 2014, the City sent letters to the Owner regarding the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property directing the Owner to remove the retaining wall constructed without a proper building permit and rebuild it with proper permits or that he provide structural engineering certification for the retaining wall by August 9,2014 (Exhibits 17 and 18). WHEREAS, on or about August 8, 2014, the Owner provided the City with "Contested Case" packets on both the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property(Exhibits 19 and 20). WHEREAS, on or about August 20, 2014, the City, through Scott Hickok, its Community Development Director, mailed the Owner notice of the scheduling of an Appeals Commission hearing for September 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. to hear the Owner's appeal from the order of the Planning Manager to remove and rebuild the 2-tier blue barrel retaining wall with building and land alteration permits or provide the City with a structural certification for the retaining wall from a licensed professional engineer (Exhibit 21); WHEREAS, on or about August 28, 2014, the Owner mailed motions he filed with the Anoka County District Court concerning requests for information, which he classified as "discovery" (Exhibit 22); WHEREAS, on or about September 3, 2014, the City received a letter, dated August 29, 2014, from Anoka County District Court advising the Owner that it was unable to consider the Owner's motions (Exhibit 23); WHEREAS, aerial photography depicts significant changes in the topography of the 1627 Property and 1631 Property have occurred since 2000 (E�ibits 24 through 27 and 29 through 33); WHEREAS, a valid land alteration permit existed for a three (3) month period from June 30, 2005 through September 30, 2005; WHEREAS, significant topographical changes occurred between 2008 and 2011, when there were no land alteration permits for either the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property (Exhibits 24 through 27); WHEREAS, at the September 3, 2014 Appeals Commission hearing, the City continued the hearing to October 1, 2014 so that it could prepare and provide the information requested by the Owner; WHEREAS, on or about September 12, 2U14, City staff mailed the Owner a copy of the materials responsive to his request; WHEREAS, the City, through its Planning Manager, Julie Jones, Community Development Director, Scott Hickok, Assistant Public Works Director Layne Otteson, and the Owner, appeared before the Appeals Commission on October 1, 2014 and presented their respective arguments, evidence and testimony to the Appeals Commission; WHEREAS, the Appeals Commission affirmed the Order of the City's Planning Manager in Resolution 2014-02; 50 Resolution No. 2014 - 99 Page 6 WHEREAS,on October 30,2014, the Owner filed an appeal with the City Manager; and WHEREAS,City staff scheduled the appeal before the City Council on November 10, 2014, and the City Council continued the hearing to November 24, 2014 upon request by James Kiewel, and again to December 22,2014 upon written request by Mr.Kiewel; and WHEREAS, the City received a letter, dated December 20, 2014 from Henry Estephan, P.E. from the Owner but the letter does not address the retaining wall on both 1627 and 1631 Rice Creek Road and the City Engineer has indicated it is not sufficient on its fact to satisfy the structural certification requirements of the City with respect to the retaining wall; WHEREAS, the Owner has now appeared before the City of Fridley Appeals Commission and City Council and thereby exhausted his administrative remedies with the City of Fridley; WHEREAS, the City, through its Planning Manager, Julie Jones, Community Development Director, Scott Hickok, Public Works Director, James Kosluchar, and the Owner, appeared before the City Council on November 10, 2014 and December. 22. 2-14 and presented their respecdve arguments, evidence and testimony to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley after listening to � all of the facts presented hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. That each and all of the preceding statements are true and correct and are incorporated herein as part of the findings of fact and record of these proceedings. 2. That each and all of the exhibits are incorporated herein as a part of the record of these proceedings. 3. That Fridley City Code Section 205.04.4.I(2)states: I. No land shall be altered and no use shall be permitted that results in water run-off causing flooding, erosion or deposits of minerals on adjacent properties. The following standards shall be implemented: (2) A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction with a building or land alteration permit and shall be drawn at a scale no smaller than(1)inch equals two hundred feet.... 4. That Fridley City Code Section 205.04.4.I.3 states: (3) A grading and drainage plan is not required for the following development activities: (a) minor land disturbance activities such as home gardens and individual residential landscaping, repairs, and maintenance work.... 5. That Fridley City Code Sections 205.04.4.I.3 exempts only those residential landscaping and home gardening activities performed with simple hand tools such as shovels and wheel barrows. 51 Resolution No. 2014-99 Page 7 6. That Fridley City Code Sections 205.04.4.I(2} and 205.04.4.I.3 require land alteration and grading permits for residential projects involving earth moving equipment. 7. 1'hat Fridley City Code Section 206.01.1 adopts the State Building Code and states: 1. Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16B.59 through 16B.71, one copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of Fridley, Minnesota, is hereby adopted by reference as the Building Code of the City of Fridley and incorporated in this Chapter as completely as if set out here in full. 8. That Fridley City Code Section 206:01,2 incorporates Minnesota Rules Chapter 1300, which govems permitting and states: 2. The following chapters of the Minnesota State Building Code including the following chapters of Minnesota Rules are adopted by the City: A. Chapter 1300—Administration of the Minnesota Building Code 9. Minn. R. 1300.0120 exempts retaining walls four (4) feet and less in height fzom building permitting requirements but requires a building permit for any retaining wall in excess of four (4)feet and states: Subp.4. Work Exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit requirernents of the code do not authorize work to be done in any manner in violation no the code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following: A. Building: (4) retaining walls that are not over four feet(1,219 mm in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class 1,Il, or 11I-A liquids. � 10. While the State Building Code provides that any retaining wall over four (4) feet in height requires owners to obtain a building permit, City practice is to fulfill and administer the State Building Code permit requirement through issuance of the land alteration permit. 11. In administering the building permit requirement in this manner, the land alteration permit, issued under the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires the owner, as a condition of the land alteration permit, to submit engineering plans to demonstrate that the retaining wall construction was properly designed and as such,the City is enforcing its Zoning Ordinance. 12. Appeals from the City's enforcement of its Zoning Ordinance are heard pursuant to Chapter 205. 13. The Owner has engaged in extensive and significant earth moving on both the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property that exceeds a reasonable defmition of minor land disturbance such as individual residential landscaping, as he has utilized earth moving equipment and has performed grading work that could not be accomplished with hand tools alone. 52 Resolution No. 2014 - 99 Page 8 14. The Owner's Permit for the 1631 Property expired on September 30, 2005 and the Owner continued earth moving activities long after the expiration of the Permit and in violation of City Code Section 205.04.4.I(2), 15. The Owner constructed the six (6) foot high retaining wall on the 1631 Property without a building permit for the 1631 Property in violation of Fridley City Code Sections 206.0].1 and 206.01.2,and Minn. R. 1300.0120. 16. The Owner never obtained a land alteration permit for the 1627 Property and engaged in I extensive and significant earth moving on the 1627 Property in violation of City Code Section 205.04.4.I(2). 17. The Owner constructed the six(6) foot retaining wall on the 1627 Property without obtaining a land alteration and building permit for the 1627 Property as required by Fridley City Code Sections 205.04.4.I(2),206.01.1 and 206.01.2,and Minn. R. 1300.0120. 18. The Owner received several notices from the City's duly authorized code enforcement agents over a period of years notifying the Owner that the retaining wall must be removed and replaced pursuant to a valid land alteration and building permit or that,in lieu of said removal and replacement, the Owner could provide structural engineering certification for the retaining wall. 19. 1'he Owner has failed over that same period of years to remove and rebuild the retaining wall pursuant to a valid land alterarion or building permit for land alteration and construction of the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and 1627 Properiy. 20, Pursuant to City Code Section 205.05.10, each and every day a violation exists constitutes a violation and, as a result, the statute of limitations has not run on the Owner's violation of the City Code and, it specifically states: 10. ENFORCEMENT Violation a Misdemeanor;Penalty. The owner of a building or premises in or upon which a violation of any provisions of this Chapter has been committed, or shall exist; or the lessee of the entire building or entire premises in or upon which a violation has been committed or shall exist; or the owner or lessee of any part of the building, or premises in or upon which such violation has been committed or shali exist, shalt be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provision of Chapter 901 of this Code each and every day that such violation continues. Any such person who, having been served with an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order to remove any such violafion,within ten (]0) days after such service, or shall continue to violate any provisions of the regulations made under aathority of this Chapter in the respect named in such order s6a11 be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under t6e provisions of Chapter 901 of this Code.Each day that such violation conrinues shall be a separate violation. (emphasis added). 53 Resolution No. 2014- 99 Page 9 21. T'he Owner has failed over that same period of years to ever provide the City with structural engineering certification as to the integrity of the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and 1627 Property. 22. 'I'he Appeals Commission appropriately heard the Owner's appeal pursuant to City Code Chapter 205 from the City Planning Manager's order to remove the retaining wall on 1631 Property and 1627 Property and reconstruct it pursuant to valid land alteration or building permit; or (2) provide the City a structural engineering certificate concerning the structural integrity of the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and the 1627 Property. 23. Because the City permits retaining walls governed by the State Building Code through the City's land alteration permit issued under the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 205, the appeal from the City's enforcement of its retaining wall permitting requirements are heard pursuant to City Code Chapter 205 rather than as building code appeal. 24. Whether the Owner's retaining wall constructed on the 1631 Property and 1627 Property required engineering data to fulfill the State Building Code requirement administered through the land alteration permit issued pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance is a zoning matter issue than a technical State Building Code issue and the Appeals Commission is yualified and authorized to hear such matters. 25. The City received a letter, dated December 20, 2014 from Henry Estephan, P.E. from the Owner but the letter does not address tbe retaining wall on both 1627 Rice Creek Road and � 1631 Rice Creek Road and the City Engineer has indicated it is not sufficient on its fact to ' satisfy the structural certification reyuirements of the City with respect to the retaining wall. 26. Mr. Kiewel has now appeared before the City of Fridley Appeals Commission and City Council and thereby exhausted his administrative remedies with the City of Fridley. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT based on these findings, the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby affirms the order of the City Planning Manager directing the Owner to either: (1) remove the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and 1627 Property pursuant to a valid land alteration permit and, if reconstructed, reconstruct it pursuant to valid land alteration or building permit; or(2)provide the City a structural engineering certificate concerning the structural integrity of the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and the 1627 Property as required by Fridley City Code Section 205.OS.S.I(2), 206A1.1, and 206.012, as well as Minn. R. 1300.0120 by February 23, 2015. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22°d DAY OF DECEMBER 2014. � . '1 Scott . Lund, Mayo Attest: ��.-q�� Debra A. Skogen,Cit lerk 54 CITY OF FRIDLEY RESOLUTION NO.2015-_ A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE OUTLINED IN CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2014-99 FROM FEBRUARY 23,2015,TO JUNE 30,2015,RELATED TO RETAINING WALL REQUIREMENTS AT 1627 AND 1631 RICE CREEK ROAD NE WIiEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), through its actions approving Resolution Number 2014 - 99, on December 22, 2014, set in motion a date for compliance regarding the retaining wall at 1627 and 1631 Rice Creek Road NE,as February 23,2015; and WHEREAS, James Kiewel, (the "property owner"), has provided proof that he has retained the services of a professional structural engineer; and WHEREAS, said engineer has indicated that he would prefer to see the structure of and conditions around the wall through excavating near the wall,without snow and frost conditions; and WHEREAS, The City would prefer to resolve this matter through the owner's use of proper engineering techniques and remedies; and WHEREAS,warmer weather will be required to allow the engineer to complete his work on the I report for this wall; and ' � WHEREAS, City staff recognizes that based on the engineer's request, a deadline of February I 23rd does not provide adequate time and seasonal warmth to adequately see the area around the retaining walls without snow and frost, but a deadline date of June 30, 2015 would provide sufficient time for both engineering analysis and any corrections that may result and would need to be made by the property owner; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT based on these new facts, the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby will extend the deadline date for compliance on all retaining wall matters at 1627 and 1631 Rice Creek Road NE, as outlined in Resolution 2014 - 99, from February 23, 2015, to June 30, 2015. By this action no other modification to Resolution 2014 -99 are suggested or implied. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015. Scott Lund, Mayor Attest: Debra Skogen,City Clerk 55 � AGENDA ITEM �► ��°! CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF � Fridley ��. FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Date: February 5, 2015 To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Mana� From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Subject: Resolution- Authorizing the HRA to Administer a Grant Application of Behalf of the City and Public Infrastructure Related to the Northern Stacks Development Introduction: The City of Fridley,through its Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit(RGU) in the application for $300,000.00 in grant funds for public infrastructure related to the Northern Stacks Development. The Grant funds sought would come from the Department of Employment and Economic Development(DEED), through its Innovative Infrastructure Grant Program and will aid in development of public infrastructure for Northern Stacks Phase II, which will bring additional employment to the City and region. Elements: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority will act as the legal sponsor for the project contained in the Innovative Business Development Public Infrastructure Program, whose application was submitted on December 15, 2014. After the HRA application was submitted, staff heard back from DEED staff grant reviewers. They indicated that since this grant improves the City's public infrastructure,they would prefer a resolution from the City as well as the HRA. A total of$600,000.00 is required from the innovative infrastructure (improved East River Road signalization). Of the total $300,000 will come fronn the grant, if successful and $300,000.00 will come from Paul Hyde's Development budget. Your resolution is simply stating that the Assistant Executive Director is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Employment and Economic Development for funding of this project on behalf of the City and its HRA and that you support a grant application that focuses on your public infrastructure. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. 56 CITY COUNCit RESOLUTION 2015— RESOLUTION APPROVlNG APPLICATION TO ENTER INTO A FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT(DEED)FOR GRANT ASISTQNCE FOR THE 4800 EAST RIVER ROAD REDEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley(hereafter called "the City") to authorize the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridtey(hereafter Fridley HRA)to act as the legal sponsor for the project contained in the Innovative Business Development Public Infrastructure Program that was submitted on December 15, 2014 and that the Assistant Executive Director is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Employment and Economic Development for funding of this project on behaif of the City and its HRA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Fridley HRA has the Legal Authority to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate protection and administration. BE 17 FURTHER RESOLVED that the sources and amounts of the local match identified in the application are committed to project identified;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City has not violated any federal,State,or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery,graft, kickbacks, collusion,conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the state,the City's HRA may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota,on behalf of the City,for the above referenced project(s), and that the Fridley HRA Certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in all contracts and agreements. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fridiey authorizes the Housing and redevelopment Authority and its chairperson and Executive Director are hereby autho�ized to execute such agreements as necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA,THIS 9T" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015 Scott J. Lund, Mayor ATTEST: Debra A.Skogen, City Clerk 57 s AGENDA ITEM `�� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBR!lARY 9, 2015 _ __ _ __ __ _ - -- TO: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager PW15-006 FROM: James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director . DATE: February 5, 2015 SUBJECT: 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project ST2015-01 - Resolution Directing Preparation of Final Plans and Ordering Advertisement for Bids The attached resolution directs preparation of final plans and specifications and authorizes the advertisement for bids for the 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2015-01. This year, the City's annual street rehabilitation program includes the Summit Manor neighborhood,Ward 3. The total project length is approximately 2.8 miles. Street work will include pavement rehabilitation,drainage improvement,and curb replacement. Utility work will include 3,300 feet of 6-inch and 12-inch water main, hydrant replacement and misceltaneous utility upgrades. CenterPoint Energy has indicated interest in upgrading gas mains and services within the project limits and has provided a preliminary map that indicates replacement of mains on the majority of street segments. The Summit Manor neighborhood is generally commercial and industrial properties bound by University Avenue and Main Street from Interstate 694 to 49�'Avenue. All streets were built with underground utilities, asphalt pavement and concrete curbing and most recently constructed from 1968 to 1973, with the exception of Capitol Street, rebuilt in 1984. Subsurface investigation has found variation in the pavement and gravel base thickness. The low pavement condition rating and increased maintenance by the street division staff supports rehabilitation of these street segments. The reclaiming process will grind and blend the pavement into the underlying substandard base and produce a stronger base upon which to pave. The improved base aggregate will be shaped and topped with a new 2-3" of asphalt pavement. A significant portion of this project includes targeted water main replacement on 3`�Street, Hughes Avenue, Capitol Street, and a short segment of Horizon Drive. These segments were prioritized for replacement due to break frequency, repair costs and anticipated continued emergency maintenance. This pipe replacement will minimize future maintenance and operation costs and improve service reliability. Sewer and drainage improvements will be minimal but staff has targeted specific upgrades to improve functionality and minimize future repairs. A short segment of sanitary sewerwill be replaced on Hughes Avenue. Several storm sewer structures have been identified for rehabilitation and spot repairs to the storm and sanitary sewer systems are underway. Staff is pursuing opportunities to install infiltration areas with those interested property 58 owners for water quality benefit. Staff has and will continue to communicate with property owners to discuss any service line maintenance or repairs to be coordinated with the . project. Unfortunately,staff received notice last week that the additional water quality improvements contemplated with this project were not funded. Our design will incorporate connections that allow similar future improvements to be constructed when funded. The street rehabilitation work is funded using special assessments and MSAS funds. Water, sanitary sewer, and storm water costs are funded by their respective utilities. A Public Hearing on special assessments for this project was held at the January 26,2015, City Council meeting. A number of persons were heard on the project, some were supportive of the project, and a few were opposed to the project. Staff continues to follow up on requests from the hearing, and has noticed an increase in requests for sanitary sewer televising by City crews. Staff recommends that the City Council move to approve the attached resolution ordering�nal plans, speci�cations and calling for bids for 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2015-01. I JPK/jk Attachments 59 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - RESOLUTION ORDERING FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATlONS AND CALLING FOR BIDS: 2015 STREET REHABILlTATION PROJECT NO. ST 2095 - 01 WHEREAS, the construction of certain improvements is deemed to be in the interest of the City of Fridley and the property owners affected thereby, and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has prepared a Capital Improvement Plan to systematically reconstruct streets in the City to a standard section including concrete curb and gutter, and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley's Engineering Department has completed preparation of a feasibility report and estimates of costs thereof for the improvements, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Fridley to fund a portion of the project costs through special assessments to benefiting property owners in accordance with its Roadway Major Maintenance Policy, and WHEREAS, pursuant to direction of the City Council, a report has been prepared by the City of Fridley Public Works Department with reference to the specific improvements, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2014-96 adopted November 24, 2014 received the feasibility report and called for a public hearing on the matter of the construction of certain improvements listed therein, and � WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding said improvements was set for January 26, 2015, and ten days' mailed notice and finro weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and WHEREAS, at said hearing on improvements, the City Council heard all those persons that desired to address the Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. The improvements proposed in the feasibility report are hereby ordered to be effected and completed as soon as reasonably possible, to-wit: Street improvements, including pavement rehabilitation, bituminous paving,water main replacement, hydrant replacement and utility repairs on street segments as follows: 3rd Street 49th Avenue to 53rd Avenue Altura Road 53rd Avenue to Horizon Drive Capitol Street Main Street to Hughes Avenue 60 Clearview Street Panorama Avenue to Horizon Drive Crown Road Main Street to Horizon Drive Gibraltar Road Roman Road to cul-de-sac Horizon Circle Main Street to Horizon Drive Horizon Drive 3rd Street to 53rd Avenue Hughes Avenue Panorama Avenue to Horizon Drive _ Panorama Avenue Main Street to 3rd Street Pilot Avenue Main Street to Roman Road Roman Road 49th Avenue to Panorama Avenue Topper Lane Horizon Drive to cul-de-sac Ventura Avenue Main Street to Horizon Drive 3. That the work be incorporated in the 2015 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. ST2015-01. 4. That the work be performed under this project may be performed under one or more contracts as may be deemed advisable upon receipt of bids. 5. That the Director of Public Works, James P. Kosluchar, P.E. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall oversee the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates of costs thereof for making of such improvements. 6. That fina! plans, specifications, and estimates are prepared by the Public ' Works Engineering Division and provided to the City Council as they are completed. 7. That the Engineering Division call for bids in order that project award and construction can be considered. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9tn DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. ATTESTED SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 61 �� Fridley Public Works Depa.rtment Streets • Parks • Water • Sewer • Stormwater • Fleet • Facilities• Engiineering MEMORANDUM TO: Walter Wysopal, City Manager PW15-005 FROM: James Kosluchar, Public Works Director DATE: February 5, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration of Horizon Drive within the Proposed Street Project No. ST2015-01 At the January 26 Pubiic Hearing on lmprovements for the proposed Street Project No. ST2015-01, approximately 18 residents addressed the City Council. Of these, eight indicated some measure of support for the project,while seven made comments neither supporting nor opposing the pr�ect. Three residents on one segment of Horizon Drive befinreen Horizon Drive and 53 Avenue indicated their opposition to the project on the basis that their street was in satisfactory condition which warranted only minor maintenance. See the attached map of the persons that did comment at the hearing, which � summarizes their stances. This map also shows the value of street rating, with 35 being a maximum value for a newly resurfaced street. It is of note that the segment of Horizon Drive mentioned previously did have the (marginally) best rating of all streets ' proposed in the project. As discussed with the City Council, in our experience a rating of 20 is typically a good measure of street condition where major rehabilitation is warranted. However, this is a guideline only, and other factors must be evaluated to determine whether a street segment is a good candidate for rehabi(itation. The street segment was last reconstructed in 1973. We have reviewed the recent history of pavement ratings, and the rate of deterioration of this street segment is increasing over time. Please refer to the attached graph, and note that the degradation of the street is occurring at an increased rate with each seal coating cycie. This indicates that the street segment will continue to be in poor conditions for an extended amount of time over its future if not rehabilitated. The graph includes our best projection of future street rating over time, presuming it is sealcoated along with streets in its zone. 62 I reviewed the condition of the street with our Operations Manager, and he indicated that this segment will require a high level of maintenance to keep it in acceptable condition. All other local, non-MSAS streets are being reconstructed in the neighborhood with this project. This provides a pricing advantage for each street segment,which would likely be lost for this street segment when a future rehabilitation is completed. The neighborhood is outside our 10-year outlook for paving work, and it is most likely that this street could not be reconsidered for paving within the next 15 years. This would increase the cost for repaving this singular segment, along with other streets that may be paved in a conjunctive project. As with other streets in the proposed project, the need for utility work is not driving the proposed project segments, although CenterPoint Energy has indicated they would replace the gas main on this segment with this project,or presumably in the near future. Finally, we have not received any petition or additional correspondence from the residents on this segment, which the City Council invited at the hearing. With these considerations, it is in the City's best interest to maintain Horizon Drive from 3�d Street to 53�d Avenue entirely in the proposed Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2015-01. In addition, rehabilitation of this segment of street as part of the proposed project will provide a special benefit to the adjacent property owners. JPK/jpk 63 � �� 11 1 �e � 111f� r �►� ♦ •� ► ♦ ♦ � �� ♦ ♦♦ ♦ � o. '� �� . ►�. ♦ . ..� e .� �o . �►4-!� ♦ � �� ♦♦ ♦ � .. � .o d� .�► - � . 4 � -s � � �'�• � � � � •- �, � � �= 1�� 1 O� ♦ e , s � �� ,i �.. _ �o .,� . , �t��r �.. � : o . .�_ � . � ! � � ! �. s � �- � � . �r�' �e � � .�-�- ■� � ♦ � � �/►� v ■■ ■ �� ►� � --• `� . . t� � � . �o� ., . � � �� 0`►� s =- � , � 47 A��' � �� .- -� �►� � � / �►� � �; 1 . �''' ■■ �.' :� � • � � � �. .■ •� . 1� �. �, � .. . ♦ � . *�► A� .�•� � ,. �► ♦ � � . . �r� �r-.�► � , � ..� ��j, .�� - �■ �. .�� -� , - - - ��. ��►..!y ; �� 1�,: �'� � - - . . � �� -■ , � � .Y� ■�` ■ .� - �� • . ' � �� . . . ��,��e- � -� � ... . . _ ��►��d� �� ... .... . . . , ,�rB � - � �� .... - - . - ��oO�o �� o _. _ t__ ._ �,S�OO�� e� - � � - _ . - . . . . . o . �r� . .;�� .. . . . � � ��0� �.� � .. .�: . . � O��O��-A�■ � — -- — — ��es�� s�� rs� �� 1 �. _ -= -- � Historic and Projected Pavement Rating Horizon Drive from 3rd St to 53rd Ave 35.0 � �� e � � � 30.0 ' � � ' � , � � � e II � � �1'� . M ' �. � = 25.0 � ' � � � . o� � � , v� �., , , C , d R � � � � w e>o 20.0 ` " � a � ,�. � , , �, * w -a " " . � N � � a � . � LL O O � O " � ? O a U U U � , : U � 15.0 � � � * � � � a � � � w : � a m �, �, ; � e � � � ; � � � � � : � : � 10.0 �°��' �°�4��` �°�R��O �°�4�� °�� °��' �°��` �°��0 �°�� ,DO� �,�0�' �,��` �,DO�O �,DO� �,�+�� ,�+�`�' �,0+��` �,�+��0 �,4�`b r1,0�'� �,0�'`L cLO�'�` �O`1'�o Rating Year AGENDA ITEM �,,,� CITY COUNCIL MEETIN6 OF FEBRUARY 9, 201 S TO: Walter T. Wysopal, City Mana PW15-008 FROM: James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director DATE: February 5, 2015 SUBJECT: Sixth Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement for Street Maintenance Since 2005, the City of Fridley has participated in a cooperative contract for street maintenance through a Joint Powers Agreement that established the North Metro Street Maintenance Program.Annual street maintenance items are bid annually with the cities of Coon Rapids (who administers the contract), Andover, Anoka, Brooklyn Center, Columbia Heights, East Bethel, Fridley, Ham Lake,and Mahtomedi. The City of Fridley regularly participates in contracting for sealcoating,crack sealing,street sweeping,and pavement marking services as part of this arrangement. After bidding, member Cities are permitted to opt-out of the contract. The JPA originally established this opt-out period to be 60 days. In order to expedite contracts and work completion, staff from the various JPA cities have recommended adjusting this opt-out period to 30 days. The attached amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement makes the exclusive change of this opt-out period. Staff recommends the City Council move to approve the attached Sixth Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for Streef Maintenance as presented. If the Council approves, staff will forward a copy of the Amendment executed by the City of Fridley to the other member cities. JPK/jpk Attachments 66 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TRAFFIC MARKINGS, STREET SWEEPING CRACK SEALING,SCREENING AND SEAL COATING This Sixth Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement("Sixth Amendment")is by and between the cities of Anoka,Andover, Brooklyn Center,Circle Pines,Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, East Bethel,Fridley,Ham Lake, and Mahtomedi and(hereinafter individually the"City" and collectively the"Cities"). WHEREAS,the Cities sha11 collectively be known as the North Metro Regional Street Maintenance Consortium. WHEREAS,on February 1,2005 the cities of Coon Rapids,Andover,Brooklyn Center, Columbia Heights and Fridley entered into a Joint Powers Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.59 for the purpose of combining together for bidding purposes for street maintenance services(hereinafter the"Joint Powers Agreement"); and WHEREAS,the City of Ham Lake joined the Joint Powers Agreement in August, 2006 by an agreement entitled First Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement(hereinafter the"First Amendment"); and ' WHEREAS, the Cities in the First Amendment, paragraph 3, authorized the City of Coon Rapids to allow a new member City to join the Joint Powers Agreement when, in its sole discretion,the City of Coon Rapids deternunes that it is in the best interest of the Cities to allow the new member City to join; and WHEREAS,the City of East Bethel joined the Joint Powers Agreement in February, 2008 by agreement entitled Second Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement(hereinafter the "Second Amendment"); and 67 WHEREAS,the City of Anoka joined the Joint Powers Agreement in March,2010 by ageement entitled Third Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement(hereinafter the"Third Amendment"); and WHEREAS,the City of Mahtomedi joined the Joint Powers Agreement in January, 2011 by agreement entitled Fourth Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement(hereinafter the"Fourth Amendment"); and WHEREAS,the City of Circle Pines joined the Joint Powers Agreement in March,2011, By agreement entitled Fifth Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement(hereinafter the"Fifth Amendment"); and WHEREAS,the Cities met on December 2, 2014 and agreed to amend the opting out period in the Joint Powers Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE,by virtue of the powers granted by law and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties hereto,it is agreed as follows: 1. Definitions. All capitalized terms,not otherwise separately defined herein, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Joint Powers Agreement. 2. Outin�Out. Paragraph 4 of the Joint Powers Agreement is hereby amended to the parties hereto recognize that municipal funding sources and spending priorities may change throughout the bidding and award process. In recognition thereof, within thirty(30)days after a bid has been awarded, a City may opt out of any individual bid award and contract by providing written notice to the Director of Public Works,City of Coon Rapids, 11155 Robinson Drive,Coon Rapids,MN 55433. 3. Full Force and Effect. Except as expressly amended herein,the terms and provision contained in the Joint Powers Agreement and its Amendments shall continue to govern the rights and obligations of the Cities,and the Joint Powers Agreement and its Amendments sha11 remain in full force and effect. �Signatures on following pages� 68 Dated: CITY OF FRIDLEY By: Mayor By: City Manager 69 AGENDA ITEM ��,, CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 TO: Walter T: Wysopal, City Manag`�� PW15-007 FROM: James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Direc DATE: February 5, 2015 SUBJECT: Award of Well Redevelopment Project No. 448 On Tuesday, February 3`�at 10:00 am, sealed bids were opened for the Water Treatment Plant No. 3 Filter Drain Pump Improvement Project 459. Three responsive bids were received. While a fourth bid was received, it had to be rejected and could not be considered due to a major irregularity. This project will include work at wells 3, 7, 10, and 11. The proposed work will involve inspection of welt pump equipment including line shaft, bearings, packing, column, bowls and impellers and wetl pump motors, and replacing or repairing parts of pump equipment and motors as warranted. Wells will be inspected with digital video equipment, which will enable assessment of condition and need for sand removal and well redevelopment. Bailing, redevelopment, test pumping and disinfecting are included as bid items in the specifications. Well drawdown pressure transducers will be installed at each well. The bid form lists all possible items that may reasonably be encountered upon inspection, but many of these items will not be necessary upon inspection of equipment. For instance, pump motors are considered to be in good condition and are not planned to be replaced. However, upon their servicing and testing, major repair or replacement may be required. The bid form used reflects these contingencies by using a weighted bid cost, which provides a best prediction of work that will be required. This weighted bid is used as the basis of award. Wells 10 and 11 are planned to be complete by May 15, 2015 prior to the high demand season and Wells 3 and 7 are to be completed later in the year. All work under the project must meet the City's prevailing wage requirements. The low responsive weighted bid was received from Keys Well Drilling Company of St. Paul, MN in the amount of$211,141.00. This matches the final engineer's estimate for the project of$211,282.00. Please refer to the attached bid tabulation. This project is included in the City's approved CIP for 2014 and 2015. While this is slightly over the budgeted amount for the finro years combined of $190,000, we would still recommend approval, as there are likely to be offsetting cost reductions in the CIP Water Fund for other projects, and the project can be fully funded via a CIP budget adjustment. 70 Keys Well Drilling is an experienced, reputable well contractor that has successfully completed multiple well-related projects for the City of Fridley. Staff recommends the City Council move fo receive the bids per the attached bid tabulation and award the Well Redevelopment Project No. 448 to_Key_s We/l Drilling Company of St. Paul, MN in the amount of$211,141.00. If the Council approves, staff will notify the contractor of the award and issue a notice to proceed to the contractor upon receipt of acceptable submittals. JPK/jpk Attachments 71 Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6izo Earle Brown Drive,Suite 6zg,Minneapolis,MN 55430'(763)56o-gi33■www.pce.com■FAX(763),560-0333 February 5, 2015 Mr.Jim Kosluchar Public Works Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Re: 2015 Well Rehabilitation City Project#448 Recommendation to Award Bid Dear Mr. Kosluchar: The bids submitted for the above referenced project are presented on the attached detailed bid tabulation and summarized in the table below. A total of four bids were submitted. Bids were received from Bergerson-Caswell, Keys Well Drilling, E.H. Renner & Sons and Mark J Traut Wells, Inc.The bid from Bergerson-Caswell was rejected because the bid form was not signed. Following is a summary of the three accepted bids. The weighted bid cost shown in the table below takes each unit price item provided by the bidder and multiplies it by an estimated probability. These estimated probabilities were provided to the bidders in Addendum No. 1 as Exhibit 1 to the Instructions to Bidders and were collectively determined by City staff and PCE and represent our best estimate of the likelihood of each unit price item being implemented. The detailed probabilities can be found in the attached detailed bid tabulation. Contractor Total Bid Cost Wei�hted Bid Cost Keys Well Drilling $418,370 $211,141 E.H. Renner&Sons $488,159 $223,797 Mark J.Traut Wells, Inc. $698,110 $371,801 Engineer's Estimate $444,955 $211,282 There were several slight irregularities with Keys Well Drilling's bid. Their bid did not include a completed List of Contractors/Subcontractors/Suppliers/Vendors form and they did not provide a photocopy of their MDH Well Drilling License. But they did provide their MDH License number. Keys Well Drilling subsequently provided both these documents on Thursday, February 5, 2015. Keys also incorrectly summed their unit prices for Well No. 11 so their reported total was $103,440 for Well No. 11.This is less than the actual sum of their unit price items which is $107,390. That means the total they reported in their bid form was$414,320 instead of the actual sum of their unit price items which is$418,370, as shown in the table above. Civil■Water Supply■ Municipal■Transportation 72 Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6iao Earle Brown Drive,Suite 6ag,Minneapolis,MN 55430■(763)56o-gi33■www.pce.com■FAX(763)560-0333 Although Keys Wells Drilling's bid had several irregularities they are minor in nature and we recommend that the bid be awarded to Keys Well Drilling based on the following: 1. Their submitted bid meets all bid requirements now that all documents have been received. 2. Their bid is the lowest bid for both the total and weighted total for all bid items. 3. Keys Well Drilling's is an experienced, reputable well contractor that has successfully completed multiple well related projects for the City of Fridley. We recommend that the bid be awarded for the weighted cost of$211,141. Whether a specific unit price item is necessary will be contingent upon the condition of the existing equipment, wells and pumps. After examining the equipment, wells and pumps, only those unit price items deemed necessary by City staff and the engineer will be approved and implemented. Therefore the final contract amount will be only for the work that is completed and could be higher or lower than the amount for which the project is awarded. If you have any questions or concerns you would like to discuss, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 'C� ��--c �-----, � David J. Brown, P.E Senior Project Manager Civil■Water Supply■ Municipal■Transportation 73 Bid Tabulation 2015 Well Rehabilitation Project Fridley, MN February 3, 10:00 A.M. BlDDER MAME Item No. Description Keys Well Drilling E.H.Renner Traut Wells 1 Acknowledge Receipt of Addendum(yes/no) Bid Form:Page 1 Yes Yes Yes 2 Schedule A:Total Wel!No.3 Bid Bid Form:Page 5 $ 127,400.00 $ 135,035.00 $ 210,565.00 3 Schedule B:Total Well No.7 Bid BidFOrm:Page7 �S` 97�315.00 �S` 97�166.00 �S` 159�255.00 4 Schedule C:Total Well No.10 Bid BfdForm:Page9 �,S` 86�265.00 �S` 140�959.00 �S` 142�065.00 5 Schedule D:Total Well No.il Bid-* Bid Form:Page 11 $ 103,340.00 . $ 114,999.00 $ 186,225.00 6 Bid Grand Total for Well Nos.3,7,10 and 11-* Bid Form:Page 11 $ 414�320.00 �` 484�059.00 �` 698�110.00 Responsible Contractor Verification and Certification of � Compliance Signed(yes/no) � Bid Form:Page 14 Yes Yes Yes � � g First-Tier Subcontractors List Completed(yes/no) Yes Yes BldForm-Page15 Not Completed Yes Not Completed . MDH License(Copy Attached)-{yes/no) No Copy-But 9 Provided License Bid form-Page 16 No. Yes NO 10 Rig Information completed(yes/no) Bid Form-Page 16 YE$ Ye$ Ye$ 11 Bidder Address provided(yes/no) Bfd Form-Page 16 Ye$ Ye5 Ye5 12 Bid Form Signed by Bidder(yes/no) Bid Form-Vage 16 through 18 Ye$ Y2$ YQ$ 13 Bid Security Enclosed(yes/noj Bid Bond Yes Yes Yes List of Contractors/Subcontractors/Suppliers/Vendors la Enclosed(yes/no) Page 00410.1 N O N O Y2$ Project References Enclosed(yes/no) Ye5 is But did not use Page00430-1 provided form Yes No 16 Affidavit of Non-Collusion Enclosed(yes/no) Page 00440-1 Yes Yes Yes '-Bold Red indicates amount entered by bidder is different than actual summed amount of unit price items.See Detailed Bid Tabulation. Detailed Bid Tabulation 2015 Well RehabilRation(Cily Project#448) Fridley,MN Bid Opening on February 3,2015 at 10:00 A.M. E ' r's O inion Ke s WeM DriM' E.H.Renner Merk J Traut WeNs Inc. Rem Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Desaiptbn Unit Qty. Prob. Unit Price Totel Price Cost Unit Price Total Price Cost Unit Price Total Price Coat Unit Price Total Price Cost 3.01 Mobilization and Demobilization. Remove and reinstall electric LS 1 100% S 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 12,00� S 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 880 $ 880 S 880 $ 26,500 $ 26,500 $ 26,500 motor,discharge head,column,shaft,and pianp. 3.02 Shoptimeforcleaningandrepairingpump. HR 20 100% $ 80 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 85 $ 1,700 $ 1,700 $ 115 $ 2,300 E 2,300 $ 80 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 3.03 Rehab discharge head LS 7 75% S 200 S 200 $ 150 S 425 $ 425 $ 319 $ 500 $ 500 y 375 $ 550 $ 550 $ 413 3.Q3a Replaoe discharge head LS 1 25°� $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 750 $ 2,050 $ 2,050 $ 513 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 S 500 $ 3,800 $ 3,800 $ 950 3.04 Discharge head bearing LS 1 700% $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 500 $ 500 S 500 $ 2pp $ Zpp s Zpp 3.05 Wire brush interiorsurface of well qsing. LS 1 100°,G $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,800 $ 3,800 $ 3,800 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 4,500 3.06 Videowellinspection. LS 1 100h $ 550 $ 550 $ 550 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 S 1,500 $ 1,500 3 1,500 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,30p 3.07 8"x 5 Sch.40 line shaR column pipe and coupling EA 2 50°,4 $ 400 $ 800 $ 400 $ 225 $ 450 $ 225 S 275 $ 550 $ 275 S 375 S 750 S 375 3.08 8"x 10'Sch.40 line sheit column pipe and coupling EA 38 50% $ 500 $ 19,000 $ 9,500 $ 300 $ 11,400 $ 5,700 $ 375 $ 14,250 E 7,125 $ 550 $ 20,900 $ 10,450 3.09 8"Sch.40 line shafl suction pipe EA 1 25% $ 500 S 500 S 125 $ 225 $ 225 $ 56 S 330 $ 330 $ 83 $ 300 $ 300 S 75 3.10 1-11/16"x 10'stainless steel line shaR EA 38 50% $ 400 $ 15,200 $ 7,600 $ 315 $ 11,870 $ 5,985 $ 370 $ 14,060 S 7,030 $ 575 $ 21,850 S 10,925 3.11 1-11N6"x 5'steinless steel line shaft EA 1 100% $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 225 $ 225 $ 225 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 350 $ 350 g 350 3.12 1-11f16"stainless steel line shaft coupling EA 39 50% $ 45 $ 1,755 $ 878 E 30 3 1,170 $ 585 $ 40 S 1,560 S 780 $ 75 $ 2,925 $ 1,463 3.13 Stainless steel head shafl EA 1 75% $ 400 $ 400 $ 300 $ 450 $ 450 $ 338 $ 365 $ 365 $ 274 $ 550 $ 550 $ 413 3.14 Stainless steel bowl shafl LS 1 75% $ 450 $ 450 $ 338 S 450 $ 450 $ 338 $ 400 $ 400 y 300 $ 550 $ 550 S 413 3.15 Rubber bearing in existing retainer EA 38 80°� $ 25 $ 950 $ 760 S 25 S 950 $ 760 $ 35 3 1,330 5 1,064 $ 30 $ 1,140 S 912 3.15a Replace bronze bearing retainer w/rubber bearinS EA 38 20% $ 150 $ 5,700 $ 7,140 $ 100 $ 3,800 $ 760 $ 114 S 4,332 $ B66 $ 125 $ 4,750 $ 950 3.16 Rehab pump bowls LS 1 75% S 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,500 S 4,200 S 4,200 $ 3,150 S 4,500 $ 4,500 S 3,375 $ 1,950 $ 7,950 S 1,463 3.16a RepWeepumpbrnNs LS 1 25% $ 6.500 S 6,500 $ 1,625 $ 9,500 $ 9,500 $ 2,375 $ 8,600 $ 8,600 S 2,150 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 S 2,625 3.17 Rehab pump motor LS 1 75% $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 1,875 $ 1,650 $ 1,650 $ 1,238 $ 3,200 $ 3,200 $ 2,400 $ 5,400 $ 5,400 S 4,050 3.17a Replaceweppumpmota LS 1 25% S 6,500 $ 8,500 $ 2,125 $ 14,175 $ 14,175 $ 3,544 $ 14,000 S 14,000 $ 3,500 $ 19,100 $ 19,100 S 4,775 3.18 Gemmaloggingwell LS 1 100% $ 1.500 $ 1.500 $ 1,500 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 S 1,300 $ 800 $ 800 S 800 S 1.600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 � 3.19 Replace welt level measuring devioe with drawdown pressure LS f 10D% $ 2,000 $ 2.000 $ 2,000 $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $ 1,700 $ 1.700 S 1.700 $ 3,800 $ 3.800 $ 3.800 � Vansducer 3.20 Well redevelopment equipment LS 1 75% $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,750 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 3 3,750 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 18,750 3.21 Materialremoval-Bailing HRS 50 25°b S 350 $ 17,500 $ 4,375 S 275 $ 13,750 $ 3,438 $ 250 $ 12,500 S 3,725 $ 425 S 21,250 $ 5,313 3.22 Materialremoval-AirDeveloping HRS 50 50°,6 S 300 $ 75,000 $ 7,500 $ 275 $ 13,750 $ 6,875 $ 300 $ 15,000 S 7,500 S 425 $ 21,250 $ 10,625 3.23 Onsite material containment LS 1 75% 3 5,000 $ 5,000 3 3,750 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 S 1,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 E 3,750 y 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 7,650 3.24 Redevebpmentwaterdischargepiping LF 50 75% S 20 $ 1,000 $ 750 $ 15 $ 750 $ 563 S 12 $ 600 $ 450 S 10 $ 500 $ 375 3.25 Material disposal oftsite CY 100 75°� $ 50 $ 5,000 $ 3,750 $ 72 $ 1,200 $ 900 $ 10 $ 1,000 S 750 $ 23 $ 2,300 $ 1,725 326 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0°rG a - s - $ - a - a - s - a - a - a - s - a - a _ 3,07a Paint interior and exterior of 8"x 5'Sch.40 line shafl column EA 2 20% S BU $ 160 $ 32 $ 150 S 300 $ 60 $ 211 $ 422 $ 84 $ 40 $ 8p S 16 3.08a Paint interior and exterior of 8"x 10'Sch.40 line shak column EA 38 20% 3 120 $ 4,560 $ 912 $ 150 $ 5,700 S 1,t40 S 4i0 S 15,SB0 E 3,116 $ 80 $ 3,040 $ 608 pipe and coupling 3.09a EA 1 20°,6 $ 80 $ 80 $ 16 $ 150 $ 150 $ 30 $ 410 $ 410 $ 82 $ 80 $ BO $ 1g PainC inter'ror and exferior of 8"Sch.40 line shaft suction pipe TOTAL for Well No.3 50.6°.6 S 136 825 69,220 $ 127 400 $ 66 074 $ 135 035 $ 62 250 S 210 565 S 118177 BidTsbulation ]502052/6/2015 Detaled Bid Tabulation 2015 Well Rehabilkation(City Project#448) Fridley,MN Bid Opening on February 3,2015 at 10:00 A.M. E ineers O ' iort Ke Well Drill' E.H.Rsnner Mark J Traut WeUs Inc. kem Weighted Weighted WeigMed Weighted Description UnR aty. Prob. Unit Price Total Price Cost Unit Price Total Price �ag� Unit Price Total Price Cost Und Price Total Price �o� 7.01 Mobilization and Demobilization. Remove and reinstall electric LS 1 100% $ 5,000 S 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 9,500 S 9,500 $ 9,500 $ 8,800 $ 8,800 S 8,800 $ 14,500 ; 14,500 $ 14,500 motor,discharge head,column,shaft,and pump. 7.02 Shop time for cieaning and repairing pump. HR 20 100% S 80 $ 1,6D0 $ 1,600 $ 85 $ 1,700 $ 1,700 $ 115 S 2,300 S 2,300 S 60 $ 1,600 $ 1,fipp 7.03 Rehab discharge head LS 1 75% S 200 $ 200 $ 150 $ 425 $ 425 $ 319 $ 500 $ 500 S 375 $ 550 S 550 $ 413 7.03a Replace dischargs heatl LS 1 25% $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 750 $ 2,050 $ 2,050 $ 513 $ 500 $ 500 S 125 $ 3,800 S 3,800 $ 95p 7.04 Discharge head bearing LS 1 100% $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 S 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 200 g 20p $ 2pp 7.05 Wrre brush interiw surface of well casing. LS 1 100% $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 3 1,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 7.06 V'�deowellinspedion. LS 1 100% $ 550 $ 550 $ 550 S 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 S 1,500 $ 1,500 S 1,500 $ 1,300 $ 7,300 $ 1,300 7.07 8"x 5'Sch.401irre shaft column pipe and couplin� EA 2 50^/, $ 400 $ 800 $ 400 $ 225 $ 450 $ 225 $ 275 $ 550 $ 275 $ 375 $ 750 $ 375 7.08 8"x 10'Sch.401ine shaR column pipe and coupling EA 9 50°� $ 500 $ 4,500 $ 2,250 $ 300 $ 2,700 $ 1,350 3 375 $ 3,375 $ 1,688 $ 550 $ 4,950 S 2,475 7.09 8"Sch.401ine shaft suction pipe EA 1 50°,b $ 500 $ 500 $ 250 $ 225 $ 225 S 113 $ 330 $ 330 $ 165 $ 300 $ 300 $ 150 7.10 1-3/76"x 10'stainlesssteellinashaft EA 9 100°h $ 400 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 150 S 1,350 $ 1,350 $ 230 $ 2,070 S 2,070 $ 250 $ 2,250 $ 2,250 7.11 1-3/16"x 5 stainiess steel line shaft EA 2 100% $ 300 S 600 S 600 $ 715 S 230 $ 230 S 170 S 340 $ 340 S 2D0 $ 400 S 400 7.12 1�/16"atainless steel line shalt coupling EA 11 100h $ 45 $ 495 $ 495 $ 25 $ 275 $ 275 $ 30 $ 330 $ 330 $ 75 $ 825 $ 825 7.13 Stainless steel head shaR EA 1 100% $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 3 450 3 450 $ 450 $ 229 $ 229 E 229 S 550 S 550 S 550 7.14 Stainlesa steel bowl shafl LS 1 100% $ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 300 $ 300 a 300 $ 550 $ 550 $ 550 7.75 Rubber bearing in existing retainer EA 10 80% $ 25 $ 250 $ 200 $ 25 $ 250 $ 200 $ 27 $ 270 $ 216 $ 30 $ 300 a 240 7.75a Replacebronzebearingretainerw/rubberbeariny EA 10 20% $ 750 S 1,500 $ 300 $ 100 $ 1,000 $ 200 $ 114 $ 1,140 $ 228 $ 125 $ 1,250 $ 250 7.16 Rehabpumpbowls LS 1 50°,6 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,200 S 2,200 $ 1,100 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 a 1,500 S 1,050 $ 1,050 $ 525 7.16a Replace pump bowls LS 1 50% $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 3 5,750 $ 5,750 $ 2,675 $ 4,350 S 4,350 $ 2,175 S 8,200 $ 8,200 $ 4,100 7.17 Rehab pump motor LS 1 75% $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 750 $ 2,760 $ 2,760 S 2,070 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 2,625 7.17a Replace weA pump motor LS 1 25°� $ 6,500 $ 6,500 $ 1,625 3 7,300 $ 7,300 S 1.825 $ 5,500 $ 5,500 E 1,375 $ 7,800 $ 7,800 $ 1,950 7.18 Gammaloggingwell LS 1 100°� $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 7,600 � 7.t9 Repfece well level meesuring device with drawdown pressure LS 1 100% S 2.000 $ 2.000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 1.000 $ 1,000 $ 1,200 S 1,200 $ 1.200 $ 2,550 $ 2,550 S 2,550 � transducer 7.20 WeflredevebpmentequipmeM LS 1 25% $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 S 2,500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 S 1,250 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 5,000 7.21 Malerialremoval-Bailing HRS 50 10°h S 350 $ 17,500 $ 1,750 $ 275 S 13,750 S 1,375 $ 250 $ 12,500 S 1,250 $ 425 $ 21,250 $ 2,125 7.22 Materialremoval-AirDevebping HRS 50 25% $ 300 $ l5,000 $ 3,750 $ 275 S 13,750 $ 3,438 $ 300 $ 15,OD0 $ 3,754 S 425 $ 21,250 S 5,313 7.23 Onske material containmeM L3 1 25% S 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,250 E 2,000 S 2,000 S 500 S 5,000 S 5,000 S 1,250 S 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 550 7.24 Redevelopment water discherge piping LF 50 25% $ 20 $ 1,000 $ 250 $ 15 $ 750 $ t88 $ 12 $ 600 3 150 $ 10 $ 500 $ 125 7.25 Material disposal oifsite CY 700 25°,5 $ 50 $ 5,000 $ 1,250 S 12 $ 1,200 $ 300 S 70 $ 1,000 3 250 $ 23 $ 2,300 S 575 726 WeN pump discharge piping work LS 1 100°h $ 8,000 $ 8.000 $ 6,000 $ 11,OOQ S 71.000 S 11,000 $ 10,000 S t0.000 $ 10.000 S 29,500 S 29.500 S 29,500 7.07a Paint interior end exterior of 8"x 5'Sch.40 line shaft column EA 2 20% $ 80 $ 160 $ 32 $ 150 $ 300 $ 60 $ 211 $ 422 S 84 $ qp $ 80 $ 16 pipe and coupling 7.OBa Paint interior and exterior of 8"x 10'Sch.40 line shaft column EA 9 20% $ 120 $ 1,080 $ 216 $ 750 $ 1,350 $ 270 $ 410 $ 3,690 $ 738 $ 80 $ 720 $ 144 pipe and croupling 7,pye PafM interior and eMerior of 8"Sch.401ine shaft sucfion i EA 1 20% 80 80 16 150 150 30 410 470 82 80 80 tg TOTAL Tw Well No.7 45.3% $ 105 385 4 ,754 $ 97 315 $ 48 844 $ 97 766 S 50 265 $ 159 255 S 86 341 Bid Tabulation 150205 2/6/2015 Detailed Bid Tabulation 2015 Well Rehabilitation(City Prqect#448) Fridley,MN Bid Opening on February 3,2015 at 10:00 A.M. En ineePS O inion Ke Well Drillin E.H.Renner Mark J Traut WeNs Inc. Item Weighted Weighted Wei9Med Weighted Description Unit Qty. Prob. Unit Price Total Price �ogt Unit Price Total Pnce Cost UnR Price Total Price Cost Und Price Total Price Cost 10.01 Mobilization and Demobitization. Remove and reinstall electric LS 1 100% $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 6,0�0 3 8,000 $ 8,000 3 8,800 $ 8,800 $ 8,800 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 motor,discharge head,column,shaft,arM pump. 10.02 Sttop time fw cleaning and repairing purrip. HR 20 100% $ 80 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 65 $ 1,700 $ 1,700 $ 115 $ 2,300 $ 2,300 $ 60 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 10.03 Rehab discharge head LS 1 75% $ 200 $ 200 $ 150 $ 425 $ 425 $ 319 $ 500 $ 500 $ 375 $ 550 $ 550 $ 413 10.03a Replace discharge head LS 1 25°�6 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 750 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 600 $ 500 $ 500 $ 125 $ 4,200 $ 4,200 $ 1,050 10.04 Discharge head bearing LS 1 tOD% $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 500 $ 500 5 500 $ 200 $ 2pp $ 2pp 10.05 Wire brush iMerior surface of well casing. LS 1 100% S 2,000 $ 2.000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 10.06 Videowellinspection. LS 1 10D% $ 550 $ 550 $ 550 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 10.07 8"x 5'Sch.40 line sheft colunn pipe and coupling EA 2 75% $ 400 $ 800 $ 60Q $ 350 $ 700 $ 525 $ 360 $ 720 $ 540 $ 525 $ 1,050 $ 788 10.08 8"x 10'Sch.40 line shaR column pipe and coupling EA 9 75% $ 500 $ 4,500 $ 3,375 $ 475 $ 4,275 $ 3,206 $ 515 $ 4,635 S 3,476 $ 775 $ 6,975 $ 5,231 10.09 8"Sch.40 line shak suction pipe EA 1 50% $ 500 $ 500 $ 250 $ 300 $ 300 $ 150 $ 475 $ 475 $ 238 $ 575 $ 575 $ 288 10.10 1-3/16"x 10'stainlesssteellineshaft EA 9 100% $ 400 $ 3,600 $ 3,600 $ 350 $ 3,150 $ 3,150 $ 330 $ 2,970 $ 2,970 $ 575 $ 5,175 $ 5,175 10.11 1-3/16"x 5'stainless steel line shaft EA 2 10D k $ 300 $ 600 $ 600 $ 275 $ 550 $ 550 $ 232 $ 464 $ 464 $ 350 $ 70Q $ 7pp 10.12 13/16"stainless steel line shaft coupling EA 11 100% $ 45 $ 495 $ 495 $ 30 $ 330 $ 330 $ 40 $ 440 $ 440 $ 75 $ 825 $ 825 10.13 Stainless stee�head shafl EA 1 100% $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 330 $ 330 $ 330 $ 550 $ 550 $ 550 10.14 Stainlass steel bowl shaft LS 1 75% $ 450 $ 450 $ 338 $ 450 $ 450 $ 338 $ 350 $ 350 $ 263 $ 550 $ 550 $ 413 10.15 Rubber bearing in existing retainer EA 11 60°�6 $ 25 $ 275 $ 220 $ 25 $ 275 $ 220 $ 33 $ 363 E 290 $ 30 $ 330 $ 264 10.15a Replace bronze bearing reteiner w/rubber beariny EA 11 20% $ 150 $ 1,650 $ 330 $ 100 $ 1,100 $ 220 $ 170 $ 1,870 $ 374 $ 175 $ 1,925 $ 385 10.16 Rehabpumpbowls LS 1 50% $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,200 3 2,200 $ 1,100 $ 3,400 $ 3,400 3 1,700 3 1,050 $ 1,050 $ 525 10.16a Replace pump bowls LS 1 50% $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 5,750 $ 5,750 $ 2,675 $ 4,300 $ 4,300 $ 2,150 $ 9,800 $ 9,800 $ 4,900 10.17 Rehabpumpmotor LS 1 75� $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $ 1,088 $ 2,877 $ 2,677 $ 2,158 $ 4,200 $ 4,200 $ 3,150 10.17a Repiace weH pump motor LS 1 25°� $ B4O00 $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 8,500 $ 8,500 $ 2,125 $ B4O00 $ 8,000 S 2.000 $ 11,500 $ 11,500 $ 2,875 10.18 Gammeloggingwell LS 7 100% $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 3 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 � 10.19 Replace well level measuring device with drewdown pressure lS 1 100% S 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 1.000 $ 1.OW $ 7,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 2,550 $ 2,550 $ 2,550 � transducer 10.20 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0% 1021 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0% 10.22 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0°6 1023 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0% 1024 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0% 10.25 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0% 10.26 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0°� 10.27 Mob/Damob.Equipment to Acid Treat LS 1 20% $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 400 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 200 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 4,000 10.28 Jetting screen to clean Hrs 16 20% $ 180 $ 2,880 $ 576 $ 275 $ 4,400 $ 880 $ 300 $ 4,800 $ 960 $ 425 $ 6,800 $ 1,360 10.29 Baildebrisfromjeriing Hrs 4 20k $ 180 $ 720 $ 144 $ 275 $ 1,100 $ 220 $ 300 $ 1,200 $ 240 $ 425 $ 1,700 $ 340 10.30 Fumish&install Unicid granutar lBS 550 20� $ 10 $ 5,500 $ 1,100 $ 10.00 3 5,500 $ 1,100 $ 40.00 $ 22,000 $ 4,400 $ 15.00 $ 8,250 $ 1,650 10.31 Futnish&install Unicid catatyst Gals 75 20% $ 150 $ 11,250 $ 2,250 $ 110 $ 8,250.00 $ 1,650 $ 40.00 $ 3,000 E 600 $ 125.00 $ 9,375.00 $ 1,875 10.32 Acid treatment labor&equipment Hrs 24 20% $ 300 $ 7,200 $ 1,440 E 300 $ 7,200 $ 1,440 $ 400 $ 9,600 $ 1,920 $ 425 $ 10,200 $ 2,040 10.33 Fumish 8 Install ph neutralizer Gals 85 20% $ 75 $ 6,375 $ 1,275 $ 85 $ 7,225.00 $ 1,445 $ 450 $ 38,250 $ 7,650 $ 100 $ 8,500 $ 1,70p 10.34 Videowellinspedion-a(teracidtreating LS 1 20% $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 320 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 260 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 28p 10.35 Fumish&Insfall Sterline LBS 5 20% $ 15 $ 75 $ 15 $ 15 $ 75 $ 15 $ 15 $ 75 $ 15 $ 25 $ 125 $ 25 10.36 Fumish&Install Chbr-oust LBS 10 20% $ 70 $ 100 $ 20 $ 65.00 $ 650 $ 130 $ 70.00 $ 700 $ 140 $ 16.00 $ 160 $ 32 10.07a Paint interior and exterior of 8"x 5 Sch.40 line shaft column EA 2 20% $ 80 $ 160 $ 32 $ 150 $ 300 $ 60 $ 220 $ 440 $ 88 $ 50 $ 100 $ 20 pipe and coupling 10.08a Paint interior and exterior of 8"x 10'Sch.40 line shaTt column EA 9 20� $ 120 $ 1,080 $ 216 $ i50 $ 1,350 $ 270 $ 420 $ 3,780 $ 756 $ 125 $ 1,125 $ 225 pipe and coupling 10.09a Paint interior and exterior of 8"Sch.40 line shaft suction i e EA 1 20% $ 80 $ 80 $ 16 $ 150 $ 150 30 $ 420 420 $ 84 $ 125 125 $ 25 TOTAL for Welf No.10-• 45,4% $ 85,260 $ 86,265 $ 40,405 f 139 659 $ 52,745 $ 142,065 $ 65,432 Bid Tabulation 1502051J6/2015 Detailed Bid Tabulation 2015 Well Rehabilitation(City Project#448) Fridley,MN Bid Opening on February 3,2015 at 10:00 A.M. En ineePs O inion Ke s Wall DriN' E,H.Renner Mark J Trau!Wells Inc. Item Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Description Unit Qty. Prob. Unit price Total Price Cost Unit Price Total Price �og� Unit Price Total Price Cost Und Price Total Price Cost 11.01 Mobilization and Demobilization. Remove and reinstall eledric LS 1 100% $ 5,000 $ 5.000 $ 5,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,800 $ 8,800 $ 8,600 $ 23,000 $ 23,000 $ 23,000 motor,discherge head,column,shaR,and pump. 11.02 Shop time for cleaning and repairing pump. HR 20 100% $ 80 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 85 $ 1,700 $ t,700 $ 115 $ 2,300 $ 2,300 $ 80 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 11.03 Rehab discharge head �S 1 75% $ 200 $ 200 $ 150 $ 425 $ 425 $ 319 $ 500 $ 500 $ 375 $ 550 $ 550 $ 413 14.03a Replace discharge head LS 1 25% $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 750 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 600 $ 500 $ 500 $ 125 $ 4,200 $ 4,200 $ 1,050 11.04 Discharge head bearing LS 1 100% $ 120 $ 120 $ 120 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 200 $ 20p $ Zpp 11.05 WirebrushiMeriorsuAaceotwellcasing. lS 1 100% $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 4,500 11.06 Videowellinspection. LS 1 100% $ 550 $ 550 $ 550 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 11.07 f 0"x 5'Sch.40 iine shaR cohimn pipe and couplirrc EA 2 75% $ 400 $ 800 $ 600 $ 350 $ 700 $ 525 $ 360 $ 720 3 540 $ 525 $ 1,050 $ 78A 11.08 10"x 10'Sch.40 line shatt column pipe and couplinc EA 24 75% $ 500 $ 12,000 $ 9,000 $ 475 $ 11,400 $ 8,550 $ 515 $ 12,360 $ 9,270 $ 775 $ 18,600 $ 13,950 17.09 10"Sch.40 iine shaft suction pipe EA 1 75% $ 500 $ 500 $ 375 $ 300 $ 300 $ 225 $ 475 $ 475 $ 356 $ 575 S 575 $ 431 11.10 1-11l16"x 10'stainless steel line shaft EA 24 100% $ 400 $ 9,600 $ 9,600 $ 350 $ 8,400 $ 8,400 $ 330 $ 7,920 $ 7,920 $ 575 $ 13,800 $ 13,800 11.11 1-t t/16"x 5'stainless steel line shaft EA 2 t00% $ 300 $ 600 $ 600 $ 275 $ 550 $ 550 $ 232 $ 464 $ 464 $ 35p $ 700 $ 700 11.12 1-11/16"stainless steel line shaft coupling EA 26 100% $ 45 $ 1,170 $ 1,170 $ 30 $ 780 $ 780 $ 40 $ 1,040 $ 1,040 $ 75 $ 1,950 $ 1,950 11.13 Stainless steel head shafl EA 1 100� $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 y 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 330 $ 330 $ 330 $ 550 $ 550 $ 550 11.14 Stainless steel bowl shaft LS 1 75% $ 450 $ 450 $ 338 $ 450 $ 450 $ 338 $ 350 $ 350 $ 263 $ 550 $ 550 $ 413 11.15 Rubber bearing in existing retainer EA 25 80% $ 25 $ 625 $ 500 $ 25 $ 625 $ 500 $ 33 $ 825 $ 660 $ 30 $ 7S0 $ 600 11.15a Replace bronze bearing retainer w/rubber bearinc EA 25 20% $ 150 $ 3,750 $ 750 y 150 $ 3,750 $ 750 $ 170 $ 4,250 $ 850 $ 175 $ 4,375 $ 875 11.16 Rehab pump bowls LS 1 25% $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 500 $ 2,700 $ 2,700 $ 675 S 3,400 $ 3,400 $ 850 $ 1,050 $ i,050 $ 263 11.16a Replace pump bowls LS 1 75% $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,750 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 6,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 3,000 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 7,875 11.17 Rehabpumpmotor LS 1 75� $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $ 1,088 $ 2,875 $ 2,875 $ 2,156 $ 4,200 $ 4,200 $ 3,150 71.t7a Replaceweilpumpmota LS 1 25% $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 8,400 $ 8,400 $ 2,100 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 11,500 $ 11,500 $ 2,875 11.18 Gamma logging well LS 1 100% $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 $ 7,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 � 11.19 Replaoe well level measuring device with drawdoxm pressure LS 1 100% $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,250 $ 1,250 $ 1,250 $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $ 3,400 $ 3,400 $ 3,400 � lransducer 11.20 Wetl redevelopment equipment LS 1 25k $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,250 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,250 $ 25.000 $ 25,000 $ 6,250 11.21 Materialremoval-Bailing HRS 50 10% $ 350 $ 17,500 $ 1,750 $ 275 $ 13,750 $ 1,375 $ 250 $ 12,500 $ 1,250 $ 425 $ 21,250 $ 2,125 11.22 Materialremoval-AirOevebping HRS 50 25% $ 300 $ 15,000 $ 3,750 $ 275 $ 13,750 $ 3,438 $ 300 $ 15,000 $ 3,750 $ 425 $ 21,250 $ 5,313 1123 Onsite material containment LS 1 25°� $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,250 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 500 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 1,250 $ 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 550 11.24 Redevebpment water discharge piping LF 50 25% $ 20 $ 1,000 $ 250 $ 15 $ 750 $ 188 $ 12 $ 600 3 150 $ 10 $ 500 $ 125 11.25 Material disposal oifsite CY 100 25% $ 50 $ 5,000 $ 1,250 $ 12 $ 1,200 $ 300 $ 10 $ 1,000 $ 250 $ 23 $ 2,300 $ 575 11.26 NOT USED AT THIS WELL 0% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ 11,07a Paint interior and exterior of 10"x 5'Sch.40 line shaft column EA 2 20% $ 80 $ 160 $ 32 $ 150 $ 300 $ 60 $ 220 $ 440 $ 88 $ 50 $ 100 $ 20 11.08a Paint interior and exterior of 10"x 10'Sch.40 line shatt column EA 24 20°� $ 120 $ 2,880 $ 576 $ 150 $ 3,600 $ 720 $ 420 $ 10,080 $ 2,Ot6 $ 125 $ 3,000 $ 600 11,09a Paint interior and exterior of 10"Sch.40 line shaft suction pipe EA 1 20� $ 80 $ 80 $ 16 $ 150 $ 150 $ 30 $ 420 $ 420 $ 84 $ 125 $ 125 $ 25 TOTAL for Well No.11-' 47.3k $ 117,485 S 107,390 $ 55,819 f 116,299 $ 58,537 $ 186,225 $ 100,864 E ineeYS O inion Ke s Well Drillin E.H.Renner Mark J Traut Wells,Inc. Weighted Weighted WeigMed Weighted Prob. Total Price Co$� Total Price Cost Total Price Cost Total Price Cost TOTAL for Well No.3 50.6°� $ 136,825 $ 69 220 $ 127 400 $ 66 Q74 $ 135 035 $ 62 250 $ 2}0 565 $ 119 777 TOTAL for Well No.7 45.3% $ 105,385 $ 47 754 $ 97 315 $ 48 844 $ 97 166 $ 50 265 $ 159 255 $ 86 341 TOTAL for Well No.10 45.4% $ 85,260 $ 38 682 $ 86 265.00 $ 40 405 $ 139 659 $ 52 745 $ 142 065 $ 65 432 TOTAL for Well No.11 47.3% $ 117 485 $ 55 627 $ 107 390 $ 55 819 $ 116 299 $ 58 537 $ 186 225 $ 100 864 TOTALS FOR ALL WELLS•' 47.5% $ 444,955 $ 211 282 S 416 370 $ 211 141 S 488,159 $ 223,797 $ 698,110 $ 371,614 '-flems in Bold Red intlicate thal bidder's sum entered on the bid form was different than the adual sum of their unk price items. Bid Tabulation 150205 2/6/2015 � AGENDA ITEM �� F`��'`Y CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Date: February 4, 2015 To: Walter Wysopal, City Managers�� From: Kay Qualley, Environmental Planner I Julie Jones, Planning Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Subject: 2015 SCORE Municipal Funding Grant Request for Residential Recycling Grant Review and approve grant agreement and Schedule B which details Grant break-out. BACKGROUND For 2015, the Anoka County Residential Recycling program offers the City of Fridley $67,060.00 in regular State SCORE funds to subsidize the cost of our residential recycling expenses. This amount is similar to previous years. The main 2015 grant is derived again this year, from a base of$10,000.00 with additional funding of$5.00 per household for recycling activities,based on 11,412 households (Metropolitan Council statistics). The 2015 goal is to remove 190 pounds per person of recyclable materials from the solid waste stream for all single family through four-plex units and 175 pounds of recyclables per person from multi-unit buildings of five or more in size. Apartments remain one of the greatest recycling challenges. Our total goal is 2,569 tons for 2015, an increase of 63 tons from the 2014 goal. Fridley is also eligible for additional enhancement funding grants from Anoka County through the SCORE program. These additional funding opportunities are based on multi-unit recycling programming, enhancement funds to augment existing or new recycling programs and media. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the 2015 SCORE Recycling Grant opportunities from Anoka County, and is requesting approval for the base SCORE amount of$67,060.00. In addition, staff is recommending that $6,000 in Park &Event Recycling funds, $6,000 in Multi-Unit& Cwbside Recycling funds and$11,412 in Recycling Enhancement Grant funding be accepted for recycling efforts and programming that will help to achieve our tonnage requirements. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached 2015 Anaka County Contract along with Attachment B for a total grant request of$90,472.00 at its February 9, 2015, meeting. Staff asks that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to sign and execute all three copies of the agreement and Attachment B. . 79 2015 Funding Available for Municipal Waste Abatement Programs-Attachment A 2015 Additional Enhancement Funds Available 2015 Base Funding and Goals �,��,i ao -off Y p Full Park and Event Recycling CuPoside and Nlulti-Unit General Organics Total funds Events Recyding Enhancement Collection Available for MUftICIPBIity SeN1� Grant 51/HH $1/HH Drop-off 2015 Base+ U m4,999 3,o0ci+ tenter 2.001- S,OOOand 2p01- S,OOOaad a� a� Enhancement P � 11p to 2,000 � Up to 2,000 munici atitia munfci BaseFunding:$10,000+$5.00/HH G0815: �eholds households housebolds 4'999 �P households 4'9� �P areelPgible aredPgi6le« futld5 175 PV Mf+ houscholds households househol@s househdds Contract 190PPSF equalry equally Number TotalPOp HH $10,000Base $5.00/HH Total $10p00 $iSa00 530,000 SZ,000 SsA00 56p00 $2p00 $4p00 S6p00 Fridle C0003921 27,865 11,412 $ 10,000 $ 57,060 5 67,060 2,569 $ 15,000 5 s,000 5 6,000 11,412 11,412 $ 136884 1015Tota15COREAIbcation:$1,051,986-$116,810.SOmustbespentonorgonics Population and Household Counts are based on 2013 Met founcil fstimates � �ah are based on 190 po�nds/person/yearsingle fomily home up to 4 units and 175 pounds/person/year muki-units 5 units or more 2015 Municipai Funding Request Attachment B Th�City of Fridley is requesting the following funding for their municipal efforts in 2015. Grant Pro ects Eli ible Ailocations Amount Re uested � Municipal Grant Funding Allocation � $67,060.00 $67,060.00 Full Service Drop-off Center Allocation $30,000.00 (Staffed recyding center,open a minimum of 3 cfays per � week,collecting mattresses,traditional recydables,scrap metal,car et,etc. Monthiy Drop-off Event(at least 8 months) $15,000.00 $ o Municipal Park/Community Event Recycling $6,000.00 $ s,000.00 Multi-Unit/Curbside Recycling $6,000.00 $ s,000.00 Recycling E�hancement Grant (Additional promotion efforts,multi-units,) 11,412.00 Insert a descri tion of the efforts bein ro osed below. $�1,412.00 $ Source-Separated Compostables/Organics $ � Grant $11,412.00 Total Amount Eligible Being Requested for $* 90,472.00 2015 $116,884.OQ A descri tion of the efforts bein ro osed for the additional fundin re uests. Additional enhancement funding opportunities will be used toward residential curbside up-sizing, multi-unit recycling programming and ramping-up of communication with residents. The City of Fridley requests "" 90,472.�� for 2015 Municipal Funding. Date February 9, 2015 Name SCOtt J. Lund Title Mayor "these amounts should match and may not exceed eligible allocation total. This amount will be 90% o#the contract maximum for the grant. 81 4 = Anoka County Contract# C0003921 AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM THIS AGREEMEN�made-arad--e�-itered�to-oa tk�-�s��iay--of.Janua�yT20a 5, _- ---- - nofinrithstanding the date of the signatures of the parties, befinreen the COUNTY OF ANOKA, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the"COUNTY," and the CITY OF FRIDLEY, hereinafter referred to as the "MUNICIPALITY.° WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County will receive $1,051,986.00 in funding from the State of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. St�t. § 115A.557 (hereinafter"SCORE funds") and $253,916.27 in funding pursuant to Minn. Stat. §473.8441 (hereinafter"LRDG funds°)during 2015; and WHEREAS, pursuant to new legislation, a po�tion of the SCORE funds must be used to encourage recycling of source-separated compostable materials, and Anoka County has determined that the minimum amount for this new program is $116,810.50; and WHEREAS, the County al�o has additional budgeted program funding available to supplement SCORE and LRDG funds for solid waste recycling programs;.and WHEREAS, the County wishes to assist the Municipality in meeting recycling goals established by the Anoka County Board of Commissioners by providing said SCORE and LRDG funds to cities and townships in the County for solid waste recycling programs. NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation befinreen the County and the Municipality to implement solid waste recycling programs in the Municipality. 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. 3. DEFINITIONS. a. "Problem material" shall have the meaning set fo�th in Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 24a. b. "Multi-unit households" means households within apartment complexes, condominiums, townhomes, mobile homes and.senior housing complexes. c. °Opportunity to recycle" means providing recycling and curbside pickup or collection centers for recyclable materials as required by Minn. Stat. § 115A.552. d. "Recycling" means the process of collecting and preparing recyclable materials and reusing the materials in their original form or using them in manufacturing processes that do not cause the destruction of recyclable materials in a manner that precludes further use. e. °Recyclable materials° means materials that are separated from mixed municipal solid waste for the purpose of recycling, including paper, glass, plastics, metals, fluorescent lamps, major appliances and vehicle batteries. 82 f. Refuse derived fuel or other materiai that is destroyed by incineration is not a recyclable material. g. "Yard waste" shall have the meaning set forth in Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 38. h. "Source-separated compostables" (commonly called "organics")shall have the meaning set forth in Minn. Stat. § 115A:03, subd:3�a. -- i. "Quasi-Municipal EvenY' means community festivals which appear to the public to be supported and run by the Municipality but in fact are sponsored or co- sponsored by an independent non-profit 501c(3)organization, for example: the Anoka Halloween Parade. 4. PROGRAM. The Municipality shall develop and implement a residential solid waste recycling program adequate to meet the Municipality's annual recycling goal of 2,569 tons of recyclable materials as established by the County. The Municipality shall ensure that the recyclable materials collected are delivered to processors or end markets for recycling. a. The Municipal recycling program shall include the following components: i. Each household (including multi-unit households) in the Municipality shall have the opportunity to recycle at least four broad types of materials, such as paper(including-cardboard/paperboard cartons), glass, plastic, metal and textiles. ii. The recycling program shall be operated in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. iii. The Municipality shall implement a public information program that contains at least the following components: (a) One promotion is to be mailed to each household focused exclusively on the Municipality's recycling program; (b) One promotion advertising recycling opportunities available for residents is to be included in the Municipality's newsletter or local newspaper; and (c) Two community outreach activities at municipal events to inform residents about recycling opportunities. iv. The public information components listed above shall focus on all recyclable materials and the various opportunities to recycle within the Municipality. The Municipality shall incorporate SWMCB Rethink Recycling images and use the toolkits provided when preparing promotional materials. The Municipality, on an ongoing basis, shall identify new residents and provide detailed information on the recycling opportunities available to these new residents. v. The Municipality shall regularly attend the monthly Solid Waste Abatement Advisory Team meetings per year. vi. The Municipality shall offer one or two spring and fall clean-up/recycling drop-off event(s)where items not normaNy accepted at the curb are collected for recycling. If the Municipality is hosting a Monthly drop off as described in 4.b.i below, the spring/fall clean-up/recycling drop-off events may be inctuded within that program. b. The Municipality is encouraged to expand its recycling program to include one or more of the following components in order to receive additional funding. i. Organize monthly(at least 8 during the course of the year) recycling drop offs which can be held in conjunction with a neighboring municipality on a cooperative basis for the citizens of both Municipalities. 2 83 ii. Provide a community event recycling program, which at a minimum would consist of providing recycling opportunities at all Municipality sponsored or Quasi-Municipal events and festivals. The feasibility of adding organics collection at the event may also be explored and added to the event as an enhancement to the waste abatemen#program. iii. Provide the opportunity for citizens to engage in recycling activities at municipal parks. iv. Organize and manage a Full Service Recycling Drop-off Center. v. Develop enhanced recycling promotion and assistance for multi-units. vi. Develop additional opportunities for Sou�ce-Separated Compostables/Organics collection. c. If the Municipality's recycling program did not achieve the Municipality's recycling ' goals as established by the County for the prior calendar year, the Municipality shall work with the County to prepare a plan to achieve the recycling goals set ! fort� in#his 1�g�eeme�t,_ - _ _ - __ _ � d. The Municipality's �ecycling program shaH be limited to residential programming � for funding reimbursements under this Agreement. The County will not reimburse business recycling programming or household hazardous waste programming by the Municipality. Any inquiries of requests regarding these topics should be sent to the County for response. 5. REPORTING. The Municipality shall submit the following reports semi-annually to the County no later than July 20, 2015 and January 10, 2016: a. An accounting of the amount of waste which has been recycled as a result of the Municipality's activities and the efforts of other community programs, redemption centers and drop-off centers. For recycling programs, the Municipality shall certify the number of tons of each recyclable material which has been collected and the number of tons of each recyclable material which has been marketed. For recycling programs run by other persons or entities, the Municipality shall also provide documentation on forms provided by the County showing the tons of materials that were recycled by the Municipality's residents through these other programs. The Municipality shall keep detailed records documenting the disposition of all recyclable materials collected pursuant to this agreement. The Municipality shall also report the number of cubic yards or tons of yard waste collected for composting or land spreading, together with a description of the methodology used for calculations. Any other material removed from the waste stream by the Municipality, i.e. tires and used oil, shall also be repo�ted separately. b. Information regarding any revenue received from sources other than the County for the Municipality's recycling programs. c. Copies of all promotional materials that have been prepared by the Municipality during the term of this Agreement to promote its recycling programs. The Municipality agrees to furnish the County with additional reports in form and at frequencies requested by the County for financial evaluation, program management purposes, and reporting to the State of Minnesota. 6. BILLING AND PAYMENT PROCEDURE. The Municipality shall submit itemized invoices semiannually to the County for abatement activities no later than July 20, 2015 and January 10, 2016. Costs not billed by January 10, 2016 will not be eligible for 3 84 funding. The invoices shall be paid in accordance with standard County procedures, subject to the approval of the Anoka County Board of Commissioners. 7. ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDS. The Municipatity is entitled to receive reimbursement for eligible expenses, less revenues or other reimbursement received,for-etigiblE actinities--- - - up to the project maximum as computed below, which shall not exceed $116,884.00. The project maximum for eligible expenses shall be computed as follows: a. A base amount of$10,000.00 for recycling activities only; I' b. $5.00 per household for recycling activities only; as provided according to the � schedule in Attachment A for each of the following services: Full Service Recycling Drop-off Center, Spring/Fall or Monthly Drop-off events; Municipal Park Recycling; Community Event Recycling; Multi-unit Recycling; and Source- Separated Compostables Collection; c. After considering the 2015 Municipal Funding Request(Attachment B), designatin.g the additional Grant Projects that the City will undertake in the upcoming year; and d. Including an addifional change order contingency of up to 10% of the total of the first four items in this list. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the County reserves the right to reduce I the funding provided hereunder in the event the Municipality does not undertake and � complete the additional Grant Projects referenced in Attachment B. The County also ' reserves the ability to assess the programs and realtocate unused SCORE and LRDG funds mid-year if any participating Municipality demonstrates the need for the funding and funds are available. 8. RECORDS. The Municipality shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the County and the State of Minnesota. The Municipality shall maintain strict accounfability of all funds and maintain records of all receipts and disbursements. Such records and accounts shall be maintained in a form which will permit the tracing of funds and program income to final expenditure. The Municipality shall maintain records sufficient to reflect that all funds received under this Agreement were expended in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 115A.557, subd. 2, for residential solid waste recycling purposes. The Municipality shall also maintain records of the quantities of materials recycled. All records and accounts shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than five (5)years from the last receipt of payment from the County pursuant to this Agreement. 9. AUDIT. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, the Municipality shal! allow the County or other persons or agencies authorized by the County, and the State of Minnesota, including the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor, access to the records of the Municipality at reasonable hours, including all books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Municipality relevant to the subject matter of the Agreement, for purposes of audit. In addition, the County shall have access to the project site(s), if any, at reasonable hours. 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS. a. In performing the provisions of this Agreement, both parties agree to comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or 4 85 standards estabiished by any agency or special govemmental unit which are now or hereafter promulgated insofar as they relate to performance of the provisions of this Agreement. In addition, the Municipality shall comply with all applicable requirements of the State of Minnesota for the use of SCORE funds provided to the Municipality by the County under this Agreement. b. No person shall illegally, on the grounds of race, creed, color, religion, sex, marital status, public assistance status, sexual preference, handicap, age or national origin, be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to unlawful discrimination under any program, senrice or activity hereunder. The Municipality agrees to take affirmative action so that applicants and employees are treated equally with � respect to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, layoff, termination, selection for training, rates of pay, and other forms of compensation. c. The Municipality shall be responsible for the performance of all subcontracts and shall ensure that the subcontractors perform fully the terms of the subcontract. The Agreement between the Municipality and a subcontractor shall obligate the subcontractor to comply fully with the terms of this Agreement. %�. d. The Municipality agrees that the Municipality's employees and subcontractor's I employees who provide services under this agreement and who fall within any job classification established and published by the Minnesota Department of , Labor& Industry shall be paid, at a minimum, the prevailing wages rates as certified by said Department. ' e. It is understood and agreed fhat the entire Agreement is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral and written agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. f. Any amendments, alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing, duly signed by the parties. g. Contracts let and purchases made under this Agreement shall be made by the Municipality.in conformance with all laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the Municipality. h. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any paragraph, section, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining portion of this Agreement. i. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating the relationship of co- partners,joint venturers, or an association befinreen the County and Municipality, nor shall the Municipality, its employees, agents or representatives be considered employees, agents, or representatives of the County for any purpose. 11. PUBLICATION. The Municipality shall acknowledge the financial assistance of the County on all promotional materials, reports and publications relating to the activities funded under this Agreement, by including the following acknowledgement: °Funded by the Anoka County Board of Commissioners and State SCORE funds (Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment).°The Municipality shall pravide copies of all promotional materials funded by SCORE funds. The County shall provide all printed public information pieces about County programs. A Municipality shall not modify County publications related to business recycling, household hazardous waste management or the County compost sites. � 5 86 Information about the County's business recycling program, household hazardous waste management program or County compost sites that a Municipality plans to publish in a Municipal communication, printed or electronic, shall be provided to the County for review and approved by the County prior to publication to ensure accuracy and consistency. 12. INDEMNIFICATION. The County agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the Municipality harmless from all claims, demands, and causes of action of any kind or character, including the cost of defense thereof, resulting from the acts or omissions of its public officials, officers, agents, employees, and contractors relating to activities per�ormed by the County under this Agreement. The Municipality agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the County harmless from all claims, demands, and causes of action of any kind or character, including the cost of defense thereof, resulting from the acts or omissions of its public officials, officers, agents, employees, and contractors relating to activities performed by the Municipality under this Agreement. � The provisions of this subdivision sha11 survive the termination or expiration of the term of this Agreement. 13. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written agreement of the parties or by either party, with or without cause, by giving not less than seven (7)days ;, written notice, delivered by mail or in person to the other party, specifying the date of ! termination. If this Agreement is terminated, assets acquired in whole or in part with funds provided under this Agreement shall be the property of the Municipality so long as said assets are used by the Municipality for the purpose of a landfill abatement program approved by the County. the remainder of this page left intentionafly blank 6 $7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands as of the dates first written above: CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNTY OF ANOKA By: gy: Rhonda Sivarajah, Chair Name: Anoka County Board of Commissioners Title: Date: Date: By: Jerry Soma BY� County Administrator Municipality's Clerk Date: Date: Approved as to form and legality: Approved as to form and legality: Assistant County Attorney Date: Date: kmt\waste\recycling-SCORE contracts�2015 contracts\Fridley C0003921 7 88 � AGENDA ITEM Fridley COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 I CLAIMS CLAIMS 167065 - 167237 89 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------`----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOTCE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ O1/29/2015 167065 ANOKA COUNTY CENTRAL COMMUNICA 1005 945.35 101-0440-425.43-32 O1/22/2015 DEC WIRELESS SERVICE 2015215 13/2014 531.29 101-0440-425.43-30 01/22/2015 2014 LANGUAGE LINE USAGE 2015016 13/2014 414.06 O1/29/2015 167066 AT & T MOBILITY 1116 3,671.71 101-0333-415.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PAONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 108.94 101-0220-415.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 48.94 225-0000-415.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 48.94 101-0440-425.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 1,183.56 101-0441-425.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 119,20 101-0550-425.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 328.22 101-0661-435.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 293,56 101-0669-435.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 101.68 101-0880-465.43-32 Ol/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 100.00 101-0881-465.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 34.99 101-0882-465.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114XQ1252015 O1/2015 98.94 101-0770-455.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 69,00 601-7000-415.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 269.75 602-7000-415.43-32 O1/17/2015 CSLL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 216.63 101-0668-435.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 350.59 101-0666-435.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 263.78 lOZ-0661-435.43-32 O1/17/2015 CELL PHONE SERVICE 154114X01252015 O1/2015 34.99 �D O /29/2015 167067 ANOKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1176 802,68 603-7500-415.43-30 12/31/2014 OAK GLEN CRK PROJ 2014244 13/2014 802,69 O1/29/2015 167068 ADVANTAGE SIGNS & GRAPHICS INC 1199 51.00 602-7000-415.42-22 O1/21/2015 SLOW MOVING VEHICLE SIGNS 24098 O1/2015 51.00 O1/29/2015 167069 ADVANCE SHORING COMPANY 1304 195.58 405-0005-415.43-41 O1/21/2015 SHORING RAMP SUPPORT 1214212 O1/2015 195.58 O1/29/2015 167070 A.E.M FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS,LLC 1314 3,200.00 409-0000-415.43-30 O1/23/2015 CHART OF ACCOUNTS MAPPING 337673 01/2015 3,200,00 O1/29/2015 167071 BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO 2005 1, 076.48 101-0668-435.42-22 O1/15/2015 WASFIED SAND O1/2015 1, 076.48 O1/29/2015 167072 CARQiTEST AUTO PARTS 3005 91.89 410-0440-425.45-40 O1/23/2015 FASTENING SYSTEM 2589426366 O1/2015 91.89 O1/29/2015 167073 CALIBRE PRESS INC 3116 209.00 101-0440-425.43-37 O1/21/2015 SSREET SURVIVAL SEMINAR 24178 O1/2015 209.00 O1/29/2015 167074 CUB FOODS INC 3127 35.25 270-0771-455.42-21 O1/23/2015 SUET O1/2015 35.25 O1/29/2015 167075 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES 3227 10.00 101-0000-219.08-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 O1/2015 10.00 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 2 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�--------------------- ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ O1/29/2015 167076 CENTERPOINT ENERGY-MINNEGASCO 3252 8, 973.62 101-0666-435.43-38 O1/15/2015 UTILITIES 80000141582 13/2014 750.15 101-0669-435.43-38 O1/15/2015 UTILITIES 80000141533 13/2014 156.39 609-9200-415.43-38 O1/15/2015 UTILITIES 80000141533 13/2014 350.87 101-0660-415.43-38 O1/15/2015 UTILITIES 80000141491 13/2014 3,697,84 101-0550-425.43-39 O1/15/2015 UTILITIES 80000141459 13/2014 743.58 601-7000-415_43-38 O1/15/2015 UTILITIES 80000141624 13/2014 3,274 .79 O1/29/2015 167077 CHARLESTON COUNTY FAMILY COURT 3316 451.50 101-0000-219.19-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 O1/2015 451.50 O1/29/2015 167078 ROBYN CHAR 3330 2� y3 270-0771-455.42-21 O1/12/2015 TEACHING SUPPLIES O1/2015 2�,93 O1/29/2015 167079 DELL MARKETING LP 4103 7, 773 ,24 409-0000-415.45-60 O1/16/2015 COMPUTERS WCM83,WC849,068 O1/2015 7, 773.24 O1/29/2015 167080 DEFORGES PLUMBING, INC 4147 3,100.00 101-0880-465.43-40 O1/28/2015 INSPECTIONS 1497 O1/2015 3, 100. 00 O1/29/2015 167081 E.C_M. PUBLISHERS INC 5001 194.28 406-0006-435.43-34 O1/27/2015 LEGAL NOTICE '15 STR PROJ 178975 O1/2015 194 .28 � �/29/2015 167082 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG 5073 971.56 101-0440-425.42-25 O1/06/2015 SQUAD CHANGEOVER SUPPLIES AW0109159 O1/2015 851,56 101-0440-425.42-25 O1/20/2015 ANTENNA ADAPTERS AW01161514 O1/2015 120.00 O1/29/2015 167083 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6023 65.93 101-0440-425.42-21 O1/28/2015 PLASTIC BAGS PETTY CASH O1/ZO15 2,12 lOZ-0440-425.43-37 O1/28/2015 TRAINING MEALS PETTY CASH O1/2015 11,75 101-0550-425.43-37 O1/28/2015 MEETING REFRESHMTS PETTY CASH O1/2015 16.89 101-0660-415.43-31 O1/28/2015 NOTARY RENEWAL PETTY CASH O1/2015 20.00 270-0771-455.42-21 O1/28/2015 SUPPLIES PETTY CASH O1/2015 15.17 O1/29/2015 167084 TD AMERITRADE 6088 150_00 101-0000-219.15-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 O1/2015 150.00 O1/29/2015 167085 FRIDLEY POLICE ASSOCIATION 6117 86.00 101-0000-219.22-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 O1/2015 86.00 O1/29/2015 167086 FINANCE AND COMMERCE, INC 6139 107.04 601-7500-415.43-34 O1/27/2015 LEGAL NOTICE-WELL REH 7498363� O1/2015 107.04 O1/29/2015 167087 GRAINGER 7041 17.12 101-0440-425.42-21 O1/26/2015 REPLACEMENT SWITCHES 9649621738 O1/2015 17.12 O1/29/2015 167088 TASC 7162 2�g.82 704-0000-415.43-30 O1/19/2015 3RD QRT TRUSTEE FEES IN477716 13/2014 279.82 O1/29/2015 167089 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #14 9006 8, 163 .10 101-0770-455.43-32 Q1/23/2015 PHONE LINES 4441 O1/2015 23.00 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 3 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------�----------------------------------------------------------------- ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------�----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101-0770-455.43-32 O1/23/2015 PHONE LINES 4441 O1/2015 46. 00 101-0770-455.43-32 O1/23/2015 PAONE LINES 4441 O1/2015 13.60 101-0770-455.43-40 O1/23/2015 SEC SYSTEM 4441 O1/2015 134.25 101-0770-455_43-50 O1/23/2015 BUILDING USAGE 4441 O1/2015 7,946.25 O1/29/2015 167090 INTL ASSOC OF CHIEFS OF POLZCE 9028 150.00 101-0440-425.43-31 O1/26/2015 MEMBERSHIP-ABBOTT 1001128703 O1/2015 150.00 O1/29/2015 167091 INTL ASSOC OF FIRE FIGHTERS - 9074 120.00 101-0000-219.15-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 Ol/2015 120.00 O1/29/2015 167092 INTL CODE COUNCIL, INC 9083 923 .25 101-OS80-465.42-21 O1/27/2015 BUILDING CODE BOOKS INV0518825 O1/2015 923.25 O1/29/2015 167093 INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY 9105 450.00 601-7000-415.43-40 O1/07/2015 PM TIME CHARGE-COMPRESSOR 30429218 O1/2015 450.00 O1J29/2015 167094 L-3 COMMUNICATIONS MOBILE VISI 12016 5, 003.00 101-0440-425_43-40 O1/26/2015 EXTENDED MAINTENANCE 221481 O1/2015 5,003.00 O1/29/2015 167095 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES 12022 1,598.00 101-0000-219.13-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 O1/2015 1,598.00 ��/29/2015 167096 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INC 12143 619.53 N 101-0333-415.43-40 O1/16/2015 PRINTER MAINT,USAGE 1904889 O1/2015 619.53 O1/29/2015 167097 JENNIFER LEAF 12181 45.00 ZO1-0770-455.43-40 O1/21/2015 CHORES/MORE O1/2015 45.00 O1/29/2015 167098 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL INC 13041 510. 00 101-0770-455.42-21 O1/23/2015 DEF DRIVING 33451 O1/2015 510.00 O1/29/2015 167099 MINNESOTA UNEMPLOYMENT FUND 13047 451.66 270-0'771-455.41-40 O1/15/2015 4th QRT UNEMPLOYMENT 9734386 13/2014 451.66 O1/29/2015 167100 MULTICARE ASSOCIATES 13214 301.00 101-0668-435.43-30 12/31/2014 RANDOM DRUG TESTING 64623 13/2014 121.00 101-0666-435.43-30 12/31/2014 RANDOM DRUG TESTING 64623 13/2014 45.00 601-7000-415.43-30 12/31/2014 RANDOM DRUG TESTING 64623 13/2014 45.00 101-0668-435.43-30 12/31/2014 RANDOM DRUG TESTING 64623 13/2014 45,00 601-7000-415.43-30 12/31/2014 RANDOM DRUG TESTING 64623 13/2014 22.50 602-7000-415.43-30 12/31/2014 RANDOM DRUG TESTING 64623 13/2014 22,50 02/29/2015 167101 MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC - M.B. 13220 45.84 101-0000-219.09-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 O1/2015 45.84 O1/29/2015 167102 MINNEAPOLIS SAW INC 13290 96,60 101-0668-435.42-22 O1/22/2015 CHAINSAW BAR 43677 O1/2015 96.60 O1/29/2015 167103 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CEN 13307 304 .11 101-0000-219.19-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 Q1/2015 304.11 PREPARED 02/O5/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 4 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 SANK CODE 00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------^----�-------------------------- CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ---------------�------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ O1/29/2015 167104 MINNESOTA METRO NORTA TOURISM 13416 2,967.62 806-0000-204.00-00 O1/22/2015 DEC HOTEL/MOTEL TAX O1/2015 2,967.62 O1/29/2015 167105 MADDEN,GALANTER,HANSEN,LLP 13430 52.00 101-0221-415.43-30 12/31/2014 DEC SERVICE-POLICE MATTER 13/2014 52.00 O1/29/2015 167106 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 13472 5, 874.22 101-0000-141.00-00 O1/26/2015 FUEL 209Q58 O1/2015 5, 874 .22 O1/29/2015 167107 NATL BUSINESS FURNITURE 14025 476.00 101-0550-425.42-21 O1/16/2015 CHAIRS ZJ8715960FM O1/2015 476.00 O1/29/2015 167108 OPEN YOUR HEART 15011 25.00 101-0000-219.08-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 . O1/2015 25.00 O1/29/2015 167109 OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE, INC 15072 432.50 101-0660-415.43-40 O1/22/2015 SHOVEL/SALT WALKS 12158,12151,143 O1/2015 432.50 O1/29/2015 167110 POSTMASTER 16024 905.00 601-6000-415.43-32 O1/13/2015 PERMIT FEES 13637001 13637001 O1/2015 905.00 O1/29/2015 167111 PRO-TEC DESIGN 16154 545.60 � 101-0660-415.43-40 O1/20/2015 REPL CARD READER,REPAIRS 69626,69636 O1/2015 545.60 W O1/29/2015 167112 PAT MCCARTHY PRODUCTIONS 16198 399,00 101-0440-425.43-37 O1/21/2015 REGISTRATION-KOTCHEN 3939 O1/2015 399.00 O1/29/2015 167113 PARTNERS & SIRNY ARCHITECTS 16223 45,426.34 407-0007-455.43-40 O1/16/2015 DEC ARCHITECT SERV 1 13/2014 45,426.34 O1/29/2015 167114 SAM'S CLUB 19004 1,747.97 101-0770-455.42-21 O1/20/2015 SUPPLIES O1/2015 454.70 101-0770-455.42-21 O1/20/2015 SUPPLIES O1/2015 50.00 270-0771-455.42-21 O1/20/2015 SUPPLIES O1/2015 49.99 101-0666-435.42-22 O1/20/2015 STACKING CHAIRS O1/2015 1,193 .28 O1/29/2015 167115 SWEDEBRO, INC 19053 7, 690,00 101-0669-435.43-40 O1/26/2015 INSTALL EPDXY GARAGE FLR 201508 O1/2015 7,690.00 O1/29/2015 167116 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC 19108 2, 018.31 101-0661-435.43-30 O1/22/2015 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 282661 O1/2015 512,00 101-0661-435.43-30 12/31/2014 ANTENNA PROJ 292931 13/2014 1, 506.31 O1/29/2015 167117 SPRINGBROOK NATURE CENT FOUNDA 19256 250,00 270-0771-455.43-40 O1/26/2015 REIMB DISCOVER PRESENTOR O1/2015 250.00 O1/29/2015 167118 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 19319 102.96 601-7000-415.42-22 02/16/2015 WELL HOUSE PAINT/SUPPLIES 46463 O1/2015 102.96 O1/29/2015 167119 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICE, IN 19362 1, 850.00 405-0005-425.43-30 O1/27f2025 ROOF REPLACEMNT PROJ 869448 O1/2015 1, 850.00 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 5 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK CHECK CHECR DATE NUMSER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACCOIINT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ O1/29/2015 167120 M JAY SHAHIDI 19373 75.00 101-0770-455.42-21 O1/20/2015 SPEAKER-GREAT DECISIONS O1/2015 75.00 O1/29/2015 167121 TARGET 20004 10.67 101-0770-455.42-21 O1/18/2015 ZONE SUPPLIES O1/2015 10,67 O1/29/2015 167122 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT 20017 750.93 270-0771-455.43-41 O1/26/2015 CLIMBING WALL RENTAL 40087 O1/2015 750. 93 O1/29/2015 167123 ZCOFTL FRIDLEY,LLC 20130 16,043.36 609-9100-415.43-41 02/O1/2015 FEB LEASE PAYMSNT 30470001A000367 O1/2015 16, 043.36 O1/29/2015 167124 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC 20180 62.50 409-0000-415.45-60 O1/26/2015 CHART OF ACCOUNTS SEGMENT 025115226 O1/2015 62.50 O1/29/2015 167125 UNTTED WAX 21035 20.00 101-0000-219.08-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 O1/2015 20.00 O1/29/2025 167126 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GRP O 21045 543. 00 101-0440-425.43-30 O1/26/2015 PRE-EMPLOY PHYSICAL 40658 O1/2015 543 .00 O1/29/20Z5 167127 UPPER MIDWEST SEED INC 21046 111.20 � 270-0771-455.42-21 O1/20/2015 BIRD SEED 19147 O1/2015 111.20 O1/29/2015 167128 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 21066 225.01 101-0000-219_20-00 O1/30/2015 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20150130 O1/2015 225.01 O1/29/2015 167129 WONDERLIC, INC 23013 760.00 101-0221-415.43-30 12/17/2014 WPTR WEB ADM,DATA ENTRY 6364702 I3/2014 510.00 101-0221-415.43-30 O1/14/2015 ANNUAL SYSTEM ACCESS 6365067 O1/2015 250.00 O1/29/2015 167130 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC 23070 1, 008.00 603-7500-415.43=30 06/30/2014 OAK GLEN CRK EXP PROJ 11403250 13/2014 1, 008.00 O1/29/2015 167131 XCEL ENfiRGY 24002 19, 823.21 602-7000-415.43-38 O1/20/2015 UTILITIES 442514232 13/2014 1, 528.53 603-7000-415.43-38 O1/20/2015 UTILITIES 442500694 13/20I4 155.48 101-0550-425.43-38 O1/20/2015 UTILITIES 442495173 13/2014 272.01 101-0665-435.43-38 O1/20/2015 UTILITIES 442531859 13/2014 17,249.69 101-0441-425.43-38 O1/20/2015 IITILZTIES 442320051 13/20Z4 54 .52 270-0771-455.43-38 O1/20/2015 UTILITIES 442310049 13/2014 544.40 101-0669-435.43-38 O1/20/2015 IITILITIES 442310017 13/2014 18.58 O1/29/2015 167132 Maxwell St-MOhamed Shambolia 99998 200.00 101-0000-240.00-00 O1/22/2015 TSP 14-31 DEPOSZT REFUND O1/2015 200.00 O1/29/2015 167133 Johnson, Chris 99998 200.00 101-0000-240.00-00 O1/28/2015 TSP 15-01 DfiPOSIT REFUND O1/2015 200.00 02/OS/2015 167134 ARCTIC GLACIER INC 1008 43.65 609-0000-183 .00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 43.65 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 6 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 - ---------------------------------------------------�----------------�----------------------------'--------- CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------�--------------------- ACCOUNT #_______-__TRN_DATE___________________DESCRIPTION ____INVOICE-____-__-__PO-#_____PER/YEAR _____-___TRN_AMOUNT ------------ --------------------- ------ ------ 02/OS/2015 167135 ALLIED BLACKTOP CO 1024 24, 893.55 406-0006-435.43-40 06/24/2014 JOINT POWERS STR MAINT 19175 13/2014 24, 893.55 02/OS/2015 167136 A.B.M. EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY 1046 105.33 101-0000-144.00-00 O1/29/2015 DIVEDERS FOR #740 142441 02/2015 105.33 02/OS!2015 167137 ANOKA RAMSEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1053 2,000.00 101-0669-435.43-37 08/19/2014 OSHA FORKLIFT TRAINING 372659 13/2014 400.00 101-0666-435.43-37 08/19/2014 OSHA FORKLIFT TRAINING 372659 13/2014 400.00 101-0668-435.43-37 08/19/2014 OSHA FORKLIFT TRAINING 372659 13/2014 400.00 601-7000-415.43-37 08/19/2014 OSHA FORKLSFT TRAINING 372659 13/2014 4Q0.00 602-7000-415.43-37 08/19/2014 OSHA FORKLIFT TRAINING 372659 13/2014 400.00 02/O5/2015 167138 AMUNDSON CZGAR & CANDY CO 1064 3,981.35 609-0000-184.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-CIGS 02/2015 3,981,35 02/O5/2015 167139 ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC 1122 510,80 101-0550-425.43-40 O1/31/2015 COMPRESSOR SERVICE 269949 02/2015 510.80 02/OS/2015 167140 AMERICAN BOTTLTNG COMPANY 1155 261,08 609-0000-158.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 261.08 �p /OS/2015 167141 ADVANTAGE SIGNS & GRAPHICS INC 1199 5,708 .35 � 101-0668-435.42-22 O1/28/2015 SIGN BLANKS 24069 02/2015 3, 850.35 101-0668-435.42-22 02/02/2015 POSTS,LOGO SIGNS 24208 02/2015 1,858.00 02/OS/2015 167142 ACE SOLID WASTE, INC 1241 2� 19 609-9200-415.43-40 02/O1/2015 REFUSE HAULING 549529 02/2015 2�.19 02/O5/2015 Z67143 ACE SOLID WASTE, INC 1241 188.02 101-0660-415.43-40 02/O1/2015 REFUSE HAULING 546266 02/2015 188.02 02/OS/2015 167144 ALBRECHT SIGN & GRAPHICS,INC 1285 16.50 101-0661-435.42-20 O1/30/2015 NAME PLATE-BLADWIN 21302 02/2015 16 .50 02/O5/2015 167145 AMARA WINES,LLC 1296 577.65 609-0000-180.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-LIQUOR 02/2015 363 .36 609-0000-181.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-WINE 02/2015 206.04 609-9100-415.43-51 O1/31/2015 JAN-FREIGAT 02/2015 g,z5 02/O5/2015 167146 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 1303 3, 820.75 609-0000-182.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 3, 178.95 609-0000-157.00-00 O1/31/2015 �AN-BEER 02/2015 641.80 02/OS/2015 167147 BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO 2005 160.95 601-7500-425.42-22 O1/27/2015 WASHED SAND 02/2015 110. 95 601-7500-415.43-40 O1/27/2015 DISPOSAL FEES 02/2015 50.00 02/OS/2015 167148 BEISSWENGER'S HARDWARE 2019 171.42 101-0666-435.42-22 02/02/2015 NUTS,BOLTS,MISC SIIPPLIES 02/2015 121.77 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 7 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 101-0668-435.42-22 02/02/2015 TURBMAX BITS 02/2015 19.65 270-0771-455_42-22 02/02/2015 REPLACEMENT GLASS 02/2015 30.00 02/O5/2015 167149 BOYER TRUCKS INC 2035 293.73 101-0000-144.00-00 O1/31/2015 HEATfiR,SWITCAES 02/2015 293.73 02/O5/2015 167150 BOLTON & MENK, INC 2046 9,044 .50 406-0006-435.43-30 O1/02/2015 SERVICE RD PLAN 0174454 13/2014 1,264.00 101-0661-435.43-30 O1/02/2015 HEAVY VEHICLE IMPACT RATE 174455 13/2014 7,780.50 02/OS/2015 167151 BELLBOY CORPORATION 2051 8,356.94 609-0000-180.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-LIQUOR 02/2015 7,654.65 609-0000-181.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-WINE 02/2015 444.28 609-9100-415.43-51 O1/31/2015 JAN-FREIGHT 02/2015 82.01 609-9100-415.42-21 O1/31/2015 JAN-BAGS 02/2015 176.00 02/OS/2015 167152 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC 2131 190.31 101-0550-425.42-21 O1/31/2015 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 81675725 02/2015 190.31 02/O5/2015 167153 BERNICK'S BEVERAGES 2207 1, 149.55 609-0000-182.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 1,149.55 02/OS/2015 167154 BLAINE BROTHERS 2216 303.18 � 101-0668-435.43-40 O1/12/2015 BATTERY CABLES 1109056 02/2015 303.18 01 02/OS/2015 167155 BAUHAUS BREW LAB, LLC 2239 141.00 609-0000-182.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 141.00 02/OS/2015 167156 COCA COLA BOTTLING 3030 2,034.54 609-0000-183 .00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 1, 512.06 609-0000-158.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 522.48 02/OS/2015 167157 CUMMINS NPOWER, LLC 3048 642.46 101-0000-14'4.00-00 O1/22/2015 OIL PAN, PARTS 10095507 02/2015 430:91 101-0000-144.00-00 O1/12/2015 AUX ENGINE WATER PUMP 10093140 02/2015 211.55 02/OS/2015 167158 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 3097 42,425.85 609-0000-182.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 30,300.00 609-0000-183 .00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 7.38 609-0000-157.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 12, 110.00 609-0000-158.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 8.47 02/OS/2015 167159 CITY OF COON RAPIDS 3122 147.38 270-0771-455.43-38 O1/07/2015 4TH QTR WATER SERVICE 3760303 13/2014 147.38 02/OS/2015 167160 COMO LUBE & SUPPLIES INC 3129 355.00 101-0669-435.43-40 O1/20/2015 PART WASHER SERVICE 574935 02/2015 355.00 02/OS/2015 167161 ROBERT CLAUSON 3153 2,859.20 101-0880-465.43-40 02/02/2015 INSPECTIONS 02/2015 2,859.20 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 8 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT -----------------------------------------'------------------------------------------------------------------- - ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOIINT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02/OS/2015 167162 COMCAST CABLE 3157 314.56 225-0000-415.43-40 O1/23/2015 CABLE SERVICE 6210044545 02/2015 314.56 02/O5/2015 167163 CENTRAL MN CUSTODIAL SERVICES 3198 1,040.00 101-0669-435.43-40 O1/29/2015 JAN CLEANING SERVICES 1255 02/2015 1,040.00 02/OS/2015 167164 CENTURY LINK 3295 292.13 270-0771-455.43-32 O1/25/2015 PHONE SERVICE 7833923 02/2015 42.07 601-7000-415.43-32 O1/25/2015 PHONE SERVICE 5711683 02/2015 17.47 602-7000-415.43-32 O1/25/2015 PHONE SERVICE 5711683 02/2015 17.46 609-9100-415.43-32 O1/22/2015 PHONE SERVICE 5710683 02/2015 215.13 02/OS/2015 167165 DELL MARKETING LP 4103 5, 158.80 409-0000-415.42-21 09/17/2014 COMPUTERS XJNDN331 13/2014 5, 158.80 02/OS/2015 167166 DO-GOOD BIZ, INC 4145 679.00 101-0220-415.43-32 O1/28/2015 NEWSLETTER MAILING 732701 02/2015 679.00 02/O5/2015 167167 DEFORGES PLUMBING,INC 4147 2, 000.00 101-0880-465.43-40 02/03/2015 INSPECTIONS 1499 02/2015 2, 000.00 02/OS/2015 167168 E.C.M. PUBLISHERS INC 5001 444 .33 �p 601-7500-415.43-34 O1/30/2015 LEGAL NOTICE-WELL REHAB 180834 02/2015 153 .81 �1101-0331-415.43-34 O1/30/2015 LEGAL NOTICE-BUDGET 180835 02/2015 290.52 02/O5/2015 167169 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG 5073 1,246.37 101-0000-144.00-00 O1/21/2015 LED BEACON JC012152 02/2015 906.37 410-0550-425.45-40 02/02/2015 RES 3 NEW SET UP #294 23454 02/2015 340.00 02/OS/2015 167170 EXTREME BEVERAGE 5088 878-90 609-0000-183 .00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 878.90 02/OS/2015 167171 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS,L 5103 330.19 101-0550-425.42-17 O1/31/2015 FIRE HELMET/FRONT 3379 02/2015 248.09 101-0550-425.42-22 O1/31/2015 SCBA PARTS 3380 02/2015 82.10 02/OS/2015 167172 FIRST STATE TIRE RECYCLING 6041 54 .72 101-0669-435.43-40 02/02/2015 RECYCLE TIRES 4139 02/2015 54.72 02/OS/2015 167173 TERESA FARIS 6142 75.00 227-0000-415.43-40 O1/28/2015 CHORES/MORE 02/2015 75 .00 02/OS/2015 167174 GOPAER STATE ONE-CALL INC 7013 121.80 601-7000-415.43-40 O1/31/2015 JAN LOCATE CALLS 131242 02/2015 60.90 602-7000-415.43-40 O1/31/2015 JAN LOCATE CALLS 131242 02/2015 60.90 02/OS/2015 167175 GENUINE PARTS CO/NAPA 7014 683.83 101-0000-144.00-00 O1/OS/2015 PARTS 02/2015 638.09 101-0669-435.42-22 O1/OS/2015 PARTS 02/2015 45.74 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 9 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT -----------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------------------------------------------ ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 02/OS/2015 167176 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 7109 705.75 609-0000-181.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-WINE 02/2015 690.00 609-9100-415.43-51 O1/31/2015 JAN-FREIGHT 02/2015 15.75 02/OS/2015 167177 GRAFIK DISTINCTION, INC 7125 1,200.00 101-0220-415.43-30 O1/21/2015 NEWSLETTER DESIGN/LAYOIIT 20266 02/2015 1,200.00 02/OS/2015 167178 TASC 7162 26.35 704-0000-415.43-30 12/31/2014 4th QRT SERVICE FEES IN481599 13/2014 26.35 02/OS/2015 167179 HOME DEPOT/GECF 8052 101.72 101-0550-425.42-22 O1/21/2015 STATION SUPPLIES 02/2015 52.33 270-0771-455.42-22 O1/21/2015 MAINT SIIPPLIES 02/2015 49.39 02/OS/2015 167180 HOHENSTEINS INC 8068 6,907.07 609-0000-182.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 5, 530.97 609-0000-157.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 1,376.10 02/OS/2015 167181 HAWKINS INC 8093 5,786.05 601-7000-415.42-22 O1/20/2015 WATER CHEMICALS 3686314, 86824 02/2015 5,786.05 02/OS/2015 167182 WENDY HIATT 8164 25.86 �p 101-0669-435.43-33 O1/29/2015 REIMB MILEAGE 02/2015 25.86 00 02/OS/2015 167183 INDELCO PLASTICS CORPORATION 9030 80.35 601-7000-415.42-22 O1/21/2015 BALL VALVE,PVC 893455 02/2015 80.35 02/OS/2015 167184 INFRATECH INC 9051 12, 982.10 602-7500-415.45-40 O1/OS/2015 CAMERA,UTILITY LOCATOR 1400583 02/2015 12, 982 .10 02/OS/2015 167185 INDEED BREWING COMPANY,LLC 9100 336.00 609-0000-182.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 336.00 02/OS/2015 167186 JANI-KING OF MINNESOTA,INC 10056 2, 737.65 101-0660-415.43-40 02/04/2015 FEB CLEANING SERVICE MIN2150373 02/2015 2,737.65 02/OS/2015 167187 J.J. TAYLOR DIST. OF MiNN, INC 10063 71, 944.57 609-0000-192.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 58, 170.00 609-0000-183 .00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 9.22 609-0000-157.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 13,760.00 609-0000-158.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 5.35 02/OS/2015 167188 KLUGE, MARK 11064 47.50 101-0669-435.42-17 02/03/2015 REIMB SAFETY BOOTS 02/2015 47.50 02/OS/2015 167189 LEVANDER,GILLEN & MILLER, PA 12013 4, 929.50 101-0222-415_43-30 O1/31/2015 JAN ATTY FEES 31 02/2015 4, 929.50 02/OS/2015 167190 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 12015 80.00 101-0661-435.43-37 O1/30/2015 REGISTRATION-BENSON 212571 02/2015 20. 00 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 10 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ---=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION , INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 602-7000-415.43-37 O1/30/2015 REGISTRATION-JONES 212568 02/2015 20.00 101-0668-435.43-37 O1/30/2015 RfiGISTRATION-ZURBY 02/2015 20.00 101-0666-435.43-37 O1/30/2015 REGISTRATION-PERRON 212639 02/2015 20.00 02/OS/2015 167191 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 12082 63,745.25 101-0000-219.24-00 O1/30/2015 1ST QRT WORKER COMP 28964 02/2015 63,745.25 02/O5/2015 167192 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 12082 1, 088.00 704-0000-415.43-36 O1/31/2015 2015 VOLUNTEER INS 29163 02/2015 1,088.00 02/OS/2015 167193 MIDWEST TESTING 13011 215.00 601-7000-415.43-40 O1/19/2015 TEST 4" METER-INCERTEC 3427 02/2015 215.00 02/OS/2015 167194 M.T_I_ DISTRIBUTING CO 13046 25,538.23 410-0666-435.45-40 O1/21/2015 GROUNDSMASTER MOWER V#535 99453300 02/2015 15,036.99 410-0666-435.45-40 O1/27/2015 TORO MASTER MOWER V#532 99453800 02/2015 10,501.24 02/OS/2015 167195 MINN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY- 13071 23.00 602-7000-415.43-37 O1/26/2015 CERTIFICATION-JONES SC57420925 02/2015 23.00 02/OS/2015 167196 MINN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 13086 16,264.35 601-7000-415.43-31 O1/31/2015 WATER PERMIT DNR WATERS 19756244 02/2015 16,264.35 �^./O5/2015 167197 MINN CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT AS 13104 190.39 �p 101-0220-415.43-31 02/03/2015 ANNUAL DUE-WYSOPAL,ZIMMER 02/2015 190.39 02/OS/2015 167198 MAVO SYSTEMS 13147 7,370.00 101-0669-435.43-40 O1/21/2015 REMOVE FLOORING/ADHESIVE 49733 02/2015 7,370.00 02/OS/2015 167199 MINN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 13150 806.99 101-0000-205.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN SURCHARGE 21807003055 21807003055 02/2015 806.99 02/O5/2015 16�200 MIDWAY FORD 13189 27, 945.03 410-0666-435.45-40 O1/27/2015 F350 PICKUP V#507 102083 02J2015 27, 945.03 02/OS/2015 167201 MOSS & BARNETT, PA 13231 2,469.16 225-0000-415.43-30 O1/21/2015 DEC LEGAL SERV-COMCAST 619280 13/2014 2,469.16 02/OS/2015 167202 M.S.S.A.-MN STR SUPERINTENDENT 13247 150.00 101-0668-435.43-37 O1/28/2015 MEMBERSHIP 02/2015 150.00 02/OS/2015 167203 NEWQUIST & HERRICK LAW OFFICES 14002 26,302_44 101-0222-415.43-30 O1/28/2015 FEB PROS ATTY FEES 02/2015 26,302 .44 02/OS/2015 167204 NORTHERN SAFETY CO INC 14060 65.86 101-0660-415.42-21 O1/27/2015 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 701260588 02/2015 65.86 02/O5/2015 167205 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIP 14094 794 .77 101-0666-435.42-25 O1/29/2015 SOCKET,CLAMPS,SMALL TOOLS 4041100189 02/2015 794.77 02/OS/2015 167206 NEEDAAM DISTRIBUTING CO,INC 14116 355.15 609-0000-182.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 355.15 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 11 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTZON INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 02/OS/2015 167207 NELSON CHEESE & DELI 14119 111.30 101-0220-415.4�-37 O1/26/2015 BOX LUNCHES COUNCIL CONF 105615 02/2015 111.30 02/OS/2015 167208 NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC 14179 647.00 406-0006-435.43-40 08/31/2014 MAT TESTING STR REHAB 12811 13/2014 647.00 02/OS/2015 16?209 OFFICE ENVIRONMENT BROKERS INC 15021 200.00 405-0005-415.42-21 02/O1/2015 CORNER DESK-FIRE DEPT 24592 02/2015 200.00 02/OS/2015 167210 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING CO 16007 365.20 609-0000-183.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 365.20 02/O5/2015 167211 PAUSTIS & SONS 16034 3, 815.21 609-0000-181.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-WINE 02/2015 2, 537.70 609-9100-415.43-51 O1/31/2015 JAN-FREIGHT 02/2015 33.75 609-0000-156.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-WINE 02/2015 1,220.01 609-9200-415_43-51 O1/31/2015 JAN-FREIGHT 02/2015 23.75 02/OS/2015 167212 PRO-TEC DESIGN 16154 571.00 101-0660-415.42-21 O1/28/2015 200 PROX CARDS 69750 02/2015 571.00 02/OS/2015 167213 Q.P. MARKETING 17005 621.50 � 101-0666-435.42-17 O1/24/2015 UNIFORM LOGO SHIRTS 5572 02/2015 299.00 � 101-0668-435.42-17 O1/24/2015 UNIFORM LOGO SHIRTS 5572 02/2015 322.50 02/OS/2015 167214 QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC 17007 272.48 101-0220-415.43-40 O1/19/2015 NEWSLETTER SHIPPING FEES 4133517,4133518 02/2015 272.48 02/OS/2015 167215 R.D_ HANSON ASSOC, INC 18124 43.00 101-0770-455.42-21 O1/29/2015 POPCORN SPECIAL EVENT 154304 02/2015 43.00 02/OS/2015 167216 ROOTSTOCK WINE COMPANY 18172 397.25 609-0000-181.00-00 O1/31�2015 JAN-WINE OZ/2015 392.00 609-9100-415.43-51 O1/31/2015 JAN-FREIGHT 02/2015 5.25 02/O5/2015 167217 SCHARBER & SONS INC 19011 273.00 101-0000-144.00-00 O1/28/2015 SPACER KIT P67988 02/2015 273 .00 02/OS/2015 167218 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC 19108 5,570.11 101-0661-435.43-30 12/15/2014 ANTENNA PROJ 291358 13/2014 5,570.11 02/OS/2015 167219 STEWART, ZLIMEN & JUNGERS, LTD 19228 1, 519.45 101-0000-219.21-00 O1/30/2015 GARNISHMENT RELEASE 62CV145374 02/2015 1,519.45 02/OS/2015 167220 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 19355 305.45 101-0660-415.42-22 O1/15/2015 RESTROOM SUPPLIES 4481221,81222 02/2015 305.45 02/OS/2015 167221 TRI-STATE BOBCAT, INC 20164 135.69 101-0000-144.00-00 O1/23/2015 SOLENOID P41039 02/2015 135.69 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 12 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 02/OS/2015 167222 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC 20180 593 .75 409-0000-415.45-60 O1/22/2015 CART OF ACCOUNTS SEG 025115381 02/2015 593.75 02/OS/2015 167223 UNIVERSITY OF MINN MONARCH FUN 21041 250.00 270-0771-455.43-40 O1/28/2015 SPEAKER FEE 02/2015 250.00 02/OS/2015 167224 VADOS BAIT/FISHER 22001 24 .24 270-0771-455.42-21 O1/20/2015 NOV-DEC SAIT 45501 13/2014 24.24 02/OS/2015 167225 VOSS LIGHTING 22016 407.04 101-0660-415.42-22 O1/23/2015 LIGHTING 1525707300 02/2015 333 .90 101-0660-415.42-22 O1/30/2015 RAMP LIGHTING 1526005300 02/2015 73.14 02/OS/2015 167226 VINOCOPIA, INC 22023 1,591.63 609-0000-180.00-00 O1/23/2015 JAN-LIQUOR 02/2015 1,572.63 609-9100-415.43-51 O1/23/2015 JAN-FREIGHT 02/2015 19.00 02/OS/2015 167227 W.S.B. & ASSOCIATES INC 23012 4, 540.00 603-7500-415.43-30 12/04/2014 SPRBRK WEIRS PROJ 15 13/2014 1, 852.00 603-7500-415.43-30 08/06/2014 SPRBRK WEIRS PROJ 11 13/2014 555.00 603-7500-415.43-30 10/23/2014 SPRBRK WEIRS PROJ 14 13/2014 2, 133.00 �'` /OS/2015 167228 WINE COMPANY 23043 536.25 � 609-0000-181.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-WINE 02/2015 528.00 609-9100-415.43-51 O1/31/2015 JAN-FREIGHT 02/2015 8.25 02/OS/2015 167229 WINE MERCHANTS 23045 2,652.18 609-0000-181.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-WINE 02/2015 2,624.10 609-9100-415.43-51 O1/31/2015 JAN-FREIGHT 02/2015 28.08 02/OS/2015 167230 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE, IN 23059 1,786.25 601-7000-415.43-40 O1/19/2015 LEAK LOCATES 5679 02/2015 613.81 601-7000-415.43-40 O1/OS/2015 DEC LEAK LOCATES 5612 13/2014 1, 172.44 02/OS/2015 167231 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC 23070 210.00 603-7500-415.43-30 11/30/2014 INSP OAK GLEN CRK PROJ 11406540 13/2014 210.00 02/OS/2015 167232 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER, 23092 27,390.06 609-0000-182.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 23,600.00 609-0000-183 .00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 43.46 609-0000-157.00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-BEER 02/2015 3,700.00 609-0000-158_00-00 O1/31/2015 JAN-MISC 02/2015 46.60 02/O5/2015 167233 XCEL ENERGY 24002 27.51 101-0666-435.43-38 O1/26/2015 UTILITIES 443170068 02/2015 27.51 02/05/2015 167234 YALE MECHANICAL INC 25003 2,782.75 101-0660-415.43-40 O1/30/2015 NOV/DEC MAINT 154885 13/2014 2,782.75 02/OS/2015 167235 MENARDS, INC 99998 100_00 101-0000-240_00-00 02/02/2015 CHRISTMAS TREE LOT DEPOSIT REFUND 02/2015 100.00 PREPARED 02/OS/2015, 11:58:23 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 13 PROGRAM: GM350L CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM O1/26/2015 TO 02/06/2015 BANK CODE 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHECK CHECK CHECK DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 02/OS/2015 167236 HOME DEPOT #2802 (DEPOSITS) 99998 100.00 101-0000-240.00-00 02J02/2015 CHRISTMAS TREE LOT DEPOSIT REFUND 02/2015 100.00 02/OS/2015 167237 BACHMAN'S (� 8020 UNIV AVE) 99998 100.00 101-0000-240.00-00 02/02/2015 CHRISTMAS TREE LOT DEPOSIT REFUND 02/2015 100.00 DATE RANGE TOTAL * 624,746.72 * 1�+ � N i r` �� AGENDA ITEM i � - ;� ��°f CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 � Fridley LICENSES � � .� Contractor T e A licant A roved B Tranwave Heatin &Coolin LLC HVAC Kevin Yan Ron Julkowski,CBO Crosby Construction,Inc. Comm or Peter Crosby Ron Julkowski,CBO S ecial R C Plumbin &Heatin ,Inc. HVAC Richard Correll Ron Julkowski,CBO K2 Bath Design Comm or Jon Kachman Ron Julkowski,CBO S ecial Mill City Communications Comm or Jamie Erickson Ron Julkowski,CBO S ecial Deans Professional Plumbin HVAC Ta ler Gable Ron Julkowski,CBO Deans Professional Plumbin Gas Srvc Ta ler Gable Ron Julkowski, C$O Mill Ci Heatin &Coolin HVAC John Whel le Ron Julkowski,CBO Air Mechanical, Inc. Gas Srvc D lan Halvorson Ron Julkowski,CBO Air Mechanical, Inc. HVAC D lan Halvorson Ron Julkowski, CBO McGough Construction Comm or Thomas McGough Jr Ron Julkowski, CBO S ecial Holl-Tech Installations LLC Gas Srvc Keith Holl Ron Julkowski,CBO Anderson-CC,Inc. Commercial or Russ Anderson Ron Julkowski,CBO 5 ecial Favors Homes LLC Comm or Curtis Favors Ron Julkowski,CBO 5 ecial Huber Plumbin Com an LLC HVAC Randahl Huber Ron Julkowski,CBO Huber Plumbin Com an LLC Gas Service Randahl Huber Ron Julkowski,CBO 103 = AGENDA ITEM �'"°` CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Fridley ESTIMATES Municipal Builders, Inc. 17125 Roanoke Street N.W. Andover,MN 55304 WTP#3 Filter Drain Pump Project No. 459 EstimateNo. 1 ....................................................................................... $12,937.67 Ron Kassa Construction 6005 East 250�' Street Elko,MN 55020 2014 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No. 453 EstimateNo. 3 ....................................................................................... $13,808.45 104 = AGENDA ITEM �:�r,.��f CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF � Fridley FEBRUARY 9, 2015 Date: February 5, 2015 To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager � � < � From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Subject: Appeals Hearing Appeal - Steve Saba- 7345 Central Avenue, Fridley Introduction: On January 29, 2015 the Fridley Appeals Commission convened to consider the appeal of Steve Saba, 7345 Central Avenue, Fridley. The Resolution and Findings of Fact from that hearing have been attached for your convenience. Upon hearing of the Appeals Commission's desire to affirm the resolution and findings of fact attached, Karen Marty, Attorney for Steve Saba requested to appear before the City Council to appeal the decision of the Appeals Commission. City's Role In An Appeal Case: Fridley City Code Section 128.06.2, States: Any properry owner who feels aggrieved by an order of the Code Enforcement Officer or other duly authorized agent issued pursuant to this chapter may request a hearing before the Appeals Commission. Such request shall be filed in writing with the office of the Community Development Director within twenty (20) days after the date of service of the notice by the Code Enforcement Officer or other duly authorized agent. The Community Development Director shall notify the Appeals Commission and the property owner of the date, time, and place of the hearing. The hearing shall be conducted no more than thirty (30) days after the property owner's request, unless a later date is mutually agreed to by the property owner and the Ciry. Both the property owner and representatives of the City may appear at the hearing with counsel and may call witnesses and present relevant and competent evidence. Within ten (1 D) days after such hearing, the Appeals Commission shall affirm, repeal or modify the order of the Code Enforcement Offtcer or other duly authorized agent. The Appeals Commission order shall be accompanied by written findings of fact, and may include a finding of fact as to the absence of value of the refuse and/or junk materials deemed to constitute an exterior public nuisance. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Appeals Commission may appeal that decision to the 105 APPEALS COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2015-01 A RESOLUTION AF'I'IRMING THE DECISION OF CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RELATED TO 7345 CENTRAL AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), through its Community Development staff, including the Planning Manager and Community Development Director, conducts routine and systematic zoning code enforcement inspections throughout the City to help protect the health, safety, general welfare and good order of the public; WHEREAS, Steve Saba owns property located at 7345 Central Avenue in Fridley, , Minnesota(the"Property"); �, WHEREAS, Steve Saba's parents acquired the Property in 1954(Exhibit 3); ; WHEREAS,the 1953 amendment to the Fridley Zoning Code lists the Property as zoned I commercial (E�ibit 2), and did not permit a junk yard use in any zoning district, except by special use permit in the industrial zoning district(Exhibit 1); WHEREAS, at no point in history was the Property generally located at 7345 Central Avenue zoned industrial; WHEREAS, at no point in history did the Property have a special use pernut for a junk yard use; WHEREAS, there is no evidence to indicate that the zoning of the Property has ever changed from 1953 to 2011; WHEREAS, the historical photographs of the site conditions of the Property indicate a prolonged use of the site as a junk yard/ scrap yard, automobile recycling business, and appliance recycling business(Exhibits 7, 11, 33, 35, and 37) WHEREAS,at no point in Fridley's history are the uses listed in preceding clause above allowed in a commercial, C 1 S or C 1 zoning district; WHEREAS, the City Code Section 205.13.7.B does not permit exterior storage in the front yard of the Property under any circumstances (Exhibit 47); WHEREAS, the City Code Section 205.13.7.B allows exterior storage only in rear and side yards of the Property but only if a special use permit has been issued for the Property (Exhibit 47); WHEREAS, at no point has Steve Saba or previous owners of the Property applied for and obtained a special use permit to allow exterior storage on the Property; 107 Resolution No.2015 -Ol Page 2 ` WHEREAS,the use of the Property as a junk yard/ scrap yard began sometime in 1954, when Steve Saba's parents took ownership of the Property, when the 1953 zoning code applied(Exhibit 3); WHEREAS, Steve Saba testified under oath on February 19, 2010 that his father scrapped out appliances on the property since 1954 and that he himself scrapped automobiles ' on the pmperty, starting at a young age(Exhibit 4); WHEREAS, Steve Saba testified under oath on Mazch 22, 2013 that�is family acquired the Property in June 1954 and began recycling washing machines, dryers, furnaces and different metals on the Property at that time and that he himself, as a youngster, recycled metals on the Property(Exhibit 55); WHEREAS, code enforcement letters from the City, starting as early as 1961, indicate that the Property was improperly being used as a junk yard or for automobile recycling purposes(Exhibit 5}; WHEREAS, in 1961, the City began its code enforcement against the Property when it sent a code violation letter to Steve Saba's father J.T. Saba requesting removal of old washing machines,junk and other refuse from the Property(Exhibit 5); WHEREAS, from 1961 to 1984, the City attempted (Exhibits 5 and 6 and 8 through 10) to end the illegal land use of the Property and have the Property cleared of exterior storage of junlced vehicles, vehicle parts and other materials associated with the illegal use in 1984 by issuing a citation to Arline Saba,the then owner of the Property; WHEREAS, Steve Saba has claimed that an alleged contract with the City, dating to 1985 exists pursuant to which the City agreed to forbear or defer code enforcement against the Property on the condition that he constructed a fence by July 1, 1985 to screen exterior storage materials and kept exterior storage materials on the Property behind the fence; WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed City files and has found no copy of any such contract between the City and Steve Saba with the terms set forth above; WHEREAS, City staff has requested that the Anaka County District Court search its files for a copy of any such contract betwe,en the City and Steve Saba with the terms set forth above and no copies of any such contract have been located; WHEREAS, Steve Saba has failed to produce a copy of the alleged contract between himself and the City with the terms outlined above; WHEREAS, in the event any such contract with the terms outlined above exists, the contract is void and is not binding upon the City,because City staff made an illegal contract, as it lacked authority to grant Steve Saba a special use permit for exterior storage, as only the City Council may grant a special use permit upon application by a property owner and notice and hearing requirements under Minnesota law aze fulfilled; 108 � Resolution No.2015 -O1 Page 3 WHEREAS, there is no evidence that Steve Saba applied for and received a special use permit to allow him to continue exterior storage, after notice and a public hearing regarding such an application as required by law; WHEREAS, in the event that the alleged contract described above is not void because City staff was legally capable of making such a contract, the contract is not binding on the � City and the City is enritled to end its forbearance with respect to code enforcement action against and abate the exterior storage on the Property because Steve Saba failed to fulfill one I of his obligations under the alleged contract, namely construction of the fence by July 1, i 1985; WHER.EAS, an aerial photo from 1981 shows that a fence exists on the northern I property line separating the Property from the adjacent American Legion(Exhibit 49); � WHEREAS, an aerial photo from April 1985 shows that the exterior storage on the Property is not fully enclosed and screened by a fence and that the fence on the north edge of the Property belongs to the American Legion(Exhibit 50); WHEREAS,the fence visible in the April 1985 aerial photo of the Property and belongs to and was constructed by the American Legion rather than by Steve Saba(Exhibit 51); WHEREAS, in the event that the alleged contract described above is not void because City staff was legally capable of making such a contract, the contract is not binding on the Ciry and Ciry is entitled to end its forbearance with respect to cade enforcernent against the Property and abate the exteriar starage on the Property because Steve Saba has repeatedly failed to fulfill another of his obligations under the alleged contract, namely keeping all exterior storage materials behind the fence; WHEREAS, an aerial photo from May 1989, more than four yeazs later, and an aerial photo from 1993 show that the exterior storage on the Property is still not completely screened and enclosed by a fence(Exhibits S2 and 53); WHEREAS, City staff sent numerous noncornpliance letters from 1986 through 2008 and pursued enforcement action against the Property due to Steve Saba's failure to keep all exterior storage materials behind the fence he eventually constructed on the Property, yeazs after any reasonable deadline to construct any such fence in any alleged contract had long since lapsed(Exhibits 12- 19,21 —28,30- 31, 34, 36); WHEREAS, subsequent to 1985, the City continued to attempt to get Steve Saba to discontinue the junk yard/ scrap yard use and clean up the property through code enforcement notices unril 1989 when the City issued another citation in Anoka County Court (Exhibit 20); 109 Resolution No. 201 S - Ol Page 4 � WHEREAS, the City dismissed the 1989 citation because Mr. Saba had finally complied with City staff directives at that time(Exhibit 20); WHEREAS,from 1990 to 1998, City staff sent several noncompliance letters to Arline Saba and Steve Saba, advising them of outside storage and nonconfornung use violations under City Code and again City staff provided lengthy extensions to correct conditions on the Properiy(Exhibits 21 —28); WHEREAS, in 1998, the City issued Arline Saba, owner of the Property at the time i three City Code violation citations. Those violations were: zoning violation, inoperable/improperly parked vehicles,and exterior storage(Exhibit 29); i WHEREAS, the 1998 citations resulted in a plea agreement that required payment of a 'I fine and probation(Eachibit 30); WHEREAS, following the 1998 citation to 2008,because the exterior storage conditions on the Property violated the City Code, City staff again sent several noncompliance letters to both Arline Saba and Steve Saba advising them of the necessity to correct the code violations (Exhibit 31,34,36); WHEREAS, City staff continued to monitor the Property and, in 2008, due to massive amounts of outside storage on the Property, City staff issued a Notice of Abatement to Steve Saba(Exhibit 36); WHEREA5, City staff provided Steve Saba with extensions with the understanding that the entire Property would be cleaned up and exterior storage eliminated by August 1, 2008 (Elchibits 36); WHEREAS, over the period of 1977 to 2008, City code enforcement staff has taken photos of the Property and these photos depict the metal scrapping operation,the presence of old automobiles, automobile parts,including but not limited to fenders and axels,the exterior storage of trailers, earth moving equipment, wood piles, lwnber, pallets, tires, bazrels and drums(Exhibits 7, 11, 33, 35 and 37); WHEREAS, in October 2008, when Steve Saba had failed to enrirely clean up the Property and eliminate outdoor storage on the Property, the City issued a citation to him for improper outside storage and illegal land use on the Property(Exhibit 46); WHEREAS, Steve Saba was found not guilty on February 19, 2010 by jury trial in Anoka County Court of improper outside storage and illegal land use at 7345 Central Avenue charges on the offense date of October 13, 2008 (Exhibit 46); WHEREAS, subsequent to Steve Saba's jury trial acquittal, exterior storage conditions on the Property conrinued and due to the likelihood that a citation would not resolve the conditions on the Property in a rimely fashion, the City sent a Notice of Abatement to Steve Saba notifying him that the Property was in violation of Fridley Zoning Code because there 110 f Resolution No. 2015 -O1 Page 5 was improper outside storage and illegal land use occwring on the Property and City staf�s issuance of a Notice of Abatement to Steve Saba was justified(Exhibits 38 and 40); WHEREAS, City staff provided Steve Saba with reasonable extensions to correct the ' code violadons on the Property enumerated in the July 2011 Notice of Abatement as the I City's and Mr. Saba's attorneys discussed the legal authority for the City to proceed with the ' abatement(Exhibits 39-42,44); WHEREAS, City staff took photos of the Property on November 16, 2011, and the photos depict extensive exterior storage of vehicles, trailers, cinderblock, and various metal objects(Exhibit 43); WHEREAS, due to the delay associated with the parties' attorneys' discussions, City staff sent Mr. Saba a subsequent Notice of Abatement, dated November 4, 2011, which provided him with the oprions of immediately eliminating the code violations on the Property, contacting City staff to work out a time schedule agreeable to the City for elimination of the code violations or appealing(Exhibit 42); WHEREAS, Mr. Saba appealed the Notice of Abatement to the City Community Development Director on November 22,2011 (Elchibit 45); WHEREAS, City staff accommodated Mr. Saba's request for an appeal hearing to the Appeals Commission by scheduling a public hearing for January 4, 2012; WHEREAS, on January 4, 2012, hours before the Appeals Commission hearing, the Steve Saba sued the City, City Planning Manager Julie Jones and City Community Development Director Scott Hickok, and served them each with a Complaint, alleging that he was legally entitled to conduct his scrap metal business on the Property and therefore the City was legally prevented from enforcing its City Code provisions through the abatement process; WHEREAS, by mutual agreement, the City and the Owner conrinued the Appeals Commission hearing to a date after a district court's issuance of an unappealed final judgment (Exhibit 54); WHEREAS,on July 21,2014,the Honorable Alan Pendleton issued an order, dismissing the Owner's Complaint without prejudice on the grounds that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies by pursuing the appeal before the Appeals Commission; WHEREAS, Steve Saba and the City ultimately rescheduled the Owner's appeal before the Appeals Commission for October 1, 2014; WHEREAS, Karen Marty, Steve Saba's attorney requested a delay of the October l, 2014 hearing before the Fridley Appeals Commission to January 7, 2015 due to the late hour, and the City agreed to the hearing delay; and 111 Resolution No. 2015 - O1 Page 6 ` WHEREAS, City staff is following standard policy and procedures in completing an abatement of materials associated with nonconforming uses and stored outside a building at the Property; WHEREAS, Steve Saba is in violation of the City Code for illegal land use because operating a junk yardlscrap yard on the Property is prohibited; WHEREAS, Steve Saba is in violation of the City Code because exterior storage of materials exists on the Propeity and there is no SUP for exterior storage of materials on the Property; WHEREAS, under the authority of the City Code to abate exterior storage of materials and equipment because they constitute public nuisances, any material stored outside a building related to a use that is not listed as a peimitted use in the zoning code on the Property may be removed by the City through its abatement powers contained in the City Code and City Charter subject to the property owner's right of appeal,pursuant to Fridley City Code Section 128.06(2); WHEREAS, any material stored outside a building related to a use that is not listed as a permitted use in the zoning code at the date such use was initiated on the Property shall be removed by the City in the abatement. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley after listening to all of the facts presented hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. That each and all of the preceding statements are true and correct and are incorporated herein as part of the findings of fact and record of these proceedings. 2. That each and all of the exhibits presented by both parties to the Appeals Commission aze incorporated herein as a part of the record of these proceedings. 3. That Fridley City Code Section 205.13.A.1 enumerates the permitted uses for propeity,including the Property, and states: 1.USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in C-1 Districts: (1) Art Shops (2) Professional Studios (3)Convenience stores, grocery stores and services, including laundry, dry cleaning, barber shops, beauty shops, shoe repair, tailoring, locksmith, and other sma11 112 � ' Resolution No.2015 -O1 Page 7 i I repair shops related to retail service and catering to I neighborhood patronage. (4) Retail services, including jewelry, hardware, sporting goods, records and music, vaziety and notions, drug, appliance and clothing shops and flower shops. (5) Professional office facilities including real estate, lawyer, architectural, engineering, financial insurance and other similar office uses. (6) Health care services including medical, dental, optometrist, chiropractic and counseling clinics. (7) Class I Restaurants. 4. That Fridley City Code Section 205.13.A.2 enumerates the permitted uses for property,including the Property, and states: 2.USES EXCLUDED Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in G1 Districts, including, but not limited to: pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and secondhand goods dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. 5. That a junk yazd/scrap yard is not included in enumerated in the list of permitted uses in City Code Section 205.13.A and are thereby prohibited uses. 6. That Steve Saba has operated a junk yard/scrap yard on the Property, which constitutes an illegal land use, as a junk yazd/scrap yard is prohibited under Fridley City Code Sections 205.13.A.1 and 205.13.A.2. 7. That junk yard and scrap yard have never been permitted on the Property under any version of the City Code. 8. That Steve Saba's use of the Property for recycling, outside storage, and junk yazd is an illegal use. 9. That Steve Saba's use of the Property for recycling, outside storage, and junk yard is not a legal non-conforming use. 113 Resolurion No. 2015 -O1 Page 8 � 10. That Fridley City Code Section 205.13.7.B requires a special use permit for the exterior storage of materials and states: B. Exterior Storage. (1) Nothing shall be stored in the required front yard. (2) All materials and commercial equipment shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened,so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or adjoining property of a different district. (3) The city shall r�uire a Special Use Permit for any exterior storage of materials. 11. That Steve Saba stores vehicles, trailers, scrap metal, cinder blocks and other various and innumerable items of personal property on the Property, in the front, side and back yard of the Property, without a Special Use Permit in violation Fridley City Code Section 205.13.7.B. 12. That the pervasive storage of the vehicles, trailers, scrap metal, cinder blocks and other various and innumerable items of personal property consritutes an exterior public nuisance. 13. That, pursuant to, Fridley City Code Chapter 128, the City may abate exterior public nuisances through the removal of private property. BE IT FIJRTHER RESOLVED THAT based on these findings, the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley hereby affirms the abatement order of the City Planning Manager for the Property and the removal of all exterior storage on the Property, including that behind the fence on the Property, as it constitutes illegal exterior storage and the Property is not a legal non- conforming use. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE APPEALS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 29�DAY OF JANUARY 2015. Brad ielaff, Chair Attest: �� .� Debra Skogen,City k 114 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 28,2015 Chairperson Sielaff called the Appeals Commission Meeting fo order at 7:04 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brad Sielaff David Ostwald Blaine Jones Michelle Drury OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Jones, Planning Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Darcy Erickson, City Attorney Steve Saba Tom Saba Attorney Michael Tello Attorney Karen Marty Pam Reynolds Approval of Minutes: October 1,2014 MOTION by Commissioner Jones to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. Request for Appeal Hearing by Owner of 7345 Central Avenue. Any persons who were present and wished to testify were sworn in by the City Attorney. Staff provided the Commission members with a packet of 55 exhibits and the City Attorney provided two additional exhibits. . Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated this code enforcement case appeal was originally scheduled for January 4, 2012,but that day, the property owner, Steve Saba, filed suit against the City, Scott Hickok, and Julie Jones. Both the City Attorney and Mr. Saba's Attorney agreed that it was best to delay the appeal hearing with the City until resolution of the County Court cases. Ms. Jones stated the Court's fmdings were that Mr. Saba had not exhausted all of his remedies allowed by City Code and was premature in his District Court filing. Mr. Saba's court case was dismissed on July 21, �U14, and he was directed to pursue arid exliaust ariy administrative remedies with the City. Staff then rescheduled the appeal hearing. Ms. Jones stated the property, 7345 Central Avenue is zoned C-1, Local Business, although it has been used as a single-family home since before 1949. The owner has outside storage on the 115 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 2 of 54 property related to his snow plowing, landscaping, catering, towing, and scrap metal recycling businesses. StafFhas repeatedly tried to get this property into compliance over the past 53 years. Ms. Jones stated this appeal is for an abatement that was originally scheduled to occur July 21, 2011, following a July 1, 2011 letter sent to the owner of the property, Mr. Steve Saba. The City delayed abatement as Mr. Saba's attorney, Karen Marty, argued it was not legal because of a 2009 court decision. The City attorney, Fritz Knaak, disagreed and warned Marty of the appeal time limit. Ms. Jones stated staff delayed abatement into August to allow Mr. Saba time to appeal. His attorney argued in an August 23, 2011 letter that proceeding with the abatement would be double jeopardy. Mr. Knaak responded in an August 9, 2011, letter that Mr. Saba's acquittal on a 2008 code violation(Exhibit 40) does not prohibit the City from enforcing subsequent violations. Ms. Jones stated meanwhile, in October 2011, the City obtained new legal counsel and delayed abatement to allow its new attorney time to study the case. Staff notified Attorney Marty on November 4, 2011, that the abatement was delayed to November 28. On November 17, 2011, Darcy Erickson, City's present attorney, met with and provided Attorney Marty a letter, explainuig that use of the property as a junk yard is an illegal, nonconforming use of the property. Ms.Jones stated attorney Erickson stated in her letter the following: "Accordingly, based on all of the foregoing, Mr. Saba's existing land use is not and never has been permitted as of right, through a special use permit or as a grandfathered legal non-conformity. In short, Mr. Saba's use of the Property constitutes an illegal land use." Ms. Jones stated attorney Marty then requested an appeal before the Appeals Commission on November 22, 2011. Staff, therefore, did not proceed with the November 28, 2011, abatement. That appeal was originally set for January 4, 2012, but is occurring tonight because of the delay of the charges by Mr. Saba. Ms.Jones stated the Appeals Commission is being asked to determine whether sta.ff is in error in proceeding with this abatement. The Appeals Commission shall affirm, repeal, or modify staff's abatement order. The Commission's order shall be accompanied by written Findings of Fact. The Commission has been provided a summary of staff's documented facts as the last exhibit in its packet. Ms. Jones stated Section 28 of 1949 Zoning Code, the City's first zoning code, did not permit junk yards to exist in residential zoning districts nor did it allow junk yards to continue as a non- conforming use in any commercial or industrial zoning district. The 1949 code classified this property as zoned commercial, but the zoning classification is irrelevant in regards to the junk yard use, since no zoning classification has ever allowed a junk yard except for by SUP in the industrial zoning district. 116 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 3 of 54 Ms. Jones stated the Fridley zoning code was amended in 1953, and continued to list the Saba property as commercial zoning, as it was zoned in 1949 (Exhibit 1). There were only three zoning classificadons in 1953: Residential, Commercial and Industrial. The 1953 zoning classification is key,because Jacob and Arline Saba, Steve Saba's parents,took ownership of the property on May 10, 1954(Exhibit 3). Ms. Jones stated Steve Saba has testified under oath in a 2009 jury trial that his family moved into the property in 1954. Mr. Saba further testified that his father scrapped out appliances and different items and sold the scrap metal at the junk yards across the street. He testified that he did the same continuously since he was in third grade Ms. Jones stated there is no evidence of any junk yard uses at the property prior to when the Saba's took ownership of the property. In1947 aerials show what looks like a typical home site and in 1953 aerials show no evidence of a junk yard use either. Ms. Jones stated letters from the City requesting corrective action began in 1961. There is a July 5, 1961, letter (Exhibit 5) asking J. Saba to remove old washing machines,junk and other refuse within 10 days. Ms. Jones presented 1977 docuxnentation which is a Complaint resulting in a letter to Arline Saba regarding her son's use of the property to junk out cars meeting the definition of a junk yard, which is not an allowed use of the property(Exhibit 6). Ms. Jones stated the violations mounted by 1980. The City has photos on file from April 1980 which document use of property as an auto salvage yard with tow trucks, tires, metal drums, and several vehicles parked off the pavement. Ms. Jones stated the violations escalated to car sales in 1982. A June 9, 1982, letter from the City ordered Ms. Saba to discontinue using property for used car sales and junk yard, which zoning did not pernut. Steve Saba agreed to comply by October 1982. However, apparently nothing was done by 1983 because another complaint triggered a March 18, 1983, second non- compliance letter from the City on the same case to Arline Saba, stating the site had not been cleaned up by October 1982 as promised by her son. There was some improvement in 1983. By May 17, 1983, a letter on file to Steve Saba, himself, documents some improvement on cleaning up the property,but complete compliance was requested by June 6, 1983. Ms. Jones presented 1984 photos of worse conditions. A citation is issued by the City. File notes indicate a citation was issued in June 1984 to Arline Saba for maintaining unlicensed vehicles and various other refuse. As the court case proceeded from arraignment onto trial, Steve Olson (the code enforcement officer at the time for the City) left his employment (1-4-85) with the City of Fridley, and was no longer available to testify. Ms. Jones stated Mr. Saba claims the citation was resolved by an agreement between him and City staff. There is evidence that the City settled the case out of court with an agreement that 117 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 4 of 54 Mr. Saba would construct a screening fence by July 1985 and keep any storage behind the fence. Such an agreement,however, could only be legal if Council approved it by SUP. Ms. Jones stated assuming this agreement was reached in a court settlement; it is void because it is illegal as staff had no authority to allow exterior storage without an SUP. An SUP can only be granted by the City Council after public notice and a public hearing, meeting the requirements of Minnesota law and City Zoning Code. Ms. Jones stated even if this agreement was legal, the agreement was not binding on the City because Mr. Saba repeatedly violated the terms of the agreement as he has indicated it required the screening fence. Mr. Saba failed to completely construct the screening fence in a timely manner and repeatedly failed to keep the exterior storage behind the fence. As a result staff feels the City has authority to abate problems on the site. Ms. Jones stated the adjacent American Legion constructed and owned the fence along the northern property line (Exhibit 51). Aerial photos from April 1985 and May 1989, four years later, show the Saba property still incompletely screened years after the alleged agreement was entered between Mr. Saba and the City. Ms. Jones stated as the following portions of the presentation will demonstrate, Mr. Saba has repeatedly failed to keep exterior storage behind the fence as required by the alleged agreement. Ms. Jones stated letters of non-compliance started up again in earnest with a new code enforcement officer in 1986. Outside storage of 8 unlicensed vehicles and other items are noted. The 1986 case went unresolved into 1987. Two more outside storage letters were sent in 1988. Ms. Jones stated in September of 1988, staff sent Mr. Saba a letter for the same outside storage violation of vehicles and materials. City staff inet with Mr. Saba in January 1989 and agreed to give him to May 15, 1989, to clean up the property. Ms. Jones stated by August, 1989, Mr. Saba was still storing junk vehicles, so staff issued another citation. In September the City dropped the charges as Mr. Saba had finally corrected the violations. Staff evidently incorrectly assumed he had an SUP for the outside storage behind the fence. Ms. Jones stated by April 1990, the code enforcement officer sent another letter regarding unscreened outside storage. In January 1991 a new case was initiated by City staff for unlicensed and inoperable vehicles being stored off pavement in addition to outside storage. Once again an extension was granted to May 15 and then another to September. There is no record noted of what resulted from 1991 extensions. Ms. Jones stated another non-compliance letter for the same violations was sent to Mr. Saba again in April 1994. According to a May 30, 1997, letter to Steve Saba, the City met with Mr. Saba on December 5, 1995, to go over the violations. Apparently the site was not cleaned up 118 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 5 of 54 because the violations were documented again in a May 30, 1997, letter to Arline Saba as witnessed during systematic inspections that spring. Again, as in 1977 and 1982 correspondence from the City, the Sabas are informed that: "Junk yard and/or vehicle recycling operations and the exterior storage of lawn care equipment related to your lawn care business are not pernutted at this location. Please remove all improperly stored business-related materials from the premises."(Exhibit 27): Ms. Jones stated there was another staff change and, again, during systematic inspections in 1998, 7345 Central was found to be out of compliance of several City Codes. Again, in 1998, Arline Saba was sent letters, informing her that the junk yard use was not allowed in the C-1 zoning. Ms. Jones stated on September 29, 1998, Arline Saba was cited for the following offenses: (1) zoning violation, (2) inoperable/improperly parked vehicles, and (3) exterior storage. Ms. Saba was fined with one-year probation. In February 1999 the City was considering enforcing the remaining fine and jail time, according to a February 2, 1999 code enforcement letter (Exhibit 30)due to lack of compliance. Ms.Jones stated in 2000, a new code enforcement officer was hired. By 2002 the Saba property had still not been cleaned up. Therefore, the City decided to take a different approach and send an abatement letter with a December 6, 2002 deadline. Arline and Steve Saba sent a letter opposing the abatement on December 4, 2002. Ms. Jones stated because of the State one-year retention policy on code enforcement materials, there are minimal paper records left after 2000. Scott Hickok was the Planning Manager for much of this time period and assisted staff on the Saba case. In 2003, budget cuts resulted in Planning losing two full-time positions that worked on code enforcement. She became the Planning Manager in 2005 and took on the 7345 Central Ave case. Ms. Jones stated she sent an abatement letter in 2005, stating Mr. Saba did not have a SUP for outside storage. When the storage above the fence and outside the fence was cleaned up, she closed the case, giving Mr. Saba time to clean out material behind the fence. Ms. Jones stated, again, Mr. Saba was sent an abatement letter on April 23, 2008, because of massive amounts of outside storage on site. She presented a photo taken from the street on Evert Court. Ms. Jones stated despite the property looking like this on May 16, 2008, staff ended up granting Saba three extensions on the abatement, and finally decided to issue a citation. While much cleanup occurred, storage on site continued to be non-compliant. Staff was concerned that the cleanup by the City would not resolve the problem long term. Ms. Jones stated the date of offense was October 13, 2008, and the case went to jury trial. The jury found Steve Saba not guilty on both counts of(1) improper outside storage and (2) illegal 119 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 6 of 54 land use. City staff was stumied. They learned that you cannot expect a jury to understand land use law. Because of an unauthorized action by previous staf� legal counsel, and lack of consistent enforcement because of staff turnover, this case remains a problem the City must resolve. Ms. Jones stated by the summer of 2011, the view of the Saba property from homes on Evert Court was deplorable. Since a citation would not get the site cleaned up quickly, staff chose again to try to abate the problem. Ms. Jones stated on July 1, 2011 an abatement letter was sent with a July 21 deadline for cleanup. Mr. Saba's attorney sent a letter to the City on July 18, 2011, claiming the 2009 "not guilty" finding prevents the City's ability to abate. City attorney, Knaak, stated in an August 9 letter clarified that previous court decision only applied to a particular date of offense. Ms. Jones stated Kazen Marty contended in her August 23, 2011, letter to Knaak that Mr. Saba "plans to clean out his storage area, however, must be allowed to work at his own pace". Mr. Saba's"pace",Ms. Jones stated,has proven time and again to be unacceptable. Ms. Jones stated in October 2011 the City changed attorneys. Staff spent some time getting the new attorney informed of the case. Ms. Jones stated since so much time had lapsed since the July 1, 2011 abatement letter had been sent, staff resent the letter on November 4, 2011, and extended the deadline to November 28 because of the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. The letter was sent to Mr. Saba through notice to his attorney, informing her that the City had new legal counsel. Ms. Jones stated on November 17, 2011, Darcy Erickson, the new City Attorney, met with Mr. Saba's attorney, Karen Marty. Ms. Erickson presented attorney Marty with a letter explaining the City's position that "Mr. Saba's existing land use is not and never has been permitted as of right,through special use permit or as a grandfathered legal non-conformity." Ms. Jones stated on November 22, 2011, attorney Marty sent a letter to the City indicating that her client, Mr. Steve Saba, owner of 7345 Central Avenue, desired an appeal hearing of his abatement case. The date of January 4, 2012, was mutually agreed upon. Staff postponed the nuisance abatement,pending the outcome of the appeal hearing. Ms. Jones stated three years later the property appears to have even more exterior storage now than when the current abatement case started in 2011. She presented a photo taken last week. Ms. Jones stated the Commission has been provided a packet of 55 exhibits by staff to aid in its deliberations. Staff has additional records. If the Comxnission desires additional facts, ask staff as they may have documentation as an answer. Staff was also involved in many meetings and phone conversations with Mr. Saba that they can attest to. Staff desires to end the 50 plus years of non-compliance. Code enforcement problems began over 50 years ago. The length of the 120 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 7 of 54 case resulted in limited staff'mg and the City's willingness to a11ow the owner to correct problem himself,because it is going to be a massive cleanup project for the City. It is time for the City to end this 50-year drain on City resources and impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Jones stated in an appeal hearing, the Appeal's Commission charge is to affirm, repeal, or modify the order of City staff. The order in this case is removal of all exterior storage in the yard, including the material stored behind the fence. Ms. Jones stated abatement is allowed by Code despite previous acquittal for an offense on October 13, 2008. Using a C-1 site as a junk yard is not allowed by Code and never has been. Mr. Saba does not have a SUP for outside storage. If there was a 1985 agreement to put the storage behind a fence,that agreement was not legal without Council approval. Ms. Jones stated if there was an agreement to fence in the storage, Mr. Saba did not complete the fence by the deadline. Furthermore, Mr. Saba repeatedly violated the City's outside storage rules by storing materials outside the fence and continues to violate that agreement today. Ms. Jones stated the case is clear that using this commercial site for a junk yard and for outside storage has never been legally allowed since the Sabas purchased the property in 1954. Using the site as a single-family residence, even though that use is not listed in the C-1 code, is allowed as it is a use that existed before the first Zoning Code was adopted in 1949. Ms. Jones stated staff has created a resolution that lists the facts contained in this presentation and is supported by the packet of exhibits provided the Commission. Mr. Saba's attorney will likely also provide the Commission with a list of facts and exhibits. It is the Commission's role to compile its own Findings of Fact with the information provided to it. Ms. Jones stated Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, was involved in the Saba cases since 1994. He can address questions on materials that predate Ms. Jones' involvement. Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, can clarify legal points, as needed. Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, stated to Ms. Jones during her presentation she indicated there is evidence the City settled the case out of court with an agreement that Mr. Saba would construct a screening fence by July 1985 and keep any storage behind the fence. To clarify there is no written agreement signed by the City and Mr. Saba or representatives from either side to that effect, is that correct? Ms. Jones replied staff has not been able to find anything. They only found some memos indicating an agreement was being discussed. They have searched Anoka County documents, all the City files, and have not been able to come up with any written agreement nor has Mr. Saba or his attorney submitted anything relating that. Attorney Erickson stated to be clear, there is no written, signed agreement by the parties to that effect? 121 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 8 of 54 Ms.Jones replied,not that they could find. Attorney Erickson asked,this probably goes without saying,but a memo is not an agreement, is that correct? Ms.Jones replied, correct. Attorney Erickson asked, nor is any other communication like a letter without signatures of both parties, correct? Ms.Jones replied, correct. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated if there was a special use permit, which would have been required,there would also be minutes to that fact. He just wanted the record to show and to reiterate if there was a special use permit, it would come with a set of minutes, it would describe Council's thought process behind the policy that would allow a special use permit here and that does not exist. Attorney Erickson stated and to his point would it also not, as an agreement of any type, whether it could exist under Minnesota planning law, would have to be brought before the City Council and approved by the City Council,is that not correct? Mr. Hickok replied, that is correct. The Minnesota State Planning Act would require that the special use pernut follow the statutory procedures in order to become an official special use permit and that no evidence of that exists. There is no special use perniit that would comply with Minnesota state law and would be signed ultimately by the Mayor and the Clerk representing an official special use permit. Attorney Erickson asked Mr. Hickok with his experience and qualifications of the City's zoning administrator, is it not true that the Minnesota Planning Act is the mandated process by which property rights, such as special use permits and variances and in fact rezoning, are required to go through? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, the Planning Act is the enabling legislation that allows cities to make land use decisions like this that would affect private properties within the City's boundaries. Attorney Erickson stated, in effect, if there were any type of evidence of any agreement, which there is not, it would not be a legal method of providing the legal right to store materials outside of any fencing and certainly to conduct a junk yard in a district that it did not permit junk yards to be operated in, is that correct? Mr. Iiickok replied, that is correct. It would take a special use permit to do that and it would have to follow the Land Planning Act. 122 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 9 of 54 Attorney Erickson stated and in fact the property would_have needed to be rezoned, correct, to even have a junk yard? Mr.Hickok replied,that is correct. The C-1 zoning would not provide for that. Chairperson Sielaff stated his understanding of this site could continue as it is if it had a special use permit? Ms.Jones asked what does he mean by "as is"? Chairperson Sielaff replied, well, it is considered a junk yard now, right? Ms.Jones replied, a lot of things are in violation,not just the junk yard. Chairperson Sielaff stated how much would the special use permit limit be issued for? Ms. Jones replied, the special use permit would cover some degree of outside storage typically. She does not know if the City has ever even granted a special use permit for outside storage in the C-1 district. They typically are doing that in Industrial. The City's current Code allows that in Industrial districts. It would be highly unusual for the City to do that for one thing. Clearly for a junk yard use they could not because that would require complete rezoning of the property. The City could have offered a special use permit for outside storage. The language in the Code at the time did allow for that to occur. What exactly would be allowed to be in that would be in the stipulations of that special use permit. There would be parameters about screening and what would be allowed in that outside storage area. Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit, even it had been granted and they know it was not,but if it had you could not geographically expand beyond what was originally allowed and as they saw in the presentation and heard in testimony, it has gotten worse over time. The area has expanded and it has become more and more visible from those right-of-ways. It is important they make that note as well that even if one wanted to argue that somehow there was an agreement which there was not or a special use permit,they have to understand it would be under those provisions that it was originally approved and not expanded geographically which has truly been the case here as they have observed. Chairperson Sielaff stated areawise they have expanded over time? Commissioner Jones asked, is there any concern of hazardous waste problem in this area because the way it has been used in the last 50 years? Ms. Jones replied, that is a very good point. That is exactly the cru�c of staff s concern. In the past, the code enforcement officer had contacted Anoka County Environxnental Health Services, because they were very concerned about that, and Anoka County did inspect the property and 123 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 10 of 54 had sent a letter to Arline Saba requesting more information because they felt from what they were seeing on the property that a hazardous waste generator_license.would be required by the County. They were concerned about what was happening to a11 the fluids that were coming from the vehicles and appliances that were being junked. Ms.Jones stated when this started back in 1954 state law probably was not in place like it is now protecting and requiring that anybody dismantling appliances has to be certified by the State, and, of course, there are rules, such as it has to be done inside a building, you have to properly handle PCB's, Freon and other toxic chemicals coming out of those appliances. All of the dismantling has been occurring just on bare ground. It is not paved in the area where the junk yard location is. Staff is very concerned for public health and safety around this site. Commissioner Jones asked there are no guarantees the activity at this site could not have already contaminated the groundwater? Ms. Jones replied, it is possible. She does not know of any City wells neazby. There may be private wells nearby. Commissioner Jones stated there are the aquifers. Chairperson Sielaff asked if there were any more questions by the Commission. There being no questions,he stated they will move onto the petitioner to provide their presentation. Karen Marty, Attorney for Steve Saba, stated she has been representing Mr. Saba for quite a number of years. One of the things that has always been important here is she had expected to push him to come into compliance. When some of the facts came out though, it turns out he is in compliance; and the City is overreaching. Attorney Marty stated her Exhibit A is a resolution she had drafted for the Commission's consideration. The reason she is giving it to them first is it lays out the factual background and all of the points that are critically important here. Attorney Marty stated the City has brought this code enforcement action. They started an abatement on Mr. Saba's property. They sent him various notices, etc. She wanted to go through the points in the draft resolution, and they will quickly see what the issues are here. The City has sent Mr. Saba the notice. They say they found a violation of zoning and unlawful exterior storage and that they actually prosecuted Mr. Saba for�those things. They wanted Mr. Saba to plead guilty, and he was unwilling. He took this to jury and the jury found Mr. Saba was not guilty of unlawful land use and was not guilty of unlawful exterior storage. Attorney Marty stated what they have here is a jury verdict and sore losers on the part of City staff. In this American system it is incumbent upon us to respect and honor the process of taking a case to a jury trial and honor what the jury has done. They are humans. They are never perfect,but we have the best system on earth with trial by jury, and their verdict should be given 124 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 11 of 54 the credence it is actually a correct decision and should be honored as such. When the prosecution resulted in an acquittal, Ms. Jones and Mr. Hickok initiated an abatement because they could not give up; and Mr. Saba has appealed that to this floor. Attorney Marty stated this case has been delayed because the City Attorney and she agreed to delay this appeal proceeding while the lawsuit was ongoing but because they covered broader issues than just now the abatement could proceed. However, the judge disagreed and dismissed the case without prejudice. Meaning they could refile it any time. Last summer, because they wanted the court to rule on their abatement order, this was scheduled to be heard in October but the meeting ran late because of another hearing. Attorney Marty sta.ted in 1954 Mr. Saba's parents purchased the property. They moved into the house with their seven children. They promptly established the garden in order to help feed those children, and Mr. Saba's father began recycling metals outdoors on the property at that time. Steve Saba's older brother is here, and he would like to tell them a little bit about what he remembers happened on the property in the 50's. Just so they know what began when. Tom Saba stated he is the oldest of nine Saba siblings. He grew up on 7345 Central and attended high school and college and lived there until the late 1960's. They always had a big garden there. � Attorney Marty stated to Mr. T. Saba before he goes on to what happens then, just tell them what education he got and what he did for a living. Mr. T. Saba replied, he is a retired police officer. He was an officer for 30 years. He graduated from college and went on and got his Master's and worked in law enforcement for 32 years. In fact in the 1970's after graduating from the FBI National Academy and doing graduate work at the University of Virginia, the City Manager, James Hill, asked him to take the examination for police chief at Fridley. Mr. T. Saba stated in the 1950's they saw a current picture of the American Legion,just north of the property. That was a little shopping area. On the corner was a hardware store and then there was Mitch's TV and Appliance, and then there was a grocery store. The neighborhood has always been very close. There was the property across the street that was used automobile recycling. His mother was a very good friend with John who owned all that property. Mr. T. Saba stated in the 1950's after they pwchased the property, 1954-1955, and later on in the 1950's, his dad worked at Mitch's TV and Appliance. They took in a lot of recycled older appliances. His dad would bring those home, take them apart, and recycle them. As kids they had the job to separate the wires, the switches; and his dad would do the heavier stuff with the motors and the sheet metal, etc. In fact a lot of that material was brought in right beside the driveway and their big garden was right there. He was into the recycling and salvage business with those appliances. Very careful about it because it was right next to their garden and the residential structure there. That is his memory. He is in his 70's so he guessed he could serve as 125 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 12 of 54 a little bit as a historian. As long as he can remember they were involved in the recycling business. Attorney Marty stated the property has been used continuously for recycling since Mr. Saba's father began it. The current zoning of the property is C-1 according to the City and that does not allow establishment of a new residence or garden although those have been there since 1954. The current zoning of the property does not allow the establishment of any new land use that would involve recycling of inetals or other goods or unscreened exterior storage. However, any existing use which has been legal at any time may continue indefinitely as the legal non- conforming use. It is called, "grandfathered" in the vernacular but it is technically a legal non- conforming use. If it has ever been legal it may continue regardless of how the zoning may change after that. Attorney Marty stated the City does have the burden of proving the zoning over time. In 1949 before Mr. Saba's parents purchased the property,the City had adopted a zoning ordinance which she simply calls the 1949 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 24. That ordinance stated that the boundaries of these districts are delineated on the map, entitled "Zoning Map of the Village of Fridley" which is on the record at the office of the village clerk. That zoning map the City has admitted is missing. They do not have that zoning map. That zoning ordinance was amended in 1953. The 1953 zoning ordinance states that the zoning is shown on, she does not have it in front of her, it is one of the exhibits from the City, but she believed it states it is called "The Revised Zoning Map of the City of Fridley." That map is also missing. Attorney Marty stated if they look at the first two pages she talked about, the third and following pages are what the City claims is the zoning map from 1953. This is not a zoning map. This is a map of the Village by some land surveyors and engineers. Unfortunately, she gave her only good copy of this map to a judge. All she has is the crummy one the City sent her. She blew up the part where it says what it is a map of. It does not say Revised Zoning Map. If they flip to the next to last page, they will see what is probably in their upper right, a legend. It is very hard to read. She did blow that up. It is almost impossible to read. The first three lines, if they had a proper copy, identifies street types. The following two lines identify two zoning districts. They do not know if those are accurate. They do not know who put this in. Attorney Marty stated the City had three zones by then, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial. They do not know where the residential land is. It is not shown. This is not a zoning map. This is a street map. It is not possible to say that this shows the zoning. It also is not at all clear whether this map intended to show the zoning from the 1949 or 1953 ordinance. Therefore, they do not know still what the zoning was on the Saba property when they started recycling in 1954. These maps are both missing. The City has located this alternative map and is using it, but it is not the official one. Attorney Marty stated zoning is considered to be a derogation of the common law. Put that in English, the common law gives you a lot of property rights. The Constitution in fact mentions property rights as one of the things that cannot be taken without just compensation. Zoning takes 126 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 13 of 54 some of those property rights. That is fine so long as the property owners get equal benefit back. There are some balances that go into this. However, because zoning is contrary to the constitutional and long common law property rights, an ordinance must be clear. It must clearly articulate the limitations on property,where the property is located, and how it is zoned. Attorney Marty stated without a map they have no idea what the 1949 ordinance attempted to zone. There are cases from that era. Golden Valley had one of the major ones showing that some cities were not zoning the entire city at that point in time. In the 1950's and 60's cities would some time zone only the residential areas because that is what they wanted to protect. That is what zoning was originally used for, to keep the nice residential areas from being inundated by apartment buildings and nasty industries. We all appreciate that protection of our neighborhoods. There are ordinances out there that would regulate the residential areas and not the rest of the City. Sometimes they called it an open development district, sometimes they simply left it out. They do not know what the City did in the 1949 ordinance. They do not know if it zoned the entire City. Attorney Marty stated the 1953 ordinance may have but without the correct map they do not know. The legal description that the staff points to in their indication of the 1953 ordinance describes the zoning near the Saba property as that property which is so many feet from another location. It does not say and to the east, and to the west, it is "that line". If they remember high school geometry, a line is really, really narrow. It is not a zoning district. It is a line. They do not know if it is on the stuff to the right or the left. They do not know how the Saba property was zoned. Again, that is a lack of clarity in the ordinance and there is a lack of clarity to interpret the ordinance in the way that is most beneficial to honoring the common law property rights. The rights to use your property as you wish. Attorney Marty stated in 1985 the City adopted a new zoning ordinance. That zoning ordinance, No. 775, defined junk yards. And this is critical. It defines junk yards as an open area where waste and used materials are bought, sold, etc. It is an open area. That is clarified elsewhere in the ordinance as an unscreened area. An area that is not enclosed by a fence. That is the ordinance that was in effect in 1985 when the City brought its first prosecution of the Sabas. Attorney Marty stated at that point in time, as the photos show and as the City has been quick to point out, the Sabas were pretty much recycling anywhere and everywhere on their property. They have a big piece of property. In the court proceeding they convinced Mr. Saba to enclose it with a solid, six-foot tall wooden fence and move all his stuff inside. They gave him six months to do it. That meant that his junk yard, as the City calls it, was no longer a junk yard. It was not an open area. It was an enclosed area. The deal between the City and Mr. Saba was that he could, do whatever he wanted for, you know, disassembly, junking, storing things inside the fence. Attorney Marty stated when you are recycling you bring stuff onto your property and then it gets into the fence. Not necessarily in the same trip because the fence has a gate and, let's face it, 127 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 14 of 54 not everybody gets everything done immediately. Sometimes it would take a day or so to go in and would come out before it was hauled out. It could come out for a few days. Mr. Saba is not a perfect person. Over the years he screwed up and left stuff outside the fence. The deal was if he had stuff outside the fence for too long, the City could come after him again. Fair enough. That agreement was reached. Attorney Marty stated she does not want them to think there is nothing lagging about this agreement because there is. The City has presented the Commission with only one side of the story. There is the City memo from the public works director to the city manager describing sending the issue to the City Council to get their approval for the proposal that there be a fence erected and the property put inside the fence. There is a public works memo to him from the chief building official. There is a letter from the City's attorney to Mike Tello who was the Sabas' attorney. By the way Mr. Tello is here. This is from 1985 but he remembers it, and he will tell them what happened. And then part of the deal was Mr. Saba had to submit a drawing of his fence, get it approved, then he had to get the materials and build the fence, and then the fence would be inspected. That all occurred. Attorney Marty stated they will see at the top page of this packet is the ordinance she mentioned. The second page has the page of the ordinance that has the definition of junk yard. The third page is that memo from the director of public works. They will see at the very bottom, the last paragraph, if Council has no objection. Obviously this matter went to the City council. The next page is simply another memo from the chief building official. The next to last page is the letter from City's attorney to Mr. Tello laying out the deal, the agreement. Then the final page is the fence drawing. Attorney Marty stated she directed them to the letter to Mr. Tello. It states in paragraph two that he would be required to construct a siac-foot high wood screening fence around an area of the lot as set by the City of Fridley prior to July 1, 1985. He would be requested to submit a design for construction of the fence to the City of Fridley and receive the City's approval prior to commencing construction. Then there is a handwritten note, approval will not be unreasonably denied. Mr. Tello wrote that in. He remembers that. And Mr. Saba would be required to move all refuse and unlicensed vehicles inside the fence prior to July 1 or he could get rid of everything. Attorney Marty stated why would the City ask for a fence? Why would the City ask that stuff be moved inside the fence if it was a11 completely legal to begin with? The reason, because the City Council could read their ordinance and tell that once there was a fence and everything was inside it, it was not a junk yard anymore. It was legal. It was outside the scope of the ordinance. No special use permit was required. No rezoning. He now had an enclosed area for his storage. It was screened from the public right-of-way. When it was not screened, they could come after him. Attorney Marty stated she is not asking the Commission to accept this as the only evidence of any agreement that ever occurred. She would like to walk them through a few of the City's 128 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 15 of 54 exhibits if she may. This is Exhibit 13. What she did is took the City's exhibit and took some of the words and just highlighted them by putting them in a box. She wanted the Commission to be aware of in this letter from 1986, the City objected to things that were "unscreened,junk vehicles in the open, and other items in the open." The next letter is the City's Exhibit No. 14, a January 16, 1987, letter. Again this refers to vehicles stored unscreened and items were in the open. The next letter again refers to, "need to move things such that they are not visible from the residential azea to the east and also the rights-of-way." Making things screened and not visible made them legal. Attorney Marty stated the next letter is Exhibit No. 16. Again it says remove remaining outside storage such that it is not visible to the area to the east and the public rights-of-way. E�ibit No. 17, remove all vehicles and outside storage so that they are not visible. This says make things not visible. These are City documents. Exhibit No. 18, all junk vehicles, tires, equipment/supplies, and assorted debris must be removed from the property or placed in the fence-enclosed storage area. Exhibit No. 19, all junk, etc. etc. must be removed or placed within the fence-enclosed area east of the house. E�ibit No. 21, the violation is unscreened outside storage visible from public rights-of-way. Things inside the fence are not visible from public rights-of-way. Exhibit No. 22, unscreened outside storage. Not any outside storage. It is the unscreened outside storage that was the problem. Attorney Marty stated she did highlight the second provision because it has come up repeatedly. Fridley zoning code does permit boats, trailers, and stacked firewood inside the rear yard. The City has accused Mr. Saba of having trailers and firewood in his yard and objected to this. That made that an issue at trial. She thinks the zoning code permitted it in 1991 at least. Attorney Marty stated the second 1991 letter, E�ibit No. 23, no unscreened storage. E�chibit No. 24, all materials need to be fully screened from view. Exhibit No. 25, again, unscreened storage. They are not making this up. This is the City's position. Attorney Marty stated she has to ask them whether all city officials between 1954 and 1994, 50 years, were all wrong. This was legal. That the use could be allowed to continue or is it possible that current staff has erroneously interpreted the ordinance. Attorney Marty stated the last two pages of the packet she gave the Commission are docuxnents that the City did not give them, but the first one is from the City's files. It is a complaint form from 1987. The form says, "Complaint - Commercial Property, Residential Use." It says, "No violation of past agreement to the City. Is adequately screened." At this point in time they are acknowledging they have an agreement allowing the screened storage. The last page in the packet is from one of the code enforcement officers who sent Mr. Saba the letters. He is now a city administrator in Marshfield, Wisconsin. He sent a letter letting anyone know there was a previous agreement that allows this property to be used for a business that Mr. Saba operated involving towing/plowing activities, storage, and recycling of certain equipment, etc. He notes that problems were related to storage that may have been kept outside the fenced storage area from time to time. Screened storage was legal. Unscreened storage was the problem. 129 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 16 of 54 Attorney Marty stated in the City's presentation, staff claimed there is no written agreement between the City and Mr. Saba. Without such a document showing up in their files, they believe it could have never existed. Mr. Saba is not the paper keeping kind so he does not have records. He does not have much of anything. She asked him for photographs, and he found one. The City does not have the 1949 zoning map. The City does not have the 1953 zoning map. The City stated they were purging files based on a one-year retention policy related to violations in the 90's. The City might not have a copy of the agreement. She does not know what was purged. They do not know who purged but, the fact they are missing something as critical as the zoning map, she thinks indicates that the City's files have not been kept perfectly over the last 60, 70 years. She guessed that is because they are not perfect people just like the rest of us, but the fact that they do not have a signed agreement in their files does not mean that one did not exist. Attorney Marty stated she has one document that she does not have copies of but she wanted to show the Commission anyways that came from the City files. It is a copy of Polaroid photos the City had in their file showing where they went out to the property in 1987 at least the fence is intact. The fence was there by the date it was required. She asked Mr. Saba if the photos show the fence was intact then? Steve Saba replied, it shows the fence off to the distance behind the garden. The fence was completed three or four months after it was required. He had a six-month period. The City came out and inspected it. It was done before it was required. Attorney Tello who was his attorney back in 1985 came out and inspected it. The City said it was not done four years later. It was done four months later. Attorney Marty stated the City is basing their interpretation, their claim, on aerial photos. In court those aerial photos would never be admitted because they do not have anyone qualified to testify they accurately represent what was on the ground at the time. The fact they do not show the fence says they are not accurate because it was done. Attorney Marty stated if they go back to Exhibit A, page 4, at paragraph 44, the agreement allows the City to hound Mr. Saba when he brought recyclables onto the property and did not place them behind the fence promptly enough. If he puts them behind the fence, they would let him be and they honored that agreement for many years. In 1998 the City did again initiate a prosecution of Mr. Saba for his junk yard and recycling use. That case confirmed the 1985 agreement. This case was against Arline Saba. They will see in the Plea Petition she pleads guilty. She was fined with a ten-day cap. The second half of what the judge scribbled says, "No violations or activities conducted within the fence, only outside of the fence for probation violation." On the Conditions of Sentence page, at the bottom, it is written, "Not violate ordinance (storage) outside of fence." That was the point. Inside the fence was okay. Outside the fence was not. Attorney Marty stated that case was another one where Mike Tello represented the Sabas, and he can certainly answer any questions about how that happened. In 2010 the City again decided 130 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 17 of 54 to prosecute Mr. Saba for illegal land use and exterior storage. She wanted them to see, if they were interested, well, first of all she wanted to back up, because one of the documents that came into her tonight was not highlighted on the screen but she knows was given to the Commission, was one where Julie Jones had written a letter to Mr. Saba claiming to have had a conversation with him whereby he promised to clean up everything. That is not true. Mr. Saba did have a conversation. That was with Mr. Hickok, and he never agreed to clean up everything. He had called and asked permission to have auctions outside the fence because he wanted to reduce a lot of the stuff inside the fence. He had the goal of ultimately getting rid of neazly all of it. He was recycling some things. He was creating plastic rain barrels and that kind of thing. Attorney Marty stated Mr. Saba is always going to be doing something. There is no hazardous waste involved in plastic buckets and rain barrels as far as she can tell. In fact there is no evidence of hazardous waste. The City threw that out as a scare tactic,but they do not have any evidence. There has never been any evidence of any hazardous waste or any pollution on this site. Attorney Marty stated, back to the letter. Ms. Jones had sent Mr. Saba this letter with the false statements in it. Mr. Saba was asked about this under oath at trial. She wanted to give the Commission his response where he explained what he spoke to Scott Hickok about. Attorney Marty stated the testimony, the questions of the prosecutors, the answers of Mr. Saba, they just set up the issues so the Commission can tell he spoke with Mr. Hickok about having auctions. Prior to initiating this prosecution against Mr. Saba, Julie Jones sent a memo to the City Attorney which the City provided attorney Marty as part of its discovery and she thinks it really important the Commission sees it. This document has, "Regarding Mr. Saba, new case. We made the decision to cite rather than abate as we needed to have a legally definitive answer for his claim to use his land in this manner." That is a good idea and that is what they went to the jury trial for. To get a legal definitive answer. (She provided the document to the Comxnission.) Attorney Marty stated the first one, where it says, Steve Saba, that is relating to Mr. Saba's property. Right in the middle, where Ms. Jones states she wanted a legal definitive answer. Attorney Marty cannot quite imagine a more legally definitive answer than a jury decision granting a full acquittal. This was not a case where Mr. Saba was accused of acting bad on such and such a date. He was accused of improper outside storage. Something that has been continuous on the property since 1954. He was accused of improper land use, having this junk yard use as they have called it, the recycling operation, which has been in place since 1954. Those are big charges. Exterior storage and land use. This is not just something the jury could not understand, where it was a little bitty thing that he did on one day. He did not punch someone out on a single day in a single point in time. These have been things that have been going on since 1954. Attorney Marty stated she is going to bring the Commission an excerpt from the jury instructions the judge provided to the jury and then after that they will see the Conditions of 131 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 18 of 54 Sentence(a standard court form) for each of the two offenses and at the bottom of the Conditions of Sentence, they will see "acquitted" on both of them. Then they have the verdict of Not Guilty Form that was filled in by the jury. Attorney Marty stated the jury gave Ms. Jones her legally definitive answer. Unfortunately, the City will not accept it. Because the City would not accept the jury verdict, they disagreed with it. The City decided to proceed with their abatement that they considered back in 2008 but then looked for a legally definitive answer. Here they are, back with the same two charges of illegal land use and illegal exterior storage. Now they are trying to abate that. Attorney Marty stated the City's abatement ordinance does not define the term,public nuisance, which simply allows the abatement of an exterior public nuisance. She was trying to figure out what that means. What is a public nuisance? It has to be something more than, I don't like it. She was looking for something in the ordinances that might answer that question. There are several other ordinances that refer to nuisances, and they are going to go through them. She does not think they are going to find a nuisance here. Attorney Marty stated the first one, Exhibit L, is simply the abatement of exterior public nuisances. She cannot find definitions in this. She does not see anything. She does see on the first page there that it says this chapter shall apply to the abatement of public nuisances. Okay. Involving junk vehicles (as defined in Chapter 123), large commercial vehicles exceeding 12,000 pounds which are in violation of Chapter 506 and outside storage, etc. and other materials deemed to create exterior public nuisances as defined and subscribed in the preceding sections. The preceding section says, the City is determined that the health, safety, general welfare, good order and convenience of the public is threatened by certain exterior public nuisances. Those definitions defined as the same term. Attorney Marty stated she does not know what they are talking about yet. Is it having a vegetable garden with having the tomato cages? Is it having old washing machines? There is a difference between these. She is looking for ordinances. Something that would give her guidance. Attorney Marty stated the first thing she found was the City's public nuisance ordinance. That seemed like a good choice. That is Exhibit M. Fridley City Code, Chapter 110, "public nuisance" is defined. The first one is sort of not too bad. It is someone who maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, comfort or repose of any considerable number of inembers of the public. They have not heard from numbers of the public. They have heard from two staff inembers. They are unaware of any considerable number of inembers of the public whose safety, health, comfort, or repose has been injured by Mr. Saba. That is not very helpful. They are waiting for these members of the public to come forward if that is the case. Attorney Marty stated No. 5 is also not bad so she looked at that one. Someone who accumulates in the open discarded or disused machinery, household appliances. This sounds 132 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 19 of 54 good,right? Or stores in the open machinery, equipment, cars, or materials, not in normal use on the premises where stored, in a manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice, snakes or _ vermin or to the fire, health or safety hazards or from the rank growth of vegetation. That would be a very important paragraph if the City had ever presented any evidence of rats, mice, snakes, or vermin or fire, health, or safety hazazds or rank growth of vegetation among things stored. The City has not done that. They have not shown that Mr. Saba's storage is a public nuisance under this chapter. Attorney Marty stated so she went to the Zoning ordinance. She copied part of that for the Commission on the next page. It is not called public nuisance, it is environmental quality which is something we all worry about. In order to comply with the environmental quality standards, the City can require various things. No explosives. No radiation or electrical emissions. Okay. Other nuisance conditions. Okay. But if you look at that it goes through minimum standards relating to noise, odors, vibration, smoke, air pollution and dust, or toxic or noxious matters which have to be deposited or discharged across the boundaries of the lot. The City has not presented any evidence of any of these things. T'hey have no reason to believe that Mr. Saba's exterior storage is violating any of these environxnental standards. There has been no noise measurements. There have been no reports of smoke. There have been no reports of immeasurable quantities, any quantities of toxic matter. It is all pure speculation by the City. They do not have anything. Attorney Marty stated, the next page, continuation of ordinance, same stuff. Again, Chapter 123,junk vehicles. A "junk car" is any motor vehicle that is not in operable condition or that is partially dismantled and is used for sale of parts or as a source of repair or replacement vehicles. She would like to bring to their attention the fact that Mr. Saba does not have any junk cars. He had junk cars in the 80's. He does not have junk cars now. Mr. Saba has trailers and operable vehicles. These are not junk cars. They do not qualify as violation of junk vehicles under this Code. The next page is just more of that provision. Attorney Marty stated the City wants to abate Mr. Saba's property because they did not agree with the jury because they do not like what they see when they look over the fence into his back yard. They do not like the fact that he is not perfect, that he has not kept everything moved promptly behind the fence. Attorney Marty stated the City showed photos taken a few days ago. She asked Mr. Saba whether he has any junk cars on his property anyrnore? Mr. Saba replied,no. Attorney Marty asked Mr. Saba whether he has any explanation for why there is a bunch of stuff outside the fence right now? Mr. Saba replied, a couple of reasons. He takes pallets and things and he cuts them up for firewood. Some of them he sells. Some of them he uses himself. He removed a lot of things 133 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 20 of 54 and moved a lot of trailers. There is only one vehicle there and that is his daughter's. He moved a lot of trailers and boxes that he put firewood and stuff into for the sake of Asphlundh. Attorney Marty asked, who is Asphlundh? Mr. Saba replied, they are the tree trimming people for Xcel. They trimmed the whole entire 300-foot south side of the property. He has been talking to them for six months. He told them when he got time to do it he would move things for them. There are a few things that should be inside the fence. There are some trailers and stuff that he feels should not have to be in the fence,but he moved stuff that was inside the fence so they could get in there and trim some trees. He moved a lot of stuff on the outside of the fence so they could trim the whole entire 300-foot south side portion of the 150 feet on the east side. Attorney Marty stated back to Exhibit A, her draft Findings, she has given them all of the evidence that goes with the first 73 paragraphs. It is a lot of stuff. She knows. She does administrative hearings as a hearing officer. She typically writes findings of fact and conclusions of law, so she set it up that way. The conclusions she would encourage the Commission to find are that the use of the property was legal. It would not have begun in 1954 because the City cannot prove it was illegal because they do not have the maps and may continue as a legal non-conforming use. Attorney Marty stated the 1985 agreement actually changed the status of the use because at that point the recycling was no longer spread over the entire property but was now limited to the area inside the fence. That area was legal. Since 1985 the use of the property as a residence and family garden remained legal non-conforming, and the recycling remained legal so long as it is in the fenced-in area. Exterior storage outside the fence is legal so long as it is accessory to the residential and family garden or legal under the commercial zoning. Attorney Marty stated if they were to look at the map of the proposed fence that Mr. Saba had in the original packet from the 1985 court proceedings, on that there is a note that Mr. Saba will keep his commercial vehicles outside the fence. When you do not have a formal signed contract, you collect all the documents from that period of time and, if people have honored the agreement for years as they have this one, you look at the documents trying to figure out what these terms were. She believes that is part of the agreement that Mr. Saba's commercial vehicles would be parked in a commercial zone, and it would be legal outside the fence. That exterior storage within the fenced-in area is legal and that neither of the use of the property nor the exterior storage had been shown to constitute a public nuisance. Attorney Marty stated she would urge the Commission to overturn the abatement order of the City Pla.nning Manager. She asked if they have any questions. Commissioner Jones asked, is there an actual signed document that is the agreement? Attorney Marty replied, the thing she believes constitutes the agreement is signed by the city 134 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 21 of 54 attorney. Commissioner Jones asked, does anyone have, to her knowledge, an actual signed document signed by both parties? Attorney Marty replied, she wished there was but the only documents she has are from the City; and the City openly states they do not have a signed contract. She was disappointed they tried to hide the 1985 documents from the Commission because those are City file documents. She has no reason to dispute them. She believes they represent the terms of the agreement... Commissioner Jones asked attorney Marty, to her knowledge or Mr. Saba's knowledge, is there an actual special use permit,the SUP. Does Mr. Saba have one of those? Attorney Marty replied, Mr. Saba is not the record keeping type, he does not have anything such that a lawyer would love to get their hands on. If one was granted on the property, it was probably done when he was very young. Commissioner Jones stated, sometimes it gets put in with all the other records, in with an envelope. Chairperson Sielaff, seeing no other questions from the commissioners, said the next step in the process will be staffl s rebuttal. Commissioner Jones requested a short recess, so Chairperson Sielaff recessed the hearing at 8:SOpm for a five minute break. Upon return from recess at 8:SSpm, Chairperson Sielaff said it is now time for rebuttal from both sides, starting with the City. Mr. Hickok asked to take them back to the 1949 zoning map first. In the Commission's packet, is the 1949 ordinance, and what was described in their presentation earlier is a line. That is not a zoning designation or a zoning district. That is a line. They will see that on the Saba property it has been highlighted, and they can see the Section, Township, Range description: lying 300 feet easterly and parallel to the easterly right-of-way line of Central Avenue. Those are dimensions that you could go out and measure. Chairperson Sielaff asked Mr. Hickok, what part of the packet is that on? Mr.Hickok stated the second page is'49. The point is about'49 before he moves onto 'S3 is that the zoning was described in great detail by legal description. They should not focus on the '49 map though because they know that the 'S3 map came into effect before they bought the home in 'S4. The Commission heard from their testimony that they bought the property in 'S4. They want to be told it seems that because the City does not have a'49 map, this is corrupt. The legal description did define precisely which properties have what zoning. The one they really want to focus on then is the 1953 ordinance that would be in effect then when they bought their property in 1954. The Commission will recall from staffl s testimony that aerial photos showed there was 135 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 22 of 54 nothing there but a farmhouse when the Sabas bought the property and then they began after they bought in 1954. Mr. Hickok stated, again, now this does have a zoning map and interestingly enough the attorney who spoke to the Commission and said there isn't one, has that zoning map. She might want to argue about the cartography and how the maps differ between 1953 and today, but she has in her possession the zoning map that they used in court and it has also been attached here to the information that she presented. She may want to argue there is a different type style in the corner on the key. Well, back then, oftentimes what they did do is they took a map (remember they do not have GIS and the fancy mapping systems that they now have) and they took what they did have, what they paid money to do, and that was a street map and created a zoning map accordingly. Even by attorney Marty's own description as she is describing another ciTy case that does not really have relevance here, but she was trying to point out that zoning maps leave open areas that might be agriculture and open land, etc. Mr. Hickok stated the 1953 ordinance was very precise and described every zoning that they had in the City by legal description. That is pointed out in this illustration where the Saba property is defined clearly by legal description what they are talking about: the township range and section, which gets you to precisely the section you are in, and then the dimensions, "300 feet Easterly of and parallel to the Easterly right-of-way line of the Central Avenue. All that part of the North 1/2 of said Section 12 lying 500 feet Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 65; and all that part lying 500 feet Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way of Highway 65 and all that part of the N.W. 1/4 of said Section 121ying Southerly of Fireside Drive and Easterly of the Easterly line of State Highway No. 65, excepting Lots 14 thru 18 inclusive„ Block 2 Central View Manor Addition." That you could go to the map and compare. Mr. Hickok stated the Commission has been told there is not a 1953 map, which there is. They have been told that these are not zoning designations, these are lines, and the description itself is a line. If you know anything about legal descriptions, you know that defines an area. When you hear 300 feet and 500 feet, you start to realize there is an area being called out. That area was not industrial. That area never permitted recycling,junk yards, or what has been described as the family business that the young kids in the family got involved with at a young age and the dad did. Mr. Hickok stated that, to be clear, was not a land use that was permitted at the time. The petitioner can spend an hour and a half in the presentation telling them all sorts of rosy things about a 1985 agreement that supposedly exists but cannot be produced. However, there is an attorney here that can tell them that, I remember the details that went into that discussion. That does not match having a document here. That document, it would be so very important, shall also describe that 1985 action as an ordinance. The last and most recent ordinance amendment in 1985 was a 1983 amendment. There is not a 1985 code change. It is a 1983 amendment that talks about the land uses. Mr. Hickok stated, way back, just to put it into comparison. In the 1970's the salvage yards 136 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 23 of 54 grew up here in Fridley and the petitioner talks about being friends with some of the folks who created those salvage yards. They should know better than anyone then what those folks who created salvage yards needed to go through. It was not about putting recycling out in open areas, as has been described for the Commission. No, it was about screening,making sure the height of the materials inside the fence were not where you could see them from any vantage point. It was so that any objectionable views that might be part of that property and part of.that project would not be viewed from the street. That goes back to the beginning of the salvage yards, and it certainly would have applied if this were a salvage yard. Keep in mind these folks were across from the salvage yard. Probably thought they could be like a salvage yard. They were not a salvage yard. They were a C-1 zoning. Mr. Hickok stated just to remind the Commission again what the Commercial districts are about, the bigger the number, 1, 2, 3, C-3 is a shopping center district. It expects a market area like this; C-2 is a bit more restricted area, it is a little bit more restricted than the types of uses that are there; C-1 was very restricted, it was the old corner barbershop. It was some of those local services that were expecting a service area that was much smaller. Imagine hying to put an _ industrial use where the corner barbershop, the little ice cream store, some of those local services were supposed to go that were meant for that area. Mr. Iiickok stated they are being told that an industrial property was okay there. That the City was okay with that from the very beginning. The fact that there have been letters since 1961 but that no one is complaining apparently except Ms. Jones and Mr. Hickok. Those letters just were coming out from City staff who were apparently "overreaching" like the City is doing now. You folks were overreaching. No one is complaining about it. You could not live next to this and have a dinner, look out the window, and not see that as a nuisance or being aggravated by it or find that your comfort of living is affected by this. Mr. Hickok stated how about if he were to tell the Commission that dad used to take apart refrigerators with Freon dripping into the soil? It would be interesting and you would fear for your groundwater,which does not just stay in your property. Groundwater in fact goes out and it travels. There is a plume of contamination that typically travels out from a contaminated site. The City is very concerned about it. Staff has tried to work with these folks to get it cleaned up, unsuccessfully as they can see. The City's history is quite long. Mr. Hickok stated the 1985 ordinance he touched on and the agreement. There is no agreement here to be produced. However, he wanted to remind the Commission again how it all works and how zoning law works. Way back in the 1949 ordinance, if they read it, they had special uses; and those special uses were special by virtue of the fact there were mitigating solutions that you might need to come up with because of features about that use. Way back to 1949 the City would have required a special use permit for some of these more intense uses like a salvage yard. In 1953 the City would have absolutely required it. They definitely would not have allowed it out on the corner store site, the little C-1 site. The City would have had you go through great lengths through a special use permit process back at that time also. 137 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 24 of 54 Mr. Hickok stated in 1985 there was not a new ordinance as the Commission heard the petitioner tell tonight. There is no agreement they can show. There was some discussion. There was a public works director who did not quite understand planning a11 that well who was talking about a possible solution. There was an attorney who was trying to figure out how we solve this problem. However, all of those folks would have had to come back together before the City Council with something it could act on to change the land use outcome. Because they did not, there is no legal use they are talking about here at a11. They are talking about an illegal use started by a dad who was recycling stuff and thought he could bring appliances across the street from where he worked and talce them apart in his yard. It was never permitted by law. They have been told that it is. It was not. Mr. Hickok stated the City had a series of code enforcement people, as Ms. Jones pointed out in her presentation that went through, may have understood land use real well, or they may not. All they saw was stuff like this, going back to 1961 that needed to be cleaned up. Mr. Hickok explained that the Commission was given portions of the Land Planning Act. Some of this history goes back to 1982. Some of this history goes back further, but the claim is that in 1985 there was an action here that made what they were doing legal. The conditional use segment of the law required a conditional use for this type of activity if the zoning were right. Again, if it were industrial, the City (even back to 1949) would have required a conditional use, and as they know, called a special use in Fridley. The petitioner claims in 1985 they had the equivalent of a special use that made this legal that somehow made it okay to recycle inside the fence. Maybe if they had gotten behind the public works director sending a memo to the City Manager and the city attorney weighing in, and maybe if it had any legs at all and gone any further to the City Council, maybe there would have been a stipulation in there saying, okay, but by these standards. The Commission knows how this works; they have gone through these before. There was not. There is not. Mr. I3ickok stated you have the two pieces here, you have the Minnesota Statutes that enable planning to take place. More specifically you have what it requires to adopt condirional uses under law. This did not happen. Each time you hear,each and every time they hear,this is legal. There was an agreement. It is okay now, as long as it is inside the fence. Well, it was not. There was no official act on the part of the City. The jury did not understand that. This is a big thing and, as was stated here, juries are people, too. They do not necessarily understand everything. They saw a sympathetic figure. They saw somebody whose dad had been doing this for years and which really defined dad as a part of his job. Probably did not want to put him out of business. Probably felt a little bit bad. Mr. Saba does not know where he is going to put the stuff. He has stated tonight and he has stated before, he is not exactly sure. He has some stuff that should be inside the fence. He has some stuff that is outside the fence. And even by their agreement, if they were for one split second to say, well, there is an agreement. Is this inside the fence(pointing to a current photo of the site)? How about this? Mr. Hickok would say,no. Mr. Hickok stated as to aerial photos. He thought this was maybe the most interesting in a11 of 138 Appeals Commission IVleeting January 28, 2015 Page 25 of 54 the testimony. He is going to give the Commission one equally as bad. Those were not aerial photos. Those were described as just bad Polaroids in the presentation. He referred the Commission to Exhibit 52 in their packet (a 1989 aerial photo). He asked Ms. Jones to put up the petitioner's photos of what they were saying the fence looked like in 1987. Mr. Hickok asked the Commission to call their attention to E�ibit 52 and to the east edge of this site. Just to give them a reference it is hard to read that aerial but kind of in the southwest corner of the page, they will see the cul de sac that comes ofF of 73�. That is a good indicator, and if they go just a little bit to the north and west of there, they will see the site. They will see shadows from the fence area. That shadow stops though as they can see before it gets to the north/south fence which you can also see a little shadow of. There is an opening there. There is also a matched opening on the north property line. That fence was not complete there. However, look at the photos given to the Commission tonight as evidence. Not one of those photos show that east edge of the fence. They are all taken from an angle that show the western part of the fence and they are telling the Commission, wow, that was taken in 1987. Staff knew and could tell them that it was not done. It was supposed to be done, according to this agreement, in six months. It was not completed. They took a picture in 1987 that shows the western edge of the fence that was done. The eastern edge of the fence which you can see in a 1989 aerial was not done. Mr. Hickok stated the Commission just needs to pay attention to these little facts they are being given as facts that they really need to question. The jury did not understand it. The jury got a lot of the same. You are wondering how does the staff go through and get what they are saying is an acquittal after a11 the detailed work that it has done on two counts, outside storage and the land use. In his 28 years of doing this now, that is the first acquittal that has come back on a jury and is clear to him that a lot of the information given was to misdirect on land use which is a pretty careful and detailed profession that they need to understand. If you are going to read the ordinances, they need to be in common every day terms. Everything that an owner here would have had to read would have been in common every day terms but is described to the Commission as it was described to others. Mr. Hickok stated he finds it very, very interesting that the Commission is given things like this, that show the end of the fence that is supposed to be complete. T'his is the best day the site has ever looked. Believe him he is guessing there was cleanup from the photos because the City has aerials going all the way back. The Commission heard tonight testimony about, well, you know, they were coming through and trimming trees so Mr. Saba was moving stufF around for them. And that is why there is stuff outside the fence? Mr. Hickok stated one more thing he wanted to mention and then Ms. Jones is going to go ' through the resolution and findings of fact. The discussion with Scott Hickok the petitioner has pointed to. He found that very, very interesting. That discussion started when Steve Saba called a councilmember. 5teve Saba was told by that councilmember and rightly so, you know, talk to staff. They are a good staff. They are a reasonable staff. They are going to work with you. They are going to help you figure out a solution to getting this thing done. Yes, it was Scott 139 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 26 of 54 Hickok and Steve Saba on the phone. Ms. Jones can talk in the collective about "we talked to you". She did not say, "I talked to you". City staff talked to him. That was Mr. Hickok. He talked to Steve Saba, and he was directed to talk to staff by a councilmember. The City gave him time. In the little snippet the petitioner chose to give to the Commission, they told them, Steve Saba was going to have these tent events to use auctions outside. That is what this discussion was about. This discussion was about giving him more time. He was pleading. He was going to have a graduation on his site. He also caters. He needs to get it cleaned up for his own benefit. They were going to have a graduation on the site, and he could not have it looking like this either, stating"you and I are after the same goals", we want to get this thing cleaned up. Mr. Hickok stated he had asked Mr. Saba, when is the date of this? Mr. Saba replied, well, can he have until they extended, Mr. Hickok believed, until August. Mr. Saba said, in the meantime, he really needed to get rid of some stuff. He was looking at this new technique he is hearing about out there. There are these auctions that people are having on-line that are drawing people in. Can he have those? Mr. Hickok replied, he has a big job ahead of him. He has some clean- up to do. If that is what he has to do to get this thing done. The City is not saying that is the land use from here on out which he might be led to believe. They were talking again about that reasonableness that council pointed to. Pointed him to a solution to get to something that, okay, it is not going to happen in May but the City is going to give him until August. If it takes you doing these auctions, get it cleaned up. Even in court that day on their way out of course, Mr. Saba said, "I know, you and I are after the same thing." Again, Mr. Saba told Mr. Hickok, I know, I want to get it cleaned up,too. Mr. Hickok stated the earlier photo that they saw is evidence there has not been a lot of clean- up. It has gotten even worse since then. Mr. Hickok stated from here he turns the Commission's attention to Ms. Jones which will take them through the resolution findings of fact and after that, it will conclude their rebuttal. Attorney Erickson stated she realizes they have to label the exhibits that Mr. Hickok distributed here. The two exhibits that were distributed to opposing counsel and the members of the Commission are Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357 and that can be labeled she believed as Exhibit 57. Then, Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, entitled, "Conditional Use Permits", that can be labeled as Exhibit 58. Before she does turn it over to Ms. Jones, she wanted to ask Mr. Hickok a question. With respect to conditional use permits,they are the same thing as special use permits, is that correct? Mr.Hickok replied, that is correct. Attorney Erickson asked, and Fridley just designates those as special use permits as opposed to conditional use permits? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it is Fridleyism. Some other communities call them special use permits but typically they are called conditional use permits. In Fridley, they are called special use permits. 140 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 27 of 54 Attorney Erickson stated, turning their attention to Subdivision 4 of that Statute relating to conditional use permits, does it not require that any conditional use permit be recorded and she assumes Mr. Hickok is familiar enough with the property and has reviewed title to the property? There is no conditional use pennit that i�as ever been recorded,is there not? Mr. Hickok replied, correct. Before the staff would embark on any sort of code enforcement action back in the early 90's, when he came on, stafF looked to make sure there was not something. They always need to do that because, especially with these sites that are questioned, how did that get to be? The staff turns over all of the stones to see if there is something,maybe a special use or something in history to tell them how and why this happened. Mr. Hickok stated if for some reason the City's cluxnsiness here would cause them to not have it, they would definitely be able to find it at the County because, in order to be legal and legitimate and everyone else be able to find it when they are looking for it, they need to have it filed at the County according to law. Attorney Erickson asked, does this Statute set forth in E�chibit 58 also require that before any conditional use permit or special use permit, as in the City of Fridley before it can be issued, there needs to be notice to property owners that are adjacent to or within 350 feet and there needs to be public hearings on any issuance of a conditional use permit before that can be legally permitted? Mr. Hickok replied, that is correct. And there would be minutes. As mentioned earlier. There would be minutes and this would have gone, not only to the City Council, but prior to that it would have gone to the Planning Commission. Even if they were able to lose one set of minutes, there would be the Planning Commission minutes,too. Attorney Erickson asked, and there is nothing in State files that would suggest any public body in the City. Chairperson Sielaff stated he had a question about grandfathering. Is there still grandfathering that happened before that period of time into the time the statute was promulgated in 1982? He is a little bit fuzzy on what is grandfathered in. Mr. Hickok replied, when they are hearing testimony there was a 1985 ordinance amendment, again, the staff is telling the Commission that the redraft of the Code was in 1983, so it would have been a 1983 ordinance. Also, when they are talking about the grandfathering, that is why it is so important they go back to remind the Commission about 1953 because nothing was legal prior to when the petitioner is claiming an agreement in 1985. There is not a legitimate, legal, preexisting land use there. Do not be confused or boondoggled by it was grandfathered in. It can only be grandfathered in if it was legal at the time that it came. Remember in 1953 the place was a farmhouse. In 1954 the Sabas had started doing this, and from that point forward, the Commission really needs to look at the 1953 ordinance and what would have been permitted 141 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 28 of 54 there. It was not permitted. There is no grandfathering that could happen here pre-1985. Even if a special chapter, the Minnesota State Planning Act was 1982. Nothing in this case pre-1982 would say, yes,but that was earlier. Attorney Erickson asked, the house existed on the property as of 1953, correct? Mr. Hickok replied,pre-1949. Attorney Erickson stated, right, pre-1949. That house, limited to the residential use, is a grandfathered legal non-conforming use. Mr. Hickok replied, that did continue for all those years, that is, this is as close as they come to grandfathering here. The uses beyond the house and the garden. Those were pre-existing nonconforming, could you have a C-1 house being built today? No, you could not. That is where you can really capture the idea of how that works. Chairperson Sielaff stated so the issue that has surfaced, the one that came up in 1954, apparently when the Saba family first purchased it, they would come under whatever ordinances they had in 1953. Making it before 1953,they are not grandfathering anything in. Mr. I3ickok replied,just the house and the garden. Attorney Erickson stated because the use was not legal in 1953 and it in fact did not exist in 1953. The Sabas by their own testimony under oath did not start the scrap and recycling business until 1954 when they took the property and it was not legal at that time. It cannot be legal as of right or grandfathered in. Ms. Jones stated it might be helpful for the Commission because they probably have not had time to read it, to go through attorney Marty's resolution that she submitted. She would like to go through some points on that as to some corrections. Ms. Jones stated as to the very first "Whereas" on attorney Marty's resolution, it states "Whereas the City of Fridley initiated this action to force an end to Mr. Saba's use of the property." Ms. Jones wanted to correct this statement and it goes into what they were just asking about as far as the preexisting non-conforming use of the house because Mr. Saba can use the house as a home and continue to use the house as a home as well as any other uses allowed in the C-1 code. He certainly has allowable use of the property. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 6 under attorney Marty's findings of fact, she has a note about the prosecution resulting in a jury verdict acquitting Mr. Saba. Ms. Jones wants to repeat, that was acquitting for the day of the offense, October 8, 2008. It does not mean permitting of that use continuing. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 7 attorney Marty states Mr. Saba timely appealed the abatement to 142 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 29 of 54 this Board. Actually this very abatement they are talking about, the appeal was not within the 20 days, it was late,but the City allowed it anyway. Ms. Jones stated as to Item No. 8 attorney Marty states that because Mr. Saba also initiated suit to halt repeated attacks on him and his property, Ms. Jones would argue he just wanted more time to clean it up. He was granted many extensions. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 9, the judge hearing the lawsuit ruled that this Board should enter a decision first. To clarify what that was referring to is that Mr. Saba had not exhausted his administrative remedies through the City's code. He needs to appeal to the City before he appeals to the district court. Ms. Jones stated there is a note in No. 14 about the garden. Staff has never had a problem or issue with the garden. She has never seen a violation that she knows of in all the documentation she went through stating an issue with the garden. Ms. Jones stated a key note on No. 15 is the statement that in 1954 Mr. Saba's father began recycling the metals "outdoors" on the property. Mr. Hickok alluded to the term that was used that attorney Marty took the Code as saying "in the open". Staff interprets it to mean outdoors, and that language is in the Code because Code requires such things to be done inside a building. It is not about being behind a fence. It needs to be inside building. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 16 attorney Marty makes a statement about the disassembling, sorting, and recycling of materials. Again, doing that sort of activity outdoors is a big issue here and it is happening outside a building. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 17 there again is a note about the garden and, again, garden has never been considered a violation in this case. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 18, the statement the current zoning of the property also does not allow the establislu�ent of a new land use involving recycling. She wanted to clarify that it has never been allowed in the first place. It is not about being established as a new use. It was never allowed when it first started in 1954. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 20, which states the City has the burden of proving the zoning of the property over time. Again, to clarify, no, the City has the burden to prove what the zoning requirements were when the use first was established. Again, that refers back to the 1953 zoning ordinance. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 21, the statement about the 1949 ordinance. Again, the 1949 ordinance does not have any bearing about the use here. It is about the 1953 code the Commission has to look at. Ms.Jones stated as to No. 24, description here about staff not having a map. Again, Mr. Hickok 143 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 30 of 54 touched on this. The map does not really matter because, in addition to the map, in that code the City was described by a legal description which areas were residential and which areas were commercial,which areas were industrial. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 26, the statement says the map to the 1953 ordinance is also missing. No it is not. Attorney Mary has been given this more than once. Actually they had it originally listed in the list of exhibits and listed as the 1953 code including the map. Staff took it out of the exhibits because it does not matter. It is described legally in the text. Again, it does not matter because it does not matter if the property is zoned residential, commercial, or industrial. They do not have a special use permit so they are not allowed to have a junk yard use and never have been allowed. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 27, the statement about locating and showing some drawing but that is not the map from 1953. Again the statement is incorrect. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 29, there is a statement about because of the language in the Code is unclear as to what the zoning is. It is not unclear. Mr. Hickok covered that. It was specifically described, the location,the property, and the Code. Ms. Jones stated as No. 31, stating that in 1949 anci 1953 the ordinances are not clear. She would say that is very wrong. It is very clear that recycling is only allowed in the industrial zoning with a special use permit. Ms.Jones stated as to No. 32, attorney Marty states that in 1949 and 1953 the ordinance must be interpreted as allowing Mr. Saba's use of the property in 1954. But again, the use as a junk yard was never okay as indicated by 52 plus years of code enforcement letters. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 33, it states the use of the property was a residence, family garden, and recycling continues since 1954 and may remain as legal non-conforming uses. The residence and the garden can, but not the recycling. Just to clarify. It is not a legal conforming use. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 34, refers to in 1985 the City had a new zoning ordinance. That is incorrect, 1983 was the year when the change occurred in the zoning code ordinance and that the 1983 code would have applied in 1985 when that court case was going on. Attorney Marty refers to this junk storage in the open and Ms. Jones looked but could not find that language in the 1983 Code and is not sure where attorney Marty is pulling that from. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 37, the agreement could not have occurred as Mr. Saba's use of the property was illegal. Frankly, the agreement itself if it exists is not legal. It is not legal because it was not approved by the City Council. It states that this agreement had gone past the city administrator and the city council and approved. There are memos, yes, indicating that the staff was thinking of putting this discussion before the city council, but they have no proof. There is no record of it. Ms. Jones has looked through all of the City council minutes from that time 144 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 31 of 54 period. Looked through resolutions and they had the County search their documents. No one has ever seen anything indicating this went before the City Council. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 39, the statement, this agreement was run past and approved by the court. There is no record of it being recorded at Anoka County. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 41, the statement, as required Mr. Saba did get city approval for his fence, purchased lumber, dug holes, and constructed a six-foot fence along the north portion of his lot and moved his recycling behind the fence. Staff showed the Commission in a 1989 aerial, the fence was not completely constructed according to the drawing the petitioner submitted as their exhibit of this plan. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 42, the City understood that Mr. Saba would continue to recycle but wanted the screening from the public right-of-ways. The City has no record of this. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 44, the agreement allowed the City to hound Mr. Saba when he brought recyclables onto the property and did not place them behind the fence promptly enough. The City documentation indicates chronic violations of this. She hardly thinks with the limited staff the City had at that time to park somebody out there and watch every minute of the day that he would bring some junk into the yard. There is documentation upon documentation of this continuous chronic appearance of materials outside the fence. Ms.Jones stated as to No. 45,the City and Mr. Saba honored this agreement for many years. He did not honor the agreement. He did not keep the materials inside the fence. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 46, in 1998 the City again initiated a prosecution of Mr. Saba for his junk yard recycling use. And that is because he was in violation of the Code. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 47,the case confirmed the 1985 agreement referring to the 1998 court case confirming the 1985 agreement requiring Mr. Saba to keep his recyclables behind the fence and allowing recycling inside the fenced area. The City has documentation and other letters saying that is wrong. He was told to keep everything behind the fence also. Get rid of everything behind the fence also. Ms.Jones stated as to No. 48, the court probationary conditions specifically noted that recycling inside the fence was fine only exterior storage outside the fence violated the agreement. Ms. Jones would contend that just because the court documents stated that, that does not prove that is what the City was requiring him to do. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 49, in 2010 the City prosecuted Mr. Saba for illegal land use and exterior storage resulting in a jury acquittal of Mr. Saba of both charges. Again, that was only for that date of offense. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 56, they have already touched on that, in the open means outside the 145 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 32 of 54 building. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 58, the City has not identified any condition on the property which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the life, safety, comfort, repose of anyone. There are numerous times in her presentation where code enforcement letters were sent out because of a complaint that had been received. One piece of evidence she did not actually submit was a letter that she found in the building file records from the developer who developed the properties on Evert Court and was begging the City to do something about the junk yard at 7345 Central Avenue because he could not build the type of houses he wanted to build there because he could not market it next to a junk yard. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 59, the City also has not identified any considerable members of the public who are annoyed, injured. The photos she presented tonight, and she has a lot more, indicate it is reasonable to assume that someone could be annoyed by looking at it out their window every day. When she was taking the pictures of the site last week, she was approached by a resident in the neighborhood asking why she was taking pictures of the junk yard. They call it in the neighborhood, the junk yard. He wondered why in the seven years they had lived there the City has not done anything about it. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 60, defines some of the language, attorney Marty kind of skipped over some of the key words which are noise, odors, liquid, solid waste. As she indicated earlier, they are concerned about PCB's, Freon, oil, antifreeze, automotive fluids, all the things that are the result of an automotive recycling process and appliances that have been done over the years outside the building. It is reasonable to be concerned about that being a public nuisance. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 64, the only items identified by the City as objectionable are items related to the residential use of the property are items legal in a commercial zone. The staff is concerned about the materials outside the fence,too. That is what most of these letters are about is the material outside the fence. Staff frankly does not know what is inside the fence. She has never been inside the fence. Staff is not pernutted to go onto the property. They can only look at what they can see from the public right-of-way. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 66, items behind the fence also are screened from the public right-of- way except for the items as mentioned in the zoning ordinance. Again, only by special use permit would that be allowed. Ms. Jones stated No. 67 refers to residential items like the chairs. The chairs became an issue because they were related to a catering business. Most people do not have 50 chairs sitting in their backyard stacked up. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 68, the commercial items include commercial trucks, plows, and trailers. They have not talked about this much, but this equipment is not allowed. That is the whole issue of the junk yard. The snow plowing equipment and the landscaping equipment and one of the things you see in the picture there in the far background is a wood chipper. Those 146 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 33 of 54 types of things are not allowed to be stored outside in the C-1 district. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 69, again, has that same language in the public nuisance ordinance. She would argue that the noise and odors possibly being a problem too, as a lot of these heavy equipment being moved in back and forth in and out of the site. Landscaping type trucks, snow plowing type trucks have those back-up beepers. Think about how annoying that is to have next door to you and that sort of noise going on all the time. That is why the City does not allow those types of uses in the C-1 district that is usually right next to a residential area. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 70, under state law, a public nuisance poses a harm to any considerable number of inembers of the public. The concern about chemicals going into the soils and providing a habitat, when you look at the aerial view of what is behind the fence, think of that habitat for rodents to hang out. She would not want that next door to her house. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 74, states the use of the property at 7345 Central Avenue is a residence, family garden, and recycling which legally it began in 1954 and may continue as a legal non-conforming use. Again, no, that is not correct to the recycling part. Yes to the residence and the garden but not the recycling part which was never legal. Mr. Hickok stated they are not talking about recycling your pop cans on a residential property here; your plastic bottles or your papers,right? Ms.Jones replied, right. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 75,the 1985 agreement changed the status of a use. That is incorrect. There was no change to the City Code. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 76, since 1985 the use of the property at 7345 Central Avenue as a residence and family garden remained a legal non-conforming and the recycling was legal as long as it was within the fenced area. Again, City Council did not make any code changes and did not approve any special use permit that would permit that. Ms. Jones stated as to No. 77, only by special use permit. Same thing for No. 78, exterior storage, only allowed within the fenced area with a special use permit. Ms. Jones stated as No. 79, neither the use of the property or the exterior has been shown to be a public nuisance. The City disagrees with that. It would say a public nuisance. Attorney Erickson stated much has been made of the acquittal of Mr. Saba on criminal charges and, as Ms. Jones pointed out, a criminal citation represents a snapshot of a day and time. There is a date of offense and that is presented to the jury. More importantly, what is important to remember about criminal jury trials is that the jury goes out to deliberate and renders a single verdict of either guilty or not guilty. There are no special findings made by a jury in a criminal matter. There is not a breakdown of what the use, legal in each of these elements proved by the 147 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 34 of 54 prosecution. Essentially you have no idea what the basis of the jury's verdict is. It is either a "yes" or a "no". To hang the head on and rely on an acquittal as somehow providing cart blanche to the property owner what he or she chooses and somehow acts it is a determination that it is a legal non-conforming use. We do not know why the jury acquitted Mr. Saba, but the significance of an acquittal has been overstated by the property owner. Attorney Erickson stated a couple of other items she wanted to touch on are the public nuisance aspects about this case. Attorney Marty introduced an exhibit, E�ibit M; and she turns to City Code which is appropriate for determining what is a public nuisance and the Commission will note on the first page under Section 110.02, public nuisance defines that there are a total of maybe six items that are defined as public nuisances. Mr. Saba and his counsel have tried to somehow connect the requirement to Section 5 which discusses the accumulation of open and discarded and disused machinery, household appliances, and so forth as somehow requiring endangerment of the public health, safety, comfort and repose of a considerable number of members of the public. That language is not in Section 5. These are each separate disjunctive grounds for activities that constitute public nuisance. The property owner and counsel are reading into that section something that does not exist. She wanted to highlight that for the Appeals Commission members. Commissioner Jones asked was this trial a civil trial or a criminal trial? Ms.Jones replied, criminal. Commissioner Jones stated he thought it was a civil trial. Is there a different burden of proof in a civil trial vs. a criminal trial? Attorney Erickson replied, yes. She is glad he asked the question. The burdens of proof in civil trials and criminal trials are very different. Obviously, because of imprisonment and significant fines and probation are at play in a criminal trial, the Constitution requires an incredibly high burden of proof-that being proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Then in civil cases it is a preponderance of the evidence. There is a big difference between the burden of proof that exists in a criminal jury trial, very high, than that in a civil proceeding or civil trial where it is much lower. Again, this goes to the acquittal, she thinks it has been overstated. There are no special findings that are made by the jury. They simply know that the jury did not believe that the very high burden of proof had been met. Commissioner Jones stated he really did not get a chance to read this beforehand but is there some place in their packet that says this was a criminal trial? Attorney Erickson if he refers to Exhibit K. It will tell them that what she has submitted and attorney Marty would agree, that she has submitted on the first page of Exhibit K, these are jury instructions, and the language here shows that it is determining, for the jury to look at to determine whether a person is guilty of a crime and in fact that language exists in this document. The next page describes more of the legal defense that exists and counts, but then more 148 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 35 of 54 importantly, take a look at the third page which talks about conditions of sentence. These are conditions that are imposed if there is a sentencing that would occur for a defendant. Conditions of sentence are not imposed on civil matters. Finaliy, if you take a look at the last two pages attorney Marty attached, verdict of guilty and not guilty which is a classic expression that this is a criminal case. It is also captioned, the State of Minnesota vs. Steven Robert Saba. That is how criminal cases aze captioned. Attorney Erickson stated, again,these aze separate disjunctive individual grounds and when you construe ordinances, you cannot read into ordinances, language that does not exist. That is what Mr. Saba is requesting the Commission do. That somehow the Commission should transpose and carry over requirements of one type of nuisance to another. She wanted to clarify that for the Appeal Commission tonight. Attorney Erickson stated another interesting fact they should pay attention to is the 1998 prosecution of Arline Saba in this matter. Attorney Tello was Mr. Saba's attorney as she understands it at the time of the alleged 1985 agreement. Attorney Tello's name appears on documents that attorney Marty has presented. If you take a look at that 1998 prosecution in attorney Marty's exhibits, E�ibit G, attorney Tello has signed one of these documents. This is a petition, and counsel typically signs as the attorney for the defendant presumably attorney Tello did here in this document. Attorney Erickson stated attorney Tello, curiously he is here, but he has not provided any testimony to the Commission about what he has recalled and what he does not recall. As attorney Marty has pointed out, she seems to find fault with the City that it does not have documents that are important. Attorney Erickson would suspect that if she felt she was being harassed by the city for 35 years about the use of her property that she claimed was legal, she would sure keep a copy of any kind of alleged agreement close by. Attorney Erickson stated and the Commission will note that Ms. Saba was charged with junk vehicles, exterior storage, allowing junk yard. These are illegal land uses and somehow this agreement that they cannot find any record of, a signed document, somehow exists. She would think that would be a pretty legitimate defense to try and raise in the criminal case and not plead guilty and try and resolve it that way. The simple fact is there is no signed written agreement between the parties. Even if there were signed written agreements, it would be void because no prosecutor, no city attorney can on their own initiative, grant land use rights. It simply is not possible. It is a void agreement assuming it even exists. Attorney Erickson stated, additionally, if this mythical or alleged agreement exists, it has been breached repeatedly by Mr. Saba over the years. There is a doctoring of unclean hands, he is asking for enforcement of an alleged contract that he repeatedly broke. That kind of summarizes the points she thought were important to call out at this point for the Commission. Mr. Hickok stated interestingly enough the petitioner reached to Steve Barg and he has now entered his name into the discussion by responding back on the petitioner's behalf on what the 149 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 36 of 54 City did in terms of post-1985 enforcement on the property. Mr. Hickok wants to put out that Steve Barg was here prior to his coming in 1994. As part of Mr. Hickok's review of how they did code enforcement here, the Saba case came out. Mr. Hickok was noticing endless letters to Mr. Saba without result. To which he learned from him that maybe a philosophical approach from a legal prosecution is a bit different. Mr. Hickok stated the City actually at that point brought on another attorney, Fritz Knaak, to handle the code enforcement type of cases that go to court. The important thing about this was they needed to go beyond this point of just endlessly sending letters from the era that Steve Barg was here about, you need to get this corrected, you need to get this corrected,but not taking it a11 the way through court. Mr. Hickok stated the fact that Steve Olson was not brought back. He does not know how far away Olson moved but the Commission will notice in the testimony,because Steve Olson moved away the City did not pursue the case; and they lost an incredible amount of time. That caused Mr. Hickok to talk to the City's prosecutors at the time and ask what, are you kidding, and they needed to raise the level if importance in the prosecution office, they needed to raise the level of importance at the court so they did not have these kinds of things happening again. Mr. Hickok stated it is interesting the petitioner brought Steve Barg back into this because code enforcement was of a different brand back then and a lot of letters were being sent without a lot of result and, had there been a better understanding of land use law at that time, they probably would not be talking about it today in 2015. They could have resolved it pre-1985. It really has an effect on how they approach these things in court from that point forward. Attorney Erickson stated she would be remiss if she did not point out for the Commission, the inference that attorney Marty and Saba are trying to draw from the e�ibit that has been submitted as E�ibit E. There are multiple letters sent and attorney Marty admits she has gone in and kind of highlighted certain language for the Commission. However, Ms. Jones touched upon it and maybe just to bring it to a final point, that is what people saw. That is what the code enforcement officers could see. Just because they are referencing items in front of the fence does not mean there is any sort of valid agreement it was permissible to put things behind the fence. They would have to go get a warrant to go do that. An inference you can go off on these letters is that was what was in plain view for these code enforcement officers at the time. It does not result in a conclusion necessarily or you cannot say it is a definitive expression of the City's honoring of any such agreement that is alleged to exist. Attorney Erickson stated, then on E�ibit F, attorney Marty points out that there is this complaint form that exists and the description of the complaint talks about "No violation of past agreement with City; is adequately screened". Attorney Erickson's assumption is that, and she could be wrong because they are looking at these documents many years later, but it could also equally mean not that there is a conclusion by City staff that this is acceptable, that is, we talked with Mr. Saba and this is what Mr. Saba has told us. It does not mean it is a definitive conclusion and there is an agreement that the property has alleged to exist. It simply could be 150 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 37 of 54 contemporaneous notes of, hey, I called up the property owner after we got this complaint form. We do not know. She does not think it can be treated as definitive proof of the City's honoring any agreement that, again, is merely alleged and not proved. Chair Sielaff indicated that it was now Saba's opportunity for a rebuttal. Attorney Marty stated she is not going to go back over the points that she has already made and the City has disagreed with. They did say a few things she thinks are not correct, and she wants to get back to her Exhibit A, the draft resolution, the second page, paragraph 19. The City planrung staff argued strenuously that the uses were not legal when begun. That is possible. She disagrees. If you think that the uses were illegal when begun, then the question becomes were they ever legal? Because if they were ever legal, they may remain if the ordinance changes thereafter. , Attorney Marty stated that is the only conclusion she can draw from the 1985 agreement was that the City council, the city attorney, the city manager, and all those other staff people were involved in it, looked at it and interpreted their ordinance where it says, just how it is, in the open, storage in the open. They interpreted the ordinance to mean that if it were enclosed within a fence, it was not a junk yard; therefore, it does not need a special use permit. It did not need rezoning, it did not need anything except the fence. That is the only interpretation that makes sense of requiring the fence and then all those letters sent in future years telling him to either get rid of stuff or put it inside the fence. She is not making these documents up. These are City documents. The only way to make sense of it is to see that the City Council interpreted the 1985 or 1983 actually ordinance where it says a junk yard is in the open to mean if you have it enclosed in a fence, it is not a junk yard,they will let it be. Attorney Marty stated, paragraph 19 of her proposed findings,just reminds the Commission of the point the City was glossing over, which is any use which is legal at any point in time may continue indefinitely as a legal non-conforming use. One of the Commission members asked this question and did not get a proper answer. You asked is there anything in the state law about these grandfathering things? The City gave the Commission a new e��hibit, Exhibit 57, they did not give her 58, it does not matter. Eachibit 57 is good. It is Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357 and it talks about grandfathered uses. On page two, at the top, it has subdivision 1(e), non-conformities. Those are the grandfathered uses. All the language that is in current state law regarding grandfathering is right there. Attorney Marty stated the other provision she wanted to address, the City Attorney pointed again on attorney Marty's findings, page 5, paragraph 55, she brought out that the public nuisance ordinance, in paragraph 5, refers to accumulation, certain uses, etc. The City Attorney apparently thought that when she was describing paragraph 1 of City Code Sec. 110.02 that she was lumping that together with paragraph 5,but attorney Marty was not. Paragraph 1 (and this is in paragraph 57 of her findings) refers to maintains, conditions, etc. that upsets any considerable number of inembers of the public, which the City has not shown. Go back up to paragraph 55, two above there, talking about Section 110.02, paragraph 5. That one has great language except 151 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 38 of 54 it refers to someone who accumulates in the open, discarded or disused machinery. That is why paragraph 5 does not apply. Attorney Marty stated the letters from 1961 on talk about the eyesore, really that is all they are addressing. The property was an eyesore. They wanted stuff cleaned up for that reason. The fence takes care of that. You can read those letters. The City has claimed repeatedly tonight that they are concerned about groundwater pollution and other pollution. This use has been there for 60 years now. It has been there since 1954. If the City is concerned, why have they not done any testing? They have no evidence. They cannot be very concerned. It is not that hard to do testing. They should have done something. Attorney Marty stated they heard a lot of opinion tonight, but she is still waiting for evidence showing any pollution, any considerable number of inembers of the public. Who are these? They are not getting any evidence. They are getting a lot of opinion. The City disputes whether the fence was done. It disputes whether there was a 1985 agreement. She was going to ask attorney Tello to answer these questions. He was involved. He was there. He was there then. Mr. Hickok has stated openly that he was not even hired until 1994. Ms. Jones has not said she was there in 1985. Attorney Tello was and it is not his property. He is not personally involved in this, but he did get dragged to come here tonight. She asked attorney Tello to explain what happened in 1985. She would appreciate it. Attorney Michael Tello stated he is an attorney of 30 years. He went to Spring Lake Park High School. He wrestled with a couple of Steve Saba's older brothers and, as a result, they would always hang out over at Steve Saba's house. He was familiar with the property. He got subpoenaed into the original criminal matter just recently because of the fact he had knowledge based back on what the property looked like, which is consistent with what Steve Saba's brother had said. Attorney Tello stated in addition, he was asked to explain this agreement that had been eluded to that does not exist but has paperwork that shows it does exist. However, he finds it interesting the judge did not allow him to testify to any of that information. The jury made that decision without any information or any knowledge this agreement actually existed. Mr. Hickok indicates he knows what the jury was concluding, but then the prosecutor says nobody knows what the jury was concluding. He finds that an interesting statement. He does know, however, that they did not convict Mr. Saba on the violation without any reference to this agreement. Attorney Tello stated he is here to tell them, he told people for many years, you don't have to like me but you got to respect me. That's what he wants. He wants them to respect him. Because to him integrity is a benchmark on how you practice law and how you do business. Your word is what you have to live with. He is here, not because he is getting paid. He is here because he is offended. He finds this whole situation appalling. He knows what he negotiated. He knows what he entered into and to try and say it does not exist is smoking mirrors. It really is. Attorney Tello stated years and years and years ago they created a Constitution, and they 152 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 39 of 54 created a means by which the government could function. And then somebody came out of the ether and said, you know what? We have this huge entity but there is no way to control it. What are we going to do? They created the Bill of Rights to protect the individual. To protect your rights. To protect your property. You guys are doing that. You are here to determine whether the City is running amuck, whether there is an agreement, and whether they need to keep prosecuting and harassing and bringing Mr. Saba into court. Attorney Tello stated he entered into an agreement in 1985 that resolved this matter. Let's just go back to the records if they will allow him. He asked if staff would pull up E�ibit D. Attorney Tello stated if they will give him a little latitude here. He was approached prior to February 7, 1985, by Mr. Saba for a ticket he had gotten for storing material on his property. He asked Attorney Tello if he would defend him, and he agreed to do that. At the time he was doing a lot of criminal law. Attorney Tello stated when he got into the matter, he started looking up exactly what is being addressed here, is grandfathering. Okay. What does it mean, where does it go. He went to court. He met with the City Attorney, Mr. Eckstrom; and Mr. Eckstrom expressed to attorney Tello some consternation he had with whether he could prevail on a criminal charge. In other words, was Mr. Saba guilty. They talked back and forth, and attorney Eckstrom said what can we do to resolve this? Mr. Eckstrom indicated to attorney Tello, why don't we build a fence around the area so nobody can see it; and he can conduct his activity and that will be just fine. Attorney Tello said he can propose that to my client. Attorney Eckstrom said, well he first of a11, has to go to the City and get permission from those folks to allow him to do this. Attorney Tello said, fine, and he can talk to Steve Saba and see what he has to say. Attorney Tello stated that is exactly what attorney Eckstrom did. Attorney Eckstrom went to the City, he spoke to them, and he got perinission. If they look at E�ibit D there is no contract. Anybody that ever entered a contract knows there's negotiations, and negotiations are a means by which you get the terms down. And then when you get the terms down you give it to the other side. And when you give it to the other side, they either reject it or accept it. That's called an offer and acceptance. Tags were issued resulting in court appearance and a request for jury trial. That was by attorney Tello. Trial was set for February 27. Since Steve Olson is no longer an employee of the City, the tags he issued will not be admissible and our prosecutor has stated that the violation should be withdrawn. Attorney Tello stated, not really,because every prosecutor, every defense counsel, has a right to have a subpoena. He does not care if he is an employee now. You can subpoena that person's appearance, and you can get him into court, and he has to testify. Attorney Tello knows because he was subpoenaed to Steve Saba's trial. He is an officer of the court and as an officer of the court means he cannot make misleading statements to a judge to a court. He could lose his license. Put that in the back of your mind. Think about that,because he will get to that later on. Attorney Tello stated he goes on to indicate, if counsel has no objection, I recommend we 153 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 40 of 54 proceed with this proposal, requesting the court date be cancelled or extended until such time as a satisfactory agreement is obtained from Mr. Saba and his attorney. That's the feelings of the City. Attorney Tello asked staff to pull up the February 14, 1985, letter addressed to him, subject matter, Steve Saba, signed by attorney Eckstrom. Mr. Eckstrom was an attorney. Mr. Eckstrom subsequently became a judge for this particular county. Somebody respected him enough to appoint him as a judge. As an attorney he wrote this letter to attorney Tello and said, this will confirm our negotiation and settlement which we arrived at concerning your client, Steve Saba. As stated, the State is prepared to request a continuance for dismissal. Attorney Tello stated a continuance for dismissal is a means by which you simply say, look, we are not going to go forward with the trial; however, if certain conditions are met, we will dismiss the charge. Like it never existed. There is no plea. There is nothing. It is gone. And it goes on to annunciate exactly what the terms and conditior�s were. No. 3, you will be required to submit his designation for the construction of a fence (they saw that proposal on the next page) to the City and receive the City's approval prior to commencing construction. Nobody in their right mind would adopt that terrible writing except it's his. What it says is approval will not be unreasonably denied. Why did he want that? Because he did not want to be back in court, and he did not want to be fighting with these people and say, oh no,the fence has to be 6'2" or this or that and they start nitpicking it. No, it was an agreement that the City said we will dismiss the charge if you put up this fence. That's it and keep the stuff contained within the fence. Attorney Tello stated, last sentence, paragraph. I anticipate being able to read this negotiation into the record on February 26, 1985. Folks, that's what was done. That agreement was read into the record. This is your contract. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It is cleaz. It was binding. It is your word. He is asking them to enforce the word of the city attorney who met with the city council who entered into this agreement. Attorney Tello stated, now, he had subsequent conversations with the City; and he was told the fence was completed. He looked at that fence. He was there. It was completed. Whatever information they got he would submit as erroneous. Attorney Tello stated, now, do we have somebody's word here or do we just have serial prosecution? Well,things were going along just fine and then all of a sudden he gets a ca11 about 1995. Well, Steve Saba says you are not going to be happy with me, and by the way he gave him permission to talk about what he had under the confidential agreement, attorney/client privilege. He said, I screwed up. He left some things outside the fence and they are prosecuting my mom. Attorney Tello was not very happy with that and said to Steve Saba, you screwed up, it was outside the fence. Mr. Saba replied, yes, I know. Attorney Tello had known Mr. Saba's mother for probably 10-15 years, a good part of his years growing up, and he represented her for nothing because he thought Mr. Saba screwed up. He testified in open court. He screwed up. Why because the agreement was to keep it within the confines of the fence. Did he keep it within the confines of the fence? No. 154 Appeals Commission Meeting i January 28, 2015 '� Page 41 of 54 ' � Attorney Tello stated he represented Mrs. Saba, probably a 75-80 year old grey haired woman. The jury would like her but they had a problem. It was outside the fence and what had they agreed to. Steve Saba should agree to it. The prosecutor had agreed to it. He put his name on this document as an officer of the court, and he agreed to it. They introduced that agreement into the record. The judge accepted it. The court accepted it. W I Attorney Tello stated, what do they need for a binding contract? He is not sure but he is reasonably certain that Steve Saba had to swear under oath that this was the agreement. In front of a court, two attorneys, officers of the court, said we accept this agreement. Steve Saba said it, while he was under oath, agreed to that. A district court judge accepted this and put in the record the terms and conditions of the negotiation which was what,read into the record as agreed to but needing prior approval from the City Council. Now, that to him represents authority, apparent and actual. What is he going to say for a city attorney to come in and say he cleared it through the County. We will withdraw our charges if you go for a year with no problem. Attorney Tello stated Steve Saba is not a rich man. He never has been a rich man. That was a huge expenditure of money to build that fence. Steve Saba was a single parent, raised two kids. Steve Saba was a fireman for this City for 33 years. He was in recreation for 7 years. Do you think when they went to a call and there was a bad accident,blood and gore, he said, nah, that's a bad deal, I don't like that agreement. I think I'm not going to go to this call. No,he was there. If your life was on the line,he was there. He followed through on his agreement. This City should not do any less than follow through on an agreement that they had and entered into with him. That is all he is asking. He is indignant about this whole deal. He is sorry if he expressed his emotion. Attorney Tello stated when they got to Arline Saba, the city attorney said, well, she pleaded guilty. That is not quite accurate. If they look at Exhibit G. It says Arline Saba. It has his horrible writing on it. There is no doubt about that. Indicates what she is charged with. Look at paragraph 3. I am pleading guilty because I committed the following facts. That says, Alford plea. He will explain to them what an Alford plea is. You do not admit under oath that you committed any violation. That is important. The City has no record of Steve Saba ever saying he violated the law. They have no record of Arline Saba indicating she violated the law. All she is saying is she is willing to accept the plea to get it done but will not admit fact that she committed any crime. Why was that? Because he would not let her. Why was that? Because he did not think there was a crime committed. He thought she was grandfathered in then and he still to this day believes she was grandfathered in. Attorney Tello stated attorney Marty did an excellent job explaining that well to them. That was his feeling then. That is his feeling now. There is no violation. Now, also, let's look at that a little further. Look at paragraph 7. I'm entering this plea freely and voluntarily without any compromise the following plea agreement with the prosecutor: $500 fine(if you look at the back they take off about$300 so it was about a$200 fine),m�imum jail time (he knew they were not going to put a grey-haired woman in jail), certify as a petty misdemeanor in one year. Why did 155 i Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 42 of 54 he do that? Because a petty misdemeanor is not a crime. You know what a petty misdemeanor is? It's a speeding ticket, it's 5 miles an hour. It's a parking ticket. It's nothing. You can fill out a job application and you can put on it, I've never been convicted of a crime. Steve Saba has not been convicted of a crime for this either. There have been no convictions here. But more importantly, to reinforce, to reiterate, to reaffirm, he put in there, no violations for activities I conducted within the fence, only outside the fence for probation revocation. Attorney Tello stated why do you agree to the same conditions and the same contract and the same provision, if it isn't there? For a prosecutor the answer is, it is there. Folks, to get this in, the agreement again, she raised her hand, sh� swore under oath, she said the Alford plea, and the prosecutor went through this agreement and he went through this agreement, paragraph by paragraph, do you understand you are waiving your rights to a speedy trial, do you understand this, do you understand your constitutional rights to have a jury to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes, your honor. Yes, your honor. Yes, your honor. And then they read this part of this agreement, paragraph 7 into the record. Do you understand that? Yes, your honor, I do. Are you willing to be bound by that? Yes, your honor I am. Here's the clinker. Mr. prosecutor, is this your agreement, Mr. Eckstrom, soon to be a judge, do you agree with this or whoever the prosecutor was at the time? Yes, I do. Are you the city prosecutor? Yes, I am. Attorney Tello stated, integrity. Remember he started out with that word? A man's bound. A woman's bound. Integrity. He is asking them to have integrity. He is asking them to look at the facts and, when they come up with these smoking mirrors, and they come up with this no agreement, he has a lot of words he can use but none of which he is going to repeat now because it isn't true. There was an agreement. He was part of that agreement, and he is here under oath telling them there was an agreement. He is here under oath telling them he saw that fence. As an officer of the court, he would think to be an honorable person. One last thing. We wouldn't enter these agreements. Attorney Tello stated, he sues the railroad and if anybody knows anything about railroads, they know how tough they are. They are tenacious. They fight tooth and nail. He represents people who were hurt on the railroad because they don't have workers' comp. What's the significance of that? Many times he settles cases. During trial. Right before trial. And you know what they do? They go in front of the judge. And you know what they do? They put the terms and conditions of that agreement in front of the court, and the court accepts it. What is the difference? Is that an agreement? Yes it is. Is it a binding agreement? Yes, it is. If he tried to get out of that agreement, would he get sued? Yes,he would. Attorney Tello stated, well, maybe he screwed up and maybe he should have ordered the transcript, and maybe he should have gotten it today and say there was an agreement. He does not think he needs that. He has everything here that a reasonable person can conclude that they had an agreement. It is a binding agreement. When it was not followed there were consequences, and there should not be consequences when it is followed. That is what he can tell them from what he knows. And those are the facts and he hopes they can understand. He is there to answer any questions. 156 � � � � Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 43 of 54 Commissioner Ostwald stated to attorney Tello he is talking about all the contracts and his ; word, etc. then there is a February 2, 1999, letter, Exhibit 30, where Arline Saba has violated the � conditions of the speech he just made. �� Attorney Tello asked,which agreement? ' Commissioner Ostwald stated Exhibit No. 30 is a violation letter for the terms of the plea agreement. Attorney Erickson asked Ms. Jones to put that letter up on the screen. Commissioner Ostwald stated attorney Tello is putting out the importance of honoring your word and contract and very clearly there was a violation within a few months of this agreement. Attorney Tello replied, the agreement was not to prosecute if Mr. Saba kept it inside the fence. Attorney Tello can put on there in all due respect that the smooth manner of blue cheese it doesn't make it true. And you have the right to a trial and you have the right to appeaz and you have your right to be heard. He does not know who wrote that. He has never seen the document. He cannot accept the accuracy of that document. He cannot attest to the accuracy of that document. Commissioner Ostwald it is from the code enforcement officer of the City of Fridley. Attorney Marty stated but she is not here. Commissioner Ostwald replied, she still signed the document saying. Attorney Tello replied, in all due respect, and not being flippant, he does not know what it relates to. In his arena that is hearsay and inadmissible. He does not know. He does know what was entered into. That is all he can tell them. And that was for prosecution. Attorney Marty stated she has just a very few points she wanted to raise on the City's draft memorandum. Exhibit 56 she believed. Of course she hopes they will adopt hers entirely but she also expects the Commission will fully consider both of them. Attorney Marty stated there are numerous points in it that she disagrees with. She is not going to go through a11 of those. She wants to cover only a few. If she can have them flip to page 6 on Exhibit 56, the top "Whereas" on that page reads, "Whereas City staff is following standard policy and procedures in completing an abatement of materials associated with nonconforming uses... ." Abatement is not a normal process to use for a nonconforming use. A case came down three or four years ago by the State Supreme Court, there are four ways to get rid of a legal nonconforming use. Abatement is not one of them. 157 �� Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 44 of 54 i I Attorney Marty stated the only way that abatement would apply is if they had proven a nuisance which gets them down to the last "Whereas". Yes, the City has the authority to abatement nuisances but then on page six it says, "Whereas, any material stored outside a building related to a use that is not listed as a pernutted use in the Zoning Code at the date such use was initiated on the Property shall be removed by the City in the abatement." Any material ' stored outside a building, if it was ever legal under the zoning ordinance, would remain as a legal nonconforniing use. The City apparently wants to define as nuisance as anything outside a building, "related to a use that is not listed as a permitted use in the zoning code on the date such use was initiated on the Property." That definition of nuisance is nowhere in any law or ordinance that she has been able to find. If there is a nuisance from some stuff there, Mr. Saba is entitled to notice of what that is. What things are nuisances? , Attorney Marty stated in the court trial they tried to claim that Mr. Saba's stack of lawn chairs are nuisances. Mr. Saba has a large family. Family gatherings which occur more than once a month and tended to have 60 or 7Q people, and 50 lawn chairs is completely reasonable when you have a family that size. The City wanted to have those removed. That is the kind of problem they are running into. The City is overreaching. Attorney Marty referred to page 7, down at the bottom, paragraph 8, this is classic of what they are facing here. Steve Saba's use of the property is an illegal use. That is just incredibly overbroad. It is not correct. The house and garden are legal nonconforming uses. They have been there forever. The uses accessory to those, such as the playground equipment and lawn chairs, etc. are not illegal; and if you accept their arguments regarding the evidence regarding the 1985 agreement, things inside the fence are not illegal. Some stuff outside the fence may be illegal,but they have never been given notice as to what because the City just says, everything. Attorney Marty stated the staff did introduce a lot of photographs, a lot of old stuff, trying to prejudice the Commission, bias them, showing them that, you know, this place has never been picture perfect. It is never going to be on Home Beautiful magazine. The abatement relates to what is there on the date the abatement is ordered. That was in 2011. Those details are sadly lacking from any of the City documents. They do not know what specific items are offensive and staff has not shown that any of these things constitute a nuisance. Attorney Marty stated with that she does not believe she has any further rebuttal. If there is. anything else the Commission has questions about. She knows Mr. Saba is now willing to testify to explain why it is a safety matter to move stuff out of the way of the tree trimming equipment. They require it. Of course they all know why it is a safety matter,to allow them to trim the trees so the trees do not knock the wires down in storms. Any questions they have she would be happy to answer them. She did not know if they want to see the pictures of the tree trimming or not. Ms.Jones stated she saw the vehicles in the area on Wednesday morning. Mr. Saba stated they have been there off and on for three weeks. 158 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 45 of 54 Commissioner Ostwald asked what does the tree trimming have to do with it? Mr. Hickok stated why don't they put the photos up just so people can see them. Mr. Saba needs to present it. Attorney Erickson stated it seems and appears as these are being offered as evidence. They form part of the record. She would submit that, because they are being shown, they need to somehow preserve what is being viewed by the Commission. They are forming part of the record and are documents and evidence that this Commission is viewing. The same holds true for the Polaroid photos. They were not offered into evidence. They were not shown. Attorney Marty stated she gave them her only copy. Attorney Erickson stated they need to label them as an exhibit is her only point. Attorney Marty stated that would be "N" and these would be "O". Mr. Saba stated these pictures were taken last week. A couple of them might have been the week before, and they are not done yet. All the branches are still there. Leaving them kind of a right-of-way to move their trucks in and out. They have to come in with a big truck and trailer and bobcats with the claw. The whole yard is covered with branches and stuff. Chairperson Sielaff stated,his question is what is it they are showing here? Ms. Marty replied, the City showed pictures showing Mr. Saba moved a lot of stuff outside of the fence; and he had to move it to get it out of the way of the equipment. It will go back inside the fence when the project is over. He is just showing the mess that is ongoing right now with the tree trimming. He has this great big property with lots of trees so it is taking a long time. Mr. Hickok stated, under oath, he does not think Mr. Saba would mind testifying that he had to move everything out of the fence in relation to this. Is that what he is testifying? Mr. Saba replied, yes. Mr.Hickok stated they would like an answer under oath on that. Attorney Marty asked, an answer to what question? Is that everything he owns outside the fence? Mr. Hickok asked did he need to move everything that is outside of the fence, outside of the fence because of this tree trimming? Mr. Saba replied, no, he did not. Trailers that are legal are outside the fence. They are staying 159 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 46 of 54 outside the fence. Some of the wood boxes, some of the crates that he has some stuff in he removed; and they will go back. Attorney Marty stated but he has stuff outside the fence that he believes is legal without further issue. Attorney Erickson stated she does not know if that answers Mr. Hickok's question. Mr. Hickok stated one might believe that everything that is outside the fence, had to be moved outside the fence because of this evidence is being offered. What he was asking is that, they saw a number of things outside the fence. It was not just a trailer. There were pallets, there was other material outside the fence. As presented they could believe that stuff had to be moved out because they had to make way for this. Frankly, he can tell the Commission from the staff s viewing of the site that not a lot had to change as a result of this, that outside the fence the material list would vary, yes,but greatly; and he just wanted to make that point and under oath it was important to hear Mr. Saba at least describe so that one would not go away believing that everything was neatly tucked away but for now the tree trimming business. Chairperson Sielaff asked attorney Marty if she was finished. Attorney Marty replied, yes, she was. Chairperson Sielaff asked whether they go through a second rebuttal? Attorney Erickson replied, it is possible. Limited to the items that attorney Marty and Mr. Saba have raised and then they would have a chance to respond. Mr. Hickok stated as to integrity. Integrity would also have you describing the other side of what an Alford plea is. It is not just a not guilty plea because if it was you would plead, not guilty. The other part of that is there is a preponderance of evidence that the City has or there is at least evidence that the City has that you could be convicted on. It is important to know the full definition, if you truly believed you were not guilty, you would just simply plead, not guilty. An Alford plea says, I could be convicted based on the evidence the City may have. So it is important, and he thinks integrity would have that full definition in front of them, but he wanted to point that out. Mr. Hickok stated it was interesting that he chose to mention Steve Barg and code enforcement and shifting the philosophy on prosecuting attorneys in a large part because of this case. And they helped tell why that story is. You might have gone to law school but you do not necessarily understand land use law, and to think that you could conjure up an agreement that does not get approved by Council in the proper way according to State Statutes proves you do not understand land use law. Mr. I3ickok stated one thing that might have helped in that discussion today is if attorney Tello 160 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 47 of 54 had come with February 26, 1985, minutes showing that it was actually presented to the Council. If he wants to be upset with anyone, be upset with an attorney who did not present it apparently because in the letter he said it would but it did not get presented. It was not in the minutes, at least on February 26, 1985. Council would have at least had to hear it and at this point, if they had heard it, they likely would have said, staff, take us through the proper steps then to get us to an agreement. It did not make it that far. There is no agreement when it does not make it that far. Mr. Hickok stated he mentioned earlier that they did go a different course with their prosecution because endless letters with no resolution, cases that were being dismissed that if you really truly understood land use law you would not. Also, cases of his are now being dismissed because the witness was not available? Really? Twenty years from the time he talked to that attorney about this, they are still talking about the Saba case; and it all has to do with understanding of land use law. Mr. Hickok stated a great deal of time has been spent tonight talking about things that would distract the Commission from the fact that this is all a side track from what land use law would tell them. Really why they are so passionate over here is staff spends their days working with what the land use law really is and making sure the City is kept neat and clean and the property values for neighbors stay up, and you do not have to look out your window at this kind of thing. Mr. Hickok stated, integrity. Integrity would be having an agreement that you would stick to. Integrity would be saying that I would at least build a fence within the time I said I would do it. They have had now years and yeaxs and years of promises that were not fulfilled, and tonight they are being asked to consider a resolution. They have been given a couple of options for a resolution. He is done with his prompt. He does not know if there are others that want to offer, but he would ask the Commission to take a serious look at the City's position on this and vote in favor of a resolution that takes care of the problem here rather than pushing it down the road any further. Attorney Erickson stated Mr. Hickok accurately states what an Alford plea is. An Alford plea is, she misspoke and she will own that statement, it was not technically a guilty plea; but it is a plea that says I am entering a plea because I believe the evidence is sufficient that if it were presented to a jury, I would be convicted. Mr. Hickok has accurately stated that. Attorney Erickson stated there have been some remarks about the evidence of the City being hearsay because the code enforcement officer is not here. The same is true of evidence being presented by Mr. Saba and his counsel. They apparently believe that while you have to disregard letters that City staff have written because they are not here is hearsay and should be disregarded. The same should hold true then of Mr. Barg's letter. He is not here today either. We are living with 60, 50 years of documents that, heaven forbid some people may have passed away, that have been involved in these proceetlings and this is a monumental amount of information. Attorney Erickson stated with respect to attorney Tello's remarks, she is an officer of the court 161 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 48 of 54 herself and she also went to the law school and she studied land use law. What attorney Tello has said about agreements, you may be able to strike certain agreements with that type of fact situation but not in this instance. This is dealing with land use and special rights that did not exist at the time of the taking title by the Saba family. They did not exist. There is no grandfather right. The evidence shows that their use has never been permitted and, if it were to occur and be allowed, there would have to be action by the City as Mr. Hickok pointed out. The Council would have to follow the Land Use Act. A prosecutor, she likes to think that she would have the ability to go strike this agreement. She could not. She could work within the confines of the existing ordinances, but she cannot grant special land use rights that do not exist or that must be granted only through a certain process. T'hey certainly cannot be extended in a plea agreement in a criminal case. Attorney Marty stated as long as they are all being clean breasted about this. She was a city attorney for 15 years. She has been practicing land use law for 35. She brought them the chapter she wrote for a land use law book, non-conforming uses. She decided at the last minute not to hand it out because the Commission had enough stuff already to read. Attorney Marty stated Mr. Hickok pretends that land use law is so complicated that only he can understand it. She is telling them she knows land use law better than anyone else in the State. She probably should not say that,but she has been studying it very hard writing this book. Attorney Marty stated she is there to tell them that she thinks the whole case is about people who are so blind. There is a saying- there are none so blind as those who will not see. And that is the City's attitude here. They have lots of documents. They have everything that she has. All her stuff came from the City files. If the files repeatedly say, either remove everything or put it inside the fence, there must be some reason why they are saying put it inside the fence. It cannot be they are relying on Mr. Saba. He does not know land use law. They are not relying on attorney Tello because they did not call him. There has to be something the City is doing, and it is because they had interpreted their ordinance to say that if it is enclosed, it is not in the open, and that is all that is required to make it legal. That does not require City council minutes. That does not require a special use permit. Attorney Marty stated when she was a city attorney, they routinely took things to city council that were not ever brought up in a public meeting because a11 you needed was the concurrence of a majority to do something. If it did not require an ordinance change, it did not require somebody's signature such as a code interpretation, then you just got the approval if you could and you went ahead. Attorney Marty stated at this point there are three court decisions stating that the use is okay inside the fence. In 1985, 1998, and the acquittal in 2010. She thinks the City is turning a blind eye to a reality here, and she would urge the Commission to toss the abatement order and let Mr. Saba get on with his life. If the City really wanted to end this use, they could have amortized it back when that was legal. It is now illegal under State law. They could offer to buy his property. He has offered to sell it to them. The City is not interested. It just wants to persecute 162 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28,2015 Page 49 of 54 him. She used that word probably because it is late at night, but it does start to feel that way after a while. He has an agreement, whether the use was legal when it began, it became legal in 1985. The City granted an interpretation of its own Code that if it was fenced in, it was okay, and it should not be an issue tonight. Chairperson Sielaff stated he guessed the next step is for the Commission to decide. Is this like an appeals hearing? Attorney Erickson stated it is not a public hearing but they can close the record. That could be appropriate. Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Saba whether everyone from his group has said everything they want in the second rebuttal? Okay. Mr. Hickok asked if the Commission could take a roll call and see if each of the Commissioners have enough evidence before them to render a decision? By closing it they are going to be closing that portion. Could they hear from each one that at least they have the evidence they need now to go into the deliberation phase? ROLL CALL: Michelle Drury responded, yes. Blaine Jones responded,yes. Brad Sielaff responded,yes. David Ostwald responded,yes. MOTION by Commissioner Jones to close the presentation and the public record for this appeal. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The record and receipt of evidence were closed at 11 p.m. and the Commission took a five- minute break. Attorney Erickson stated they had recessed, staff has made copies of attorney Marty's and Mr. Saba's photos so they can be labeled as e�ibits and offered into evidence. The City has distributed a revised resolution that addresses some issues raised by attorney Marty and Mr. Saba. Specifically, she believes there are three changes to call the Commission's attention to. Attorney Erickson stated the first change is on page 6, No. 2, it states that each and all of the e�iibits presented by both parties to the Appeals Commission are incorporated. Before it had just said "all of the exhibits". They want to make clear that exhibits from Mr. Saba and the City have been received and are part of the record. Attorney Erickson stated, second, attorney Marty had raised some issues in her rebuttal with 163 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 50 of 54 respect to other findings. She would direct the Commission's attention to page 7 of the resolution. Getting at that issue she does not think the City has ever contested that the house is not a legal non-conforming use and she does not think that the City contests that the house is a legal use. There has not been any dispute about those two items. To be clear this resolution in Finding No. 8 and Finding No. 9 has been modified to account for that. Steve Saba's use of the property for recycling outside storage and junk yard is an illegal use. That has been narrowed to reflect the facts that there is remarkably some agreement on. Attorney Erickson stated, as to Finding No. 9, that Steve Saba's use of the property for recycling, outside storage and junk yard is not a legal non-conforming use. Again, restricted so as to reflect the acceptability of the house and the agreement on the house and garden area. She hopes that explains and addresses any kind of confusion that attorney Marty and Mr. Saba would have on this redistributed resolution. Attorney Erickson stated to Chairperson Sielaff, there are a couple of things to address. This is now the process of deliberation for the Commission members. They recognize it is late at night, but attorney Marty has discussed with her, there is no requirement that a decision be reached here tonight. There is the possibility that the Appeals Commission could adjourn to another date if they feel it is too late, and the documentation is too voluminous to go through and it would not be feasible tonight. However, a decision does have to be completed, under the City ordinance rules, within the next ten days. She knows there is also a possibility there could be a waiver of that ten-day deliberation requirement if it is not possible for those deliberations to occur. They would ask for a waiver from Mr. Saba and attorney Marty. However, it certainly is up to the Commission. If the Commission feels they are up to the task and wish to deliberate and feel there is enough time and the Conunission can do its job this evening, certainly there is nothing prohibiting doing that either. She puts that out there because there is no mandatory requirement that any decision be reached tonight. If they have questions about that process certainly feel free to ask them. Chairperson Sielaff stated he senses that the Commission would like to get this decided this evening,is that correct? Commissioner Jones replied,yes. Chairperson Sielaff stated they will deliberate now. There is a voluminous amount of stuff to look at. Obviously he has not had a chance to study a11 of it but,based on the testim.ony, to him it can be distilled down all this information and testimony and rebuttals, everything comes down to him, anyways, what was the governing ordinance at the time the petitioner's family moved into this house and property. It makes sense to him what has happened is that whatever ordinance was on the books in 1949 is not the ordinance for this. When they moved into the house in 1954, it was the ordinance in 1953 that was on the books that they needed to comply with. That is his position. They needed to conform to the ordinance in 1954. It was on the books in 1953. That seems clear to him. 164 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 51 of 54 Commissioner Jones stated he agrees with that. He was a little confused about the map thing and everything like that, but then when it came to light there was an actual legal description. With that legal description anyone can find anything basically. That to him is better than a map because it gives clear instructions to whomever exactly what piece of property that they are looking at. It kind of cleared that up. Okay, it was clear what the zoning was and obviously the � 1953 ordinance provided the zoning requirements or ordinances for that property. Chairperson Sielaff stated the other thing is the 1953 ordinance requires a special use permit. It is clear they did not have that and had never been issued for this specific property. Commissioner Jones stated, yes, and the fact it is not part of the title. His understanding is that a special use permit is on the title but, even if it were there, it does not necessarily go to the party acquiring because it has to get reviewed again if the property changes. Attorney Erickson stated that is not an accurate statement of law, and she wants to make sure the Commission is proceeding with accurate legal information. A recorded special use permit would run with the land. That is why they are recorded so future owners can rely on and know that their use is sanctioned and permissible,valid. Commissioner Ostwald stated that is how they get by with the single-family home on the property. Attorney Erickson stated the City would agree that because the house existed and predated the 1953 ordinance as a residential use which typically is not allowed in a commercial district but, because it was there before that zoning occurred, it is a legal non-conforming use — that is the residential and garden use of the property. Commissioner Ostwald stated he can have a garden in his yard and others can have a garden in their yard,why does the garden come in as part of the argument? Attorney Erickson replied, as legal counsel she would indicate and submit to him that it wauld have to be a listed use under ordinance to be a permitted use. If it is not listed in an ordinance,in order to exist and continue and be a legal use, it needs to predate the ordinance. If it predated an ordinance, it would be a legal non-conforming use. If it is not set forth in a zoning ordinance, it would be an illegal use. Chairperson Sielaff asked if any of the Commission members wanted to bring up anything else about the information they collected this evening? Commissioner Jones stated a lot of it was very similar with the two sides of this thing. Same issue. The fact with the timing of the purchase in 1954 and the 1953 zoning ordinances, combined with having a legal description of that, and the requirement that there needs to be special use permit for any use that they are using it for. It kind of trumps all the other issues. 165 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 52 of 54 Chairperson Sielaff stated he agrees. As far as the issue of having an agreement or not really to him there is no substantial or conclusive evidence that an agreement had been signed. Although he does not know how much that would enter into his decision anyways. The thing for him was what ordinance was there when the property was acquired. That to him trumps a lot of things on the issue. Commissioner Jones stated, yes, what ordinance was in place and what was going on at that time. The house was already there, the garden was there, and they could do that because that is kind of where the grandfathering comes in. However,they did not even own it in 1953. Chairperson Sielaff stated why don't they look at the resolution the City has prepared. They should probably take some time and take a look at all the "Whereas" paragraphs. Commissioner Jones stated the other thing here is, down at the bottom of the first page, the second to the last "Whereas", another kind of point is that you need a special use permit just to store things outside in this type of property; and it has been a problem here. Chairperson Sielaff stated he has a question on the resolution, does this preclude the petitioner from getting a special use permit? With the way this is phrased, "Be it further resolved that based on these findings"? Ms.Jones stated she did not understand why it would preclude the petitioner from applying for a special use permit. Chairperson Sielaff stated he is just asking about the language. Ms. Jones stated the petitioner does not have the proper zoning to apply for the special use permit. Attorney Erickson replied, to answer the question legally, the property is zoned Commercial. The property owner can use the property for permitted uses listed in Commercial zoning and the property may apply for special use permits set forth in the Commercial zoning district. Those two options exist with this language. There is nothing prohibiting those two activities by a property owner. Attorney Marty asked what section are they referring to? Chairperson Sielaff replied, on page 8. It is the "to be further resolved and based on these findings, the Appeals Commission hereby affirms the abatement order of the City Planning Manager for the Property and the removal of all exterior storage on the Property. . ." He is questioning would a special use allow for exterior storage. Commissioner Jones asked what date do they want? Today's date? 166 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 53 of 54 Ms.Jones asked if he was talking about the resolution? Commissioner Jones replied, yes,because it is dated the 7th. Ms.Jones replied she would correct the resolution date. Chairperson Sielaff stated from what he understands then is this language here is such that it does not preclude the petitioner to come in for a special use pernut for exterior storage. Attorney Erickson replied, there is nothing in this language that prohibits the property owner from applying for a special use permit for uses under the Commercial section of the zoning ordinance that are allowable special uses. She does not want to enter any testimony into the record, but the property owner could apply for any special use permit or any special use that is allowable in the Commercial zoning district. Chairperson Sielaff asked if exterior storage is one of those things that could be a special use? Ms. Jones replied, there is no allowance in the C-1 code to get a special use permit for exterior storage but, as attorney Erickson was saying, it would have to be something related to a permitted use on the lot. Commissioner Jones stated, for example, if you had an art shop on the property, you might apply for a special use permit for outside storage of your art shop or something like that. Chairperson Sielaff asked if he has a motion? Commissioner Jones asked how do they make the motion? Attorney Erickson stated the record should reflect the meeting commenced on the 28th of January and we are now past midnight and into the 29th of January. MOTION by Commissioner Jones to Approve and Adopt Resolution No. 2015-01 Affirming the Decision of City Code Enforcement Officer Related to 7345 Central Avenue and change the date of the Resolution to January 29,2015. Seconded by Commissioner Dnuy. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Sielaff stated this will go the City Council. He did not know what the timing of that is. They can appeal it to the City Council? Ms.Jones replied they have 20 days. Chairperson Sielaff stated to the petitioner he has 20 days to appeal it to the City Council. 167 Appeals Commission Meeting January 28, 2015 Page 54 of 54 2. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Jones adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Ostwald. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:09 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 168 , , . �.;�� M��, CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_ A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION TO AFFIRM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S ORDER RELATED TO 7345 CENTRAL AVENUE WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015 and January 29, 2015, the City of Fridley Appeals Commission conducted a hearing regarding owner Steve Saba's appeal of the abatement order of the City Code Enforcement Division with respect to property located at 7345 Central Avenue in Fridley, Minnesota(the"Property"); WHEREAS, the parties submitted exhibits, provided testimony, and provided argument through various witnesses and staff to and before the Appeals Commission on January 28-29, 2015 and such exhibits, testimony, and argument comprise the record of the Appeals Commission proceedings (the "Record"); WHEREAS, Steve Saba appealed the Findings of Fact and decision of the Appeals Commission to the City Council; WHEREAS, City staff scheduled the appeal to the City Council at its next available regular meeting on February 9, 2015 pursuant to City Code Section 128.06; WHEREAS, the City Council members were provided the Record created at the January 28-29, 2015 Appeals Commission hearing; WHEREAS, all Council members affirmed they had had sufficient time to review said Record; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley after review of the Record created at the Appeals Commission hearing on January 28-29, 2015 the City Council hereby: 1. Affirms the Findings of Fact set forth in the Appeals Commission Resolution No. 2015-01 attached hereto as Exhibit A, based upon the Record. 2. Affirms the decision of the Appeals Commission set forth in Exhibit A, based upon the Record. 3. Authorizes City staff to abate the exterior public nuisance at the property after 20 days following adoption of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2 Scott J. Lund, Mayor Attest: Debra Skogen, City Clerk - ��i�.� ✓ 1 � APPEALS COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2415-01 A RESOLUTIClN AFFIRMIIWG THE DECISIUN OF CiTY CODE ENFORCEM�NT UFFICER RELATED TO 734a CENTRAL AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"}, through ifis Community Development staff, including the Planning Manager and Community Develapment Darector, conducts rautine and systematic zonin�cade enforcement inspecrions throughaut the City to help protect the health, safety, genera.l weifare and good order of the public; WHEREAS, Steve Saba owns property located at 7345 Central Avenue in Fridley, Minnesota(the"Property"); WHEREAS,Steve Saba's parents acquired the Property in 1954 (Exhibit 3); WHEREAS,the 1953 amendment to the Fridley Zoning Code lists the Property as zoned commercial (Exhibit 2}, and did not permit a junk yard use in any zoning district, except by special use permit in the industria] zoning districfi(Exhibit 1); WHEREAS, at no point in history was the Praperty generally located at 7345 Gentral Avenue�oned industrial; WHEREAS, at no point in histary did the Property have a special use permit for a junk yard use; WHEREAS, there is no evidence ta indicate that the zaning of the Property has ever changed from 1953 ta 201 l; WI3EREAS, the historical photagraphs af the site conditions af the Property indicate a prolonged use of the site as a junk yardi scrap yard, autamobile recycling business, and appiiance recyciing business{Exhibits 7, l l, 33, 35, and 37) WHEREAS,at no paint in Fridley's history are the uses listed in preceding clause above allowec�in a coinmercial, C1 S or Cl z�ning district; ' WHEREAS, the City Code Section 205,i 3.7.B does not permit exterior storage in the front yard of the Property under any circumstances (Exhibit 47); WHEREAS, the City Code Section 205.13.7.B allaws exteriar storage only in rear and side yards of the Property but only if a special use pe�mit has been issued for the Property {Exhibit 47); WHEREAS, at no point has Steve Saba or previaus owners of the Property ap�lied for and obtained a special usepermit to allow exterior storage on the Property; i I Resolution No. 2015 - Ol Page 2 ' WHEREAS, the use of the Property as a junk yardl scrap yard began sometime in 1954, when Steve Saba's par�nts took ownership of the Property, when the 1953 zoning code applied(Exhibit 3); WHEREAS, Steve Saba testified under oath on February 19, 2010 that his father scrapped out appliances on the property since 1954 and that he himself scrapped automobiles on the property, starting at a young age(Exhibit 4); WHEREAS, Steve Saba tesLified under aath on March 22, 2013 that his family acquired the Property in June 1954 and began recyciing washing machines, dryers, furnaces and different metals on the Property at that time and that he himself, as a youngster, recycled metals on the Property(Exhibit 55); WHEREAS, code enforcement letters from the City, starting as early as 1961, indicate that the Property was improperly being used as a junk yard or for automobile recycling I pwposes(Exhibit 5); � WHEREAS, in 1961, the City began its code enforcement against the Property when it � sent a code violation letter to Steve Saba's father J.T. Saba requesting removal of old �� washing machines,junk and other refuse from the Property(Exhibit 5); ' WHEREAS, from 19b 1 to 1984, the City attempted (E7chibits 5 and 6 and 8 through 10) to end the illegal land use of the Property and have the Propsrty cleared of exterior storage of junked vehicles, vehicle parts and other materials associated with the illegal use in 1984 by issuing a citation to Arline Saba, the then owner of the Praperty; WHEREAS, Steve Saba has claimed that an alleged contract with the City, dating to 1985 exists pursuant ta which the City agreed to forbear or defer code enforcement against the Property on the condition that h� constructed a fence by July 1, 1985 to screen exterior storage materials and kept exteri:or storage materials on the Property behind the fence; WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed City files and has found no copy of any such contract between the City and Steve Saba with the terms set forth above; WHEREAS, City staff has reyuested that the Anoka County District Court search its files for a copy of any such cantract between the City and Steve Saba with the terms set forth above and no copies of any such contract have been located; WHEREAS, Steve Saba has failed to produce a copy of the alleged contract between himseif and the City with the terms outlined above; WHEREAS, in the event any such contract with the terms outlined above exists, the contract is void and is not binding upon the City, because City staffmade an illegal contract, as it lacked authority to grant Steve Saba a special use permit for exterior storage, as only the City Council may grant a special use permit upon application by a property owner and notice and hearing requirements under Minnesota law are fulfilled; � Resalation No. 201 S -O1 Page 3 . WHEREAS, there is no evidence that Steve Saba apglietl for and received a specia] use permit to allow hirn to continue exteriar storage, after notice and a puhlic hearin� regarding such an application as required by iaw; WHEREAS, in the event that the alleged contract descrihed above is not void because City staff was legally capable of making such a cantract, the cont�act is not binding on the City and the City is entitled to end its forbearance with respect to code enforcement actian against and abate the exteriar storage on the Property because Steve Saba failed to fiilfill one of his obligations under the alleged contract, namely construction of the fence by 3uly 1, l 985; WHEREAS, an aerial photo from 1981 shows that a fence exists on the northern property line separating the Praperty from the adjacent American Legion (Exhibit 49); WHEREAS, an aerial photo from April 1985 shaws that the exterior storage an the Property is not fully�nclosed and screened by a fence and that the fence an the north edge of the Property belongs to the American Legion (Exhibit SQ); WHEREAS, the fence visible in the April 1985 aerial phato of the Property and belongs to and was constructed by the American Legian rather than by Steve Saba(Exhibit S l); WHEREAS, in the event that the alleged contract described above is not void because City staff was le�ally capable of making such a contract, the contract is not binding on tl�e City and City is entitled ta end its forbearance with respect to code enfarcement against the Property and abate the exterior starage on the Property because Steve Saba has repeatedly failed to fulfill another of his abligations under the alleged contract, namely keeping all exterior storage materials behind the fence; WHEREAS, an aerial photo from May 1989, more than four years later, and an aerial photo from 1993 show that the exteriar storage an the Property is still not cornpletely screened and enclosed by a fence(Exhibits 52 and 53); WHEI2EAS, City staff sent numerous noncompliance letter�s from 1986 through 2008 and pursued enforcement action against the Property due to Steve Saba's failure to keep ali exteriox storage rnaterials behind the fence he eventually constructed on the Property, years after any reasonable deadline to construct any such fence in any alleged contr�ct had iong since lapsed (Exhibits 12 - 19, 21 —28, 30 - 31, 34, 3b); WHEREAS, subsequent to 1985, the City continued to attempt to get Steve Saba to discontinue the junk yardl scrap yard use and clean up the property through code enforcement notices until 1989 when the City issued another citation in Anoka County Court (Exhibit 20); � , r Resalution No. 2015 - O1 Page 4 � WHEREAS, the City dismissed the 1989 citation because Mr. Saba had finally complied with City staff directives at that time(Exhibit 20); WHEREAS, from 1990 to 1998, City staff sent several noncampliance letters to Arline Saba and Steve Saba, advising them of outside storage and nonconforming use violations under City Code and again City staff provided lengthy extensians to correct conditians on the Praperty{Exhibits 21 —28); WHEREAS, in 1998, the City issued .Arline Saba, owner of the Property at the time three City Code violation citations. Thase violations were: zoning violation, inoperable/improperly parked vehicles, and exterior starage(Exhibit 29); WHEREAS, the 1998 citations resulted in a plea agreement that required payment of a fine and probation{Elchibit 30); WHEREAS, following the 1998 citation to 2(308,because the exterior storage canditians on the Property violated the City Code, City staff again sent several noncomp3iance letters to both Arline Saba and Steve Saba advising them of the necessity to correct the code violations (Exhibit 31, 34, 36); WHEREA�, City staff cantinued to monitor the Praperty and, in 2008, due to massive amounts of outside storage on the Property, City staff issued a Notice of Abatement to Steve Saba(Exhibit 36); WHEREAS, City staff provided Steve Saba with exCensions with the understanding that the entire Property would be cleaned up and exterior storage eliminated by August 1, 2008 (E�ibits 36); WHEREAS, over the period of 1977 to 20fl8, City code enforcement staff has taken photos of the Property and these photos depict the metal scrapping operation, the presence of old automobiles, automobile parts, including but not limited to fenders and axels, the exterior storage of trailers, earth movin� equipment, wood piles, lumber, pallets, tires, barrels and drums(Exhibits 7, l 1, 33, 35 and 37); WHEREAS, in OctobEr 2008, when Steve Saba had failed to entirely clean up the Property and eliminate outdoor storage on the Property, the City issued a citarion to him for improper outside storage and illegal land use on the Property(Exhibit 46); WHEREAS, 5teve Saba was found not guilty on fiebruary 19, 20i0 by }ury trial in Anoka County Caurt of improper outside storage and illegal land use at 7345 Central Avenue charges an the offense date of October l 3, 2008 (Exhibit 46�; VVHEREAS, subsequent to Steve Saba's jury trial acquittal, exterior storage conditions on the Property continued and due to the ]ikelihood that a citation would not resolve the conditions on the Property in a timely fashion, the City sent a Notice of Abatement to Steve Saba notifying him that the Property was in vialation of Fridley Zoning Code because there 1 � Resolution No. 2015 - O1 Page S was improper autside stora�;e and ille�al land use occurring on the Property and City staff s issuance of a No�ice of Abatement to Steve Saba was justified(Exh.ibits 38 and 40); WHEREAS, City staff provided Steve Saba with reasonable �xtensions ta correct the code vialations on the Property enumerate�i in the .iuly 2011 Notice of Abatement as the City's and Mr. Saba's attornsys discussed the legal authority for the City to proceed with the abatement(Exhibits 39-42,44); WHEREAS, City staff taok photos of the Property on November 16, 2011, and the photos depict extensive exterior storage af vehicles, trailers, cinderblock, and various metal objects (Exhibit 43); WHEREAS, due to the delay associated with the parties' attorneys' discussions, City staff sent Mr. Saba a subsequent Notice of Abatement, dated November 4, 2�11, which provided him with the options of immediately eliminating the code violations on the Property, contactin�; Gity staff to work out a time schedule agreeable to the City for elimination of the code violatioxzs or appealing(Exl�ibit 42); WHEREAS, Mr. Saba appealed the Notice of Abatement to the City Community Development Director on November 22, 2011 (Exhibit 45); WHEREAS, City staff accommodated Mr. Saba's reguest for an appeal hearing to the Appeals Commission by sclleduling a public hearing for January 4,2012; WHEREAS, on January 4, 2012, haurs befare the Appeals Commission hearing, the Steve Saba sued the City, City Planning Manager Julie Jones and City Community Development Director Scott Hickak, and served them each witlz a Complaint, alleging that he was legally entitled to conduct his scrap metal business on the Property and therefore the City was legally prevented from enforcing its City Code provisions through the abatement process; W�IEREAS, by mutual agreement, the City and the 4wner continued the Appeals Cammission hearing to a date after a district caurt's issuance of an unappealed final judgment (Exhibit S4); WHEREAS,on July 21, 2014, the Honarable Alan Pendleton issued an order, dismissing the Owner's Complaint without prejudice an the grounds that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies by pursuing the appeal befare the Appeal� Commission; WHEREAS, Steve Saba and the City ultimately rescheduled the Owner's appeal befare the Appeals Commission for October 1, 2014; WHEREAS, Karen Marty, Steve Saba's ariorney requested a delay of the October 1, 2Q14 hearing before the Fridley Appeals Commissian to 3anuary 7, 2015 due to the late hour, and the City agreed to the hearing delay; and Resolution No. 2Q15 -O1 Page 6 WHEREAS, City staff is following standard policy and procedures in completing an abatement of materials associated with nonconforming uses and stored outside a building at the Property; VVHEREAS, Steve Saba is in vioiation of the City Code for illegal land use because operating a junk yard/scrap yard on the Property is prahibited; WHEREAS, Steve Saba is in violation of the City Code because exterior storage of materials exists on the Property and there is no SUP for exterior storage of materials on the Property, WHEREAS, under the authority of the Cify Code to abate exterior storage of materials and e�uipment because they constitute public nuisances, any material stored outside a building relaied to a use that is nat listed as a permitted use in the Loning code on the Praperty may be removed by the City through its abatement pawers contained in the City Code and City Chartex subject to Che property owner's right of appeal, pursuant to Fridley City Code Section 128.Ob(2); WHEREAS, any material stored outside a building related to a use that is not listed as a permitted use in the zoning code at the date such use was initiated on the Property shall be removed by the City in the abatement. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESULVED by the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley after listening to all of the facts presented hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. That each and all of the preceding statements are true and correct and are incorparated herein as part of the findings of fact and record of these proceedings. 2, That each and all of the exhibits presented by both parties to the Appeals Commission are incorporated herein as a part of the recard of these proceedings. 3. That Fridley City Code Section 205.13.A.1 enumerates the permitted uses for property, including the Property, and states: 1. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in C-1 Districts: (l) Art Shops (2) Professional Studios {3) Convenience stores, grocery stores and services, including laundry, dry cleaning, barber shops, beauty shops, shae repair, tailoring, locksmith, and other small : � ' Resalution No. 2015 • O1 Page 7 repair shops related to retail servicc and catering to neighbarhood patronage. (4) Retail services, including jewelry, hardware, sporting goods, records and music, variety and nations, drug, appliance and clothing shops and flower shops. (5) Professional affice facilities includin� real estate, lawyer, architectural, engineering, financial insurance and other similar office uses. (6) Health care services including medical, dental, optametrist, chiropractic and c,�unseling clinics. (7) Class 1 Restaurants. I 4. That Fridley City Code Sectian 205.13.A.2 enumerates the permitted uses for property, including the Property, and states: 2. USES EXCLUDED Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allawed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in C-1 Districts, including, but not limited to: pawn shops, pawn brakers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and secondhand goods dealers as def ned in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. 5. That a junk yard/scrap yard is not included in enumerated in the list of permitted uses in City Code Section 205.13.A and are thereby prohibited uses. 6. That Steve Saba has operated a junk yardlscrap yard an the Property, which constitutes an illegal iand use, as a junk yard/scrap yard is prohibited under Fridley City Code Sections 2Q5.13.A.1 and 205.13.A.2. 7. That junk yard and scrap yard have never been permitted on the Property under any versian of the Ci#y Code. 8. That Steve Saba's use of the Property for recycling, outside storage, and junk yard is an illegal use. 9. That Steve Saba's use af the Propeirty for recycling, outside storage, and junk yard is not a le�al non-confonning use. ; Resolution No. 2015 - Ql p��e� 10. That Pridley City Code Sectian 205.13.7.B requires a special use permit for the exterior storage of materials and states: B. Exterior Storage. (1) Nothing shall be stored in ti�e requireci front yard. {2) All materials and commercial equipment shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened, so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or adjoining property of a different district. (3) The city shall require a Special Use Permit for any exterior storage of materials. 1 l. That Steve Saba stores vehicles, trailers, scrap metal, cinder blocks and other various and innumerabie items of personal property on the Property, in the front, side and back yard of the Property, withaut a Special Use Permit in violatian Fridley City Code Section 205.13.7.B. ]2. That the pervasive starage of the vehicles, trailers, scrap metal, einder blocks and other various and innumerable items of personal property constitutes an exterior public nuisance. 13. That, pursuant to, Fridley City Code Clzapter 128, the City may abate exterior public nuisances throu�h the removal of private property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT based on these findings, the Appeals Cammission of the City of Fridley hereby affirms the abatement order of the City Planning Manager for the Property and the remova) of all exterior storage on the Progerty, including that behind the fence on the Property, as it constitutes illegal exterior storage and the Prvperty is not a legal non- conforrning use. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE APPEALS C.OMMISSION OF THE CITY 4F FRIDLEY THIS 29rH DAY OF 3ANUARY 201 S. Brad ielaff, Chair Atte � Debra Skagen, City Cle r AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 c;aaf Fridley INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS i � 169