Loading...
07/19/1976 - 00014766; i �� THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF JULY 19, 1976 The public hearing meeting was called to oraler 6y Mayor Nee at 7 4D p m on July 19, 1976 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee welcomed the audience and inv�ted them to �oin w�th the Counc�l rn the Pledge of A7legiance to the Flag. RDLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Councilwoman Kukowski, Councilman Starwalt, Councilman Hamerm k, Councilman Fttzpatrick and Mayor Nee. None ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA MOTION by Councilman Hamerntk to adopt the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowsk�. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carr�ed unanimously PUBLIC HEARINGS ENT TO ZONING CODE, CHAPTER 205.101, WHICH WOULD CHANGE "BARS ITTED USE IN C-2 AND C-2S ZONED DISTRICTS TO A PERMITTED I1SE MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrtck to waive the reading of the notice and open the hearing. �Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowskt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hear�ng opened at 7 42 p.m. The Public Works �irector rev�ewed the reco�nendat�on from the Planning Commission and the Chapter of the zoning code which it would affect, that bars and taverns only 6e allowed in C-2 and C-25 areas with a Special Use Permit Several weeks ago there was a revised beer licensing code and there was some revision as far as defin�tions and that is still being revised and w�ll probably be before you next Monday, July 26, 1976 This whole discusston arose wtth the issuanc�e of a beer license to an industrial piece of property on Main Street and hopefully with this requirement and the revised definitions in the ord�nance this type of thtng could be controlled better. At that tnne there was nothing specific that would indicate that this would happen. Now they would be allowed in C-2 and C-2S with a Special Use Permit. Under paragraph B of Section 205.10 are the uses perm�tted in C-2 and C-2S, and Number 5 will be stricken and will be inserted as paragraph "Q" so that we would then allow bars and taverns with a Special Use Permtt Mayor Nee asked if the effect does not change the zoning where �t is permitted, or not permitted, and the Public Works Director replted that this would allow a public hear�ng. The C�ty Attorney said that he would recommend this It would provide an opportum ty to reject an application in the zontng area if there was a valid reason and the Council found that it would not be in the best tnterF>sts of the City to have the bar or tavern at that particular location even though the ,�oning was proper �Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone in the aiadience that would have any comments on this Is there any reaction to the concept of requiring a Special Use Perm�t for the use of a beer license that ts not required now? There was no response from the aud�ence. MOTION by Councilman F�tzpatrick that the public hearing be closed Seconded by Counctlman Hamerm k. Upon a vo�ce vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. The public hearing clo<.�ed at 7 51 p.m. � i �i�� PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF JULY 19, 1976 SCHROER GEN STREETS AND ALLEY VACA IDE PAGE 2 MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrtck to open the publtc hear�ng. Seconded by Councilman Hamer m k Upon a voice vote, all vot�ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the pu6lic hearing opened at 7:52 p.m. The Publ�c Works D�rector said that this is a request for vacation of a street right-of-way located �ust to the west of University Avenue and the west serv�ce drive north of Osborne Road. He illustrated his remarks by pointing out on a diagram the parcel of property and said that with the development of this property by Kennedy Transmission, wha has proposed to construct a building in this area, there was a discuss�on regarding the future of this entire area tn that certain lot splits have been previously approved and that the property was becoming landlocked, or would be, if certain easements were not maintained, and at that t�me lt was hoped that the developer, Mr. Schroer, would indicate that what he plans to do would eliminate the need for the roadway. In order to develop this, Kennedy Transmission needed the entire property, so they requested that the roadway be vacated and that an easement be obtained to the south At this t�me we do have an easement of 50 feet, and so the �tem before you is a vacation of 33 feet w�th the stipulation that exist�ny ut�lities be maintained. Mr. Schroer was contacted, and he has a representative here. Mr. Schroer's son sa�d Mr Schroer asked h�m to come to the meeting. Mr. Schroer will not 6e able to make tt unttl 8:30 as Monday n�9ht is a bad n�ght for him. Mr. Schroer's son didn't know what else to say. He sa�d maybe you can postpone it until 8:30 or 9 00 � The Public Works Director stated that he didn't know of any reason to delay the matter. � They can come up to the easement with park�ng facil�ties, but with the roadway they would not meet certain requtrements. The Publ�c Works Director had another request regarding the closing on the sale of the property betng cont�ngent on the vacation. The request ts that perhaps tt would not be out of order to adopt the matter as the ftrst reading of the ordinance. Normally �t �s not C�ty policy to take action on a pu61�c hearing like this. Mayor fJee said that h�s only concern is: are you convinced that the revised plan will function7 That this is really not cutting off potent�al serv�ce? The Pu61�c Works Director replied that it would not. There was a discusston in the m�nutes of the Planning Commission where the remark was made that the petitioner understood that he would eliminate the closed street in the rear and all �ndustrtal property would be faced off Ranchers Road We would not have that road back there at all MOTION by Counc�lman Hamern�k to close the public hearing. Seconded by Counc�lman Fitzpatrick. Upon a vo�ce vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8.05 p.m. I�OTION by Councilman Hamernik to suspend the normal poltcy and consider th�s the first reading of the ordinance, waivtng the reading and adopt�ng it on the first reading Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all vot�ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. The Publ�c Works Director stated it was all that portion of the southerly 33 feet of the easterly 200 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Add�tion. ' PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF JULY 19, 1976 PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT• STREET IMPRQVEMENT PRO�ECT ST 1975- PAGE 3 1 i i �� MOTION by Counc�lman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of the notice and open the public hearing Seconded by Counci7man Hamerm k. Upon a vo�ce vote, all vot�ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously, and the publ�c hearing opened at 8:D8 p.m. 'The Public Works D�rector stated thts is for �ntersection improvements including resignalization, channelization and some other tntersection modifications at Mississippi St. and Osborne Road. Th�s is a pro�ect in con,7unction with the State Highway Department, and Federal funding will be involved w�th the imorovement. He sald that some state representatives are present to answer any questions regardiny the improvement. Several men from the Minnesota Highway Department then distr�buted literature to the audience and to the City Council. The Public Works Director stated that the improvements on M�ssissippi Street will involve a rtght-turn lane in the northeast and southwest corners, and the extension of an existtng median on the east side together with a bikeway/walkway plan. At this time, tt is anttc�pated there w�ll be no assessment �n th�s area. However, not knowing what the final costs will be, w�e have not�fied all the affected property owners so that they would be aware of the improvement and know what �s happen�ng, and let them know these are estimated costs. There will be Federal funding, and a ma,7or�ty of th�s w�ll be p�cked up by the mum c�pal state a7d. The improvements on Osborne w�ll cons�st of a sim�lar situation, the installation of inedians, developing rtght-turn lanes and the construct�on of bikeways/walkways that will tie into our overall 6�keway/walkway plans. �The cost �s based on the estimates we received from the State together w�th our addttional r�ght-of-way costs, and �t wtll result in $8 02 to resident�al property that is affected on the south side of Osbor�ne Road �ust east of University Avenue This $8.02 was developed on the existing pc�licy that the City has regard�ng the concrete curb and gutter and s�dewalk. The rema�nirig costs after the curb and gutter is taken off �s assessed against the commercial property. Th�s is $16 22 per foot The State Htghway Department does have some maps and plans on the wall Some are in thts room, and some are out in the hall. F'erhaps we could have a recess for ten minutes so everyone can see them and ask questtons. Mr. Marv�n Brunsell, Finance Director, saicl the map, or the transparency, shows the front foot assessments in red, and the side� street assessments are in blue. That would be $1.52 per foot for the cost of the side yards spread down the block for commerc�al property. There are no side yard assessments on residential propert�es The Public Works Director asked tf there were any questions, and there was no response Mayor Nee declared a ten m�nutes' recess (Recess taken from 8 16 p.m. to 8 35 p m.) Mayor Nee reconvened the public hear�ng at 8 35 p.m. The Public Works Director stated that on Mississ�ppi Street there is antic�pated federal participation. On Osborne Road there are two alternates, and that alternative �No. 1 is the most expenstve of the two. He said that the City staff recommends that alternate No. 2 be selected. The residential assessment is based on the esta6l�shed policy of the C�ty where single family residences on County roadways are assessed for sidewalk and curb and gutter and the remairitng costs are assessed to the benef�ted commercial property Mayor Nee asked if the pro,7ect were to cosi. less, then it m�ght be poss�ble that it would be �6.00? The Publ�c Works D�rector sa�d that there �s some �ndicatlonof that. At this point in time there is some cast for right-of-way costs in there, and he is anticipating that the cost will be a l�ttle bit less If the shift is to alternate No. 2, the prnposal is to take away some 15 feet of peoples' lands for which they would be paici and their assessment could be reduced on a front foot basis In alternate No. 1 they do not acquirz any of this land L _ �� PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF �ULY 19, 1976 Mayor Nee asked for comments from the audience PAGE 4 Ms. Norma Swanson, 361 Rice Creek Terrace, is wrth The�sen, Inc., and are the owners of the property which Red Owl is on She wanted the City Council to be aware that thts does rnvolve a long-term lease. The diagram shows that it will take away some parking spaces from Red Owl. The�r lease contains a condemnat�on clause, and everybody is well aware that the vacant area next to Red Owl ts resident�al That property cannot be used as a parking area. The Council should take into cons�deration,in � condemnat�on, it is a 15 year lease. Mayor Nee asked what is the complication, and the reply was that you would be taking the parking spaces,which they already have too few of and would not be able to replace it accord�ng to the zoning as �t sits right now. Mayor Nee asked if it was her argument that �t would put the lease in �eopardy, and Ms Swanson said yes, definitely. There is a condemnat�on clause in the lease, she said, and she does not know the exact word�ng, but she could provtde it and it will have to be contended with one way or another. The Pu61�c Works Director said that they would be taking stalls away, 9o�ny from 80 to 72. Mayor Nee asked if the Gity were to wa�ve that part of the zoning code relative to parking would the lease be in ,7eopardy� Ms. Norma Swanson repl�ed that she didn't know if Red Owl would accept that. She said she would provtde the C�ty with a copy of the lease The City Manager said that the R-1 zoning permits parking, that that is one of the considerations that can be given. Mr. ICenneth Bloom, 330 Osborne Road, said he is not completely convtnced of how much benefit the people along thts area will get, I, for one, needless to say. He is not quarreling with the Minnesota Highway Department's study that a high acc�dent potential � does ex�st there. He has had the opportun�ty to observe that himself and is sure the rest of the people have also. However, reducing the accident potential by this method does not give a benefit by los�nga port�on of our property. Ostensibly we are pa�d for �t, but in turn we w�ll be assessed on the premise that this benefits us, that �de are directly benefited by it. Mr. Bloom fa�l5 to see if tne tndividual beneftts, and feels they will ult�mately end up trading dollars, and certain questions could arise in terms of peoples' mortgages Mr. Bloom wonders if those factors could be answered to their satisfaction. Mayor Nee told Mr. Kenneth Bloom that the City would end up doing one thtng or the other. One beiny that the City would acqu�re 15 feet of his land which will end up not costing I�1r. Bloom as much in terms of cash, or the other would be where the City does not acquire the land and it would cost him more in cash. Which of those two situations would you prefer? The Mayor said that he was ,7ust asking a quest�on Mr. [tioom sa�d, wh�ch is the lesser of the two evils? It all depends. He could care les� if he had less front lawn to mow. He said he didn't like to do it anyway, but tt�ere are other people that feel differently. Mr. Kalph B Lynn, 7599 Universtty Avenue N.E., said he l�ved on the corner of University Avenue and Osborne Road, and his lot does not fit the category. Mr. Lynn remarked about the hedges that would be lost to him. The Public Works Director said that if Mr. Lynn were compensated for the loss of the hedyes he could re-establtsh them. The reply was that he wouldn't live that long The hedges are 18 feet h�gYi and very � full. It took years for them to get there The C�ty Manager repl�ed that Mr. Lynn would be compensated and he could put in some fast-growing hedges. PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF JULY 19, 1976 PAGE 5 Mr. William Swanson, 370 Osborne Road N E, said he is not quite sure on the costs of alternates No. 1 and No 2. Alternate IVo. 2 would cost him $8 00 per foot, and he wou7d be reimbursed for the land. How rnuch would that cost? Mr Swanson said if you go to alternate No. 2, and take 15 to 25 feet of h�s land, you are cutting down on the size of the property, of the luts, and he is also sure there is reimburse- ment for the amount, but you are also cutting down the value of his property. � The City Manager replied that if you can e�sta6lish your value of the property wh�ch would be depreciated by law, the City has to compensate That is what you w�ll be compensated. Your compensation �s not for 15 or 25 feet but how much it will affect your property. It will establish the value of the land, not �ust the 15 or 20 feet of the property. Mr. Swanson asked if each piece of property would be dealt wtth individually, and the City Manager replied yes. Mayor Nee sa�d that in the event we took alternate No. 2, �t would cost less out of the pocket and you would also lose some land. The City Manager asked �f the Minnesota 'State Highway Department representative would ment�on the different steps that are used to acquire the land, the process, so that the people would know. It �s a lengthy process. Mr. Howe I am the District Rtght-of-Way Eng�neer. First of all, the title informat�on would be obtained as to the ownership, mortgages, leaseholders, and so forth The property is then appraised. In the case of the M�nnesota hl�ghway Department we have two appraisers. In the case of the Ctty oir County, I am not sure when the City or County acquires property. The Public Works Director said that at this time it �s a county roadway and we would expect that they would, but there are otheir areas. It is a �o�nt pro�ect. Mr. Howe: There areone or two appraisers that appra�se the property. The City or � County may htre an appraiser or use one of the�r staff, and then an offer is presented to the lot owners, and the property owner does have the right or the opportunity to accompany the appraiser at the time the`appraisal is be�ng made The offer �s made to the property owner and at that time the property owner does have the r�ght to have the property appra�sed and be retmbursed for the cost of the appra�sal up to $300. That is not a f�xed figure, but the cost for the appraisal can be taken up to $300, and after that if the property owner and the City or the County cannot reacYi a settlement then the eminent domain would bi=_ consumated by the City or the County at which time then it would go to the Dtstr�ct Court and then three or four appra�sers are appointed by the D�str�ct Court to come up with the value, and they will eventually file their report as to the value of the property, and �t is up to the property owner and the Ctty to agree on this or have �t appealed and take it to a �ury tr�al. The City Manager sa�d the Ctty or the County could have an appratser to esta6lish the value of the property. If the property owner desired to, he could h�re an appra�ser in whom he had confidence and he could collect up to $300 for the appra�ser's fees Up to this po�nt there is no cost to the piroperty owner at all. Ne doesn't spend a penny out of his pocket. It could then go to the District Court and three commissioners would 6e appo�nted and an apprtsal made, and there �s still no cost to the property owner unless the owner wants to contest it. Mr. Howe said in that event the owner would have to hire h�s attorney. � The City Manager continued his remarks and said that there are three steps to get the �nformation without spending a penny of the owner's money Mayor Nee asked what are some of the value cons�derat�ons that enter into this, and Mr. Howe sa�d that the apprais2r would take the property as it was before the taking of it and appraise it, and appraise it again after the tak�ng, and the difference offered to the property owner. Things sucla as leases, fences, and so forth are taken into consideratton if there are any on the property r ' 1 ' iJ PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF JULY 19> 1976 PAGE 6 Mr. Bloom remarked that it ts possible that you could lose 15 feet of property but in dotng so there would be various improvement put in and you could end up with a higher valuation and thus be paying more The City Manager replied that unless it can be shown that there is more value to the property, there is no way you could be charged. That is the law. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked about three of the affected property owners, who had not been heard from ton�qht. An aud�ence member stated that one of them was on a vacation and another one was too far east to care about the matter. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik lJpon a vo�ce vote, all vot�ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the mot�on carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9 12 p.m Mayor Nee stated that if there were any other comments from c�tizens they could call any member of the City Counc�l and express the�r concerns, and these matters will probably come up at the next meeting. The City Manager stated that he would encourage the people to call the Minnesota Highway Department �f they needed any detailed information on the plan. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT/FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION 1976 PASSEfVGER WAITING SHELTER PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION CONTRACT N0. 76-35-23-N. The Public Works Director stated this was an agreement between the City and the Metropolitan Trans�t Commiss�on. It outlines the var�ous responsi6�lities for the installatton of bus shelters. As per the agreement, MTC will install and provide the shelter, and they will be reimbursed for the cost of the concrete sla6 by the City. In antic�pation of installing these shelters, money has 6een budgeted to cover the expenses. There is the item of routine maintenance to be done by the City such as snow- plowing, and the removal of lttter. The capacity at these stations is such that the C�ty has to engage in this activity of maintenance If there were addit�onal capacity over that now using the shelters, then a request would go to the f�1TC to take over tne maintenance. The Public Works Director recommended execution of the agreement. He also satd that the break-off point on the matntenance �s 40 persons. If less than 40, the City has the maintenance. As far as the snowplow�ng, we do that anyway, and �n talk�ng w�th the Parks Department they have a crew that goes around the parks on a routtne basis and it would be a very l�ttle disruption of their activittes to include the shelters in their routine acttvities. � � MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execu�e Contract No 76-35-23-N Seconded by Counc�lwoman Kukowsk�. Upon a vo�ce vote, all vot�ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. INFORMAL MEETING JULY 20, 1976, WITH GEPJERAL TELEVISION: Mayor Nee tnv�ted the newspapers to the �nformal meeting tomorrow eve m ng, July 20, 1976, to discuss some questions and to hear some reports from General Televiston at 700pm. ADJOURN: MOTION by Counc�lman Hamernik to ad,7ournthe pu6lic hearing meeting of July 19, 1976. Seconded by Counc�lman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all vot�ng aye, Mayor Nee declared the motton carried una m mously and the public hearing meettng of the Fridley City Council of July 19, 1976 ad�ourned at 9 20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John Chegwyn Council Secretary Approved. August 2, 1976 ����� William J. Nee Mayor � �